Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Lambeth (202338811)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338811

London Borough of Lambeth

10 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of a faulty light fitting.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom house, since June 2014 on a periodic tenancy. The landlord is a local council.
  2. On 20 November 2023, the resident reported her kitchen light not working and she said she was told someone would attend within 24 hours, however nobody did. She chased the landlord on 22 November 2023 and a contractor attended the following day but was unable to fix the light.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 November 2023 that there had been a missed appointment and nobody had returned to fix the light. The complaint was acknowledged on 28 November 2023 and the resident was told to expect a response to her complaint by 28 December 2023.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 31 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and said a contractor would be attending that day to complete the works and these would be monitored to completion. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration and said her claim for compensation would be investigated further. It also asked for details of the missed appointment. It concluded the complaint was partially upheld as it had been unable to fully address the issues at that stage.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day. She felt the landlord had not read her complaint fully and explained she arranged for the light to be fixed in December 2023 as it had failed to address it. She said she had had no light in her kitchen and she was worried about having an accident.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 9 February 2024 and promised a response by 8 March 2024. The stage 2 response was sent on 8 March 2024. The landlord offered £20 for the missed appointment and said it was willing to reimburse the resident for the cost of the electrician, which she claimed was £240, if she sent in evidence of having paid that amount.
  7. The resident was only able to evidence having withdrawn £200 from the bank. On 22 March 2024 she chased the landlord for the reimbursement promised as well as the £20 for the missed appointment. The landlord replied the same day and said it was arranging payment, and she was to allow up to 4 weeks for it to be processed.
  8. The resident has said she has been paid £200 by the landlord but has not received the £20 payment for the missed appointment. The landlord has said it has paid the resident the correct amount.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s report of a faulty light fitting

  1. Paragraph 5.3 of the tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in proper working order any electrical fittings. The landlord’s repairs policy at that time, referred residents to its repairs manual online for further information, and that makes it clear the resident is responsible for changing light bulbs.
  2. The resident reported the light in her kitchen was broken on 20 November 2023. She has said she was told a contractor would attend the next day. However, this was not an emergency or urgent emergency situation, such as a total loss of power. Therefore, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, a routine repair, as in this case, should have been dealt with either in 7 days or 28 days, dependent upon how it was prioritised.
  3. The landlord has said a contractor attended on 22 November 2023, but the resident says that was when she followed the repair up, and the contractor actually attended the next day. The landlord’s log shows it was 23 November 2023 when the job was completed, which suggests the resident’s account is accurate. In any event, a contractor attended within 7 days, so there was no initial delay.
  4. The crux of this part of the complaint is that the resident has said the contractor said they could not complete the repair and needed to return on another day. The landlord has said to us, “our contractor attended (on 22 November 2023) and noted that the bulb wasn’t working. Replacement of lightbulbs is not something that the OOH’s team complete and also replacement of lightbulbs are tenants (sic) responsibility”.
  5. The landlord’s comment indicates that following the contractor’s visit, no further work was planned, as it was for the resident to change the light bulb. However, its job record does not state that and when it responded to the complaint at stage 1, it apologised for the delay in it resolving the lighting issue and said it had made arrangements for a contractor to return. If it was just a matter of the light bulb that needing changing, then there would be no need for the landlord to have offered to arrange for the contractor to return to complete outstanding works.
  6. This shows the landlord’s records to be deficient as they do not say what the issue with the light was, why it could not be fixed and what further action was needed. The job should have also remained open until the repair was actually completed, and the fact the resident had to complain to get the landlord to address the situation, is unacceptable.
  7. Despite the landlord being told on 27 November 2023 that the job remained outstanding, due to the delay in responding to the complaint, it failed to take any further action until the end of January 2024. By which point, the resident had paid an electrician to come out and fix the light at her own expense.
  8. We appreciate that it was Winter, approaching Christmas and dark early. It is therefore understandable, having waited 33 days, why the resident arranged for an electrician herself to carry out the repair. She said she was concerned about safety due to cooking in the dark, and therefore needed the light fixed as soon as possible. The landlord had the opportunity to fix the repair and failed to do so. It did though offer to reimburse the resident for the cost of doing that.
  9. The resident does not have any evidence to show what work the electrician did in order to repair the light, or that she spent £240 as she claimed. However, she was able to show she withdrew £200 from the bank and the landlord did reimburse her for that within 4 weeks, as set out in its compensation policy.
  10. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a faulty light fitting. It is recognised that at final review, the landlord did attempt to put things right, but it did not seem to address any detriment caused to the resident. It was just a reimbursement and offer of payment for a missed appointment. While it is good to see the landlord offered to pay the resident £20 for the initial missed appointment, which is line with its compensation policy, the resident has said it was not paid. The landlord has said it has made full payment to the resident but has been unable to provide evidence of this.
  11. While the landlord accepted it should reimburse the resident for the cost of the electrician and compensate her for the missed appointment, it could have also considered compensation for the time and trouble the resident had to go to, to fix the problem herself. Had the landlord’s service been as it should, as per its repairs policy, a contractor should have completed the works within 28 days and repaired the light. Instead, the resident waited longer than that and had to arrange her own repair and then take the matter up with the landlord afterwards. All of which could have been avoided, had the landlord complied with its repair obligations.
  12. In addition to reimbursing the resident for the electrician costs, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to pay her the £20 it agreed for the missed appointment, and a further £150 compensation as per its compensation policy. This additional amount is to recognise the inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out the repair and that it has failed to prove it paid the £20 for the missed appointment as promised. The frustration and disappointment caused to the resident is evident from her complaint to the landlord and correspondence to us, but it has not had a permanent impact on her. Therefore, we are satisfied the compensation directed overall is reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.

Resident’s formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy at the time said its complaint process had 2 stages. The first stage was referred to as local resolution, where it would issue a response within 20 working days, and the second as a final review where a response would be issued within 25 working days.
  2. In this case, the resident was told to expect the landlord’s initial response by 28 December 2023, however it was sent 44 working days after the complaint was made, which was much later than expected. It is recognised that the landlord did apologise for this and explained the reason for the delay. It may have thought that was sufficient. However, its compensation policy said it could have also considered compensation. The resident was claiming £20 for a missed appointment and it could have also recognised the time and trouble caused by the delay in responding to the complaint. This included its failure to adequately manage her expectations on timescales. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to put things right at the earliest opportunity.
  3. Although the final review was issued 27 working days after the complaint was escalated, it was sent on 8 March 2024 as had been promised. Therefore, its service was reasonable. The landlord did at that stage offer the resident compensation for the substantive issue, but made no offer of compensation for the delay in its initial complaint handling. While it had to wait for the resident to submit evidence she paid the electrician, the landlord agreed to pay her £20 for the initial appointment that was missed. However, it then failed to do that, so it did not adhere to the offer it made at final review, which is unacceptable.
  4. Taking all this in to account, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord accepted there was a delay in issuing its initial response, but did not go far enough to recognise that the resident’s expectations had also been mismanaged.
  5. This has caused frustration to the resident, but there has been no permanent impact on her. The poor service has not been significant, and the landlord did acknowledge the initial delay and apologise for it. These mitigating factors mean that in accordance with our remedies guidance, compensation of £100 would be reasonable to recognise the impact of its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a faulty light fitting.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £270 compensation made up of:
      1. £20 in recognition for a missed appointment, as promised at final review.
      2. £150 for the time and trouble of having to arrange the repair and waiting for the payment for the missed appointment.
      3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the issues with its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord ought to consider reviewing the level of detail that is recorded when a contractor visits, so that in the future its records are always clear on what action was taken at a visit and what further work, if any, is needed.