London Borough of Lambeth (202421626)

Decision
Case ID	202421626
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house with 2 children. The resident’s daughter has diabetes.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damaged plaster.
   2. Concerns about replacement windows.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged plaster.
   2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about replacement windows.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damaged plaster

4. The landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of the repairs, resulting in works taking 7 months to complete. It did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould, or consider potential hazards.

Window replacements

5. The landlord showed a lack of urgency and did not identify the resident’s household as vulnerable or prioritise her case. It did not respond appropriately to potential hazards. There was also poor communication between the landlord and its contractor regarding the proposed works, which led to delays.

Complaint handling

6. There was a slight delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response, and it did not offer any apology or financial redress for this. Its responses were insufficient given the seriousness of the resident’s concerns, and it failed to monitor or follow through on commitments made in its final response after the complaints process ended.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of its executive team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 December 2025
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,750 made up as follows: £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of damaged plaster. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her concerns about replacement windows. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 23 December 2025
3	Works order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the window replacements are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 20 January 2026
4	Record keeping order The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her household’s circumstances.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2023 to June 2024	The resident reported concerns to the landlord about the condition of the windows and hallway walls.
27 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said there had been prolonged delays in completing essential repairs at the property. She explained that she had been waiting since October 2023 for the windows to be replaced, and reported that the hallway walls were severely cracked and affected by mould. The resident expressed concern that these outstanding repairs posed a risk to her family’s health and requested that they be addressed urgently.
23 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident. It confirmed that a quote had been approved for the window replacements, and an appointment had been arranged to assess the plastering works.
25 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied as the repair issues were unresolved. She advised that no one had attended as scheduled to assess the plastering works and requested a timeline for the completion of the outstanding repairs.
30 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident for the delays, missed appointments, and lack of communication. It confirmed that an appointment had been scheduled for the plastering works. It also advised that the window replacement works had been escalated to a senior surveyor.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate on 4 November 2024. She said the repair issues remained unresolved.
19 November 2025	During her contact with us, the resident confirmed that plastering works were completed in January 2025. However, she advised that the window replacements were still outstanding. As an outcome, she said she would like the window replacements to be completed and asked us to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of her reports.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged plaster
Finding	Maladministration

7. On 19 June 2024, the resident reported concerns about the condition of the hallway walls, explaining that the plaster had crumbled after she had removed the wallpaper. In response, the landlord raised a 28-day routine repair to re-plaster, which it scheduled for 31 July 2024.
8. Due to the absence of clear and detailed records, we are unable to verify whether the landlord attended on 31 July 2024. However, an asbestos test was requested on that date, and the job was forwarded to its contractor on 9 August 2024. The resident chased the landlord on 20 August 2024, advising that she was still waiting for the test to be booked. The landlord did not provide an update, which likely caused some frustration and contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process. This also added to the resident’s time and effort in trying to resolve the issues.
9. Upon request, the landlord provided a copy of the asbestos survey report dated 12 September 2024. The report confirmed the test was completed on 2 September 2024 and no asbestos-containing materials were found. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to progress the plastering repairs promptly, given the delays that had already occurred. It did not do this, showing a lack of urgency.
10. The resident reported mould in her hallway in her complaint on 27 August 2024, but the landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response on 23 September 2024, which was not appropriate. Damp and mould are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and should be treated with urgency due to the potential health impact. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns and advised what action it intended to take in line with its policies and procedures. By not doing so, it did not demonstrate that it had considered its responsibilities under HHSRS, which is a failing.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord also committed to attending on 24 September 2024 to assess plastering works in the hallway. However, it failed to attend as scheduled, which was unreasonable. This resulted in the resident escalating her complaint, likely contributing to further distress and inconvenience.
12. In her escalation request, the resident told the landlord that the delays, lack of communication and missed appointments were “seriously impacting” her mental health. While we are not medical specialists and cannot determine impact on health, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings in the landlord’s response. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about health impact in its stage 2 response (assessed below as part of its complaint handling).
13. On 30 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, confirming that further appointments had been scheduled for 2 November and 9 November 2024 to assess and progress the plastering works. However, it is unclear what work, if any, was completed on those dates, indicating further record keeping issues.
14. On 3 January 2025, the resident chased the landlord for an update, but it was unable to provide one. This was inappropriate and indicative of poor record keeping and communication between the landlord and its contractor. Internal records later show that on 13 January 2025, the contractor confirmed the job had been passed to a subcontractor who was due to attend in the following days.
15. The plastering was completed on 17 January 2025 – 7 months after the initial report. This significant delay demonstrates a failure by the landlord to monitor repair progress and maintain oversight of its contractors. It should have processes in place to track outstanding repairs through to completion. Instead, the landlord’s inaction allowed the repair to go unresolved for an excessive period.
16. The landlord did not offer any compensation in its complaint responses, despite upholding the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The complaint was accepted for investigation by us on 16 June 2025. On 8 July 2025, the landlord reviewed the case and advised that, in line with its policy, it should have offered the resident £20 compensation for the missed appointment on 24 September 2024. However, it is unclear whether this compensation was actually offered.
17. We consider a payment of £600 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about replacement windows
Finding	Severe maladministration

18. The resident said she had experienced issues with the windows since moving into the property in 2015. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation will focus on events from August 2023 onwards, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the available evidence.
19. On 6 December 2023, the resident reported concerns about the condition of the windows, advising that draughts were an issue and she was struggling to heat the property. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 14 December 2023, but due to a lack of detailed records, we cannot confirm if this took place. While the landlord was unable to provide a survey report, a work order dated 12 January 2024 shows follow-on works to overhaul 11 windows were passed to a contractor. Although the inspection was raised promptly, there was a delay of almost one month in raising follow-on works. This was unreasonable given the cold winter period and the resident’s concerns.
20. The contractor attended on 8 February 2024, within the landlord’s 28-day routine repair timescale. Records indicate the resident refused the works, advising that she wanted the windows replaced rather than repaired. However, the resident told us she did not refuse repairs, but instead the operative advised it would be ineffective to complete them as the windows required replacement. This discrepancy between the landlord’s records and the resident’s account is concerning and suggests a breakdown in communication.
21. No further action followed from the landlord, leaving the resident to chase updates on 3 occasions between 1 May and 19 June 2024. This caused her additional time and effort in trying to resolve the issues. Internal records show this led to contact between the landlord and the contractor about whether the windows should be repaired or replaced. The landlord confirmed that new windows had been raised by the surveyor, and the contractor said the job would be passed to a subcontractor to arrange measurements. This shows poor communication and record-keeping between the landlord and its contractor, which led to unnecessary delays.
22. On 20 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord, expressing concern that she did not want to face another cold winter with rotten windows and asking for an update. Although internal discussions took place, the landlord did not provide a response to the resident, which was unreasonable. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience and contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
23. In her complaint on 27 August 2023, the resident repeated her concerns, explaining that she had a vulnerable child in the household and was “extremely concerned” they would experience another year of “freezing conditions” as winter approached. Despite these concerns, there is no evidence the landlord considered the impact of cold during the during the coming winter or assessed the risk to the household. This was unreasonable, as excess cold is a potential hazard under HHSRS and should be treated with urgency due to the potential health impact.
24. The resident told us that her daughter has diabetes and that the cold worsens this condition. The landlord was made aware of vulnerabilities in the household during its complaint investigation. The explanation provided in paragraph 12 regarding health also applies to this point. This information should have prompted the landlord to act with greater urgency. It should have identified the household as vulnerable and prioritised the case accordingly. However, it did not do this, which was inappropriate given the household’s circumstances and the resident’s concerns. When we asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities or special circumstances, diabetes had not been recorded. A relevant order has been made in respect of this.
25. In its stage 1 response on 23 September 2024, the landlord said a quote had been requested for replacement windows which could take up to 12 weeks to manufacture and install. However, in its stage 2 response on 30 October 2024, the landlord changed its position, stating that due to the number of windows needing replacement, the work might need to be completed as part of its capital works programme. It said it would update the resident as soon as possible. The change in position between stage 1 and stage 2 likely caused the resident uncertainty and left her with unresolved issues heading into winter.
26. After the complaints process ended on 30 October 2024, the resident continued to chase the landlord about the window replacements. The landlord raised further jobs for the windows in January, March and July 2025.
27. During contact with us in November 2025, the resident shared a copy of an undated email from the landlord to her local MP. The email referenced the MP’s correspondence in July 2025 and confirmed that a work order for the replacement windows had been passed to a subcontractor, with an estimated manufacturing time of 6 to 8 weeks. However, the resident advised us that the work remained outstanding.
28. When we requested an update during this investigation, the landlord explained that changes and variations had caused overlapping repair orders, resulting in delays. It confirmed the windows were now being manufactured and estimated installation would take approximately 6 weeks, with works anticipated to start between December 2025 to January 2026. While a resolution is scheduled, the landlord has yet to complete the works nearly 2 years after the initial report. This has had a significant and long-term impact on the resident, with her experiencing unreasonable and unaccounted-for delays.
29. The landlord did not offer any compensation in its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £1,000 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that accumulated over a significant period of time.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

30. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024.
31. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints at both stages of the process. In assessing the landlord’s response times, the timescales for acknowledging and responding have been combined. At stage 1, the landlord took 19 working days to provide its response, exceeding the total timeframe set out in its policy and the Code by 4 working days. At stage 2, it provided its response in 25 working days, within the required combined timescale.
32. The landlord’s responses did not fully address all the points raised in the resident’s complaints and lacked sufficient detail regarding the substantive issues. There was no acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about the impact on her family’s health, or the concerns she had raised regarding hazards in the property. As a result, the responses were not proportionate to the seriousness of the concerns raised.
33. The landlord failed to monitor and follow through on commitments made after the complaints process ended. In January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the window replacements, suggesting it had not kept its assurance to update her in its final response. The landlord should have tracked the outstanding actions after its stage 2 response and provided regular updates. It did not do this, which was unreasonable. As a result, it missed an opportunity to resolve the issues and did not use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
34. The landlord made no offer of compensation to the resident, despite partially upholding her complaint at stage 1, which was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered an award in line with its compensation policy. It also did not assess its own complaint handling, failing to apologise or offer any redress for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.
35. We consider a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

36. The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.
37. The landlord should implement a system for tracking and monitoring outstanding commitments made during and after the complaints process. This will help prevent delays, and ensure the complaints process is used effectively to resolve issues.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s repair records lack detail and do not show the outcome of appointments. It was also unable to provide key documents, such as a survey report from its visit to assess the windows. This meant there was no record of the surveyor’s findings or what was discussed with the resident. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents, including notes from phone calls and home visits, and the outcomes of operative, contractor and surveyor visits.

Communication

39. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek answers regarding the repairs. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues, ensuring residents feel informed and supported throughout the process.
40. There was also ineffective communication between the landlord and its contractors, which sometimes prevented the landlord from providing updates to the resident. To avoid this, the landlord should implement clear processes requiring contractors to share regular and accurate progress updates.