London Borough of Lambeth (202344328)

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat, in a 3 storey building. The resident reported roof leaks affecting the property and communal hallway.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

• Reports of roof leaks.
• The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks

5. Repairs were not completed until over 3 years after the resident reported the leak, which was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, water in the electrics, and slippery stairs. It did not provide timely updates to the resident about the continued delay or provide timescales for completion of repairs.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The complaint responses lacked clarity, detail and failed to address all the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

7. Our Scheme says 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 said a leak recurred shortly after the landlord repaired the roof sometime in 2021. They raised a formal complaint on or around 21 August 2023. However, there is no evidence they raised their complaint within 12 months of when they became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence the resident was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Therefore, our investigation has considered the landlord’s actions from August 2022 onwards.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will:
   1. Prioritise and respond to repairs under the following categories:
      1. Urgent emergency – attend within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours
      2. Emergency – fix within 1 working day
      3. Routine – fix within 7 days
      4. Routine – fix within 28 working days
      5. Planned repairs – complete within 90 days.
   2. Inspect damp and mould within 28 days.
   3. Prioritise mould removal and carry out an initial mould wash treatment within 7 days.
   4. Proactively monitor the journey of each repair and if it stalls, immediately put a solution in place.
   5. Run the repairs service with rigorous contract and relationship management.
9. The landlord’s records show that on 1 October 2022 it raised a repair for a leak affecting the bedroom. The repair was subsequently cancelled because it was allocated to the incorrect contractor. Whilst it was positive the landlord identified its error, it did not allocate the repair to the correct contractor until 2 months later on 2 December 2022. This was an unreasonable delay. The re-raised repair was subsequently closed on its repair management system. The records do not include details of any action taken by the landlord or the reason it closed the repair, which is a failure in its record keeping.
10. The repair records show the landlord raised another repair on 6 January 2023. On 26 June 2023, it cancelled a repair raised on 3 March 2023 because it was a duplicate of the repair logged on 6 January 2023. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not identify the duplicate repair for 3 months. There is no evidence it informed the resident about this which is unreasonable. The lack of action and updates for approximately a year led the resident to raise her formal complaint with the landlord.
11. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would arrange for a roofer to attend and monitor the repairs. The repair records appear to show an appointment arranged for 4 October 2023. But it is unclear what happened or whether the landlord contacted the resident. The evidence shows that on 9 October 2023, the landlord cancelled the repair order because the repair was included in a major works contract. However, there are no records to confirm the repair was included in a major works programme. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 13 October 2023. She said the contractor told her the repair had been cancelled. It is likely this is the repair the landlord referred to in its stage 2 response as ‘cancelled in error’. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to clearly explain to the resident how this error happened or what it was doing to ensure it would complete the repair. This was a missed opportunity for it to explain its position to the resident.
12. In her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, the resident said there were brown stains, mould forming, and water was coming through the light fittings. The resident also expressed concerns about the spiral staircase used to access the property being slippery due to water leaking onto it. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 11, and 9A oblige the landlord to ensure the property is free from hazards. Damp and mould, electrical hazards and falling on stairs are prescribed hazards in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to the resident’s reports. This is inappropriate and a failure to comply with its repair policy and the requirements of the Act.
13. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the repair was a priority and would be dealt with as soon as possible. Initially, the landlord took steps to prioritise and progress the repairs. Within 3 weeks it attended the property, requested approval for scaffolding to be erected and updated the resident. This was reasonable. However following this, there is little evidence of the landlord taking any action to remedy the leak for around 8 months. There is no evidence it installed scaffolding or completed any works. The landlord cancelled the associated repair on 4 July 2024 due to ‘time constraints’. In both of its complaint responses the landlord promised to monitor the repair. The records do not evidence that the landlord honoured its commitment or complied with its repairs policy by proactively monitoring the repair and immediately putting a solution in place when it stalled. It failed to oversee the repairs allocated to its contractor to ensure completion within the 90 day timescale for planned repairs set out in its policy. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident informed about any delays or changes to its plans which is unreasonable.
14. The landlord raised the repair again on 5 August 2024 and allocated it to a different contractor. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to progress the repair with a different contractor, there is no evidence it informed the resident it had changed the contractor responsible for the repair. This was unreasonable, particularly after significant delays and frequent contact from the resident asking for updates.
15. Replacing or repairing a roof can take time to organise and is unlikely to be completed within timescales of less than 28 days. However, in line with its repairs policy the landlord should have attended within 7 days of receiving a report of a leak. It should have assessed the extent of the work it needed to do, put in place a plan for the repairs and communicated this to the resident with clear timescales for completion. There is no evidence the landlord attended the property until 8 November 2023, after it issued the stage 2 response, and over a year after the earliest recorded report of a roof leak. This is a significant delay. An assessment of the repairs needed to resolve the leak was not carried out until 15 January 2024, when the contractor noted the leak affected every room of the property and the communal stairwell. The contractor said the roof was not repairable and needed to be replaced. The landlord did not comply with its repairs policy or its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 by inspecting the property and completing repairs within a reasonable amount of time.
16. On 26 January 2026, the resident told us the landlord had not completed any repairs, she had received no updates from the landlord and the issue remains ongoing. The landlord told us it completed repair works in March 2025 which were not successful. It recalled the contractor in November 2025 and provided evidence it completed roof repairs on 19 January 2026. There are no records to explain what happened in the 8 months between March and November 2025 or why it did not follow the recommendation of its contractor to replace the roof and carried out repairs instead. Therefore, we cannot assess the landlord’s actions and decision making concerning these matters. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about the repairs it carried out which is unreasonable.
17. The landlord’s records show that between October 2022 and February 2024, whilst it largely responded to the resident’s requests for updates, it did not provide updates to her proactively. It did not provide specific information about timescales or delays and mainly sought to reassure the resident that it was treating the repair as a priority. After February 2024 there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s requests for updates or provided any information to her about how or when it intended to resolve the leak. It is unreasonable that the resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for information it should have provided to her. The landlord failed to deliver the values committed to in its repairs policy statement that “Residents should be kept at the heart of the work we do, treated with empathy and respect”.
18. The landlord is responsible for the roof repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates. The landlord’s failure to maintain clear records and communicate resulted in delays which significantly affected the resident.
19. The resident and the landlord’s records agree that the leak spread from the bedroom and communal hallway, and ultimately affected every room in the property. The resident said the leak caused mould to form, bubbling paint, cracks in the ceilings, and water to come through the light fittings. She told us she works from home and could not use the bedroom her desk is in due to the condition of the room. The landlord has not provided evidence it inspected the inside of the property. However, it is reasonable to accept that a leak affecting the whole of a property for over 3 years is likely to cause the level of damage the resident described. She said she felt frustrated and stressed because she didn’t know what was happening. She said she was constantly chasing the landlord for updates, and it treated her unfairly. The resident also said the contractor visited 7 times within a 2 month period to take photographs but did not carry out any repairs. She said she believes the landlord does not log repairs correctly, keep accurate records or care about how the situation affected her. Our investigation has found failings in the landlord’s communication, record keeping and oversight of its contractors. The landlord’s actions amount to maladministration, and we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £900 compensation to the resident to put things right.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
21. The stage 1 response was issued 5 working days later than the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy which was a failing. However, the landlord apologised for this in its response which is reasonable and an appropriate remedy. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in line with the timescales in its policy.
22. However, while it was positive the landlord sent its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its policy, its overall handling of the resident’s complaint was poor. The landlord:
    1. Failed to adhere to its policy by addressing (or explaining why it would not address) the resident’s concerns about the standard of repairs carried out by the contractor in relation to a previous roof repair and decorating works.
    2. Failed to adhere to its policy by not clearly saying whether it upheld the resident’s complaint (or not) at stage 1 or stage 2.
    3. Did not explain the initial delays to the repairs or provide timescales for the actions it promised to put things right.
    4. Failed to offer any compensation.
    5. Did not monitor the repairs as it said it would.
23. This is unreasonable and not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from complaints. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise and to £100 compensation to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The records provided by the landlord are lacking in detail which has made it difficult to fully assess its actions. For example, the records do not indicate what priority the landlord assigned the repairs it raised. The target dates do not clearly align with its priority timescales and range between approximately 4 weeks to over 3 months. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear records of the repair reports it receives, what priority repairs are given, when its contractor attends, the outcome of any inspections, what works are carried out and whether any follow up action is needed. Recording such information would ensure the landlord has a clear audit trail of the actions it has taken. It is a failing of the landlord’s record keeping that it has not maintained adequate records.
25. The landlord said the contractor cancelled a repair in error. It is unclear which of several cancelled work orders it referred to, and the landlord does not appear to have investigated how or why this happened. There is also evidence of repairs ‘missing’ from the contractor’s system in April 2024 which is a record keeping failure.

Communication

26. The landlord should ensure it proactively communicates with residents concerning repairs, particularly when repairs are complex and/or delayed.