London Borough of Lambeth (202403435)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a converted house. The resident lives with her 2 children, 1 of whom has disabilities. During repairs to the property, the resident said the landlord’s operatives blocked her drains by pouring waste materials into them. The resident raised a complaint about the lack of action taken to resolve the matter and the overall time taken to complete works that were outstanding for over a year.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Blocked drains.
   2. Outstanding works to the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains.
5. We found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding works to the property.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the works to repair the blocked drain. It then missed an opportunity to resolve the issue using the complaint process.
   2. The landlord failed to provide adequate communication or oversight for outstanding works at the property, meaning they remained incomplete for a further 8 months during the complaint period we have considered.
   3. The landlord failed to keep accurate records. It managed the outstanding repairs outside of the normal repair process as it incorrectly believed they were part of an active disrepair case.
   4. The landlord did not meet any of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and failed to use the process 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.

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.

8. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should attend routine repairs within 7 days.
9. The resident first reported the blocked external drain on 13 March 2024. The landlord recorded the works order as completed on 19 March 2024. However, the resident said within her stage 1 complaint on 26 March 2024 that nobody had contacted her to arrange the works and they remained outstanding. The landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of this repair and its record keeping was not accurate.
10. The landlord raised a further works order to unblock an external drain on 3 April 2024. It recorded the works as completed on 5 April 2024 and added notes on 11 April 2024 to indicate that debris had caused the blockage. Given that the resident first requested this repair on 13 March 2024, the landlord failed to complete it within the timeframe set out in its repair policy.
11. The landlord raised a separate works order on 3 April 2024 to unblock waste pipes which were causing boiler issues. Records show this works order completed on 4 April 2024 but notes from 12 April 2024 showed it as a ‘no access’. This is a further example of inconsistent record keeping by the landlord.
12. The landlord failed to provide evidence that it agreed an appointment with the resident for 12 April 2024 nor that it could not gain access on the day. Landlords should maintain such records to provide a clear audit trail.
13. The landlord’s 24 April 2024 stage 1 response said the resident would need to request the works again. However, given that it formed part of the complaint and its records were incomplete, it would have been good practice for the landlord to pro-actively arrange a new appointment with the resident.
14. There is no evidence of any further works orders relating to this repair, or any requests from the resident relating to it. We would usually make an order for the landlord to take action to ensure there was no longer an issue. However, given the length of time since the blocked drain issue was considered through the complaints process, we assume this has been resolved. Also, the landlord is due to attend the property and agree a plan to address outstanding repairs as part of an order from a recent investigation we completed (under case reference 202205619). In view of this, we will not make an order for a drain repair in this instance.
15. Having considered the landlord’s handling of the blocked drains, we make a finding of service failure and order £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by chasing the drain repair in early 2024.

16. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to outstanding works at the property which the landlord identified as part of a survey in November 2022. A separate Ombudsman investigation (under case reference 202205619) reviewed the period up to January 2024. We determined that case on 29 October 2025. This investigation will consider the events from January 2024 until the end of the complaint process in August 2024. We have not assessed the landlord’s actions after this point because it has not had opportunity to put them right through the complaints process. The resident may wish to log new complaints about those events, if she has not already done so.
17. There was limited information available to us for this part of the investigation. Despite our request, the landlord did not provide any records or notes relating to the relevant repairs. Throughout the complaint period, the landlord said these repairs formed part of an active disrepair case. However, it later acknowledged that there was no disrepair case. This indicates poor internal knowledge and information management by the landlord.
18. The resident reported that, between February 2024 and May 2024, operatives attended on several occasions but failed on others. The resident said that the landlord’s staff did not know about the works or appointments and operatives:
    1. Were unaware of the scope of the required works.
    2. Completed poor quality work, which led to them having to start again.
    3. Were confrontational when questioned about the quality of the work.
    4. Arrived with unsuitable materials for the required work.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not dispute the resident’s claims of poor communication and workmanship for the outstanding repairs. It acknowledged these failings but refused to provide further explanation based on its incorrect view that the works formed part of an active disrepair case. Regardless of the reason for the repairs, the landlord should fully respond to complaints about its handling of works. An active disrepair case would not prevent the landlord from commenting on such concerns.
20. Throughout the complaint period, there was a lack of adequate oversight of the repair works that, as of January 2024, were already over a year late. There is no evidence of the landlord providing any clear schedule of works despite the resident’s requests. This demonstrates poor communication and co-ordination of repairs.
21. Within its August 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord said that access issues caused delays in carrying out the required works. Despite this claim, it provided no evidence to show that it had attempted to provide reasonable notice and arrange the works with the resident. If refusal of access was a problem, the landlord could have considered options available to it to ensure access given the range of significant works that it knew were outstanding since November 2022. This lack of engagement has added to the excessive and unreasonable delays in completing the required works
22. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or offer any redress for them. In view of these failings, we make a finding of maladministration in its handling of the outstanding works and have awarded £600 compensation for the adverse impact caused to the resident between January and August 2024.
23. As our recent determination of case 202205619 ordered that the landlord provide a schedule of works, we have not repeated a similar order in this case.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy says that if the landlord will not provide a response in the correct timeframe, it should contact the resident and inform them of any extension. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The landlord did not provide an acknowledgement at either stage of the complaint process, and its responses were both late. The stage 1 response took 21 working days, and the stage 2 response took 45 working days. In neither instance did the landlord set the resident’s expectations around the delays or explain them. This meant that it failed to meet any of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.
26. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord did not demonstrate a desire to ‘put things right’ in line with the Code. It did not propose any action to progress the outstanding issues referenced within the complaint. At both stages, the landlord blamed no access for the works in question and asked that the resident contact somebody to progress the matter.
27. Ultimately, the resident was no better off for having raised the complaint with the landlord. Across both stages, the landlord’s investigations were limited, it did not propose any resolution (beyond asking the resident to contact it again) and offered no form of redress despite the delays in its responses and the failure to progress the related repairs. In view of this, we make a finding of service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint and have awarded £100 compensation for the adverse impact caused to her.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. We identified poor internal knowledge and information management, leading to a lack of oversight of required works and the landlord incorrectly dealing with those repairs as an active disrepair case. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to highlight and effectively manage complex repair cases and whether they are linked to an active disrepair case.

Communication

29. This investigation found poor communication with the resident as the landlord failed to provide the resident with a schedule of agreed works or effectively communicate or manage its repair appointments. It should ensure that its staff can give reasonable notice to residents of scheduled repairs.