London Borough of Lambeth (202413387)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413387

Lambeth Council

17 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about water ingress, damp and mould.
2. Reports about drain blockages and repairs in her bathrooms.
3. Request for a renewal of the doors and windows in the property.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 5-bedroom terraced house.
The resident has osteoarthritis and sacroiliac disorder. The landlord’s records note that it considers the resident as ‘vulnerable’ and that she has 4 vulnerable children living in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2024 to report both of her toilets were blocked, as well as her sink. The landlord attended the following day and unblocked these. She contacted the landlord on 27 March 2024, asking it to send a surveyor to inspect her property. She said that she had several leaks ongoing throughout the property, black mould on her walls and rotting windows. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate further action until 5 June 2024 when it raised a job to renew sealant around the bathtub (which was done in July 2024).
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 July 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports about the damp and mould, her request for windows and doors to be replaced and the blockages in her property. She said that the landlord had attended to perform inspections but she received no further communication about what actions it would take. She commissioned her own property survey at this time.
The landlord undertook several jobs following the resident’s complaint, including an initial repair to the guttering on 16 September 2024. It also replaced a bathroom extractor fan and a sink although it is unclear the exact dates it undertook these repairs and any related inspections.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 September 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays in completing repairs. The landlord attributed the delays to a change of contractor and said it was in the process of rescheduling all outstanding jobs. The resident responded on the same day, requesting the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy that the landlord did not inform her about its change of contractors and also said that the listed works from its stage 1 complaint response were incorrect. In particular, she disagreed with the landlord’s mould wash job for the back bedroom as she felt the wall required further invasive works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 October 2024. It again apologised for the repairs delays. The landlord said its contractors had completed the gutter repair (which was causing water ingress) on 24 October 2024 and it would raise a new repair to renew the downpipe and do re-pointing. It also listed all of the outstanding works, several of which it was due to complete, or address, between 5 November 2024 and 9 December 2024 (sealant, tiling and bedroom wall plaster) and some of which it would contact her about (extractor fan and back door renewal).
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 26 November 2024 asking us to consider her complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said this had not made mention of the bedroom mould issue or when it would replace windows and external doors. The resident said she wanted all works completed, including renewed windows and doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident stated that she reported repairs to the landlord since 2020. The evidence suggests there was a break in reports made by her between early/mid 2023 and early/mid 2024. She raised a complaint in July 2024. Our investigation has therefore focused on matters reported by the resident from March 2024 albeit we are aware of a kitchen pipework leak and sink and toilet blockages in the first half of 2023.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales for completing repairs. It says it will attend to urgent emergency repairs to make safe within 2 hours and complete these within 24 hours. For other emergency repairs, it will complete these within 1 working day. For routine repairs, depending on the type of job, it will complete these within 3 working days, 7 working days or 28 working days. For any larger planned works, it will complete these within 90 days.

Water ingress, damp, and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will perform an inspection within 28 days to determine the cause of damp and mould. It says that, following the diagnosis, it will agree an action plan with residents. It also notes it will consider if it is appropriate to move residents out of the property whilst the damp and mould is ongoing.
Despite the vulnerabilities of the resident and her children, the landlord failed to consider if it would have been appropriate to move them out of the property on a temporary basis whilst leaks, damp and mould were ongoing. There is no evidence the landlord undertook any form of health and safety assessment as part of its response to the resident’s reports. The landlord’s records highlight that it was aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident and her children. It did not act appropriately given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s records do not contain records of all of its repairs and actions. The resident mentioned several inspections on dates when the landlord has no records. For instance, she noted the landlord’s roofer attended on 24 April 2024 and that it inspected the inside of the property on 5 June 2024. However, the landlord has provided no records of this.
The landlord also appears to have undertaken works that there are no records of. This is demonstrated by it re-raising several works on 12 September 2024 which it had already completed. This error was likely the result of the landlord’s failure to accurately record all of its appointments and inspections. This caused additional delays in completing repairs and contributed to further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s policy says that it will undertake a diagnosis of damp and mould and provide the resident with an action plan. The landlord has not done so. Whilst there was a survey in July 2024, this was undertaken by the resident and not the landlord. The landlord does not appear to have discussed the findings of this survey with the resident or taken any actions following receipt. Given this survey outlined several works necessary to combat damp and mould, the landlord should have taken more action upon receiving this or at the very least undertaken its own formal inspection.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to undertake its own full survey of the damp and mould and provide the resident with a schedule of works. Whilst the landlord did undertake works, its approach to these appear to have been piecemeal and without an overall plan for eradicating the damp and mould. This likely contributed to the length of time the repairs took which were outside of the timescales specified in the repairs policy. The landlord’s lack of a formal diagnosis and action plan represented service failure.
The landlord told the resident in its complaint responses that delays were due to a change in its contractors. Whilst this could have caused minor unavoidable delay, it remains the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there is a smooth handover between contractors and that residents do not experience inconvenience or unnecessary delays because of this.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to deal with repairs within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. In this instance, the resident first reported water ingress to the property on 27 March 2024. The landlord did not complete any form of repair on the gutters (which were a cause of the leak) until 16 September 2024 – this was almost 6 months later. It was not until 24 October 2024 that the landlord recorded completion of the repair.
This did not fully resolve the matter as the landlord told the resident in its October 2024 stage 2 complaint response that it would need to follow up to repair the downpipe and pointing. The timescale of 6 months to begin the gutter repair was unreasonable given the resident had informed it of the impact on her living conditions and the household vulnerabilities.
The landlord attended on 17 December 2024 to begin its follow-up repairs to replace the downpipe. On this date, it determined it had already completed the downpipe repair. The landlord’s complaint response mentioned a repair appointment on 24 October 2024 but there is no information about works undertaken on this date. It is therefore unclear when the landlord actually completed this repair. There is also no evidence provided by the landlord about pointing repairs. The landlord’s inability to show when it followed up on these repairs, or provide evidence it actually completed them, again represented service failure.
The landlord and resident disagreed, following its stage 1 complaint response, about the works it said it had raised. In particular, the resident was unhappy that the landlord planned a mould wash to one of the bedrooms affected by damp and mould. She felt that this was insufficient as the wall needed to be cut out and the internal cavity treated.
It is unclear how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and if it inspected the bedroom to determine the necessary works. The dispute and lack of a clear resolution again stems from the landlord’s failure to do a full damp and mould survey and assemble a full action plan as it said it would in its policy.
The landlord’s records indicate that it performed follow-up internal works to a bedroom and bathroom in January 2025. These were to make good the affected areas. Given the lack of any survey to determine the full extent of required works, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if this resolved the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress, damp and mould. It failed to fulfil the steps it said it would within its policies. These included considering alternative accommodation for the vulnerable residents, diagnosing the causes of damp and mould, and providing the resident with an action plan. It did complete guttering repairs (which was apparently a cause of water ingress) but its timescale for doing so fell significantly outside of the timescales in its policies. The landlord’s lack of a full survey also makes it unclear to the Ombudsman if it considers it has resolved the fundamental causes and impact of the damp and mould.
For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £700 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there have been failings which had a significant affect on a resident. The landlord should also undertake a full damp and mould survey of the resident’s property and, as per its policy, provide the resident with a full action plan for any works that this recommends.

Blockages and repairs in her bathrooms

The resident first raised a repair job relating to blockages in her bathrooms on 1 March 2024, which the landlord attended to on 2 March 2024. Its records from this visit say that it cleared the blockages. The landlord’s actions were in line with the timescales specified in its repairs policy.
When she raised her complaint on 1 July 2024, the resident mentioned several problems, including that her downstairs bathroom was constantly leaking due to the overflow in the sink being defective. She also mentioned that the toilet, sink and shower were continuously blocked.
The landlord raised works on 13 September 2024, which it completed on 17 September 2024. It completed the necessary repairs and replaced the sink, leaving this leak free. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence if this was a follow-up from the resident’s complaint or if she had reported a new fault. Regardless, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s reports when she raised the complaint. The landlord delayed by more than 2 months in raising the repairs.
The landlord also completed works to renew the bathroom basin tap pipework and splash back. It raised a job for this on 12 September 2024 and attended on 23 September 2024. When it attended, it found that its contractors had already completed these works some time prior. The landlord had no record of such an appointment. The landlord’s lack of knowledge about the repair demonstrated a clear failing to properly oversee the necessary works.
Whilst there is evidence that the landlord attended to the resident’s reports about her sink, it has failed to demonstrate that it ever followed up on the July 2024 complaint about her toilet and shower blockages. The resident’s reports suggest that there may have been a wider issue affecting the drainage system. The landlord however has failed to demonstrate that it undertook any investigation or repairs attempts.
The landlord’s lack of records mean it is unclear to the Ombudsman if the repairs it undertook did in fact resolve all of the drainage issues the resident was experiencing, or if it failed to properly follow up on these. We are unable to say that it properly investigated the causes of the alleged blocked drains or that it took actions to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests figures in this range where there has been a failing from the landlord which had an ‘adverse affect’ on the resident.

Request for a renewal of the doors and windows

The landlord has an Asset Management Strategy that sets out how it deals with planned maintenance programmes. This does not feature timescales on how often it replaces windows or doors. As part of this policy, the landlord discusses its capital investment programme which it says it will use to replace or upgrade ‘the elements of a home that have been identified as approaching or having reached the end of their useful life’.
When the resident first requested the landlord’s surveyor attend on 27 March 2024, she told it that it needed to investigate all of the windows in the property as she believed these needed replacing and some were rotten. The resident reported this again when she raised her complaint on 1 July 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence that it inspected the resident’s windows or communicated with her about her renewal requests.
Considering the resident’s reports about damp and mould, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to undertake a formal survey of the windows to determine if they required repair or renewal. This survey should consider, as per the landlord’s policy, if the windows are approaching, or have reached, the ‘end of their useful life’. Given the household vulnerability, the landlord should have done more to assess the resident’s requests. This was a service failing.
As part of its complaint responses (and in its later communications), the landlord said that it would renew the resident’s front doors, the lounge French doors, and the back door. It failed however to give any indication of the timescales for these. In its submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord said the renewals to the front door and French doors remain outstanding.
The resident told the landlord doors were not fit for purpose at least as early as July 2024. There is little evidence related to this until 16 January 2025 when it measured the back door for renewal – this was almost 3 months after the final complaint response when the landlord promised to measure up and quote. The evidence suggests it arranged an appointment for the renewal of the front door in February 2025 but was unable to gain access. There was a further appointment for the renewal of the French doors in April 2025 but the landlord’s records show this is incomplete.
There was a significant delay for the landlord to respond to the resident’s requests for new doors and windows. It acted well outside of the timescales for planned works set out in its repairs policy (90 days). The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it undertook inspections to establish the urgency of the works, or that it communicated with the resident about how long the renewal process would take.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a renewal of her doors and windows. It failed to promptly inspect and there were delays in its assessment of the windows and in progressing door renewal works.
For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failure from the landlord which ‘adversely affected the resident’.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will again acknowledge within 5 working days and then provide its complaint response within a further 20 working days. The landlord also states that there are times when it may require extensions to these timescales, and it will inform residents of this if necessary.
At stage 1, the landlord failed to provide its response within the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2024 and provided its stage 1 response almost 3 months later – on 24 September 2024. This was a service failing by the landlord.
There was a minor delay at stage 2 as the landlord received the resident’s escalation request on 24 September 2024 and provided its stage 2 complaint response 26 working days later – on 30 October 2024.
At both stages, the landlord failed to inform the resident of its delays or of its need for an extension. As part of its complaints process, the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord keep a resident properly informed about any delays and the reasons for such delays.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It failed to provide its responses in the timescales specified within its complaints policy and did not keep the resident informed.
For the time and trouble this caused the resident, the landlord should pay her £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there was a failure by the landlord which ‘adversely affected the resident’.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about drain blockages and repairs in her bathrooms.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a renewal of the doors and windows in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
1. Pays the resident a total of £1,150 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling her reports about water ingress, damp and mould.
  2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its failures in handling her reports about drain blockages and repairs in her bathrooms.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling her request for a renewal of the doors and windows in the property.
  4. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its failures in handling her associated complaint.
2. Writes to the resident to:
  1. Apologise to her for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Check if she is still experiencing drainage problems in the property and offer to inspect within the timescales set out in its repairs policy if so.
  3. Provide an update on the outstanding door renewals. It should confirm all of the doors it will be renewing, and the timescales for completion.
3. Arranges a new damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should write to the resident to provide a copy of the survey inspection report, as well as an action plan for completing any external or internal repairs recommended. The landlord should provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman.
4. Arranges an inspection of the windows in the property to consider if it should renew these. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should write to the resident outlining its findings plus an action plan for completing any repairs or renewals recommended. The landlord should provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.