London Borough of Lambeth (202404048)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404048

London Borough of Lambeth

24 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
    2. Repairs to the front steps of the resident’s property.
    3. The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to support his communication with the landlord and his concerns about the level of communication from the landlord.
    4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a council. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 April 2024. He said he was unable to read or write and the landlord insisted he communicate with it in writing. He said he was being harassed and had been receiving homophobic abuse from his neighbours for years. He said his housing officer had witnessed an attack and done nothing and he had not heard from them for years. He also said his wooden front doorsteps were rotting. We wrote to the landlord the same day asking it to respond to the resident by 21 May.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 reply to the resident on 3 July 2024. It said the resident had not reported any harassment or ASB for almost 5 years and had not contacted his housing officer for 10 years. It said they were happy to speak with him. It said he had a care package of 5 hours per week to support dealing with correspondence. It confirmed it made arrangements to replace the steps.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 October 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 November. It said the points escalated were the same as the resident’s initial complaint. It reiterated its stage 1 response and confirmed it had repaired the wooden steps.
  5. On 29 April 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman he was not being supported by his housing officer and the landlord was still telling him to communicate in writing. He said he wished to move out of the property due to harassment.
  6. On 16 September 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman he wanted harassment from his neighbours to stop and had informed the landlord of a conviction they received in February 2025. He said it had recently asked him to complete a diary regarding this despite him not being able to read or write. He said this was an example of it not making reasonable adjustments for him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman about new issues with the landlord. This included problems with damp and mould, issues with his electricity and water supply, water coming in from his ceiling and his boiler. This also included further concerns with his neighbour and that he was now unable to communicate with the landlord by telephone. The landlord confirmed in May 2025 it has limited the resident’s correspondence to writing only following its stage 2 response of 26 November 2024 due to “vexatious complaints”.
  2. The resident has confirmed he has raised these issues with the landlord, but there is no evidence it has provided a final complaint response to them. Once he has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process the resident can raise the issues with the Ombudsman. These points will not be assessed in this report.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will only investigate issues made within 12 months of a complaint.
  2. In his initial complaint of 29 April 2024, the resident said ASB had gone on for years and was homophobic towards him. He said his neighbours on either side were previously banging on his walls, throwing things and had previously assaulted him. He said his housing officer witnessed an attack but did nothing. However, the resident did not provide specific details for these incidents, such as dates.
  3. The landlord appropriately explained in its complaint response how the resident could report ASB or harassment to it. It provided an online link and phone number. This was appropriate to ensure the resident was clear on the process for reporting and to enable to landlord to investigate such issues. There is no further evidence of the resident reporting current ASB or harassment at this time.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response of 3 July 2024, it said the resident had not reported ASB or homophobic harassment for almost 5 years. This was inaccurate as the evidence shows the resident had reported neighbours banging on their walls and loud music on 27 July 2020 and 7 November 2022, where he also provided it with a crime reference number.
  5. Had the landlord recognised the more recent ASB reports it could have explained it would only be able to investigate issues within the last 12 months in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord should have explained this to the resident to ensure he understood its approach. Its failure to do so left the matter unresolved. However, there is no evidence this failure had impact on the resident, particularly as he did not report this again at this time.
  6. In summary the landlord inaccurately stated the resident had not reported ASB for almost 5 years. However, his reports were over 12 months old, which its complaints policy confirms it will not investigate. The landlord should have explained this. However, there is no evidence this failure impacted the resident and the landlord appropriately explained how he could report ASB or harassment to allow it to investigate.

Repairs to the front steps of the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms a service request is a request that improves a service or fixes a problem. It aims to resolve such issues to satisfaction before they become complaints. It repairs policy confirms it will complete routine repairs in 28 working days. The landlord offers an ‘annual property MOT’ under its enhanced service plus offer for vulnerable residents. It is unclear if it has offered this to the resident.
  2. The resident said in his initial complaint of 29 April 2024 his wooden front doorsteps were rotting.
  3. In its stage 1 reply of 3 July 2024 the landlord stated this was the first time the resident had raised the issue, which is reflected in the evidence. The issue therefore met the description of a service request in the complaints policy. However, the landlord’s treatment of the issue as a complaint was not unreasonable and ensured it was able to monitor the issue.
  4. The landlord appropriately confirmed in its stage 1 response it raised a work order to replace the stairs. It managed his expectations advising it aimed to complete this by 5 August 2024. It confirmed in its stage 2 reply of 26 November it had completed the repair and evidence shows it did this on 23 August. This was in line with the 28 working day timescale in its repairs policy. It also appropriately visited prior to its complaint response to also confirm the work was complete.
  5. In summary the landlord completed the repair to the resident’s wooden doorsteps in accordance with the timescale in its policy, as it stated it would in its complaint response.

The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to support his communication with the landlord and his concerns about the level of communication from the landlord

  1. The Equality Act 2010 defines reasonable adjustments at changes a service provider must make to remove or reduce disadvantages faced by disabled individuals. This is to ensure they can access opportunities as easily as non-disabled people. The landlord’s vulnerable tenant’s policy confirms it will make reasonable adjustments where possible.
  2. The resident said in his initial complaint of 29 April 2024 he was unable to communicate with the landlord as he could not read or write due to a disability. He also said his housing officer had not communicated with him “for years.” He asked for reasonable adjustments to be put into place to support his communication but did not specify what adjustments he wanted.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained the support the resident had in place at the time. This was 5 hours per week of which 2 hours was available to support any correspondence he received or wished to make. There is no evidence which disputes this or that the resident stated this was incorrect at the time.
  4. The landlord also said it had no evidence of the resident contacting the housing officer in 10 years. The evidence confirms this. It provided the housing officer’s name, phone number and email and confirmed he would be happy to speak with the resident. It also stated they called him on 26 June 2024 to offer support to him. In stating this the landlord confirmed it was not limiting the resident’s contact to written correspondence only. Evidence shows the resident called the landlord about various issues at this time.
  5. In summary the landlord confirmed the resident had at least two options to contact it through either his support network or by telephone. It provided these options to him and showed he had not raised issues with his housing officer.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will acknowledge all complaints in 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. It must agree an extension if it exceeds either timescale.
  2. This Service raised the resident’s initial complaint with the landlord on 29 April 2024, asking it to respond in 10 working days by 21 May 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint with the resident. Furthermore, it provided its stage 1 response on 3 July, exceeding the timescale in its policy by 35 working days.
  3. The resident raised his escalation on 22 October 2024 and the landlord replied on 26 November 2024. It exceeded the timescale in its policy by 5 working days. The landlord did not agree a revised timescale due to delay with either complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge any of these failures in either complaint response and offered no remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment
    2. Repairs to the front steps of the resident’s property.
    3. The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to be made to support his communication with the landlord and his concerns about the level of communication from the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 within 4 weeks of this report.