We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Lambeth (202316552)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316552

Lambeth Council

9 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor.
  2. The resident reported water ingress to the landlord on 28 October 2022 and 3 November 2022. The landlord raised a job to inspect this on 4 November 2022. It attended on 11 November 2022 and identified 2 causes of the water ingress – blocked gutters and issues with brickwork and pointing.
  3. The landlord cleared the front gutter on 17 November 2022 and the rear gutter on 20 December 2022.
  4. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the remedial works to the pointing and brickwork on 9 March 2023. The landlord erected scaffolding at the property on 25 April 2023. It used the scaffolding to perform an inspection on 18 May 2023. The landlord attended again on 21 June 2023 and commissioned a structural survey on 5 July 2023. The structural engineer provided a report to the landlord on 1 September 2023.
  5. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 9 September 2023 asking us to help with her complaint. She said she suffers from asthma and the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs resulted in significant damage to the property, alongside damp and mould. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2023. The landlord decided to log this as a stage 2 complaint the following day due to the severity of the issue.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It upheld the complaint, offering £150 compensation for the time and trouble its delays caused. It said that, whilst it had resolved the guttering issues, there remained outstanding works. The landlord said it had completed the necessary inspections, but was wating for a report before it could progress the repairs.
  7. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 12 February 2024 asking us to consider her complaint. She said the landlord had still made no progress with the repairs despite it identifying them in November 2022 and erecting scaffolding in April 2023. She said that to resolve her complaint, she wanted the outstanding repairs completed, scaffolding removed, a breakdown of all the costs incurred and compensation. The compensation was to cover internal repairs, the cost of dehumidifiers, plants damaged by the scaffolding and the distress and inconvenience she experienced. The resident later informed the Ombudsman that the landlord completed the works in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease states that it is the landlord’s responsibly to ‘maintain repair and keep in good order and condition the exterior walls, joists and ceilings and floors of the building of which the demised premises form part and the whole of the structure roof chimney and stacks gutters and rainwater pipes’.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales for completing repairs. For emergency repairs, it will complete a fix within 1 working day. For urgent repairs, it says it will complete them within 24 hours. For routine repairs, the landlord splits jobs into 2 timescales – R1 and R2. For R1, it says it will complete fixes within 7 days, and at R2, it will do so within 28 working days. For planned works, it says it will complete these within 90 days of the resident reporting the repair.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to report water ingress on 28 October 2022. The landlord first inspected on 11 November 2022. It performed a partial repair to clear the front guttering and fill a hole in the wall with cement on 17 November 2022. The first stage of this repair took the landlord 14 days. This was inside of the timescales outlined in its repair policy.
  4. The landlord then attended on 20 December 2022 to clear the rear gutters. This was 37 days after the landlord first logged the resident’s reports, slightly outside of the timescales specified in its repair policy for routine repairs. This represented a minor service failure from the landlord. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s repair resolved the most severe cause of the water ingress to the property, although it is noted that other reasons for the ingress were also recorded in the landlord’s work orders but not completed at this point.
  5. The landlord has provided no evidence about the appointments or repairs it performed on 17 November 2022 and 20 December 2022. The resident provided us with details about these. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any works to the pointing or brickwork at this time despite its work orders from November 2022 mentioning this. In the landlord’s later complaint response, it was unable to provide the exact dates it performed gutter works to the resident, only noting it had done these ‘before Christmas’ in 2022.
  6. The landlord’s record-keeping throughout was poor. There are several examples where inspections, reports and works are all mentioned which the landlord has not been able to provide evidence for. The resident has also referenced appointments that the landlord has provided no record of. The landlord’s contractor provided a report with photos to the landlord on 14 November 2022. It has not been able to provide this to the Ombudsman, however. It is therefore difficult for the Ombudsman to determine exactly what works the landlord needed to raise and when.
  7. The landlord’s contractor noted on 14 November 2022 that the works it was completing would be a temporary repair, suggesting this report detailed further repairs necessary to fully resolve the problems the resident reported. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate that it raised any orders following this report. The landlord’s lack of evidence detailing its actions to re-point and repair brickwork at this stage represents a significant service failure.
  8. The landlord failed to take further action until March 2023. The landlord raised new orders for the follow on works on 9 March 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence the reason for this gap in its actions. This delay in raising follow-on works represented another service failure from the landlord.
  9. The landlord erected scaffolding at the property on 25 April 2023. Its contractors undertook inspections on 18 May 2023 and 21 June 2023. Again, due to the landlord’s poor recording keeping practices, it is difficult to discern the outcome of these inspections or why the landlord felt a second inspection was necessary. A note from the landlord’s contractor on 21 June 2023 says that it found cracks in the face of the building, blown bricks and issues with the pointing. The contractor also recommended the landlord commission a structural survey.
  10. The landlord undertook the structural survey on 24 August 2023. This was 4 months after the landlord erected the scaffolding. The landlord undertook multiple inspections without a clear explanation to the resident of the reasons these. This represented a failure from the landlord to properly manage repairs and communicate with the resident. It is unclear why it took the landlord such a long time to complete the necessary inspections and survey.
  11. This survey again recommended repairs to the defective masonry and pointing as well as to the piers and masonry surrounding the windows. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in December 2023, the landlord had still not undertaken any of the works recommended by this survey. This was over 12 months since the resident made the landlord aware of water ingress, and 8 months since it erected scaffolding. This represented a clear failure from the landlord to properly manage the resident’s reports and the necessary repairs.
  12. The resident said that the landlord completed the works in January 2025. This was over 2 years since she first reported the problem.
  13. The reason for the landlord’s delays is not clear. The landlord’s communication with the resident indicates there were some problems in getting information about the scale of works and the necessary cost of works with its contractors. However, the landlord has provided no evidence of the steps it took to resolve such problems. It is the landlord’s responsibility to manage its contractors and its failure to do so caused unnecessary delays and additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  14. After its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that the works would need to go through a section 20 process due to their cost. In the period between the landlord becoming aware of the works (November 2022) and its stage 2 complaint resolution (December 2023), the landlord did not communicate that this was a possibility and that it could cause additional delays. Its failure to do so represented a failing in communication.
  15. When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident mentioned that the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs to the brickwork and pointing resulted in damp and mould. She said this affected her asthma. Whilst the landlord is not be responsible for the inside decoration of the property, it should have at least considered inspecting to see the extent of damp and mould, particularly given the resident’s health concerns. As part of its complaint response, the landlord did not consider this, nor did it consider the resident’s vulnerability she had informed them of. This represented a failure to adequately respond to the resident’s reports.
  16. The resident told the Ombudsman that she would like compensation for plants damaged by the scaffolding plus the costs of internal repairs and running a dehumidifier whilst the ingress was ongoing. The landlord should provide the resident with details of its insurer and how to make a claim for any damaged items she feels the landlord’s actions caused. The landlord should also write to the resident to inform her of its position on providing compensation for the additional energy usage caused by the dehumidifier. The landlord should outline its position on compensation for this, as well as any evidence it would need to consider this.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response recognised that there were failings in its handling of the leak, and it offered her £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused. Whilst it was positive that the landlord recognised her experience, this offer of compensation was insufficient. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman indicates that repair delays continued well beyond the end of the complaints process. Although some of this was likely due to the need for a section 20 consultation, there landlord did not manage this process effectively and failed to be pro-active despite being aware of its earlier delays.
  18. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and the subsequent repairs represented maladministration. Whilst its repairs in December 2022 resolved a main cause of the water ingress, it nonetheless was aware of brickwork faults that contractors believed were contributing to the ingress. The landlord failed to deal with the necessary repairs in a reasonable timeframe. This inevitably caused the resident a significant amount of distress and inconvenience. She was left uncertain for long periods how the ingress would be resolved and was concerned about the impact on her living conditions and health.
  19. Works are now complete, but the landlord should pay the resident £900 compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings. This is inclusive of the offer of £150 made as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and subsequent repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her reports of water ingress and the subsequent repairs. This is inclusive of the offer of £150 made in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. Writes to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this letter.
  2. Provide information of who its insurer is and how to make a claim on its insurance for any items the resident feels were damaged by the landlord’s negligence.
  3. Outline its position on providing compensation for the use of dehumidifiers and any evidence it would need to see from her to consider this.
  4. Outline how the repairs it completed in January 2025 will be paid for.
    1. Provide evidence that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure it is able to provide a full record of all of the actions it has taken in relation to each repair it completes.