London Borough of Lambeth (202405216)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed maisonette. She is vulnerable due to mental health issues. Her son, who is her carer, has helped her in managing works at her property and bringing this complaint. For ease of reference, we will be referring to her son’s actions as the resident’s actions throughout this report. The landlord identified in July 2023 that the property was in poor condition, and the kitchen and bathroom needed renewal. The resident has made a complaint about delays in starting the works.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled works to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find there has been:
   1. Severe maladministration in how the landlord handled works to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed the works for a significant length of time. It acknowledged the delay, but then continued the same failings. The works were still outstanding more than a year after the stage 2 response, showing it also failed to learn from the complaint. It has not shown that it handled the works reasonably or competently, and has shown little to no consideration for the resident’s vulnerability. The £50 compensation offered is insufficient for the impact its significant failings had on the resident.
6. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint in line with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. The stage 1 response, acknowledgement of the escalation request and stage 2 response were all delayed. Its stage 1 response was not compliant with the Code, and both responses show a lack of reasonable investigation into 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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we have not considered

7. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The resident has raised concerns about not being offered a temporary move, a lack of provisions for her once the works started, the landlord deciding not to remove the old radiator from the living room when completing works, and it not completing a stairway renewal. None of these concerns were part of the resident’s original complaint so we cannot consider them as part of this investigation. The resident would need to make a new complaint to the landlord about any further concerns before we could investigate them.

Assessment

8. The landlord identified that extensive works were needed to the kitchen and bathroom on or around 10 July 2023. Under its repairs policy, it had a maximum of 90 days to complete the works.
9. The landlord’s records show it raised a works order at that time. But it did not include any works for the bathroom and kitchen renewal. Its repair records say it was agreed by email that a different contractor would deal with the renewal. The landlord has provided no copies of any such emails, and any contact with another contractor is missing from its repair records. The resident said works were due to start in October 2023, then were rescheduled for November 2023, but the contractors failed to attend. This is also absent from the landlord’s repair records. This indicates poor record keeping as well as poor handling of repairs.
10. Based on the landlord’s records, it took no further action until after the resident made a complaint. Following the complaint, it contacted the incorrect contractor for an update on 14 December 2023 (despite its records confirming that contractor would not be completing the works), and received no response. It then took no further action until around 6 months later, after the resident escalated her complaint due to a lack of progress or updates.
11. It should not be necessary for a vulnerable resident to make a complaint before the landlord takes any action. Its inaction was inappropriate, and demonstrates a lack of concern for vulnerable residents.
12. The landlord arranged a further inspection on 13 June 2024. The surveyor identified that no works had been done, and raised a new works order for the renewal. It told the resident in its complaint response that its contractors would attend on 18 August 2024. But its contractors did not attend until around April 2025, and did not start the works until October 2025.
13. The evidence shows the landlord initially failed to move the works over to its new contractor following a change of contractors on 1 August 2024. But once it identified this (after the resident chased a response), the landlord did nothing until around April 2025, when the resident says its contractors attended, did some preparation work by removing flooring, and then failed to start any works. The works did not start until October 2025. This was more than 2 years after the landlord identified that both rooms needed extensive works and a year after the stage 2 response, demonstrating that the landlord also failed to learn from the complaint.
14. The landlord said the delay was caused by a change in contractors in August 2024. It is the landlord’s responsibility, when changing contractors, to ensure it has processes in place to prevent delayed works or missed appointments. So a change of contractors would not justify delays in repairs. And in this case there were already delays for more than a year before the change of contractor.
15. The evidence shows the landlord repeatedly failed to handle the repairs reasonably or competently. As of April 2025 (the first time any contractors attended to start any works), the resident had been waiting 1 year and 9 months for the works to start. This was despite the landlord being aware the resident was vulnerable, and its housing team determining that the property was in such poor condition a permanent decant would be needed. It also failed to communicate appropriately with the resident throughout that time, meaning she had to chase the landlord for action or updates. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration.
16. As the landlord has now completed the works, the only outstanding matter is whether the £50 compensation offered is sufficient to put things right. It is not. The significant delays and the impact this had on a vulnerable resident mean the sum offered is wholly insufficient.
17. To put things right, the landlord must issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. It must also pay the resident £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its serious and significant failings caused her up to April 2025 (when its contractors first attended). This is in line with our published remedies guidance for serious failings which have accumulated over a significant period of time, and where a landlord demonstrates a failure to provide a service, put things right, or learn from outcomes.

18. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy from the time of this complaint does not align with the Code. But it has since updated its complaints policy.
19. The landlord has not provided a copy of its stage 1 acknowledgement, so it is unclear if it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in line with the Code. But its complaint responses were delayed at both stages, and neither of the responses demonstrate any real investigation into the complaint, or the impact on the resident. Its stage 1 response did not comply with the Code, as it failed to advise the resident of their right to contact the Ombudsman at any time. Based on these failings, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
20. The landlord has made a number of changes to its complaint handling processes following our intervention on other complaints. As its processes have changed since the complaint responses in this case, we will not order a further review of its complaint handling. But it must issue a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failings. It must also pay £50 for time and trouble. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings of a short duration which do not affect the overall outcome.

Learning

Repairs

21. The landlord should have better oversight of its repairs. It should ensure it has adequate systems in place to prevent missed appointments or delays due to a change of contractor. Had the landlord used its systems effectively to monitor the progress of repairs, it could have completed them within a reasonable time and prevented this complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. This exacerbated its failings related to the repairs, and has hampered this investigation. It should ensure that all records are kept in a centralised system rather than relying heavily on internal emails.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout, which exacerbated its other failings. It should ensure it regularly provides meaningful updates to its residents during ongoing repairs.