From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Lambeth (202317042)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317042

Lambeth Council

13 March 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:

a.     The resident’s request for it to replace her windows.

b.     The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block comprised of similar properties.
  2. Between March and July 2023:

a.     The landlord raised a work order on 24 March 2023 as the resident reported that 1 sash window had a broken rope, and 2 bedroom windows did not fit in the frames. She added that the living room, dining room, kitchen and bathroom windows were all rotten.

b.     She has said she requested the repair to her windows on 24 April 2023.

c.      The landlord scheduled an appointment for 4 May 2023. It rearranged this to 30 May 2023. Its records state this was due to both sickness and more time needed.

d.     She has said it measured the windows on 13 May 2023.

e.     On 30 May 2023, the records show that the landlord inspected the windows and found that most were beyond repair, and it had already quoted for these. Operatives replaced the cords to 1 window and adjusted the draft excluders.

f.        On 13 June 2023, the landlord communicated with its contractor about the works needed. Its contractor said they needed clearer information about which windows they were replacing, and where they needed to put scaffolding. They provided some photos and details of the windows. They asked for the quote to be approved and said that some windows needed to be measured as they could not get to them without scaffolding.

g.     The resident said she called the landlord on 7, 12 and 17 July 2023 for an update. It told her that it was waiting for a quote from the scaffolding company. A staff member also said they were too busy and would call back. On 17 July 2023 she asked for a contract number for its contractors and it said it could not share this; it was also not allowed to call the contractors before 11am. It promised a callback within 48 hours which she said did not happen.

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 21 July 2023 about her window replacement request:

a.     She included her timeline of events from 24 April 2023.

b.     She was concerned with the behaviour of a staff member over the phone that day. They said scaffolding was “unavailable”. She asked for clarity about whether this meant that an operative was not available to quote, or whether the materials were unavailable. They said it was the “availability of the scaffold”. She said they had an aggressive tone and told her she would need to complain to get a clearer response. They had also referenced “for the purpose of the (call) recording” which she felt was threatening as she had not raised her voice. She asked the landlord to listen to the call.

c.      She wanted to know the reason for the delay with the scaffold. She also wanted it to keep her up to date regarding the window replacement, so she did not have to chase updates.

  1. The landlord provided additional images to its contractor – related to the necessary position for the scaffold – on 14 August 2023. On 5 September 2023 it noted that the resident had called and asked that someone contact her to provide an update. On 5 September 2023 it also approved the scaffolding and asked that work begin on 13 September 2023. The resident has evidenced that the operatives began to place scaffolding on 6 September 2023.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 July 2023. It responded at stage 1 on 13 September 2023:

a.     It apologised for the delay in sending its response. It said this was due to a backlog in the complaint handlers’ cases.

b.     It apologised for the delays she experienced while waiting for it to carry out work to the windows. It added that delays could be expected when replacing windows due to liaising with contractors and suppliers and arranging for all workers to be available at the same time.

c.      It said scaffolding took longer due to the availability of contractors and approving the health and safety assessment required. Once it completed the assessment, it arranged a date to erect the scaffolding, and an appointment for the window installation. It sent the risk assessment for approval on 14 August 2023.

d.     It was due to erect the scaffolding that day. Its contractors would then contact her to make an appointment for the window installation. It upheld the complaint due to the delays and not meeting the repair target date.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 September 2023. She said that contractors did not arrive to install the scaffolding on 13 September 2023 but had installed part of it on 6 September 2023 unexpectedly. She said she had received no communication about this which was concerning. The landlord told her that its contractors would contact her to book an appointment for the windows, but she had not heard anything. She was concerned that work to replace the windows could take place at any time without prior notice. She asked for clear information and timescales as this would be a security risk.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2023:

a.     It said it had escalated the complaint due to its contractors not attending on 13 September 2023 to erect the scaffolding.

b.     It queried this and its contractors apologised. They explained that due to the volume of scaffolds they had, and forecasted bad weather, the work timeframes could vary. They tried to keep residents updated and would approach the window contractors for a start date.

c.      It explained that due to the scope of work, it needed to complete a Section 20 consultation with leaseholders in the block before completing the work. It had sent this request to its Section 20 team on 19 October 2023. There was a backlog, and it expected to issue the notices by mid–November 2023.

d.     It understood that this was frustrating as this impacted the timescales for the work. It could not give an accurate timeframe as the Section 20 process takes 30 days once it sent the notice. It would then require an update from its contractor. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress this may cause. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for her time and trouble.

Events following the landlord’s final response

  1. The landlord’s records show that the window installation began on 11 March 2024 for 3 days. On 27 February 2024, it sent a Section 20 Notice to the resident setting out the cost of work and the amount payable towards the work. It said this would form part of the 2024/25 service charge. The consultation was due to end on 2 April 2024.
  2. On 25 March 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to challenge the Section 20 Notice. She said the landlord signed off the work in November 2023. This was months before it sent the notice. She did not feel the notice was valid, meaning the landlord could only charge £250 to each leaseholder for the work. She said all but 2 of the windows were installed on 11 and 12 March 2024. The final 2 windows were in the property waiting to be installed on 27 March 2024. It was due to complete all work before the closing date of the Section 20 consultation (2 April 2024). The landlord responded on 25 April 2024 and said it would send a Section 20 Cancellation letter. It apologised for any inconvenience this caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In October 2024, the resident told us that condensation was affecting 4 out of 10 new windows. She was unhappy that the windows had failed due to poor workmanship and said these needed replacing. As this matter did not form part of the complaint under investigation, we cannot decide on this at this stage. The landlord needs the chance to respond first. The resident may want to raise any ongoing concerns with the landlord directly. This investigation primarily focuses on the period between March 2023 and March 2024.

Policies

  1. The lease agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the window frames, but the resident is responsible for repairs to the glass within the windows. The landlord’s repair policy states that it would complete emergency repairs within 1 working day and routine repairs within 3 to 28 working days. It aims to complete planned repairs (major repairs) within 90 days.
  2. The landlord’s Section 20 consultation policy confirms that it seeks to recover costs related to major works contracts through service charges in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. By law, landlords must consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying work where the rechargeable cost of the work is likely to exceed £250 per leaseholder within a given financial year.
  3. A landlord must provide a notice of intention detailing the qualifying work, and the estimated individual contribution when completing work under a long-term contractual agreement. It must allow 30 days for affected service charge payers to make observations. A landlord can apply for “dispensation” from the First Tier Tribunal to allow work to start without consultation.
  4. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 25 working days. The policy confirms that the landlord is to address all the issues raised in the complaint. If there is a delay, it should provide an update to the resident. This should set out the reason for the delay and tell them when they can expect its response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to replace her windows

  1. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s window replacements. After it raised the work order for the windows in March 2023, it took until March 2024 to complete the replacements needed. This is a significant and unreasonable timescale, even when considering the longer periods usually required for more complex work requiring scaffolding.
  2. The landlord recognised that it did not meet the target date for the repair. It also apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by further delays and the need to complete a Section 20 consultation. However, its offer of £50 as a gesture of goodwill toward the resident’s time and trouble is not proportionate redress for the failings identified.
  3. Following the initial work order on 24 March 2023, it took 43 working days to visit the property to inspect and complete temporary repairs on 30 May 2023. Its records are unclear as to why the initial appointment on 4 May 2023 was rescheduled. It cited both sickness, and “more time needed” for this. It would have been appropriate for it to have more fully acknowledged the delay and explained the reasons.
  4. On 30 May 2023 it identified that the windows were beyond repair and needed replacing. The job note indicates that it had already quoted the windows for replacement. The resident has said the windows were measured on 13 May 2023, but this is not included within the landlord’s own records. Once it established that the windows needed to be replaced, there was a significant delay in progressing works and a lack of communication with the resident.
  5. The landlord and its contractor communicated about the scaffolding and where this was to be placed on 13 June 2023. However, there are no further records related to this until 2 August 2023 when they queried the work and what they needed to do. It took further photos of the building to show where its contractors needed to place scaffolding and provided these on 14 August 2023. This indicates that there was a lack of organisation and oversight of the work needed, which added to the overall delay.
  6. The landlord has not provided communication records. However, the resident has listed dates that she called it for an update between June and her complaint on 21 July 2023. Given that the resident had chased the work, it is of concern that the landlord did not seek to progress the work before 2 August 2023. In addition, despite its records showing that it had asked someone to update the resident on 5 September 2023, there is no further evidence to show it did so. The resident has listed further telephone calls she made in September and October 2023, seeking an update.
  7. It is evident that the landlord’s records regarding the scaffolding date (13 September 2023) did not match what happened in reality. The resident has provided evidence to show that part of the scaffolding was first erected on 6 September 2023 without notice. The landlord should ultimately have clear oversight of what is happening at its properties. It is clear that the information it gained from its contractors was not always accurate or up to date. This had a direct impact on the service it provided to the resident.
  8. It is of concern that the landlord only told the resident about the need for a Section 20 consultation at the time of its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2023. Its records show that it was aware of this at least as early as 3 October 2023. It also had opportunities to identify the possible need for a Section 20 consultation at an earlier stage, including when it asked to approve the initial window quote on 13 June 2023, and once it had approved the quote for scaffolding on 5 September 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not identify this need sooner or communicate this to the resident.
  9. In view of the time periods involved, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have checked the safety and security of the windows at regular intervals. This would be to ensure there was no immediate risk to either the resident, or the public. We note that the resident reported that her bathroom window fell inwards in January 2024, prior to the replacement. We cannot say that regular inspections of the windows would have necessarily prevented this. However, the landlord should have considered whether it could, or should, have completed any further temporary repairs once it was aware of further delays in the windows being replaced.
  10. Where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In this case, we have assessed whether the actions the landlord proposed in its final complaint response were carried out in a reasonable timescale.
  11. We have seen evidence of continued disorganisation after the complaint in the landlord’s handling of the Section 20 consultation. It said it aimed to send its notice of intention by mid-November 2023 within its stage 2 complaint response. It did not send the notice until 27 February 2024. This was around 4 months after the complaint. While it mentioned that there was a backlog in its response, it has not provided evidence to show that it monitored this through to completion. It has also not evidenced that it communicated with the resident following the complaint. This demonstrates that it failed to learn from the complaint or its previous communication failures.
  12. In addition, the landlord completed the work to the windows between 11 and 27 March 2024, before the end of the consultation period (2 April 2024). The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble correcting its errors and challenging the validity of the Section 20 notice before it confirmed it would cancel the consultation. This was likely to add to her overall frustration.
  13. The resident has said that she continues to have issues with the replaced windows, and that some have failed. She has added that no one attended an inspection in October 2024 and the landlord has taken no further action to resolve her concerns. As such, we have included a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident below.
  14. In summary, the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing her request and the landlord did not demonstrate that it effectively communicated with her at any stage. It put the onus on its contractor to update her and failed to recognise that they had not done so. There were unreasonable delays, indicating a lack of oversight by the landlord, which added to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We do not consider that its offer of £50 toward her time and trouble is proportionate to its failings. We have made several orders below for the landlord to address its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. In our Special Report on the landlord (published in January 2024), we recognised that its complaint handling timescales of 20 and 25 working days were not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. We made several recommendations related to its overall complaint handling. As such, we have not made any specific learning orders for the landlord in this case.
  2. The landlord took 38 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It apologised for the delay and said this was due to the case handlers’ backlog of work. It did not provide any updates to the resident despite saying within its 21 July 2023 acknowledgement that it would do so if there was a delay. While it was reasonable for it to apologise, it did not offer suitable redress for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
  3. In addition, the stage 1 complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during phone calls or its failure to provide callbacks as promised. While it acknowledged delays in the window renewal work, it suggested that residents should expect delays in its handling of such work and did not offer redress.
  4. The landlord took 26 working days to respond to the resident’s escalation request between 16 September 2023 and 24 October 2023. While this was outside of its timescales and the Code at the time, the delay was not significant and did not have a severe impact. However, the landlord could have done more to acknowledge specific failings in its response. It missed the opportunity to identify failings in its communication and take steps to learn from the complaint as a result. It also failed to comment on her concern that the scaffolding was placed on 6 September 2023 or why this happened without notice.
  5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and have made several orders below.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for it to replace her windows.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report.

b.     Pay the resident £700 compensation, comprised of:

  1. £550 to recognise the impact of the landlord’s handling of the window replacement. This includes its previous offer of £50.
  2. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  1. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident regarding the continued window issues and confirms how it intends to resolve matters. It should provide the expected timescales for the remedial work.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendation within 4 weeks.