We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Lambeth (202345112)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345112

Lambeth Council

28 November 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of disrepair works, including damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement which began on 2 March 2017. The property in question is a 3-bed flat. The landlord said that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for anybody in the property.
  2. The resident raised a disrepair claim in November 2021 due to damp and mould at the property. The resident also said that there was a history of leaks from the bathroom into the living room. An inspection was carried out in March 2022 and it identified damp and mould issues along with other repairs that were required. Works orders for those repairs were raised by the landlord following its inspection.
  3. In January 2023, the resident raised further concerns that the damp and mould works had not been completed. Works orders linked to damp and mould were raised following this report. 
  4. On 11 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as the repairs that were agreed as part of the disrepair claim were yet to be completed. The resident expressed concerns around her family’s health due to the damp and mould in the property. On 11 July 2023, the landlord responded and said that it could not provide a response to the complaint due to an active disrepair case. Following the complaint submission, further works orders were raised to address damage caused by a leak from the bathroom into the living room.
  5. In March 2024, the resident reported that her living room ceiling had collapsed due to a leak. Further works orders were raised to address the damage. The resident contacted this Service following the ceiling collapse and the landlord was asked to provide a complaint response.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 23 May 2024 in which it upheld the complaint. The landlord said that there had been problems with the way the repairs had been recorded and this contributed to the delays. It detailed the works that remained outstanding and proposed dates for those works with a suggested completion date of 5 July 2024.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2024, as she was unhappy with the response provided by the landlord. She said that the repairs had been outstanding for a long time and there had been continued damp and mould. The landlord raised a series of works orders in June 2024 for repairs at a value totalling over £16,000 following a survey at the property.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 3 July 2024. It acknowledged that there had been issues with leaks, damp and mould for years. It said that works had incorrectly been reported as completed and that contractors had failed to complete the works set out in the disrepair claim but it could not explain why. The landlord said it was working to complete the outstanding repairs and would be in contact with the resident to arrange the works.
  9. It is evident that further works have been carried out since the stage 2 response but the landlord said it was unable to provide details on which had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within her complaint, the resident expressed concerns about similar issues dating back several years. In accordance with section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation would only include complaints brought to the attention of the landlord within 12 months of the matters arising. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that in this case, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint on 11 June 2023 in line with its internal complaint policy. In view of this failing, the landlord considers it reasonable for this investigation to cover the period from 11 June 2022 onwards. This was around the time that a schedule of works was put together following a disrepair claim (that did not go to court). Events prior to this may be referenced but this will be for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of disrepair works, including damp and mould

  1. There are several aspects to the case that have been considered when reviewing this complaint. The disrepair works were focused on leaks, damp and mould. For clarity, each element of this complaint has been detailed individually below.

Record Keeping

  1. It is evident that in both 2022 and 2024, the landlord visited the property and created lists of repairs of that were required to address what the March 2022 report described as “excessive damp” to multiple rooms. This Service made a request to the landlord for the dates that individual works had been completed. The landlord said that “completion dates for each individual job are never provided by contractors”. It said that “we would only have the completion date for all works”. The landlord did not provide any completion dates for the lists of works it referred to.
  2. When reviewing the works order records for repairs that were raised outside of those lists, the information was inconsistent. One of the more prevalent issues was the landlord having recorded works orders as being completed prior to the date that the works orders were raised. It is understandable that there could be rare occasions that this could happen, such as amending records for previously unplanned works, however, this happened on numerous occasions.
  3. Within the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report produced by this Service, we highlighted the need for accuracy in landlord records. The report said that the records should “tell the full story of what happened, when and why”. However, the works order records provided by the landlord in this case do not provide such clarity. 
  4. As the information provided by the landlord could not be verified, it called into question its accuracy. Given the questions around the accuracy of this information, the Ombudsman was prevented from establishing an accurate reflection of what had happened for each repair. This is a significant service failing in the landlord’s record keeping as the information contained in the records cannot be relied upon.
  5. This Service conducted an inspection of this landlord in October 2023 and produced a report outlining its findings in January 2024. That report highlighted similar issues around the recording of completed works. The landlord accepted these findings and the need for it to “review its process for recording completed repairs”. In view of this, no similar orders will be made in this report.

Disrepair Works

  1. The resident said that after the disrepair works were agreed in 2022, the landlord did not carry out any repairs at the property until after the ceiling collapse in March 2024. This landlord did not dispute this within its complaint responses. As its ‘disrepair’ list from June 2024 includes many of the same works that were identified as being required in 2022, it is highly likely this is correct.  
  2. The landlord missed several opportunities to address these significant delays following contact from the resident. The most notable example of such a missed opportunity was when the landlord refused to address the resident’s complaint in June 2023. When it responded, it said the repairs were being managed as a disrepair case and the resident’s concerns would be passed to the disrepair manager. Despite this assurance, no repairs were completed following the landlord’s response. This is service failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. It is evident that the resident chased the landlord on several occasions during 2023 and prior to the ceiling collapse in March 2024. Despite acknowledging the resident’s correspondence, the landlord failed to act on those requests, leading to further significant delays.
  4. Following the complaint process in 2024, the landlord did conduct additional visits to the property and raised further works orders for the outstanding repairs. The resident confirmed that in October 2024 the landlord attended the property and completed several repairs. However, neither the resident nor this Service have been made aware of which works remain outstanding. Given the range of works that were listed in 2024, the landlord should have provided the resident with a schedule of works along with timeframes for those works to be completed.

Damp and Mould

  1. The resident reported concerns around damp and mould in 2022 and raised further concerns in January 2023 and in March 2024. The landlord’s damp policy says that it will “arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days or sooner”. Following the inspection, it says the landlord will “agree and write an action plan with you to resolve the damp that will include timeframes”.
  2. Despite requests from this Service, the landlord has not provided any evidence of inspections being carried out in 2023 or 2024. This demonstrates a failure to carry out the action detailed in its policy, and to meet the timeframes set out in it.
  3. As part of the disrepair claim in 2022, a specialist survey was completed on 25 March 2022. The report identified significant issues with damp and mould throughout the property. It said the living room ceiling showed “excessive dampness” and one of the bedrooms had mould growth and “active condensation taking place despite it being a warm day”. It found “excessive dampness in bathroom walls” with “saturated plaster” and a “defective extractor fan duct” and a “defective extractor”. It also highlighted that the tiling was loose and the bath sealant was “poor”. 
  4. The landlord issued a list of works to a contractor on 11 April 2022 which contained several corrective and treatment works linked to damp and mould. As detailed above, the landlord has not provided any evidence of these works being completed. As most of those works were then included on a further list in June 2024, this demonstrates that the works had either not been completed previously, or they were not done to a lasting standard.
  5. The landlord’s failure to carry out the required repairs left the resident living in damp conditions, which likely contributed to further damage to the property and caused her continued concerns around her family’s health. Given the nature of the findings in its report from March 2022, this is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord.

Ceiling collapse

  1. In line with its repair policy, the landlord should be attending a leak within 1 working day. The resident said that she reported the leak on 1 March 2024. The landlord provided a works order which refers to this leak. This indicates it was reported on 2 March 2024 but the record shows that it was raised on 3 March 2024.
  2. The resident provided photographs of the ceiling that were taken on 6 March 2024 following the initial collapse. These show a large hole in the ceiling surrounded by water stains. On 7 March 2024, the ceiling collapsed further. The resident provided photographs of the additional damage which show a significant portion of the ceiling had collapsed into the living room. 
  3. Due to the inconsistencies with the record keeping around this repair, there is no clear indication of how the landlord addressed the ceiling collapse. There are notes on some works orders but the dates and notes are inconsistent with other information provided by both the resident and landlord.
  4. Within the stage 1 response provided by the landlord on 23 May 2024, it acknowledged that the ceiling repairs remained outstanding. It said that an appointment had been arranged with its contractor for 17 June 2024. The resident reported that the hole in her ceiling remained the same until around June/July 2024. She advised that the landlord installed a temporary cover around this period. The resident said that the ceiling was eventually replaced and decorated by the landlord in October 2024.
  5. Given that the ceiling had collapsed on 7 March 2024, the time taken by the landlord to carry out a temporary repair was unreasonable. The landlord’s repair policy says that a ceiling repair should be done within 28 days. However, in this instance, it took over 7 months. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord which left the resident living with an unsightly hole in her ceiling, affecting the quiet enjoyment of her home.
  6. The landlord’s records show a clear history of leaks from the resident’s bathroom into her living room and that she reported a similar leak every year from 2017. Notes from those works indicate that blown tiles, pipework and the seal around the bath were identified as causes of leaks during that time.
  7. The landlord’s records show that in 2021, repair works linked to a leak were scheduled prior to the disrepair claim being made. Despite these repairs being raised, the inspection 7 months later found that they had not been completed. The same repairs were also included in the list of works orders raised in June 2024.
  8. The landlord’s records do not show that it carried out works to resolve what it had identified as the sources of leaks between the bathroom and living room. If it did carry out any such works, they could not be considered lasting repairs as the leaks continued to be an issue. It is highly likely that this continued failure to provide lasting repairs, allowing continued water damage between the rooms, contributed to the ceiling collapse in March 2024.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord failed to carry out disrepair works, address recurring leaks or take action to address significant issues with damp and mould. The landlord provided several reasons for the delays, although it has acknowledged that the exact reason cannot be established from the information provided. Based on evidence seen, it is the view of the Ombudsman that there were significant record keeping and procedural failings with the landlord’s management of the required repairs.
  2. Had the landlord provided more comprehensive oversight of the required repairs, along with an adherence to the damp and mould policy, these problems could have been addressed sooner. Instead, the resident was left having to chase the landlord to have those works completed, while living with significant damp and mould and recurring leaks which likely contributed to the eventual ceiling collapse in March 2024. During this time, the resident raised continued concerns for her family’s health due to the damp and mould and expressed frustration about the management of her concerns.
  3. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord proposed a compensation payment of £250 due to the issues she experienced. It is the view of the Ombudsman that given the excessive delays, service failings and the significant impact on the resident, this is not proportionate or in keeping with its compensation guidelines. Having considered these failings and the overall management of repairs, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration.  

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord incorrectly refused to deal with the resident’s complaint from June 2023. It said that as there was an active disrepair case, its internal complaint process would not be followed. However, its policy does not specify that a disrepair case would make a complaint exempt from its internal process. As there were no ongoing legal proceedings, the complaint should have been managed in line with the standard complaint process. This service failing meant that the resident was initially denied access to the complaint process and this delayed her access to an independent review of her complaint.
  2. It is evident that when the landlord did address the stage 1 complaint in May 2024, it acknowledged the significant delays and how these had added to them. The landlord made a reasonable proposal to have the outstanding works scheduled and completed by 5 July 2024.
  3. Despite its acknowledgement of the delays, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of those works, as the majority remained outstanding until October 2024. Given that it had identified and acknowledged the previous significant delays in carrying out those works, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take over 3 months to begin those works. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. The landlord also failed to provide a stage 2 response in line with its complaint policy. It should have given its response within 20 working days, however, it took 26 working days to provide it. Although delays are understandable, it would be reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware of the delay, appropriately acknowledge this and propose a new timeframe for its response.
  5. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted there had been delays but failed to acknowledge the significant nature of them and said it could not provide an explanation for them. Given that it had been over 2 years since the disrepair claim, its explanation demonstrates a lack of investigation and understanding of its failings. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord failed in its obligation to provide a response to the resident’s complaint in June 2023. Had it done so, it is likely that the repairs that were the basis of the complaint would have been completed sooner. This would have reduced the time the resident was left living in damp conditions and could have also prevented the ceiling collapse in March 2024.
  7. Although the landlord did eventually deal with the complaint, this was due to involvement from this Service. Having dealt with the complaint, the landlord has failed to demonstrate an urgency to complete the delayed repairs as these were still outstanding as of the start of this investigation. Having considered the failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of disrepair works, including damp and mould. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 42 days of this report, the chief executive of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered. 
  2. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £3,250 to the resident (including the £250 it awarded through the complaints process), made up of:
    1. £3,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of disrepair works, including damp and mould; and
    2. £250 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. Within 42 days of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Complete a damp and mould survey and a post-inspection check following the recent works.
    2. Complete a risk assessment to assess any health and safety hazards to the resident and her family, including consideration of whether temporary accommodation is required.
    3. Produce a full report detailing its findings, including a diagnosis of whether all leaks and possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired and that all remedial works have been completed to a good standard. If any further repairs are required, it should put in place a detailed schedule of works with timescales for completion of individual repairs.
  4. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident within 14 days of the inspection, along with details of any timescales for any works that it finds to be outstanding and a single point of contact who will offer regular updates to her during any proposed works.
  5. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.