Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Lambeth (202223933)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223933

Lambeth Council

22 May 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 1992. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house.
  2. On 22 August 2022, the resident reported a leak into her property through the roof. On 4 October 2022, the landlord attended and cleared a blocked drain. On 24 October 2022, the landlord surveyed the property and found a damp patch in the ceiling caused by a hole in the roof and raised a work order for a roofer to carry out the repair.
  3. On 16 January 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that she had been waiting for a roof repair. She reported that the leak had caused damp and mould and she was worried that the ceiling would fall through.
  4. On 30 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in resolving the repair. It said that it would inspect the damage to the roof and the property on 1 February 2023 and then provide a timeline for repairs. The landlord completed the roof repairs on 28 April 2023 and internal repairs and decorations on 3 August 2023. On 31 August 2023, it advised the resident that as a resolution to the complaint, it agreed to replace the residents laminate flooring and offered £200 compensation for stress and inconvenience caused.
  5. On 2 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She accepted the compensation offer of £200 on an interim basis. She said that the level of compensation did not reflect the stress and uncertainty that she endured because of the repair. She sought medical help for anxiety and depression and suffered high blood pressure during the repair period. On 1 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested £5,000 compensation for the stress and damage to her physical and mental health.
  6. On 15 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It reviewed its repairs history and acknowledged the repairs delay. It offered £802 compensation broken down as:
    1. A further £200 for stress and inconvenience caused by its delays in resolving the leak.
    2. £602 representing 10 percent of her rent for a period of 9 months while it completed the repair.
  7. On 2 December 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She reported that she had suffered from anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure because of the landlord’s delay in repairing the roof leak. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s actions caused anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure. The Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. We can, however, consider general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware that a leak reoccurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response. The evidence shows that the landlord addressed this further leak and provided a further complaint response to that issue. Therefore, we consider it fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response on 15 November 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak 

  1. 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. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out within 7 days or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair, and that planned works would be completed within 90 days.
  3. It is not disputed that there were failings by the landlord. In its complaint response it accepted that there were delays that adversely affected the resident and offered compensation to reflect these failings. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  4. When a landlord receives a report of water ingress, it has an obligation to investigate it within a reasonable timeframe and to complete any necessary repairs. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. We would also expect the landlord to keep a resident informed of its actions and the outcome.
  5. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as water ingress. It can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. A landlord must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
  6. On 22 August 2022, the resident reported water ingress from the roof coming through the landing ceiling. The landlord noted that the leak was containable and only leaked when it rained. It assigned the repair as routine with a timescale of 28 working days to complete. The landlord attended on 4 October 2022 and its repair notes state that it cleared drains. “Water tested and all flowing in correct manner”. The records are not clear, but it appears that this attendance was in relation to the guttering and drains. This attendance was 2 days beyond its timescales and was a shortcoming by the landlord.
  7. On 24 October 2022, the landlord attended to complete the ceiling repair and found that there was a hole in the roof causing the leak. It raised a follow-on work order for roofers to attend and repair the hole. With this information, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to prioritise this repair as urgent. The resident continued to chase the repair and raised a complaint on 16 January 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord then attended to inspect the roof on 1 February 2023 and it completed the repair on 17 February 2023. This was 81 working days after the landlord found the hole in the roof and 125 working days after the landlord received a report of the leak. This was an unreasonable timeframe outside of the landlord’s own timescales. This delay caused distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble for the resident in chasing the repair.
  8. On 20 February 2023, the roofing contractor sent a completion report to the landlord confirming the roof had been repaired. On 8 March 2023, the landlord attended to complete internal works to the property and found that the rook leak was still active. It replaced a plasterboard ceiling with marine plywood to stop the water leaking and causing further damage. It raised another work order for roofers to re-attend. This was the second instance in which the landlord thought it had repaired the leak but found that it had not. It is evident that this caused frustration to the resident. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the completion report that it received from its contractor.
  9. On 16 March 2023, the landlord attended the site again and confirmed that it required scaffolding to complete the repair. It completed the repair on 28 April 2023. Throughout this period, it obtained permission from the resident’s neighbour to erect scaffolding, erected the scaffolding, and arranged for the roofers to complete the repair. It kept regular contact with the resident to keep her informed of its progress. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take.
  10. The landlord accepted that it took 9 months to repair the leak. This investigation found that there were delays initially in responding to the resident’s repair reports which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident which were directly attributable to the landlord’s failure to adhere to its repair timescales and communicate with the resident.
  11. Due to the nature of the repair there were circumstances beyond the landlord’s control and it took 3 attendances before it found the source and repaired the leak. While this caused further distress to the resident, it is noted that the landlord effectively applied its complaint process to improve the service to the resident and kept her informed of the repair progress.
  12. Through its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised. It offered compensation totalling £1,002 for distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the property. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the residents reports of a leak. This is because the measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord’s service to the resident significantly improved after the landlord received a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord effectively used its complaint process to address the substantive issue of the complaint by keeping regular and proactive contact with its repair services and contractors to ensure it would meet its repair obligations. It also improved its communication with the resident by providing a single point of contact with its complaints team and provided regular updates to the resident. These were all positive steps for the landlord to take to ensure it maintained a good relationship with the resident.
  3. When the landlord addressed the substantive issue, it made an offer of compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, as it said it would in its stage 1 complaint response. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and demonstrates that it continued to track and action outstanding actions after its stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 September 2023. She said that the compensation was not sufficient given the circumstances. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation until after the resident chased a reply on 28 October 2023. This represents a service failure in its complaint handling.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2023. It appropriately addressed the substantive issue of the complaint. However, it failed to identify or acknowledge the service failure in its complaint handling or provide redress for the failing.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation and it failed to address this failing in its final complaint response. This failing caused time and trouble to the resident. An order of £50 compensation has been made below to reflect this service failure in line with the Housing Ombudsman Services Guidance on Remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak, prior to investigation which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise and provide compensation of £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failure.
  2. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman evidence that it complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is noted that since this complaint a further leak reoccurred. It recommended for the landlord to consider if a survey of the roof would be required to provide confidence to the resident that it has been adequately weatherproofed.