London Borough of Lambeth (202322315)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322315

Lambeth Council

31 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:
    1. Leak reports and associated repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the 4-bed first floor flat. The lease began on 19 December 2022.
  2. The resident reported a leak into the attic space on 23 January 2023 with the landlord raising a works order to repair it on 24 January 2023. No works were carried out and the landlord later acknowledged that it raised the works order to the wrong contractor.
  3. On 3 April 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that after moving in, she found active leaks and black mould in the property. The resident said that contractors attended once but did not complete any works and she had heard nothing since.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 5 May 2023 and said that relevant works orders had been raised and it would arrange the works. Although the contractors contacted the resident, no works were completed and she had to chase responses from the landlord in June 2023. The resident raised a further complaint on 21 June 2023.
  5. The landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response on 20 July 2023. It apologised for the delays and said that an appointment was arranged for scaffold to be erected on 24 July 2023. The landlord said that works would begin shortly after the scaffold was in place. Works were noted as being completed on 4 September 2023.
  6. On 11 September 2023, the resident raised another complaint as she said that the works had not been completed. The landlord provided another stage 1 response on 25 September 2023 and said the complaint was not upheld as the works were completed on 4 September 2023.
  7. The contractor re-attended in October 2023 and identified further roofing works that were required. The resident remained in contact with the landlord chasing completion of all required works. A works order for remaining works was raised on 4 February 2024.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 4 March 2024 in which it upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in completing the roofing works and said that the remaining works would be prioritised.It offered a compensation payment of £395 for those delays.
  9. The works were completed on 21 March 2024 and the resident confirmed that these had resolved the leaks.

Assessment and findings

Leak reports and associated repairs

  1. The resident first advised the landlord of the leaks at the property on 23 January 2023. Given the nature of the repair, this would have been considered a routine repair, which the landlord’s repair policy says should be completed within 28 working days. The landlord failed to attend until 30 working days later. When it did attend, it was identified that the works order had been assigned to the wrong contractor. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as the resident was left with active leaks due to its failure.
  2. Given its mistake, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that a new works order was raised, to the correct contractor, and with some priority attached to it. However, it raised the works to the wrong contractor once again. This is another service failure on the part of the landlord as it failed to show any learning from the initial error. This additional delay also meant that the resident was left to continue to manage the leaks at the property.
  3. Following the resident’s initial complaint on 3 April 2023, which highlighted the lack of any repairs being carried out, the landlord attended on 3 May 2023. During this visit, the landlord identified several works to repair the roof. The quote for these works was authorised on 4 May 2023.
  4. Despite the landlord being aware of the significant delay since it was first reported and the resident raising a further complaint on 21 June 2023, it did not progress the works until it erected scaffolding on 24 July 2023. The works themselves were not recorded as being completed until 4 September 2023.
  5. In line with the repair policy, the landlord should have completed the works it authorised on 4 May 2023 within 28 working days. However, they were not completed until 86 working days later. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to apply any urgency to completing the repairs. This was over 7 months after it was made aware of the leaks. During this time, the resident had to manage the leaks and continue to chase the landlord for updates.
  6. The resident questioned the landlord’s works on 11 September 2023 as she said they had not repaired the leaks and further works were required. Following this dispute, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend quickly and identify any further works. However, it took until 10 October 2023 for the landlord to raise an inspection request, which was completed on 24 October 2023.
  7. This was another service failing by the landlord as it took over 6 weeks to attend and identify further works. This is outside of the timeframe set out in its repair policy for the completion of the works, let alone an inspection.
  8. Separate works to clean out the guttering were completed on 12 December 2023. The resident chased the landlord for the other remaining works from October 2023 onwards but was told there were none outstanding. This lack of investigation or awareness of the outstanding works was another service failing by the landlord, adding further unnecessary delays.
  9. It is unclear what happened following this interaction in December 2023. However, on 4 February 2024, the landlord raised a works order for the remaining works that had been identified in October 2023. These works were then completed on 21 March 2024.
  10. When the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 4 March 2024, it offered a compensation payment of £395 for the repairs delays. Given the unnecessary delay of over a year, which left the resident managing leaks and inevitably concerned about her property condition, this Service does not consider the landlord’s offer proportionate to the impact on her. This Service will make an order for an increased payment to address the failings in the management of the repairs.
  11. Ultimately, the landlord continually failed to meet the timeframes set out in its repair policy after the roof leak was reported. It is understandable that roofing repairs and leaks can be difficult to fully diagnose and may take more than one attempt. However, the main cause of the significant delay in this case was the lack of any oversight of the works. It took 4 months for the landlord to carry out its first inspection and over 8 months for it to complete its first attempted repair. The same kind of delays continued to be a problem after those initial repairs were completed.
  12. The resident continually chased updates and raised complaints. There was a lack of sufficient action and oversight from the landlord. Despite this being evident from the complaints during 2023, the landlord continued to act in the same manner. On several occasions, the resident was incorrectly told that no works were outstanding despite the landlord having been aware of the need for them. Having considered the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated repairs.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Only one of the resident’s 3 stage 1 complaints was responded to within 10 working days. If a landlord is aware it cannot meet these timeframes, it is expected to update the resident.
  2. However, in each of these instances, the resident was left chasing responses to her complaints. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to meet the timeframes set out in its policy.
  3. During the period in which the roofing repairs remained outstanding, the resident raised 3 complaints. On each occasion, they were managed as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord only escalated the complaint to stage 2 after this Service requested it to do so in February 2024. As all 3 of the resident’s complaints related to the same issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated to stage 2 earlier. This could have led to the repairs themselves being completed sooner.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 May 2023, it said the resident was entitled to a review and mentioned no time limit. In view of this, when the resident raised a complaint about the same issues around 6 weeks later, it should have considered this an escalation and managed its response as a stage 2 complaint. This was a service failing by the landlord, which delayed the completion of the complaint process and prevented the resident from approaching this Service earlier.
  5. The responses provided by the landlord at stage 1 failed to detail any investigation of the resident’s concerns and its own failings. Its first response in May 2023 merely advised that the required works were raised and the resident would be contacted to arrange them. It failed to acknowledge the errors which caused the delays that the complaint was about. It is clear that the landlord failed to ensure that the works were arranged as the resident had to complain again in June 2023. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord which led to further delays and complaints.
  6. In the stage 1 response from 20 July 2023, the landlord did acknowledge the failings which had led to the delays. However, despite this acknowledgement, it offered no form of redress and its proposed resolution was the same as that from May 2023, albeit there was a date attached for the works to begin.
  7. Within its response, the landlord said it would monitor the repairs to ensure their completion and it would contact the resident following that. This Service has not had sight of any evidence to show that it did so. As the resident raised another complaint on 11 September 2023, this would indicate that it did not contact her. This was another service failing by the landlord as it failed to carry out the actions it proposed in the complaint response. This led to the resident having to make a further complaint.
  8. The next stage 1 complaint response issued on 25 September 2023 again demonstrated a lack of investigation into the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said the works were completed on 4 September 2023. Given that the complaint was made 1 week after that date, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident for further information as it was clear both parties had a differing opinion on the progress of the works.
  9. Given that this was the third complaint about the same issue, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure that its investigation and response were thorough and accurate. It is clear that it was neither in this instance.
  10. Within the eventual stage 2 response, the landlord did provide an improved response in that it demonstrated an understanding of the complaint, it acknowledged its failings and offered a compensation payment. Its offer of a compensation payment was for the roof repair delays. However, it did not offer any acknowledgement of the complaint handling failures. This showed no learning from its poor management of the earlier complaints. This Service will order a compensation payment for these failings to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord unnecessarily delaying the complaints process by several months.
  11. Within the resident’s complaint submission and through her contact with the landlord, she raised questions around the service charges that she pays. The questions centred on what service she gets for the charges. This was not properly explained in any of the landlord’s responses. It did answer questions about cleaning charges but within her submission to this Service, the resident questioned the maintenance charges she pays. As this was not raised as a specific complaint to the landlord in her complaints, the landlord did not offer a clear answer. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord provides an explanation of the service charges that the resident pays.
  12. In summary, the landlord failed to identify that the resident made the same complaint on 3 occasions and instead managed these as new complaints each time. Some responses were late and most showed no understanding of the complaint and demonstrated a lack of any investigation.
  13. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor and likely only added to the frustration caused by the delayed roof repairs. Having considered these failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £800 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of leak reports and the associated repairs, inclusive of the £395 that the landlord already offered;
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident and provide a breakdown of the resident’s service charges and what service is included for each of those charges.