London Borough of Lambeth (202343282)

Background

1. During October 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. She believed it was caused by a problem with the guttering. The property is a 2-bedroom third-floor flat. During her complaint she told the landlord that her children’s asthma was affected.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy. Its response was unreasonably delayed and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. Furthermore, it failed to consider the impact on the resident and her family.

Handling of associated complaint

5. The landlord delayed raising a stage 1 complaint. When it did, its response was delayed. It failed to demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s circumstances or that it had carried out a thorough investigation of the complaint.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s repair records show that it tried to attend the property during October and November 2022 but did not gain access. We’ve not seen evidence of its communication with the resident to arrange the appointments. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted on our assessment of its response.
7. On 3 February 2023 the resident emailed her local councillor to say:
   1. She’d tried to contact the landlord “countless times” but was told systems were down and nothing could be done.
   2. She’d booked an appointment for 21 December 2022 but no one attended. When she phoned to chase, no one got back to her.
   3. The last call she made to the landlord was on 3 January 2023, when she was told someone would contact her within 72 hours but they did not.
   4. Her children’s asthma was being affected.
8. We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, there’s no independent evidence to corroborate the events set out above. Therefore, it’s not possible for us to make a determination on this point.
9. The resident’s councillor forwarded her email to the landlord on the same day, 3 February 2023,and asked for action to be taken. An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 7 February 2023 said it carried out a mould wash and applied a mould treatment. This was in line with its damp and mould policy to carry out an initial mould wash within 7 days. While this was positive, there’s no evidence that it investigated the cause of the issue, which was inappropriate.
10. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 8 February 2023. She said she was concerned the job was marked as complete but the problem was getting worse. The landlord replied on the same day to say it had contacted its contractor and would update her.
11. A note on the repair logs dated 14 February 2023 said the landlord was unable to carry out decorative works until issues with the guttering were resolved. The note said the resident would speak to the surveyor to request scaffolding and guttering works. It was inappropriate to put the onus on her because it was the landlord’s responsibility to take ownership of the repair.
12. The landlord’s repair logs say an appointment was arranged for 22 March 2023. It’s unclear what this was for, which is a record keeping failure.
13. A note on the repair log dated 28 March 2023 said a works order to carry out a mould treatment was cancelled. This was because the resident confirmed roofing works needed to be carried out first. From the note, it’s unclear if it was cancelled by the landlord or resident. However, by now 5 months had passed since the landlord was first put on notice of the damp and mould. It had not taken any action to reassure the resident it was investigating and resolving the cause of the problem.
14. The landlord failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy by diagnosing the issue within 28 days. It also failed to agree and write an action plan with the resident in line with its policy.
15. The distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inaction was evident in the resident’s email of 2 May 2023. She said the situation was impacting on her children’s health. She advised that her son was staying with family members because he could not sleep in his bedroom. The landlord failed to respond to the email. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it considered the impact on the resident and her family when deciding on its response.
16. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 May 2023 to say a further mould wash was cancelled due to the leak. It had raised a works order to inspect the roof. It’s unclear why the mould wash was cancelled when it may have reduced the impact of the internal damp and mould while it resolved the external works. Furthermore, the ongoing delay with its investigation into the cause was unreasonable. This failure was compounded by the growing impact on the resident and her family.
17. On 12 May 2023 the landlord received a quote to carry out works to the roof. These required scaffolding to the front and rear. Works included removal of ivy and moss, and cleaning and repairing of the gutters. On 30 May 2023 the resident emailed her councillor to say she was concerned that delays with the external works were having a knock-on effect on the progress of internal works.
18. The resident’s councillor forwarded her email to the landlord on the same day, 30 May 2023. However, there’s no evidence that it responded. Its inaction caused time and trouble to the resident. This was because on 2 June 2023 she made a formal complaint to try to resolve the issue.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 July 2023 said works to the roof would be completed by 30 July 2023. The repair logs show that the roof leak was resolved on 25 July 2023. While this was positive, it was 9 months after the landlord was put on notice of the issue, significantly exceeding its maximum repair timescale of 28 days.
20. Furthermore, on 7 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say some works remained outstanding. She said someone had attended on 24 July 2023 to clear the guttering and apply a waterproof substance to the walls. However, she’d been told someone else would attend to carry out works to the front of the property. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided a response, which caused distress and uncertainty to the resident. She was subsequently caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 21 September 2023 to chase the matter.
21. An internal email dated 8 August 2023 requested that the section 20 process be actioned in respect of works. There’s no evidence that the landlord updated the resident to let her know that it would need to follow this process to be able to complete works. Its inaction was inappropriate because it failed to adequately manage her expectations.
22. An entry on the repairs log dated 4 September 2023 said works to erect scaffolding to carry out works to the chimney needed to be authorised. On 19 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say scaffolding had been up at the front of the building since 27 May 2023. However, its roofing contractor told her they hadn’t been authorised to carry out those works. There’s no evidence that the landlord contacted her to update her on the section 20 process, which was inappropriate.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 October 2023 appropriately apologised for not responding to the resident’s email of 7 August 2023. It confirmed it had attended to assess the damage. It’s unclear whether this was the visit on 12 May 2023 by its roofing contractor or another inspection, which is a record keeping failure.
24. The landlord said it requested section 20 notices in August 2023. However, due to staff shortages and other conflicting works, they’d not been issued. It said they’d be served within the next 2 weeks and works would be carried out by January 2024 at the latest. Its response was confusing for the resident because it had not contacted her about the process previously.
25. The resident’s uncertainty was evident in her email to the landlord on 31 October 2023. She raised concerns that section 20 notices were not applicable to her block but might be to a neighbouring building. She also said the issue was ongoing and continued to impact on her family’s health, including her son who continued to sleep elsewhere.
26. An internal email dated 1 March 2024 confirmed that works had been completed on a different order. It said no further works were required and asked to cancel the section 20 process. On 12 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say the roof and gutter works had been completed and post-inspected.
27. The landlord carried out an internal inspection of the property on 2 April 2024. It noted high water penetration and mould in the living room and bedroom 1. Bedroom 1 also had salt marks high up the external wall close to the ceiling.
28. The landlord’s response to us dated 31 October 2024 confirmed that the roof leak was resolved. It provided us with a further update on 30 January 2026 which confirmed the last internal works were completed on 3 October 2024.
29. In summary, the landlord failed to:
    1. diagnose the issue within 28 days in line with its damp and policy
    2. agree and write an action plan, including timeframes, in line with its damp and mould policy
    3. recognise the impact on the resident and her family
    4. manage resident’s expectations around the section 20 process

Its response to resolve the cause of the damp and mould was unreasonably delayed, with the works completed around 2 years after the issue was first reported.

30. The failures set out above amount to severe maladministration because they had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
31. In the resident’s email to us dated 12 February 2026, she confirmed that her children have a bedroom each and she sleeps in the lounge. During the period of the complaint, her daughter was able to use her bedroom but her son was not.
32. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s loss of a bedroom in line with its compensation policy. We consider it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the loss of use of a bedroom. The Regulator’s average weekly rent for the resident’s region and property type is £126.97. The period considered for this calculation is 3 February 2023 to 3 October 2024. This is a total of 520 days. A 20% amenity loss calculation for the bedroom has been applied which amounts to £2,199.61. While we acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
33. This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation of £600 and above should be ordered where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, in line with our guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord may deduct the £100 compensation it offered if this has already been paid.

34. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
35. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the council, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents (or service users).’ It also says that complaints made by a third party will be treated in the same way as a complaint made by a resident.
36. The resident’s email to her councillor of 3 February 2023 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The councillor forwarded the email to the landlord on the same day. However, it failed to respond in line with its policy by raising a stage 1 complaint.
37. In her email to the landlord of 10 May 2023, the resident said she wanted to raise a formal complaint. The landlord again failed to raise a complaint in line with its policy.
38. The resident made a further complaint on 2 June 2023. On this occasion the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. Its stage 1 complaint response, issued on 5 July 2023 was 15 working days out of time.
39. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Its response acknowledged the delay and said it would take measures to ensure it did not happen again. However, it failed to identify its failure to act on the resident’s earlier attempts to raise a complaint. It therefore did not take proportionate steps to try to put things right.
40. The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to demonstrate that it carried out a thorough investigation of the complaint. This is because it failed to consider that the reports of the leak began in October 2022.
41. The landlord advised that as the repair was external, and access was not required to her property, she the resident may not have received updates. The external issues were having a significant impact on the inside of her property and on her family. Its response was therefore inappropriate and showed a lack of regard for the resident’s individual circumstances.
42. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2023. It acknowledged the complaint on 12 October 2023. This was 15 working days after the complaint was made and 10 working days out of time. However, its response on 26 October 2023 was within its timescales.
43. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance says that payments of £100 and above should be paid in such circumstances. In ordering the landlord to pay £100 compensation we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and the quality of its complaint responses.

Learning

44. Due to the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, it failed to appropriately identify its learning from the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord should consider lessons learned so it can improve its service to residents.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

45. The evidence provided by the landlord for the purposes of this investigation was generally sufficient. However, we have identified some instances where its record keeping could’ve been clearer.

Communication

46. The landlord failed to proactively communicate with the resident regarding the section 20 process. The explanation it provided at stage 1 for communication failures was inappropriate for the reasons set out above.