London Borough of Lambeth (202225033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225033

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in the resident’s bedroom.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has arthritis and has recently been diagnosed with emphysema.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 November 2022. She said she reported water ingress on her bedroom wall in January 2022 and she thought the landlord had completed the repair. The resident said she noticed water running down her bedroom walls again at the start of November 2022, following heavy rainfall. She said the corner of the ceiling was dripping water. The resident said she reported it on 9 November 2022 and was still waiting for a callback. She said it was unacceptable to have to sleep in the room and she was concerned that the ceiling would cave in. The resident asked the landlord to complete the repair properly. She wanted compensation for the stress and her rent paid while living in an unhabitable environment.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 February 2023. It said its roofing contractors had initially undertaken repairs. The contractors reported that they would waterproof the brickwork but thought the issue was condensation. It said the roofing contractors dried the wall but that did not resolve the issue. The landlord confirmed it had arranged an internal inspection of the property on 8 March 2023. It partly upheld the complaint and apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident. It said once it had completed the works, she should contact it regarding any compensation it could offer.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 March 2023. She said various contractors had visited between November and 17 January 2023, but no work had been carried out. She said black mould had started to return. She said she asked to rearrange the inspection agreed for 8 March 2023 and she was yet to receive a new appointment. The resident said the situation had caused her stress and ill health. She described feeling chesty, having headaches, and some breathing difficulties. She felt they were a result of the conditions she was living in. The resident chased a response from the landlord again on 24 March 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 May 2023. It said it was sorry to learn of the resident’s dissatisfaction with its service. It said it attended on 22 March 2023 but the resident was not in at the time. It said it had taken photos of the works carried out, it said it had raised a works order to apply a waterproof sealer to the external brickwork. The landlord said it had also raised a works order for a mould wash and decoration.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord did not complete the mould wash until 9 October 2023 and it completed the decoration on 16 October 2023. She said she had suffered stress, bad health, and bad sleep during that period. The resident said the landlord had ignored her requests for compensation.
In a recent telephone call with the Ombudsman on 19 May 2025, the resident confirmed that she was still experiencing water ingress in her bedroom when it rained. She said the landlord had conducted a recent survey and works had begun to the exterior of the building to attempt to remedy the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident referred to reporting the issues of water ingress in January 2022. The resident said the landlord carried out repairs which she thought had resolved the issue. The resident had raised a complaint at the time due to the time taken to resolve the issue. The landlord awarded compensation in July 2022. It is unclear whether that complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint’s policy. However, the resident did not bring the complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. As such, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the issue prior to July 2022.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman’s investigation and assessment will focus on the events which occurred following the resident’s reports and formal complaint made in November 2022.
The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in the resident’s bedroom.

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides landlords with a tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. A leak may give rise to a number of hazards in the HHSRS. This includes an increase in the risk of excess cold, damp and mould growth, and personal injury.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it operates 5 types of repairs with different timescales. These repair types are:
1. Urgent emergency which it will attend to within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.
2. Emergency repairs which it will fix within 1 working day.
3. Routine repairs with a 7 day time for fixes (or 2 days for certain qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair regulations).
4. Routine repairs with a 28 working day time frame.
5. Planned repairs which it will complete within 90 days.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in the resident’s bedroom. We would have found severe maladministration if not for some of the steps taken to investigate and resolve the issue. However, the records do not evidence whether those repairs were sufficient at the time or carried out in line with its policies and obligations. The time taken to fully resolve the issue is not acceptable. And it was not appropriate that the landlord did not offer compensation for the failures identified.
The resident said she reported water ingress in her property on 9 November 2022. She said the landlord told her she would receive a callback within 24 hours. She said she did not receive a callback which led her to raise the issue again on 22 November 2022 and submit a formal complaint.
While the Ombudsman cannot substantiate the resident’s account from the records provided, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s version of events. The landlord had the opportunity to clarify its actions in its complaint responses and it did not do so, which is a failing. We will address the landlord’s record keeping later in this report.
Given the resident’s concerns for her ceiling and due to the potential health and safety hazards, it would have been appropriate for it to carry out a prompt inspection of the roof and bedroom ceiling. The landlord may not have been able to carry out a full repair within 24 hours but it could have reassured itself or taken steps in that time to ensure the property was safe. In not carrying out those actions or calling back when it said it would, this likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as time and trouble in chasing the landlord.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord confirmed on 24 November 2022 that it had raised a repair with its roofing contractor. It said they had a target date to attend by 19 December 2022 but would look to book an appointment as soon as possible. On 26 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to state that it was not acceptable to wait until 19 December 2022. She said the landlord had also recorded the repair as a leaky boiler which was incorrect. She said her bedroom was always cold and damp. The landlord booked the appointment for 5 December 2022.
As already addressed from the resident’s initial reports, the landlord should have arranged for its contractors to attend sooner. In accordance with its repairs timeframe, the landlord must have categorised the repair as “routine” with a 28 working day target deadline. Given the time of year, that there was water ingress every time it rained, and concerns for a ceiling collapse, the categorisation was not appropriate. The landlord’s records do not evidence whether the appointment took place on 5 December 2022 and what the outcome was.
On 22 December 2022, the resident said that the landlord had assured her that it would complete the repairs by 19 December 2022. She said nothing had happened. She said the roofing contractor said she needed thermal boarding in her bedroom and the outside wall needed to be sealed. The landlord responded on 29 December 2022. It said it had forwarded her complaint to the repairs team and she should receive a response in 10 working days.
It is unclear why the landlord responded to the resident’s email as a complaint, rather than providing an update on the repairs as requested. The resident had already lodged a complaint which the landlord had not responded to. The resident’s email suggested that the landlord had carried out some investigation. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to have provided the outcome of any investigations into the reported damp and water ingress. As well as any steps taken and/or required to resolve the issue. This would have reassured the resident and this Service, that the landlord had oversight of any actions required.
The landlord’s records between January 2023 and its stage 1 response in February 2023, showed it raised work orders to trace and fix the leak. The notes dated 24 January 2023 stated that no leaks had been found. While it is positive to see there had been some investigation into the leak, it would have been reasonable to see what the next steps would be following its findings. The dates in the records were confusing and they were lacking in detail. This made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies.
There is a record of the landlord installing a new boiler in the resident’s property on 26 January 2023. This may have assisted with the reports of cold and damp in the property, however, there were no notes regarding the reason for the new boiler.
In its stage 1 response dated 21 February 2023, the landlord said its roofing contractors undertook the repair and reported that they would waterproof the brickworks. It said they thought the issue was condensation. It said they dried the wall but that did not resolve the issue.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have stated when its roofing contractors carried out the repair and what the repair was. It said they reported they would waterproof the brickwork but did not confirm if they actually did. The resident reported water ingress every time it rained which would not be consistent with a condensation issue. In not confirming what action it had taken and when, the landlord has not sufficiently evidenced that it responded to the resident’s reports fairly or appropriately.
We understand that the resident asked to rearrange the internal inspection which the landlord had arranged for 8 March 2023. She notified the landlord of this on 22 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord rearranging the appointment prior to its stage 2 response on 10 May 2023.
In her email dated 5 March 2023, the resident referred to the black mould in her property and her concerns for her health. In not rearranging the internal inspection, the landlord has not evidenced that it showed consideration to its obligations under the HHSRS and the potential risks posed to the resident. The lack of action by the landlord was not appropriate and likely caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In its stage 2 response dated 10 May 2023 the landlord said it attended on 22 March 2023, but the resident was not there. It said its contractor took photos of the works. It said they had applied waterproof sealer to the external brickwork, which was a precautionary measure. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm whether it had fully resolved the water ingress issue or if it needed to carry out any further actions.
It then said it had requested a mould wash and decoration with a target date of 30 June 2023. It is a further failing that the resident since confirmed that the landlord did not complete the mould wash until 9 October 2023 and the redecoration on 16 October 2023. The time taken to carry out those actions, particularly the mould wash, was not appropriate. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and again, did not show consideration to the potential risks of living with mould and the resident’s health concerns.
The resident has reported that the situation is ongoing. She said there is still water ingress into her bedroom when it rains. While some action has been taken in an attempt to remedy the issue, the time taken to fully resolve the water ingress is not acceptable.
In line with our finding of maladministration and our remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £600 in compensation. This is to reflect the delays, but also that the landlord failed to acknowledge and put right its failings. The landlord also failed to address the likely detriment caused to the resident.
The resident has stated that the landlord is currently carrying out repairs to address the water ingress in the residents property. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide an update on the cause of the water ingress and any works carried out to remedy it. If any works are outstanding, it must provide the reasons why, along with defined timescales for when it intends to complete them. If redecoration is required following completion of the works, the landlord must provide a timeframe to the resident for when that will be completed.
The landlord must also outline how it intends to monitor the repair to ensure it has fully resolved the issue following periods of heavy rainfall.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. It said it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says a payment of financial compensation is appropriate to remedy a service failure that has had an adverse effect on the complainant. It states that the investigating officer should explain the reasons for making a compensation payment and give the time period for making payment.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The below findings show that the landlord failed to follow its policy on a number of occasions. This included responding to the complaint within its timeframes, acknowledging all the concerns, learning from its mistakes, and offering suitable remedies for its failings.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 62 working days after the formal complaint. It provided its stage 2 response 44 working days after the stage 2 escalation. The delays in responding to the resident were not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the delays in its complaints responses, provided the reasons for them, and offered compensation to reflect any detriment caused to the resident as a result.
The landlord’s record keeping likely impacted the landlord’s ability to fully resolve the resident’s complaint. For example, the stage 1 response stated that it received the resident’s complaint on 23 January 2023. But the resident submitted her formal complaint on 22 November 2022. The failing to acknowledge and respond to the initial complaint suggests an issue with the landlord’s information management. This also delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord stated that it partly upheld the resident’s formal complaint but it did not outline why or what failings it had identified. In not explaining the reasons why, it could not address what it would do to remedy the failing and prevent it happening again. This was not in line with its complaints policy which states that the landlord should listen to the resident’s concerns and learn from its mistakes.
The stage 1 response also stated that the resident should contact it once the works were completed, regarding any possible compensation it may offer. This was again not in line with its policy which stated that it could make compensation payments to remedy an adverse effect on a resident. The landlord should have been clear as part of its investigation whether it identified any service failures and if compensation was an appropriate remedy for them. It was not appropriate to put the onus on the resident to contact it following completion of the works and to not confirm if it would provide compensation.
It is a further failing that the resident said she did not receive a response to her subsequent requests for compensation. This shows that the landlord failed to manage her expectations and was misleading in its response.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In June 2023, we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024, we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore recommend the landlord consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.
The landlord must also pay the resident £200 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where a landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. As part if its evidence submission to this Service, the landlord included a repairs history report for the property. The report shows the date it raised and completed works orders. It also has space to record appointment details and notes against each works order. When reviewing these records, we noted they lacked detail and contained some discrepancies, particularly in relation to dates. This hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation and likely impacted the landlord’s handling of the issues.
For example, the landlord raised a works order on 23 January 2023 for a reported leak coming through the resident’s ceiling and walls into her bedroom. The repair had a completed date of 15 December 2022. It also has notes on the repair showing it scheduled appointments in November 2022. This is not the only repair with dates where the completed date preceded the raised date. This made it difficult to determine when the landlord actually raised the repair, what action it had taken, and when it completed the repair.
Despite reference to inspections and surveys, the repairs history does not include any of the outcomes of such appointments, apart from the one occasion it confirmed there were no leaks. Nor has the landlord provided any reports in relation to them. As such, we have been unable to conclude whether the action taken by the landlord in this case was reasonable and in line with its policies and obligations. The Ombudsman has therefore had to rely on the resident’s version of events to understand some of the action taken.
We have noted that the landlord’s complaint responses failed to provide a full overview of its actions to the resident. This suggests that the landlord did not have oversight of the repairs. The landlord’s record keeping may have contributed to this and led to the delays in permanently resolving the issue. We acknowledge that landlords work with external contractors. However, the landlord should have systems in place to ensure that it clearly documents the actions of its contractors. This would allow for easier interrogation of its database.
The Ombudsman continues to keep the landlord’s record keeping under review through our casework. In November 2024, we ordered the landlord to confirm what steps it had and would take to improve its record keeping (case reference 202220339). In response to that, the landlord confirmed it had since made changes to its record keeping system to manage repairs journeys. It confirmed the records were now more accessible to all system users. It said it now allows for contractors to automatically upload records onto the same interface system. The landlord confirmed it was committed to improving and reviewing its mechanisms for record keeping.
Given the update provided, we will not make any orders related to record keeping. We do, however, encourage the landlord to keep its record keeping strategies under regular review.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in the resident’s bedroom.
2. Handling of the complaint.
3. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures to evidence its actions around its handling of the resident’s report, the time taken to fully resolve the issue for the resident and not following its complaint and compensation policies. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must provide an update on the cause of the water ingress and any works carried out to remedy it. If any are outstanding, it must provide the reasons why, along with defined timescales for when they should be completed. If the bedroom requires redecoration following completion of the works, the landlord must provide a timeframe to the resident for when it will carry it out.
The landlord must also outline how it intends to monitor the repairs to ensure the issue is fully resolved following periods of heavy rainfall.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears. It is broken down as:
1. £600 for the failures related to the water ingress, damp, and mould.
2. £200 for the complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the complaint handling findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.
The landlord should keep its record keeping strategies under regular review.