London Borough of Lambeth (202414586)

Background

1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom terraced house. She has told us she has asthma and mental health issues. Her complaint relates to repair issues that are ongoing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not take timely and effective actions to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It significantly delayed in carrying out mould washes and other remedial works. The damp and mould issues remain unresolved.
7. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales and it did not use its complaints procedure as an effective tool to resolve her concerns.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident made historical reports of damp and mould dating back to July 2020. We may not investigate complaints that are referred to us normally more than 12 months from the date of the final response. In this case, the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 3 May 2024. She referred the complaint to us on 8 July 2024. As we have not seen any reasons that prevented her from referring the complaint to us sooner, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of those historical reports.
9. The resident told us she believed the damp and mould in the property impacted her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

10. This investigation focuses on more recent reports of damp and mould. In the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to her report from 13 September 2022. An inspection on 28 September 2022 recommended various works in the bathroom. The resident repeatedly chased from November 2022 to January 2023 and the works were completed on 27 February 2023, 5 months later. This delay – equivalent to 105 working days – was excessive and unreasonable against the 28-working-day timescale for routine ‘R2’ repairs in the landlord’s repairs and damp policy. Its handling was also inconsistent with the commitments in its damp charter. Although the inspection was booked within 28 days, the landlord failed to prioritise the mould wash and treatment within 7 days and it did not produce an action plan with timeframes to resolve matters.
11. Following the resident’s reported concerns about recurring damp and mould in her bathroom on 9 October 2023, an inspection was promptly booked for 31 October 2023. However, the landlord has not provided us with evidence of the outcome of the inspection or any investigations it undertook to diagnose the problem. As before, it did not attend within 7 days to treat the mould, nor did it devise a plan of time-bound actions. Further, there is no evidence it allocated a surveyor to arrange the necessary work, stay in touch with the resident, or provide advice on minimising condensation, contrary to the damp charter.
12. Multiple works orders were raised, cancelled and re-raised throughout the landlord’s handling of matters relating to damp and mould. These were apparently marked as ‘completed’ even though the required works were not in fact carried out. This made it difficult to track the progress of investigations and repairs, resulting in repeat inspections and multiple mould washes. Consequently, the landlord failed to take timely and reasonable steps to investigate the cause of damp and mould affecting the resident’s property. The evidence shows a failure to effectively manage and monitor damp and mould works.
13. Given the resident’s concerns about persistent damp and mould, it would have been prudent for the landlord to arrange a damp and mould survey of the property. This would have provided a detailed report on the scale of the problem, potential causes and recommended works to address the issues. That it did not do so leads us to conclude the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to investigate and address the damp and mould issues in a timely manner.
14. The landlord took no action to address the resident’s report of damp under the windows in the bedroom on 21 November 2023. The resident subsequently raised her stage 1 complaint and chased the landlord regarding the ongoing damp and mould on 13 February 2024, suggesting that the roof and loft space required inspection. She noted, in her stage 2 escalation, that her request for an inspection had still not been addressed. This was not raised by the landlord until 8 April 2024, and a roof inspection on 4 June 2024, approximately 4 months after the initial report, found no issues. Another repair order for a roof and loft inspection appears to have been raised on 7 June 2024, further highlighting the confusion caused by multiple works orders.
15. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
16. In this case, the landlord has not provided us with complete, contemporaneous records of the outcomes of inspections or surveys, for example, of 31 October 2023. Additionally, there is no evidence of an asbestos check that was noted as required on 13 February 2024. This amounts to a failure to keep adequate records and/or provide us with information for our investigation. Records dated June 2024 and January 2025 indicate that, despite the resident advising an asbestos check had already been done, works raised on 8 April 2024 were not progressed.
17. Matters were compounded by the landlord’s failure to engage in clear and timely communications with the resident in relation to her reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s contact history shows numerous occasions when the resident reported issues and she repeatedly chased for progress and updates. However, it was not always clear what she was advised by the landlord.
18. Updated repair records sent to us in December 2025 show the resident has continued to report persistent damp and mould issues in her property, but there is no evidence the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. In the absence of any clear evidence of any investigations and/or remedial works, we have concluded that the damp and mould issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. This is unacceptable, especially as records reflect there are resident vulnerabilities, albeit the nature of the vulnerabilities is not clear.
19. In all the circumstances, the landlord’s multiple failings for over 3 years amount to severe maladministration. We are satisfied this has caused the resident a significant amount of distress and inconvenience. Accordingly, in line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded compensation for this longstanding impact.

20. The timescales provided in the landlord’s corporate complaints policy did not align with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) in place at the time:
    1. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalation requests within 2 working days of receipt, which is quicker than the 5 working days prescribed by the Code.
    2. The policy states the landlord will provide its first stage response within 20 working days, while the Code prescribes a 10-working-day response time at stage 1.
    3. The policy states the landlord will provide its final response within 25 working days, while the Code prescribes a 20-working-day response time at stage 2.
21. In line with its corporate complaints policy, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 working days. It advised it aimed to provide its written response by 23 February 2024. If it could not respond by this date, it said it would let her know. However, it subsequently failed to update her that its response was delayed.
22. The stage 1 response was issued on 7 March 2024, 27 working days after the acknowledgement. This was beyond the 20-working-day timeframe in the corporate complaints policy. The response itself did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay.
23. In the stage 1 response, the landlord provided an update on the current position, as relayed by its contractor. As it happened, its subsequent stage 2 response found the update in the stage 1 response to be inaccurate. The stage 1 complaint was partly upheld “in recognition of any delays and any distress or inconvenience caused”. The lack of specific failings demonstrated a failure to conduct a fair, robust investigation into its handling of damp and mould. It reflected a failure to take learning from the resident’s experience. Finally, it failed to put things right. Overall, the response was not consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
24. The stage 2 acknowledgement was also delayed, being sent 13 working days after the resident requested escalation of her complaint. This was excessive against the 2-working-day timescale in the landlord’s corporate complaints policy and the 5 working days prescribed by the Code. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 2 response in line with the Code, within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. However, it failed to address its complaint handling failures.
25. While the stage 2 response upheld the resident’s complaint, as with the stage 1 response, it did not demonstrate a robust review the landlord’s handling of the resident’s multiple damp and mould reports. It simply addressed issues that had arisen since the stage 1 response, but failed to consider its failings in dealing with earlier reports. Its narrow focus meant it did not identify, put right or learn from its poor handling of matters and the resident’s experience.
26. Overall, the landlord did not use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns. Therefore, we have found maladministration in its handling of the complaint and, in line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

27. We have made an order requiring the landlord to carry out a case review so that it can identify and take learning from its failings in this case.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. There were gaps in the evidence provided to us, which point to inconsistent record keeping practices.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communications with the resident were inadequate and she often had to chase it for updates.