London Borough of Lambeth (202334182)

Decision
Case ID	202334182
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a terraced house. She is disabled and has mobility issues. Her complaint relates to the condition of a building next to her home. At the time of her complaint, the building was disused and the landlord owned it. The landlord appointed a live-in guardian to protect it while it was not in use.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a building next-door.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a building next door.
   2. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns about a building next-door

5. The landlord set the resident’s expectations and then failed to meet these. It was also responsible for various delays and failures. It did not recognise the full extent of these or do enough to address the related adverse impact to the resident. Its unreasonable handling may have added to her overall distress

Complaint handling

6. The landlord departed from its complaints policy and the Code at times. It showed a lack of clarity and proactivity. Its approach may have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling. It has not acknowledged these issues or attempted to put things right.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about a building next-door. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 March 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy about the condition of a building next to the property. She said it looked neglected and was having a negative impact on her own home. She highlighted her vulnerabilities. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: There was rubbish in the building’s front garden. The rubbish often blew into her own garden. Due to her health conditions, it was difficult to clear this rubbish. The building’s guardian dried their underwear in a window. The building had unsightly metal door and window coverings.
20 April 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised to the resident and partly upheld her complaint. It said that, in the long-term, it planned to return the building to its housing stock. It said it would take steps to improve matters in the meantime. The landlord’s other key points were: At its request, the guardian had tidied the building’s garden. It had taken steps to address the issue of drying underwear. It would closely monitor the building’s condition.
21 June 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the initial issues were ongoing and the situation had got worse. This was because weeds from the building’s overgrown garden were growing into her garden. She asked the landlord to confirm when it would address the situation.
27 July 2023	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It accepted that the resident’s concerns were ongoing. It apologised for any inconvenience. It said it had raised another internal request to address the building’s garden. It also said the resident should give it some time to complete the tidying.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In December 2023, the resident told us that the issues were ongoing. She said the landlord had not done anything to address these. In March 2026, she told us the landlord had sold the building, and it was currently being renovated. She said the works had resolved her concerns.

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.

Complaint	Response to concerns about a building next-door
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident raised some understandable concerns in her initial complaint. The landlord accepted that some of these were valid. It supplied an inspection report with its stage 1 response. This was to show the resident that it had acted on her concerns. It was positive for the landlord to share a copy of its internal report with her. It was not obliged to do this.
8. The landlord’s report shows the guardian inspected the building on 28 March 2023. It also shows that they found “no issues” with its general condition. Its asset management policy shows the landlord can use inspections to monitor its estates. It can also involve residents in these. By arranging an inspection, the landlord acted in line with its policy.
9. There was a disparity between the resident’s concerns and the guardian’s findings. To satisfy itself that the guardian had addressed matters, the landlord could have reasonably completed its own inspection subsequently. It could also have invited the resident to attend this. We have not seen any evidence to show that it considered these options.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would remove the building’s metal coverings. It also assured the resident that it would “monitor the situation very closely”. Subsequent events point to delays and a lack of monitoring. The landlord set the resident’s expectations and then failed to meet these. It is likely this was distressing for her.
11. The resident referenced new and ongoing issues in her escalation request. We have seen several undated photos that appear to support her concerns. These include an image of tall weeds in the building’s garden. The image also shows weeds growing under the property’s fence. The evidence suggests it is likely that the overgrown garden was distressing for the resident.
12. In her escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to provide an action plan with specific timescales. Her request was understandable given what had happened. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that she should give it “some time” to tidy the garden. If it was unable to provide a specific timescale, the landlord could have reasonably explained why not. Its vague response was unlikely to satisfy the resident.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord only addressed the building’s garden. It did not acknowledge that it had not fulfilled other commitments it had previously made (such as removing the metal door and window coverings). The landlord took a narrow view of the resident’s complaint. Its unreasonable approach may have added to her overall distress.
14. In March 2024, the resident told us the landlord had removed metal screens (presumably the coverings) and cut grass in parts of the garden. From the landlord’s case records, we were unable to confirm when it completed these actions. However, the resident made the above comments about 12 months after she first complained to the landlord. This timeframe points to an unreasonable delay.
15. The resident updated us again in March 2026. She recalled that, following its stage 2 response, the landlord had not taken any action to address her concerns. She also said it sold the building in December 2025. Her comments point to a further lack of monitoring between March 2024 and December 2025. This period lasted for about 21 months.
16. In mitigation, the evidence suggests that the landlord had already removed the metal coverings. It is likely that this improved the look of the building and some of the resident’s key concerns. From the information seen, it is unclear whether she continued to report issues around underwear or rubbish to the landlord during the above referenced period.
17. Nevertheless, to date, there is no indication that the landlord has recognised the full extent of its delays and failures or the related adverse impact to the resident. If it had, it could have reasonably awarded her some compensation to put things right. From the evidence provided, we find that its apologies were not sufficient to address her associated distress and/or inconvenience.
18. In summary, the landlord set the resident’s expectations and then failed to meet these. It was also responsible for various delays and failures. It did not recognise the full extent of these or the associated adverse impact to the resident. Its unreasonable handling may have added to her overall distress. We have ordered it to pay her a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 version (effective April 2022). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy does not mention the Code. It does include broadly similar provisions. The Code was not statutory during the period in question.
20. It took the landlord about 27 working days to issue a stage 1 response. Under the Code, landlords have a maximum of 15 working days to do this. More time is available providing the resident is kept informed. In this case, the landlord told the resident that it needed more investigation time in line with its policy and the Code. It subsequently adhered to a revised deadline that it had provided to her. This was appropriate complaint handling.
21. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord promptly acknowledged her request. It said it would issue a stage 2 response by 26 July 2023. It subsequently issued a response on the following day. The evidence points to a short delay. However, there is no indication that the resident was prompted to chase the landlord. This suggests the delay did not have a significant adverse impact on her.
22. The landlord did not acknowledge the above referenced delay in its stage 2 response. It should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every complaint investigation. This approach will allow it to identify and address any procedural delays or failures.
23. The landlord did not include a clear complaint outcome in its stage 2 response. Its complaints policy says that its stage 2 responses should “clearly state whether the complaint was upheld or not”. The Code includes similar provisions. The landlord departed from its policy and the Code. Its lack of clarity may have been confusing for the resident.
24. Arguably, other aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were not consistent with its complaints policy. For example, its policy says the landlord’s remedies can include taking action to provide a service that has previously failed. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there was an ongoing issue in its stage 2 response. It told the resident that it would raise another internal service request to address the garden.
25. In line with its policy, the landlord could have used its complaints process to monitor its service request through to completion. There is a lack of compelling evidence to show that the landlord did this. Similarly, it could have reasonably assured the resident that it would keep her complaint open until its agreed resolution was complete. It did not do this.
26. Ultimately, the landlord could have used its complaints process as a tool to improve the resident’s situation and its own performance. This would have been a proactive and reasonable approach. The evidence indicates that the landlord missed opportunities to do this. Its approach may have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling.
27. In summary, the landlord departed from its complaints policy and the Code at times. It showed a lack of clarity and proactivity. Its approach may have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling. It has not acknowledged these issues or attempted to put things right. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. We note that it has updated its complaints policy a number of times since she complained.

Learning

General learning

28. The evidence indicates that the landlord could have used its complaints procedure more effectively in this case. If necessary, it can use its complaints process to monitor or direct another team’s interactions with a resident. It could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. Our investigation did not highlight any significant record keeping failures.

Communication

30. In this case, the landlord made some firm commitments to the resident. She was subsequently disappointed by its actions. The landlord should avoid setting a resident’s expectations and then failing to meet these. It could provide related feedback to its staff.