London Borough of Lambeth (202409283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409283

London Borough of Lambeth

25 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:

The resident’s report of water ingress into the property.
The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. She lives in a 1-bedroom flat.

3. The landlord used a contractor to complete repairs at the resident’s property. This contractor also used a sub-contractor. For the purposes of this report all will be referred to as the contractor.

4. On 22 November 2023 the resident reported water ingress from an external wall into the property causing severe damp inside. The landlord completed an inspection on 1 December 2023 and stated the issue was internal and therefore the resident’s responsibility.

5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 December 2023 as she was unhappy with how it was dealing with the issue. She confirmed the issue was due to an external wall as her living habits had not changed. She needed to understand the root cause of the water ingress so she could resolve the damage caused inside.

6. On 22 December 2023 the resident arranged for her own private damp survey. This confirmed clear signs of water ingress from outside, causing damp and mould damage inside, due to poor maintenance of the building. It highlighted brickwork and windows needed urgent attention to minimise future damage.

7. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2024 and said:

it apologised for the resident’s experience and assured her that the complaint was being taken seriously
it raised an inspection and provided information for the resident to place a liability claim with the landlord
it upheld the complaint in recognition of any inconvenience and discomfort caused to the resident

8. During January and February 2024, the landlord raised jobs for scaffolding, brickwork and windows. However, the resident continued to contact the landlord for updates during this period on how the work would progress and continued to contact the landlord for an update. On 16 February 2024 she made a further complaint, she contacted the landlord again on 28 March 2024. This was her escalation to stage 2.

9. On 7 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response and said:

it sincerely apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the repairs at the property
on 23 February 2024 its contractor marked the window job as complete
scaffolding was required, and the brickwork repair was attended to on 18 April 2024 but there was no access
it confirmed scaffolding had been rebooked for 30 May 2024

10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman following the landlord’s stage 2 response as she continued to experience delays. The case became one we could consider on 22 October 2024. During this time, she made another complaint as the window repairs were still incomplete.

11. The landlord acknowledged this on 23 October 2024 and responded on 13 November 2024. It said:

it was satisfied it had attempted to resolve the water ingress affecting the property
the contractor would contact the resident regarding new window installations
it noted there had been delays and upheld her complaint

12. The resident continued to contact the landlord for updates about the windows so requested escalation to stage 2 on 4 December 2024.

13. On 13 January 2025 the landlord responded and said:

it apologised for the delays, distress and frustration caused and appreciated the resident’s patience and understanding
its contractor completed an initial assessment of the windows in February 2024 and then raised that additional materials and follow on
the work required a Section 20 consultation which caused delays
once it received approval the contractor completed the window installations on 18 December 2024

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has told us that the landlord’s inaction and delays affected her physical and mental health. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can independently evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Water ingress into the property

15. The lease states the landlord is responsible for all structural parts of the property including the window frames.

16. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it operates 5 types of repairs with different timescales. These repair types are:

urgent emergency which it will attend to within 2 hours (fix within 24 hours)
emergency repairs which it will fix within 1 working day
routine repairs with a 7 day time for fixes
routine repairs with a 28 working day time frame
planned repairs which it will complete within 90 days

17. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it should consider applying a remedy when a service failure has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the resident. It says this includes unjustified delays and failure to follow its policies, rules, or procedures.

18. When the resident initially raised concerns about water ingress into her property on 22 November 2023, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection. It attended within its policy timeframes on 1 December 2023 when it found no issues with external walls. It noted the internal mould was the resident’s responsibility. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident. There has been no evidence provided which recorded the inspection, method used and reasoning for its decision, showing poor record keeping by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to undertake a more detailed check or arrange a specialist inspection given the seriousness of the report. This missed opportunity caused avoidable distress and delay for the resident and resulted in her having to make a complaint.

19. The resident was disappointed with this finding as she expressed how her living habits had not changed yet she was experiencing an increase of damp and mould on external walls. She said it had left her feeling unsafe and like no one was helping her. She sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 December 2023.

20. Whilst the resident awaited a response to her complaint, she arranged her own damp inspection. On 22 December 2023 the inspection report noted clear signs of water ingress due to poor maintenance of the building. It said window, ledges and frames were rotten which led to rainwater entering the building and saturating walls and woodwork. The report also suggested the landlord should check the brickwork and guttering. It stated the exterior of the property was in urgent need of repairs and was clearly the source of moisture ingress, which was causing damage to the exterior wall inside the property, as well as mould growth.

21. The resident shared the report with the landlord. Following this report the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to check brickwork and guttering on 10 January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to do so. However, it arranged a target date of 20 May 2024, given the urgency expressed in the report this timescale was unreasonable in the circumstances. It would have caused the resident further distress as the damage continued to the property due to water ingress when it rained.

22. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 19 January 2024. It was reasonable for it to apologise for the experience the resident had faced with the appearance of damp and mould in the property. To put things right, it was appropriate the landlord arranged a further inspection to take place on 23 January 2024. However, its response did not reference the damp inspection and confirm the steps it had already taken in raising the works order for the brickwork and guttering. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide further reassurance to the resident that it took her concerns seriously.

23. The evidence shows that the inspection completed on 23 January 2024 accepted the findings made in the residents own damp inspection. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise the following work orders:

scaffolding to investigate severe water ingress through brickwork and/or guttering, with target date of 3 June 2024
windows in property were rotten, letting moisture in and needed repair, with target date of 22 March 2024

24. However, the target dates of these jobs were not in line with policy. Specifically, the target date for the scaffolding to investigate the issue would have had an impact on any following remedial work to take place due to access. This added further delay in addressing the water ingress.

25. The resident made a further complaint on 16 February 2024. She said that the property was inhabitable due to the damp, so she had to move out. She told the landlord she was using industrial dehumidifiers which were helping but the problem worsened every time it rained. She wanted acknowledgement of her complaint, the landlord to claim under building insurance and ensure the insurers had a copy of her complaint.

26. When the resident did not hear from the landlord, she contacted it again on 28 March 2024. She said no works had been completed. She said the contractor had told her the windows needed replacing and scaffolding was still needed. She said the issue had left her property uninhabitable, and she was in “significant financial and physical stress”.

27. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 7 May 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the delay in the resolution of the repair issue. It gave an overview of the works orders confirming:

window works order was showing as complete
scaffolding booked for 18 April 2024 was rebooked for 30 May 2024 due to no access
the brickwork works order would follow

28. The landlord failed to offer any compensation to reflect the delay and time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the matters, which its policy allows.

29. The landlord stage 2 response was incorrect in relation to the window works being complete. From reviewing the evidence, it appears that the contractor confirmed a variation in the work to the windows from a repair to a replacement. This required cost approval, so the job showed as complete, but this was not the case. This incorrect information would have added further distress and frustration for the resident. The landlord failed to use its complaints process to make any comment on the outstanding issues or set out how it intended to put things right or monitor works. There was no clear action plan for it to follow to ensure the timely completion of the works raised. This was likely to cause frustration and inconvenience to the resident as the matter was unresolved, and she continued to live away from the property.

30. The contractor completed the scaffolding and brickwork on 27 June 2024. This was 1 month after the target date. This delay caused the resident further inconvenience as she continued to experience water ingress into the property whilst waiting for this work.

31. The resident had also raised concerns about the damage in her property and asked the landlord to handle it as an insurance claim in her stage 1 and 2 complaints. Whilst the landlord did include a link to its website regarding making a liability claim, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to offer further support when the resident re-raised this at stage 2. It could have done more to acknowledge the impact the delays in completing the required repairs caused, including the damage by mould. This would have reassured the resident its concerns were being taken seriously. The resident confirmed to this Service she did contact the insurance independently following her complaint but did not pursue a claim.

32. In the resident’s contact with the landlord, she was clear on the impact the situation had caused. Commenting on the distress, financial pressures and telling the landlord that she had made the decision to move out due to the mould. She told this Service how she felt the landlord expressed no understanding of the situation or acknowledgement about how it was affecting her. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s responses lacked empathy and understanding and further weakened the landlord and resident relationship.

33. The resident continued to experience delays and lack of communication from the landlord following the stage 2 complaint. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates from June 2024 until November 2024. During this time, she had also contacted this Service. Given the ongoing nature of the issue impacting the resident’s ability to live in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively provided updates to the residents on the steps it was taking to resolve the water ingress. This may have prevented the inconvenience for the resident in having to make a second complaint.

34. On 23 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged the residents second complaint which was about the continued delay in resolving the water ingress into the property.

35. In its response on 13 November 2024 the landlord:

outlined the jobs raised in relation to the water ingress issue
said the window repair job was completed, with a variation order to install new windows
confirmed it approved the work for the window replacements, and the contractor would contact the resident

36. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information and apologise for the delay, the response lacked any sincere acknowledgement of the impact this delay had had on the resident. This is because it did not refer to the impact it had on her specifically and was a generalised response to the delay. This was unreasonable and caused the resident to feel like the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and there would be further delays.

37. She requested escalation to stage 2 on 4 December 2024 due to lack of communication. She said she reported the initial repair in November 2023 and 1 year on, it was still unresolved. She had received inconsistent advice when phoning for updates.

38. In the landlord’s response on 13 January 2025 it confirmed:

the delay was due to a Section 20 consultation for the windows
the windows were completed on the 18 December 2024

39. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the delay. It apologised the service received did not meet usual standards and it upheld the complaint. While the landlord upheld the complaint in its final response and recognised there had been a delay, it failed to offer any compensation to reflect the delay and time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the matters, in line with its policy.

40. The evidence shows the delay in the window replacement was due to the contractor needing approval for the change from window repair to window replacement. While the Ombudsman accepts that repairs may be delayed when contractors require a variation of works and approval of cost, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed and provide regular updates on the progress of the repair.

41. The evidence shows the onus was put onto the resident to chase for these updates. When the landlord expects a repair to take an extended amount of time, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider temporary measures to reduce any further impact on the resident. Given that the resident had reported issues with damp and mould, because of the water ingress, the landlords damp charter says it will provide ongoing support. There was no evidence that the landlord provided any ongoing support or advice to reduce the mould she was experiencing, or kept the resident informed. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a significant period.

42. In summary, it was positive that the landlord recognised its delay in its responses, and apologised. The windows were replaced by the contractor on the 18 December 2024 which put things right for the resident to stop water ingress.

43. However, while it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays in its final responses, the complaints process did not progress the window repairs or ensure regular updates to the resident, and therefore its apology did not adequately ‘put things right’.

44. The landlord took 13 months to replace the windows, which were identified as the root cause of water ingress. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledged that there were mitigating factors, such as the Section 20 process, the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident updated throughout the delay. The landlord did not consider the impact of the delay on the resident, who had to experience the ongoing effects of water ingress into her property for a prolonged period. It failed to take into account the significant time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the matter, including repeat requests for information and updates. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to put matters right sooner, for example by arranging support which may have alleviated the resident’s situation. It did not offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, despite its own compensation policy allowing for such redress. Finally, there is no evidence that the landlord learned from the outcomes of its investigations as the lack of communication and poor service continued throughout the complaint process.

45. Therefore, taking these factors together we have found that the landlord’s service failures caused distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble for the resident over an extended period. We have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents to reports of water ingress into the property.

46. The landlord must pay the resident £750 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedy’s guidance, which provides awards of compensation where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, which the landlord did not adequately put right.

47. The resident told us there were related financial losses that she believes the landlord is responsible for including:

the mortgage she was paying but she was unable to live in the property due to the mould caused by water ingress
she had to remortgage, and the property was de-valued because of the property condition due to the damage caused by water ingress
there has been a long term effect on her mortgage product

48. We understand the resident’s view that the landlord’s actions or inaction caused this impact on her finances. However, there is no evidence to say these financial losses were the direct cause of the landlord’s failings. We do not consider it would be fair in all the circumstances to say the landlord should be responsible for these financial losses based on the evidence we have seen in this case. It is open to the landlord to provide details of its legal liability insurer to the resident for her to make a claim for any possible financial losses.

Complaint handling

49. The landlord’s complaint policy says:

at stage 1 it will provide a response to the resident within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint
at final stage, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint
if the landlord needs more time, at either stage, the resident should be contacted to explain why and when they can expect a response
if a resident is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint at stage 1, they have the right to have their complaint reviewed at final review
if any aspect of the complaint is unclear then it must ask the resident for clarification

50. The landlord’s compensation policy considers payments for time and trouble depending on the extent of inconvenience the complainant has experienced.

51. The resident raised her first formal complaint with the landlord on 19 December 2023, it responded on 19 January 2023. Whilst the acknowledgement confirms the date the resident would receive a response this was 21 working days after it received the complaint. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy, and there was no acknowledgment or apology for this delay in its response. This was not appropriate and would have caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience.

52. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repair on 16 February 2024. She stated she wanted this to be a formal complaint. The landlord did not escalate this to stage 2. The resident had to send a further complaint on 28 March 2024 which the landlord responded to on 7 May 2024. It was not appropriate for the landlord to not escalate this complaint to stage 2 or provide any response to the resident. This caused further distress and inconvenience as she had to continue to follow this up and it delayed the landlord’s investigation.

53. This led to a total of 56 days delay in its response causing further inconvenience for the resident. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain there would be a delay or to agree an extension. This was a failure to adhere to its published timeframe which caused a further delay in the resolution of the complaint.

54. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to recognise the delay in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. It therefore did not demonstrate any learning from the delays or put them right, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.

55. The resident raised her second formal complaint with the landlord on 17 October 2024. It acknowledged this, in line with policy on 23 October 2024. It responded on 13 November 2024, which was 16 days after the acknowledgement. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain there would be a delay or to agree an extension. This was a failure to adhere to its published timeframe which caused a further delay in the resolution of the complaint.

56. The resident requested escalation to her second complaint on 4 December 2024, the landlord sent a response on 13 January 2025. We have not seen evidence regarding the acknowledgement of the complaint, so we are unable to determine what timescales the landlord gave the resident about any Christmas closures.

57. Therefore, it is taken the response was provided 26 working days after the landlord received the complaint. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain there would be a delay or to agree an extension. This was a failure to adhere to its published timeframe which caused a further delay in the resolution of the complaint.

58. Given the above failings, the Ombudsman considers that there has been service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed handling of the complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which caused detriment to the resident, but which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for them.

Determination (decision)

59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress into the property.

60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

61. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
Pay £850 directly to the resident. This is:
1. £750 compensation in recognition of the continued failure by the landlord to follow its own policies which caused distress and inconvenience.
2. £100 compensation in recognition for the poor handling of the complaints.

62. It should provide evidence it has made the payment within 4 weeks of the date of this report.