London Borough of Lambeth (202337157)

Decision
Case ID	202337157
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported multiple repair issues and a pest infestation to the landlord. This was her first tenancy as a care leaver and she said she was experiencing domestic violence at the time. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of various repairs.
   2. Reports of a pest infestation.
   3. Support needs as a vulnerable person.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
   2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s support needs as a vulnerable person.
   4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord resolving repairs reported by the resident. It took 2 months to fix a bath mixer tap and there was a 4-month delay in addressing multiple repairs reported in September 2023. It also failed to adequately manage the repeated reports of lighting outages in the communal stairwell made by the resident and her neighbours.
6. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in a timely and effective manner.
7. The landlord has not evidenced it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs in the provision of its services to her.
8. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address all of the issues raised within her stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request. It did not carry out a fair and robust investigation, and it failed 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 the relevant head of service for repairs. 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 14 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £400 for its failings in the handling of repairs. £300 for its failings in the handling of the pest infestation. £250 for its failings in the handling of the resident’s support needs. £200 for its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 14 April 2026
3	Order for specific action The landlord must contact the resident in order to carry out an assessment of her vulnerabilities, in line with its vulnerable tenants guidance. The assessment should identify the resident’s needs and record any agreed reasonable adjustments and/or support that has been put in place. By the due date, the landlord must provide us with documentary evidence it has updated its records accordingly and that this information should be accessible to relevant staff.	No later than 14 April 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must arrange for suitably qualified persons to carry out an inspection of the property in order to identify/address: Any current repair issues, including (but not limited to) a recurring toilet leak, repairs to kitchen cabinets and holes caused by/giving access to pests. A pest infestation in the property. The inspector(s) should produce a written report clearly setting out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any repair/pest issues. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issues identified, together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full schedule of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any issues identified (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the works. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or duration of the works. By the due date, the landlord must submit to us a copy of the inspector’s report(s) and evidence the schedule of works has been shared with the resident.	No later than 14 April 2026
5	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any works noted in the schedule of works, relating to both repairs and pests, are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 24 April 2026
6	Case review order The landlord must carry out a review of its handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs in this case. It must produce a report detailing the outcome of the review and share this with us. The report should identify: What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it will do differently to avoid the same happening again. Any changes made to its processes and practices to ensure it deals with vulnerable residents appropriately, in line with its policy. This should include, but is not limited to, consideration of its communications with vulnerable residents, appropriate oversight and monitoring of issues. Any staff training needs to ensure its vulnerable tenants guidance is embedded in everyday practice.	No later than 05 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider producing and implementing a pest control policy.
If it has not done so in the past 12 months, the landlord should familiarise itself with the recommendations at pages 61 to 64 of our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights, and consider training for relevant frontline staff.
If it has not done so in the past 12 months, the landlord should familiarise itself with the recommendations at pages 44 to 47 of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, and consider training for relevant frontline staff and those working in its repairs service.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
October 2021 to July 2023	The resident experienced, among other things, issues with heating and hot water, various repairs needed in her bathroom, pests in the property, and failed communal lighting.
22 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord, requesting an urgent transfer to a “safe and habitable” property “due to the state of disrepair of my current home”. To resolve matters, she also sought compensation for distress and personal possessions ruined by the outstanding repairs.
Un-dated	The stage 1 response stated the resident’s income maximisation officer was responsible for repairs in the first 6 weeks of the tenancy. If they agreed that a property did not meet its lettable standard, the landlord said they would cancel the rent until the property did meet the lettable standard. It said it could not investigate complaints or pay compensation for matters that happened more than 12 months ago. However, it invited her to submit a claim for any damaged property to its insurance team. It also provided details of a transfer application it had created so she could bid for properties from 19 August 2023.
6 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint as she said many repairs were still outstanding. She said the landlord’s failure to complete repairs had resulted in damp and mould and pests in her property, which had “severely impacted my life and over all mental health”.
18 January 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted and apologised for delays in resolving repairs in the resident’s property. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it awarded her compensation of £150.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord’s response did not address the issues she raised in her complaint. She said repairs were not completed satisfactorily, some were still outstanding, and the pest infestation was not resolved, which has “severely impacted my mental health”. To resolve matters, she would like it to provide her with the necessary support, acknowledge and resolve the repairs issues, and provide her with safe accommodation.

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	The handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

9. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated there were numerous repairs required to the property from the start of her tenancy in October 2021, for instance, no heating and hot water. She raised a formal complaint on 22 July 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the heating and hot water issues. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate matters relating to repairs that occurred before 22 July 2022.

What we did investigate

10. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
11. In this case, the landlord has not provided us with evidence of any communications with the resident outside the repairs records. Consequently, we cannot ascertain when she reported issues, the frequency of her reports, or any concerns raised about the various  issues. Although it has provided us with extensive repair records, some of these are unclear, inconsistent and/or appear not to be relevant to the issues experienced by the resident. Therefore, we cannot reasonably ascertain from the available evidence if it addressed repair reports adequately and/or in a timely manner. Other key evidence is also missing, for example, the surveyor’s report following the inspection of the property in January 2024. These issues amount to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide us with relevant information for our investigation.
12. The landlord appears to have provided us with an out-of-date repairs policy, last updated in August 2015. This provides timescales for repairs based on priority categorisations 1 to 5. However, these are inconsistent with the categories used within its repair records in this case. The categories used in the records appear to align with a more recent repairs and damp policy dated August 2023 (a copy of which we have sourced from our previous casework), suggesting it may have adopted this policy sooner. For this reason, we have assessed its handling of repairs against the August 2023 policy.
13. The policy notes the landlord provides “an enhanced repairs service for residents who are vulnerable and in need of additional support”. It is positive to note some repair records reflected the resident’s status as a vulnerable person. However, there is no evidence the landlord carried out a vulnerability assessment to ascertain the level of support or enhanced service it would provide to her. While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s support needs is dealt with separately in this report, this omission compounded the difficulties experienced by the resident in having repairs dealt with.

Loss of heating, hot water and gas

14. Repair records show the resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water in March 2023 and January 2024 appear to have been attended within the landlord’s priority timescales in its repairs and damp policy. Her report of a total loss of heating and hot water on or around 11 March 2023 was marked as ‘completed’ on 12 March 2023. However, as there were no contractor notes, it was unclear what, if any, works were carried out. This points to a record keeping omission and/or a failure in the landlord’s handling of matters, which was unsatisfactory.

Bathroom repairs

15. There were delays in resolving the issue with the bath mixer tap. This was reported to the heating contractor on 9 March 2023 and a works order was raised on 14 March 2023. As a routine R1 repair, this ought to have been completed within 7 days under the landlord’s repairs and damp policy. It is unclear if the resident was informed in advance of 2 appointments subsequently marked as ‘no access’ attendances on 17 and 24 March 2023, and we note she refused access on 29 March 2023 as she said she was not aware of the appointment. Consequently, the job was marked ‘completed’ and closed. Given the nature of the repair and the resident’s vulnerabilities, we consider the decision to close the works order was unreasonable.
16. The mixer tap repair was raised again on 18 April 2023. The contractor initially attended within the 7-day timescale and works were subsequently completed on 5 May 2023, almost 2 months after the issue was identified. This was excessive against the timescale stated in the repairs and damp policy.
17. We understand the resident’s concern about a hole in the bathroom wall related to exposed pipework. A works order was raised for this on 18 April 2023. The contractor attended on 16 May 2023 and noted that a cover was needed for access to the downpipe, although it is unclear if this was actually fitted. This further highlights poor record keeping practices by the landlord and its contractors.

Other repairs

18. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 September 2023 to request a surveyor visit and temporary move due to “extensive repair issues” in the property. These included a blockage in the bathroom, a leak, “flooding”, and rotten flooring. An internal email on 4 October 2023 noted the landlord was unable to contact the resident to book an inspection and there was no voicemail facility. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that some of the issues being reported were potentially quite serious/urgent, it should have done more to arrange an inspection. This was a missed opportunity to resolve ongoing repair issues. As a result, there was a delay of 4 months in inspecting the property and, thereafter, raising the necessary repairs.
19. The landlord has told us all repairs in the property have now been completed. Meanwhile, the resident has asserted there are still outstanding repairs, including the recurring toilet leak, repairs to her kitchen cabinets, and holes in the property providing access to pests. We can see she raised her concerns about these issues in her stage 2 escalation request and these were incorporated into the landlord’s stage 2 response.
20. Repair records indicate various contractors were booked to complete the works identified by the surveyor in January 2024. However, the outcome of attendances was not consistently and clearly recorded. For instance, there are no notes following the plumbing contractor’s attendances on 9 and 19 February 2024. An entry dated 20 February 2024 recorded the resident’s report that the toilet leak was still ongoing and that she had been advised by the contractor that this might be due to the toilet not being level. The contractor’s notes of 23 February 2024 confirmed the toilet was not installed correctly, but went on to indicate they sealed and adjusted to resolve the leak.
21. Records also show repairs to the kitchen cabinets and holes in units were completed on 23 February 2024. In the absence of evidence that the resident reverted to the landlord to report the toilet and kitchen repairs were unsatisfactory or that issues had reoccurred, we do not hold the landlord responsible for not addressing these repairs
22. That said, to put right the landlord’s failure to consider the revised repairs service it is prepared to offer the resident owing to her vulnerabilities, we have ordered it to arrange an inspection to identify and address any current repair issues.

Communal stairwell lighting repairs

23. We note several reports of lighting outages in the communal stairwell made by the resident and her neighbours to the landlord. Records show a works order raised on 21 November 2022, was closed on 1 December 2022 after 3 unsuccessful attempts to gain access. Further reports in February and March 2023 were attended and repaired in line with the timescales in the repairs and damp policy. However, the landlord failed to recognise the impact to the resident of the recurring nature of the communal lighting issues, which dated back beyond the scope of this investigation. This demonstrates a lack of oversight of communal repairs.
24. In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident told the landlord “the stairwell was pitch black” and she often went home “not feeling safe as there could have been someone waiting to take advantage of the fact that I had no working light in my stairwell and attacked me as a single young woman”. It was positive to see the landlord took her concerns seriously by raising a works order to investigate the communal lighting. In line with the contractor’s recommendations, it upgraded the lighting in the block on 8 January 2024 in order to avoid further issues.

Overall

25. The resident stated, in her stage 2 escalation request, that her doorbell did not work since she moved into the property in 2021, which was problematic when contractors attended to do repairs. This assertion was noted in the repair records relating to the doorbell, which was raised on 18 April 2023.  The landlord did take responsibility for a new doorbell which was fitted on 2 May 2023. However, the landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response. For the purposes of this investigation, due to the timelines noted above, we will not consider the alleged failure to repair the doorbell as part of voids works. It is also unclear if the doorbell was separate to any door entry system in operation at the block. In any event, we acknowledge that not having a working doorbell may have been a factor in, at least, some of the ‘no access’ visits recorded by various contractors.
26. Overall, there were aspects of the landlord’s handling of repairs that were appropriate, such as attending within the timescales set out in its policy and some repair records reflecting the fact the resident was vulnerable. Equally, its handling in other aspects fell short, for example, inadequate consideration of support to be provided to the resident and delays in completing some works. In all the circumstances, we have found maladministration in respect of this complaint. We have ordered compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its failings.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation
Finding	Maladministration

27. The landlord has not provided us with a pest control policy, so we cannot determine whether or not it dealt with matters in line with its own procedures. Therefore, we have assessed its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation based on what we consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
28. The landlord did not take timely and reasonable steps in response to the resident’s reports of pests in her property. The available evidence suggests the issue was first reported in or around July 2022. However, a pest control contractor did not attend until 10 weeks later, in October 2022. They advised the landlord they were unable to leave a message for the resident on 28 July 2022 and they did not gain access when they attended on 10 October 2022. There is no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. This was a missed opportunity to try to resolve the issue.
29. The resident’s complaint of 22 July 2023 also referenced the pests issue. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any steps to address the problem at the time. Similarly, no action appears to have been taken in response to a report received from one of the resident’s neighbours, on 19 September 2023, about a mouse infestation affecting the block. In fact, the issue remained unanswered until after the resident had completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
30. A report from a pest control contractor, dated 9 February 2024, confirmed “light” mice activity in the property. They recommended blocking holes around service pipes under the kitchen units, in the boiler cupboard, under the bath panel and in the hallway cupboard to prevent future infestations. Although repair records indicate works were carried out to address holes in the kitchen on 23 February 2024, it is not clear if/when works were completed to the other rooms in the property.
31. The resident has told us the patch repairs completed to the kitchen units were not satisfactory and there is still a hole in the cabinet around the gas meter, where there are signs of ongoing pest activity. It is not apparent from the available evidence if she has informed the landlord that the problem persists.
32. There was a delay of at least 19 months, from July 2022 to February 2024, in the landlord taking steps to address the resident’s reports relating to pests. It missed a number of opportunities to address the issue, both in the resident’s property and within the block. This was unacceptable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Accordingly, we have found maladministration and awarded compensation for the adverse impact.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s support needs as a vulnerable person
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

33. Our remit only applies to the local authority’s function as a provider and manager of social housing. Therefore, this investigation is limited to the local authority’s housing function in its capacity as the landlord. It will not extend to the actions of other local authority departments, such as social services or environmental health, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
34. The resident told both the landlord and us that its poor handling of repairs and pests issues “severely impacted my mental health”. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

35. It is unclear if the landlord had a policy in place for vulnerable residents at the start of the resident’s tenancy in October 2021. Irrespective of this, we would expect it to have considered, assessed and then provided any identified additional landlord support required to her as a vulnerable person.
36. The landlord has provided us with its vulnerable tenants guidance dated October 2024, which was first published in December 2022. This states:
    1. It “will communicate with vulnerable residents in a sympathetic way”.
    2. “Services should be appropriate and sensitive to the needs of the service user.”
    3. Its Service Plus offer may include signposting/information/advice or referral to other support services. If indicated by the vulnerability assessment, it may carry out some additional repairs outside its responsibility.
    4. Under its Enhanced Service Plus offer, it will carry out an annual property inspection and vulnerable residents may be able to access additional repairs that are usually the tenant’s responsibility.
    5. Housing staff will support care leavers for the first 12 months of their tenancy by maintaining monthly contact with them to ensure, among other things, they are “maintaining the home to an acceptable standard and reporting repairs as necessary”.
37. Following the introduction of this policy, the landlord ought reasonably to have taken steps to identify the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs. It is positive to note its records note the resident’s vulnerabilities and this was highlighted in some of the repair records. However, there is no evidence it carried out a vulnerability assessment. We cannot see that it offered her any advice, signposting or referrals to support services. It is also unclear if she was eligible for its enhanced repairs service.
38. Based on the limited evidence we have seen of communications between the landlord and the resident, we have concluded that it failed to assess or provide an appropriate level of support to the resident as a vulnerable person.
39. As noted above, there are several examples where the landlord’s failure to support the resident, in line with its vulnerable tenants guidance, had a detrimental impact on the resident and her use and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, we have found maladministration in respect of this complaint. We have awarded compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, for the significant adverse impact. Additionally, we have asked it to consider the recommendations in our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights in order to improve its service to vulnerable residents.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

40. The landlord has provided us with outdated complaints and compensation policies dated March 2016. We note its stage 1 response referred to its corporate complaints policy, a copy of which we have sourced from our previous casework. The timescales provided in this policy do not align with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) in place at the time:
    1. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 2 working days of receipt, which is quicker than the 5 working days prescribed by the Code.
    2. The policy states the landlord will provide its first stage response within 20 working days, while the Code prescribes a 10-working-day response time at stage 1.
    3. The policy states the landlord will provide its final response within 25 working days, while the Code prescribes a 20-working-day response time at stage 2.
41. Against these timescales:
    1. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
    2. We have not received a dated copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response, so it is unclear when this was sent to the resident.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request 7 working days after receipt, 2 working days outside the longer 5-working-day timeframe in the Code.
    4. The stage 2 response was issued 21 working days after the acknowledgement and only after the resident chased this. While within the timescale given in its policy, it was slightly outside the 20 working days prescribed by the Code.
42. Therefore, we have concluded that the landlord failed to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure set out in its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this in its responses, which was unsatisfactory.
43. The landlord’s response at stage 1 relied on its policy of not considering matters that happened more than 12 months ago without any apparent regard for the resident’s vulnerability. While not mandatory, this would have been good practice, in line with the Code applicable at the time. Furthermore, it did not investigate the multiple repair issues raised in her complaint. Had it done so, it ought reasonably to have identified that a number of the repairs actually fell within the 12 months preceding the complaint. Therefore, it failed to fairly address the complaint and consider appropriate redress. It did, however, refer the resident to submit a claim for any damaged personal possessions to its insurance team, which was appropriate. Overall, the response was inconsistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
44. Matters were compounded further by the landlord’s failure at stage 2 to address all of the issues raised in the resident’s escalation request. Specifically, it did not answer her concerns about the lack of support it had provided to her as a vulnerable person, bathroom repairs, and pests in the property. Also, contrary to the Code applicable at the time, it did not log a new complaint for new issues not previously raised at stage 1, such as a recurring toilet leak, kitchen repairs, and damp and mould. It incorrectly stated that “no work orders were raised for any repairs for communal lights”, which points to poor record keeping/accessibility as well as a failure to conduct a sufficiently robust investigation. Finally, the level of compensation awarded did not fairly reflect its multiple failings, and it did not demonstrate it took any learning from the resident’s experience.
45. Overall, the landlord failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find maladministration in its handling of the complaint. This compounded the impact of its poor handling of the substantive issues considered above, leaving the resident feeling unheard and unsupported. The vulnerabilities of the resident were an aggravating factor in our consideration. We have awarded compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.

Learning

46. We have made an order requiring the landlord to carry out a case review including reviewing its response to residents identified as vulnerable, so that it can identify and take learning from the resident’s experience.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord did not keep adequate records of repairs and its communications with the resident.

Communication

48. The available evidence shows the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor.