London Borough of Lambeth (202331756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331756

London Borough of Lambeth

8 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in February 1981 and the resident lives alone. The resident is an older person, and her daughter assists her in communication with the landlord, as well as with other business. For clarity, this report refers to contact from both the resident and her daughter as ‘the resident’.
There was a leak from the upstairs flat in May 2021 that caused damage to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings. The resident raised a formal complaint on 8 December 2022. In the complaint she said that:
1. The landlord agreed to fix the stains and cracks on the ceilings by July 2021 but had not done this.
2. Her MP had been raising this with the landlord, but the landlord had not responded.
3. Her mental health had been impacted as she had brown stains on her ceiling, and it was stressful for her to continue to chase the landlord.
The landlord provided its first stage 1 response on 22 February 2023. It apologised for its delays in responding to the complaint and completing the repairs. It said that the work had been raised with its contractor. It said compensation would be considered once the repair was resolved.
The landlord provided its second stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. The resident’s complaint was upheld and the landlord apologised. It said:
1. That jobs had been cancelled but had been raised again.
2. That there were active work orders to:
  1. Replaster and decorate the bathroom ceiling and paint the kitchen ceiling. It said there was an appointment to do this on 22 February 2023 (the day before this response).
  2. Refix roof tiles and slates to fix the leak. An appointment was booked on 15 March 2023.
  3. Renew softwood casement around light and 9 sash windows. It said it attended on 4 February 2023 but there was no access.
3. It offered £460 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. That she did not want to accept a ‘goodwill gesture’ as this implied the landlord was doing her a favour. Instead, she wanted compensation for poor service.
2. That the appointment on 22 February 2023 had passed and the ceiling work had not been completed.
3. That the response mentions roof repairs which she did not know about. The resident was confused as she does not live on the top floor and the leak causing the damage to the ceiling was fixed in 2021. She asked if there was something she needed to worry about regarding the roof that could impact her flat.
4. That the complaint response mentioned appointments that she had not been notified of.
5. That someone showed up recently for a general survey of the flat and mentioned things that needed to be fixed. She asked for the survey report twice and had not received it. She asked if this is why the landlord raised a job to renew the softwood casement in the flat.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023. It said:
1. There was an appointment to fix the ceiling on 4 April 2023.
2. There was a waterpipe leaking into the passageway. When the operative showed up there was no access, and he could not reach the resident by phone. The job was then closed.
3. That the repairs team did not have access to the survey report completed by the ‘strategic asset partner’. It said the resident could submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to request any personal data held by the landlord.
The resident escalated the complaint to this service on 8 December 2023 because she does not feel that the landlord has taken accountability for its poor service and that £460 is not high enough because:
1. The repairs took 2 years.
2. She has waited in for numerous appointments that were not attended.
3. Operatives have shown up to take photos several times.
4. She has been living with brown stains in her property.
5. She and her daughter wasted a lot of time trying to get the repairs completed.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen ceiling

The landlord’s repairs manual says that plaster work after repairs will be completed within 90 days.
Following the leak in May 2021, the landlord said it would replaster the bathroom ceiling and repaint the bathroom and kitchen ceilings. It said it would complete this by 26 July 2021 which was within its repair timeframe. The repairs were not completed until 19 May 2023, which is 2 years after the leak. This is well outside of its 90-day timeframe and was not reasonable.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £460 as a ‘goodwill gesture in acknowledgement of any delays and inconvenience experienced’. Our understanding is that the landlord offered this compensation for the delay in repairs alone.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress.
The landlord’s handling of this repair had a significant impact on the resident:
1. The landlord raised the expectations of the resident when it said it would complete the repairs in July 2021.
2. The resident waited in for several appointments where the landlord did not show up or showed up to take photos when it already had them, which was inconvenient. It was later identified that the landlord had frequently been turning up to the wrong property (with a similar street name) for appointments.
3. The resident lived with brown staining on her ceiling for 2 years which was upsetting to her and impacted her enjoyment of the property.
4. The resident and her daughter spent time over a 2-year period chasing the landlord before the property was repaired.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a sum in recognition for the delay in the repairs. In our opinion, £460 is a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the delay in the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. The landlord should now pay this amount to the resident.
During the complaints process a survey was completed of the property. This identified further things that needed to be repaired, and the landlord mentioned one of the issues in its complaint response. The resident asked for a copy of this, so she could understand the repairs needed to her property.
The landlord’s advice that it did not have access to the survey was unhelpful. This survey was carried out on its behalf and while it may not have had immediate access, it could have asked the relevant company for this information. Furthermore, the suggestion that the resident could submit a SAR to get this information was incorrect. She was seeking information about the outcome of the property survey rather than her personal data and therefore did not need to make a SAR to get this.
It is reasonable for a resident to have access to a survey of their property. In this case the landlord’s complaint responses provided confusing information, and it is important that the resident is now provided with accurate details. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to provide a copy of the survey to her, or any more recent survey that has been carried out

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that in its approach to dealing with complaints it aims to show customers that it has:
1. Listened to their concerns.
2. Taken the resident seriously.
3. Learnt from its mistakes to improve services.
4. Provided excellent customer service, dealing with individuals in a courteous and efficient manner.
5. Provided a quality approach to investigating complaint that is fair and transparent.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. Stage 2 will be responded to within 25 working days by the corporate complaints unit. The policy says any expression of dissatisfaction is a complaint.
The landlord said it would complete the repairs by 26 July 2021, but it did not. Following this, the resident contacted their MP in August 2021, who emailed the landlord several times from then through to October 2022 to ask it to address the issue. The MP told the resident that many of their emails to the landlord were not responded to.
The repair history shows a job raised on 10 June 2022. This is logged as an ‘early resolution complaint’. As the MP had contacted the landlord several times by this point, this may be why this job was raised. As the MP was expressing dissatisfaction on behalf of the resident, this should have been logged as a formal complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, which is not reasonable given the circumstances.
The resident raised a formal written complaint on 8 December 2022. After not getting a response, the resident chased the landlord on 21 January 2023, and this is the date the landlord says a stage 1 complaint was raised. This is not accurate as the complaint should have been logged on 8 December 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 responses on 22 and 23 of February 2023, which was 51 working days after the complaint was raised and well outside of its 20-working day timeframe. The stage 2 response was acknowledged and responded to within the landlord’s timeframes.
The landlord provided 2 different stage 1 responses with different outcomes. This was not reasonable and would have caused confusion to the resident.
We would expect landlords to clearly address the points raised in the complaint and explain what had gone wrong and how it intended to put things right. In our view, the handling of this complaint was poor as it did not do this. The stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses:
1. Did not acknowledge how long the resident had been waiting for the repairs or explain the cause of the delay.
2. Did not acknowledge the several appointments that were missed, where the operative went to the wrong property, or did not progress the issue
3. Did not acknowledge appointments that the resident was not notified of ahead of time.
4. Included information about repairs that were not relevant to this complaint, including repairs for a neighbour and their telephone number.
5. Did not acknowledge the delay in logging the official complaint or that the resident’s MP had been raising concerns for over a year.
6. Did not acknowledge the poor record keeping. The repair records show dates of repairs followed by ‘no notes’ on several occasions. This likely contributed delay and to the confusion about what repairs were outstanding.
The landlord’s complaint handling had a negative impact on the resident and her trust in the landlord:
1. She did not feel heard and understood as the landlord did respond fully to the concerns raised.
2. She was confused by the responses as there were 2 stage 1 responses and the responses brought in information that was not relevant to this complaint.
3. She did not understand why the compensation was considered a gesture of goodwill rather than compensation for the distress and inconvenience the landlord caused.
4. She did not feel that the landlord acknowledged or took accountability for what had gone wrong.
Considering the information above, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings when responding to the complaint.
In consultation with our remedies and to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250in compensation for the failures in complaint handling.
We have also ordered the landlord to provide an apology from a senior member of staff that:
1. Acknowledges the specific failings in the handling of the repairs to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
2. Acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation regarding the handling of the complaint.
3. Sets out what it has learnt from this complaint what action it has or will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which satisfactory resolves the failings in its handling of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
2. Provide an apology in writing from a senior member of staff that:
  1. Acknowledges the specific failings in the handling of the repairs to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
  2. Acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation about the handling of the complaint.
  3. Sets out what it has learnt from this complaint what action it has or will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £460 for the delay in the repairs. The finding of reasonable redress for this issue is dependent on this being paid to the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord provides a copy of the early 2023 survey of the property to the resident, or any more recent survey that has been completed.