London Borough of Lambeth (202452045)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, which is a flat with a flat roof, from which she had been reporting recurring leak since 2019. The resident lives with her son who has health concerns. In this case there is a Tenant Management Organisation (the TMO). The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of the TMO.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of a leak from her roof and the associated damage caused.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated damage.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the leak and the associated damage.

4. The TMO attended to inspect the leak in the very first instance but then did not raise the repairs in time with its repairs policy. This pattern continued each time when the leak reoccurred.
5. The resident had to spend a lot of time chasing the TMO who, unsatisfactorily, blamed other repairs in the resident’s property for the delays in inspecting and resolving the leak.
6. While the TMO and landlord apologised for the delays, the offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling.

7. The TMO and landlord responded to the resident in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The TMO complaint policy was not in line with the Code, but it has since amended its policy to reflect the code and there was no detriment caused to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

8. The resident in her complaint and in referring it to us said she had been reporting the issue since 2019. While we do not dispute this, we may not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue arising. In this case, due to the lack of available evidence and due to passage of time, we have not looked at any historical events. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the leak from when the resident raised it again in May 2024 until her stage 2 response in July 2025.

What we have considered

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, walls, windows, and external doors.
10. The TMO website says it is responsible for the repairs to the roof. The TMO follows the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs manual says that it will carry out routine repairs within 7 days to 28 working days, depending on the type of repair, and that planned works would be completed within 90 days.
11. The resident reported a leak from the roof to the TMO on 6 May 2024. A roof contractor was instructed and attended to inspect on 8 May 2024, in line with the landlord’s policy to attend roof leaks within 7 working days.
12. However, the landlord provided no evidence of the appointment details, indicating poor record keeping. A contractor note said it was awaiting further information before issuing its report.
13. No follow-up works were raised. Although the TMO and landlord admitted this failure in their complaint response, they took no action until the resident chased in September 2024 – contrary to the policy requiring repairs to be completed within 28 working days.
14. The roof contractor attended on 16 September 2024, completing works 65 working days beyond the published timescale.
15. The TMO arranged a post-works inspection on 27 September 2024 to assess remedial works after the leak. However, its repair log only notes “kitchen ceiling,” making it unclear whether the inspection occurred, again indicating poor record keeping.
16. On 3 October 2024, the resident reported the leak was ongoing. The TMO responded the next day, confirming it would recall the roofing contractor. While it was unfortunate the repair failed, it was appropriate of the TMO to recall the contractor.
17. Evidence suggests the contractor attended between 4 and 22 October 2024, though the landlord has not provided details of the visit. The contractor attended in line with the repairs policy, after which the TMO arranged another post-works inspection.
18. On 22 November 2024, the resident reported that the leak was again not resolved and the TMO appropriately recalled the contractor, who attended within 7 working days as set out in the policy, on 29 November 2024.
19. The landlord did not provide details of the contractor’s visit on 29 November 2024 However, by 5 December 2024, the TMO had received a report outlining the required works and said it would send it to the relevant person. There is no evidence that it did so. The TMO must ensure effective systems are in place to track and monitor repairs, so they are completed within required timescales.
20. The TMO’s failure to raise the repairs caused the resident to chase the landlord for an update of when it would fix the leak on 7 January 2025, a month after the TMO said it had referred the inspection report to the “relevant” person.
21. The TMO did not then reply to the resident until 15 January 2025 when it said it had not heard from the roof contractor but had contacted it that morning for an update. Given that it was over 6 weeks since the contractor had initially attended, it was not appropriate that it was only chasing the contractor at that stage. The TMO needs to take a proactive approach to repairs to ensure they are completed with its published timescales.
22. The resident chased the landlord and TMO again on 19 January 2025 and after not hearing from the TMO she raised a formal complaint about the lack of action on 13 February 2025. Following this, the repairs manager attended the property on 21 February 2025 to inspect the leak. It is not appropriate that it took a complaint from the resident for the landlord to attend to inspect the issue.
23. However, following the inspection on 21 February 2025 the contractor attended on 27 February 2025 to complete the works needed to the roof. This was 62 days after the resident had reported that the leak had reoccurred and therefore, outside of its published repair timescale. This is not appropriate. While we understand the landlord attended to inspect the issue during that time, its failure to complete any work to resolve the issue meant the resident was left living with a leak which was causing damp patches in her property.
24. On 12 March 2025, the resident reported that the repairs had not fixed the leak in the property. On that date, the TMO spoke to the landlord about the issue and back and forth conversations show that the landlord was aware there was an issue across several flats and so had arranged for it roofing contractor to attend on 28 March 2025. The evidence shows that following inspections, the contractor then attended on 1 May 2025 to complete further roof works across the affected flats. This was in line with its repairs policy to attend within 28 working days.
25. Given that information, it is unclear why the complaint responses from both the TMO and the landlord written in June and July said the issue had been resolved in February 2025.
26. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the roof was old and needed replacing but lacked the budget. By this stage, the resident had endured repeated leaks and temporary fixes for a prolonged period. The landlord should have considered a full roof inspection to identify potential permanent solutions while awaiting replacement. Its failure to consider the impact of the persistent leak on the resident was unsatisfactory.
27. The TMO said it would attend on 17 and 18 March 2025 to complete the remedial works, including redecoration, following the leak. As the resident had reported mould in her cupboards, the landlord said it would complete a mould wash during that visit.
28. However, as the resident reported mould on 27 February 2025, the TMO should have assessed the extent of the mould and risk sooner and considered an earlier visit. Landlords and TMOs must take a proactive approach to damp and mould to resolve issues promptly.
29. It is important to note that at no point during the leak did the TMO show evidence of considering temporary solutions to reduce the impact of the leak and consequent damp on the resident and son. This would have been particularly important as the resident lived with her son who had health concerns.
30. In its first stage 2 response, the TMO said the delays in fixing the roof were in part due to focus being put on the resident’s other repairs in the property. It apologised for this and explained it had since changed its process to avoid this happening.
31. The resident lived with a leak from the roof for an unreasonable amount of time. The landlord delayed in completing the works after inspecting the issue on each occasion after the resident reported the issue remained unresolved. Throughout the delays, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates, while living with a leak which caused damp in her property. The landlord did not consider any temporary solutions and failed to grasp the urgency of the situation. The landlord’s lack of action in this case has led to a finding of maladministration.
32. In the complaint the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the delay in resolving the leak. While it noted in the second stage 1 it was also offering £300 as a gesture of goodwill, it did not reoffer this at stage 2. Instead, it said the offer of £200 adequately reflected the failings. This response was confusing, and it made it unclear as to what the compensation offer was in this case.
33. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. The offer of £200 does not accurately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident pursing a remedy for the roof leak over a period of a year.
34. In ordering £600 in compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in this case.

35. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The TMO had a 3 stage complaints process, with landlord completing the third response. This was not in line with the Code; however, we are aware the TMO has since amended its policy.
    2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 February 2025 which the TMO acknowledged and responded to in line with its policy and the Code.
    3. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to the next stage on 27 February 2025. The TMO responded on 3 March 2025, telling her to send the request directly to the chair of the board. As the resident had already asked to escalate, asking her to send a further request was inappropriate.
    4. The resident sent the request on 7 March 2025, and the TMO issued its stage 2 response on 19 March 2025, within the 20-working-day timescale in its policy and the Code.
    5. The resident then referred her complaint to us for investigation, however when we contacted the landlord, it was unaware of the complaint as a third stage had not been asked for. On 29 May 2025, we ordered the landlord to provide a further stage 1 response.
    6. The landlord provided this, within 10 working days, on 10 June 2025.
    7. Following this, it was established that the TMO’s complaint policy was not in line with the Code. We asked it to amend this and ordered the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 2 July 2025.
    8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response, within 20 working days, on 9 July 2025.
    9. Although the TMO’s complaint policy did not align with the Code at the time, it met the required response timeframes. When asked to provide further stage 1 and 2 responses, both the TMO and landlord complied within the deadlines. Therefore, while the policy was not Code compliant, it caused no detriment to the resident, and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It did not evidence that it kept detailed repair logs or records of communication with the TMO, resident, and contractors, with most evidence coming from the resident. Effective record keeping is essential for meeting repair obligations, tracking outstanding work, and providing accurate information. The landlord should implement a robust system to monitor all repairs and ensure the TMO logs requests properly. It should consider a self-assessment against our Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It did not evidence that it had clear and effective communication with the resident throughout. Nor did it evidence good communication with its repairs team or contractors which at times caused delays. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective system in place to communicate effectively with resident’s and its contractors to ensure repairs are completed and resident’s expectations are managed.