London Borough of Lambeth (202330224)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom terraced house. The resident’s daughter also lives in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the reports of damage from a roof leak and asbestos in the bedroom ceiling.
3. The landlords handling of requests to be compensated for damaged items.
4. We have also considered the complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damage from a roof leak and asbestos in the bedroom ceiling.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests to be compensated for damaged items.
7. There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the reports of damage from a roof leak and asbestos in the bedroom ceiling.

8. The landlord failed to meet its repair obligations and did not act promptly after identifying asbestos, despite the health risks and its duty to ensure the property was safe and habitable. It is unclear whether any risk assessment was carried out during the delay or interim measures taken to mitigate potential exposure. Although it acknowledged delays and the impact on the resident, it did not offer compensation or take steps to address the inconvenience. The prolonged disruption and absence of redress reflect a significant failure in service delivery and a missed opportunity to demonstrate and learning.

The landlord’s handling of the requests to be compensated for damaged items

9. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its public liability insurance process and provided the necessary information to make a claim. It later confirmed that no claim had been submitted, and there is no evidence of failure in how the landlord communicated or managed this aspect.

The complaint handling

10. The landlord failed to meet key complaint handling standards. It did not respond within required timeframes, failed to address all elements of the complaint at both stages, and provided insufficient reasoning for its decisions. The investigation lacked depth, the resident was incorrectly signposted to the wrong ombudsman, and several requirements of the Complaint Handling Code were not met, including defining the complaint, confirming decisions, and outlining remedies and outstanding actions.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

11. The resident told us that she had concerns that she might have been exposed to asbestos, putting her health at risk. She also told us that she suffered stress and anxiety as a result of these works. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damages caused by the rook leak and asbestos in the bedroom ceiling

12. The tenancy agreement says that where the damage to a tenant’s home is caused by a fault within the landlord’s responsibility to keep certain items in good repair and if it is proven that the damage was caused by no fault or neglect of the tenant, the landlord will repair and redecorate all affected areas. Additionally, the landlord’s repair policy sets out that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days.
13. The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
14. On 10 September 2023, the resident reported a hole in her bedroom ceiling caused by a roof leak. The landlord attended on 1 November 2023, 9 working days outside its published timescales of 28 days.
15. During this visit, the landlord identified water damage to the ceiling and walls and noted the presence of asbestos in the textured ceiling and said they would request for asbestos removal.
16. While the landlord correctly identified the presence of asbestos during its visit on 1 November 2023, it is not clear if it assessed the immediate risk posed by the damaged ceiling or took steps to manage that risk while arranging for removal.
17. In line with its duty under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, the landlord should have evaluated whether the asbestos-containing material was likely to be disturbed and considered interim protective measures. The absence of a documented risk assessment or temporary mitigation plan raises concerns about whether the landlord fulfilled its duty to safeguard the resident during the period of delay. This is a further failing on the landlord’s part.
18. Although the landlord requested asbestos removal following the visit, it did not return to carry out the works until 29 January 2024, nearly 3 months later. This delay was unreasonable given the known health risks associated with asbestos, particularly in a damaged ceiling.
19. On 29 January 2024, the resident declined access, citing a lack of information about the scope of the proposed works and the absence of an asbestos sample. These concerns were reasonable, and the landlord should have provided clear communication and reassurance before attempting to carry out the works. However, it did not attend the property to carry out the asbestos sampling until 4 March 2024, 35 days later, which was an unreasonable delay.
20. The landlord raised a removal order on 30 January 2024 with a 5-day turnaround. However, the ceiling was not replaced until 28 May 2024, and redecorating was completed on 1 June 2024, over 8 months after the initial report. While it was positive that the landlord arranged temporary accommodation during the works, the overall timeline did not align with its stated repair timescales, which is a failing on the landlord’s part.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response of 19 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged the delay and stated that compensation would be considered once the works were complete. The repairs were completed in May 2024, yet more than a year has passed and the landlord has not offered or assessed any compensation. This failure to follow through on its commitment, alongside the extended disruption, indicates that the landlord did not act in line with its tenancy agreement or repair policy, and did not take reasonable steps to recognise the impact of the delay. The resident experienced prolonged inconvenience and distress, and the landlord missed opportunities to put things right or demonstrate learning from the incident.
22. We find that the landlord failed to act promptly, did not provide adequate information, and did not offer redress despite acknowledging the inconvenience. The absence of follow-up or reflection on its handling of the matter is inconsistent with our remedies guidance, which expects landlords to address the impact of service failures and take steps to prevent recurrence.

23. Responsibility for determining liability for damage to personal belongings lies with the landlord’s insurer. While the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over insurance providers, we can assess how the landlord communicated with the resident about the insurance process and whether it supported the progression of a claim appropriately.
24. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 19 February 2024, it appropriately advised the resident to submit a claim through its public liability insurance and provided the relevant links to do so. However, the landlord has since confirmed that there are no records held within its insurance team of the resident making a claim for damage to personal items at the property.
25. Based on the information available, the landlord took reasonable steps to inform the resident of the insurance process and how to pursue a claim.

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
27. The landlord had a published complaints policy at the time of the complaint which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
28. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 28 working days (from 29 November 2023 to 11 January 2024), which was not in line with its policy or the Code. Its policy requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a full response within 10 working days. In this case, it is unclear whether the complaint was acknowledged, but the landlord was required to respond no later than 14 December 2023. By failing to meet this timeframe, the landlord acted outside its policy and the Code.
29. In its stage 1 response on 11 January 2024, the landlord did not address all the elements of the resident’s complaint. The resident mentioned in her complaint that they had been sleeping in a room with potentially disturbed asbestos for 3 years and were only recently informed that the ceiling would need to be removed to test for asbestos. The Code says, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
30. The response also did not confirm the landlord’s decision or provide any reasons for it, nor did it demonstrate that a thorough investigation had been carried out. The Code requires the landlord to confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
31. On 14 January 2024, the resident contacted her landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 26 January 2024, 9 working days later and not in line with its policy which says it would acknowledge the complaint in 5 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024, 16 working days from its acknowledgement.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not fully meet the Code’s requirements. Although it confirmed the complaint stage and upheld the complaint, it did not clearly define the scope of the complaint or provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for its decision. The response lacked analysis of the delay in identifying asbestos and its impact on the resident. While remedies such as hotel accommodation, room clearance, and potential compensation were offered, the response did not demonstrate a thorough investigation or provide a clear breakdown of outstanding actions.
33. Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 response incorrectly signposted the resident to escalate the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, rather than the Housing Ombudsman, which is the appropriate body for housing-related complaints. This misdirection is a failing on the landlord’s part and does not align with the Complaint Handling Code, which requires landlords to provide accurate and relevant information about the next steps in the complaints process. Incorrect signposting can cause confusion and delay for residents seeking resolution and undermines the effectiveness of the complaint’s procedure.