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

London Borough of Lambeth (202306806)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306806

Lambeth Council

13 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 handling of guttering repairs, pointing, and painting works at the resident’s building.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident started reporting issues with the guttering leaking in January 2021. The landlord raised a work order with its contractor in January, March, and April 2021 to complete repairs to the guttering, but no repairs were completed.
  3. On 28 June 2022, the landlord raised a work order for the guttering to be repaired by a new contractor.
  4. The landlord’s roofing contractor carried out an inspection of the gutters on 12 August 2022.
  5. On 13 December 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained she was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in carrying out the guttering repairs to her building.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 December 2022. It acknowledged that there were delays in carrying out the guttering repairs and explained it had previously raised work orders with its previous contractor to complete the guttering repairs. However, the landlord explained it had ended its contract with that contractor and hired a new contractor. It stated it had booked an appointment for 9 January 2023 to carry out the guttering repairs. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs.
  7. The landlord completed the guttering repairs in January 2023.
  8. On 7 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. She stated when she reported the issue with the guttering, she also mentioned that pointing and painting works would be required due to the damage the leaking guttering had caused. The resident stated a job for the pointing and painting works was eventually booked in. However, she stated the 2 initial contractors who attended were not qualified for the repair job and the landlord had booked the wrong contractor. The resident stated some works were completed, but the contractor did not re-attend, as agreed, to finish the works.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2024. It explained its contractor attended at the start of April 2023 to carry out works, and it planned to arrange an additional appointment in April 2023 to complete the painting and decoration works. However, it stated after a discussion with the resident it had rescheduled the painting works for June 2023 and the landlord stated she was happy with this. The landlord also provided a contact email address for its surveyor for the resident’s area, so she could contact them for an update on the works if needed.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to resolve the poor quality of the painting works. In addition, the resident stated she wanted the landlord not to charge her via her service charges for the works completed. She also stated she would like the landlord to remove the works which were never completed from her service charge account.
  11. The landlord completed painting works to the outside of the building in June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. This report will consider the guttering repairs and pointing and painting works, the resident raised as part of her complaint and escalation request in December 2022 and March 2023. It will not investigate the quality of the completed painting works the resident told the Ombudsman about in July 2023 or the resident’s request that she would like the landlord to remove works which were never completed from the service charge. The resident did not raise these issues as part of her initial complaint to the landlord. And therefore, the landlord was not required to consider these issues through its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not consider it because we can only investigate matters which have been through the landlord’s complaints process. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident can make a separate complaint to the landlord about the issues surrounding the quality of the painting works and incorrect works added to her service charge account. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response about these issues.

Policies and procedures and lease agreement

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing exterior walls, the structure of the building, the roof, chimney and gutters, rainwater pipes and the main drains of the building.
  2. The landlord’s homeowner’s handbook for leaseholders explains the landlord will sometimes need to carry out repairs and maintenance to a resident’s building or estate and, as referenced in the lease agreement, the resident should pay a proportion of the cost of carrying out this work, which is known as a service charge.
  3. The landlord’s website includes information about its repair timescales, it explains it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours, a routine repair within 28 working days and a planned repair within 90 working days.

Assessment

  1. In January 2021, the landlord raised a work order following a report about the gutters leaking. In addition, a work order was raised in March and April 2021 for works to be carried out by the landlord’s contractor to repair the gutters. However, no work was carried out. The landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs to the guttering was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to hire a different contractor to complete the repairs if it was experiencing issues with its current contractor at the time.
  2. The landlord explained it ended its contract with its repairs contractor in July 2021. However, there was a considerable delay in the landlord raising a work order with its new contractor to complete the guttering repairs. The landlord confirmed it did not raise a new work order for the guttering repairs until 28 June 2022. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange an inspection and repair in line with its repairing obligations sent out in its repairs policy. Due to the guttering repair remaining outstanding, the resident explained it was causing damp in the living room in her property.
  3. Shortly after, the landlord booked an appointment for July 2022 to complete repairs to the gutters. However, the resident contacted the landlord and explained no-one attended on the booked date. The Ombudsman recognises the resident contacted the landlord several times in July 2022 asking for an update on the guttering repairs. The length of time the works remained outstanding was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord arranged an appointment for a different contractor to attend the property and inspect the guttering. The roofing contractor attended on 12 August 2022, and they identified that rainwater was coming over the gutter during heavy rain and confirmed some of the roof slates had slipped. In addition, the contractor identified that the lower gutter was also leaking. The contractor confirmed that scaffolding would be required to carry out the works. The landlord took the appropriate steps by using a different contractor to ensure that the inspection was carried out.
  5. It is recognised that it can take some time for a landlord to arrange for scaffolding to be erected. Therefore, the delays relating to the scaffolding being erected would have been outside the landlord’s control. From the information the landlord has provided, it is not clear when the scaffolding was erected. However, the resident continued contacting the landlord in October and November 2022, asking for an update on the outstanding repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated about the scaffolding and guttering repairs, particularly as the repair had been outstanding for such a considerable amount of time.
  6. Due to the guttering repairs remaining outstanding, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in December 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the guttering repairs and confirmed it had booked an appointment for 9 January 2023 for the repairs to be completed. The landlord also offered the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the repairs. The compensation amount offered by the landlord was not sufficient to recognise the length of the 2-year delay and impact on the resident.
  7. The landlord eventually completed the guttering repairs in January 2023. However, the landlord failed to inspect the exterior of the building to check if any remedial works were required due to the water from the guttering leaking onto the exterior wall. Due to this, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that no pointing and painting works had been carried out to resolve the damage the leaking gutters caused. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange remedial works shortly after the guttering repairs were completed. It was unreasonable that the resident had to contact the landlord for this to be arranged.
  8. The resident explained that two of the landlord’s contractors attended in February 2023 to carry out the pointing and painting works. However, the landlord had booked the incorrect contractor for the job. The correct contractor attended and started works on 21 February 2023 and explained he would re-attend once the cement had dried. However, the contractor failed to re-attend and complete the remaining works. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  9. The pointing works were eventually completed in April 2023 and the resident explained in its stage 2 response that it had discussed the painting works with the resident and agreed to reschedule these to be completed in June 2023. This was reasonable as the main works to the exterior of the building had been completed, and the date had been agreed with the resident.
  10. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the painting works were completed in June 2023. However, she stated that the quality of the painting was poor and not completed by a painting contractor. In addition, she stated that parts of the wall where scaffolding was erected were not painted. The resident explained she had not reported or raised a complaint about the quality of the painting works to the landlord. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord was not made aware about the quality of the painting works. Therefore, it has not been given the opportunity to investigate the issue. However, it is recommended the landlord discusses the quality of the painting work with the resident and requests photographs or carry out an inspection to resolve the issue.
  11. The resident has stated she wanted the landlord not to charge her via her service charge account for the guttering, pointing, and painting works it completed. The Ombudsman recognises there were delays in completing the work. However, we would not ask the landlord to not charge the resident for the work via her service charges. As the resident’s lease agreement and the landlord’s homeowner handbook explains that a resident is liable to pay service charges, which includes service charges for the applicable repairs and maintenance work. However, the Ombudsman has considered the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs, and whether the landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused.
  12. Overall, the landlord took the appropriate steps by eventually completing the guttering repairs, pointing, and painting works. However, there was a considerable delay in the landlord completing the repairs and the landlord failed to offer the resident sufficient compensation in its complaints responses to recognise the delay. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of guttering repairs, pointing, and painting works. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in carrying out the repairs. The compensation amount is ordered in addition to the £250 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  13. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, which is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, there was no permanent impact as the guttering, pointing, and painting repairs were eventually completed, although there was distress and inconvenience for the resident before the repairs were completed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of guttering repairs, pointing, and painting works at the resident’s building.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of guttering repairs, pointing and paint works at the resident’s building. This amount is in addition to the £250 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord discusses the quality of the painting work with the resident and requests photographs or carry out an inspection to resolve the issue.