London Borough of Lambeth (202422491)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak, broken boiler, damp, mould, and pest infestations. She said the landlord’s managing agent, responsible for repairs, failed to respond quickly, fix the problems, or communicate properly. The resident is concerned about the impact of the repairs on the health of her family. She wants to move but says the council mishandled her housing application. She asked us to investigate whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. For the purpose of this report, we have referred to the actions of the managing agent as those of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The council’s handling of the resident’s waiting list application.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
      1. A broken boiler.
      2. Leaks and associated damp and mould.
      3. Pest infestations.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The complaint about the council’s handling of the resident’s waiting list application is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. We found that there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
      1. A broken boiler
      2. Leaks and associated damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s:
      1. Response to the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
      2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Waiting list application

6. The resident’s complaint about her waiting list application falls outside our jurisdiction, as it relates to the council’s wider executive functions rather than its role as a landlord.

Response to repairs to the boiler

7. The landlord failed to restore heating and hot water promptly after 4 reported boiler failures between February 2024 and July 2024, leaving the resident without hot water for 3 months. Communication with the resident was poor, with missed appointments, unannounced visits, and unsafe practices.

Response to the leaks and associated damp and mould

8. The landlord did not carry out timely or effective repairs to the roof leak despite repeated visits and the resident providing materials. It did not act on an emergency kitchen sink leak, leaving the resident without a working sink for essential tasks.
9. The landlord took 8 months before inspecting damp and mould and did not identify the cause until September 2025, missing opportunities to resolve the issue earlier. It also failed to show that repairs were lasting and effective.
10. It failed to consider household vulnerabilities or prioritising repairs, leaving the household exposed to damp and mould for an extended period and causing significant distress.

Pest infestation

11. The landlord failed to demonstrate it resolved the issue in a timely manner or made lasting and effective resolution to the infestation.

Complaint handling

12. The landlord’s complaint policy lacked an effective date and did not meet the Code’s standards. It failed to identify or accept the resident’s complaints, delayed acknowledgements and responses, and required our intervention. Responses omitted key issues such as vulnerabilities, property conditions, and repair history. The landlord did not acknowledge its failures so it did not put things right.

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.

13. The resident’s concerns about how her housing application was handled are acknowledged. However, we can only investigate complaints about councils in relation to their functions as a landlord. The management of a council’s waiting list for social housing falls under the council’s wider executive functions and are better suited to investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO.

14. We asked the landlord 3 times for its repair records. At investigation, it said we had all the information it held, but the records lacked key details. This is highlighted throughout the report. As we have made similar findings in recent reports with associated orders, we have not issued further orders here.

Boiler

15. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the installations for the supply of heating and hot water. Between June and July 2024, there were several engineer visits, and the boiler remained unfixed because parts were missing and promised return dates were missed. The resident said engineers often attended without notice, and on one occasion used a kitchen knife during the work. The resident told us she had no hot water for a total of 3 months. She said the landlord’s communication was “unacceptable” and this caused significant distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord said it attended on 20 November 2024, 12 December 2024, 9 January 2025, 3 February 2025, and 25 March 2025, but could not gain access on those visits. On 1 April 2025, it said it found nothing wrong with the boiler. On 19 May 2025, a gas engineer attended the same day the issue was reported, found the gas meter empty, and advised the resident on how to top it up.
17. While the landlord’s comments about its attendances are noted, it has not provided us with any supporting evidence. Given the absence of contemporaneous evidence, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately and in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. The resident said this caused significant and prolonged distress, frustration, and time and trouble in reporting the same issues. She also said she felt ignored.
18. We understand from the landlord’s stage 2 response it would arrange for a further inspection of the boiler on 7 May 2025. While this was appropriate, it is unclear if it attended or what it found, or if the issues have been resolved. The landlord should confirm whether the attendance went ahead and if so, what was found and what action was taken. If the problem has persisted, the resident should inform the landlord accordingly so that it can investigate her concerns.

Leaks and associated damp and mould

19. The resident reported 2 leaks to the landlord. One from the roof and another under the kitchen sink. In accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, the landlord should have carried out a prompt investigation and ensured any repairs were completed in a timely manner

Roof leak

20. We cannot confirm when the roof leak was first reported. The resident described it as “ongoing” in her 19 February 2024 report and later said water ingress damaged her sofa cushions. She referred to a visit on 6 March 2024, where the landlord was due to treat damp and mould, but the bedroom was only painted. The resident said the untreated mould worsened her son’s lung condition and that she had to take him to her mother’s home to keep him away from it. At a further appointment on 8 March 2024, she said the landlord attended but lacked materials to fix the roof, so she bought roof tiles herself for the operative to fit.
21. The landlord only provided details of an appointment on 14 March 2024, when it said it stopped the roof leak and treated damp and mould. This is not mirrored within its contemporaneous records. Without the date of the first report, we have been unable to assess how long it took the landlord to repair the roof or whether it acted reasonably. Its records also did not address the resident’s concerns about earlier visits. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we consider the landlord acted unreasonably, causing avoidable distress due to repeated contractor visits and the inconvenience of having to supply materials herself.
22. The resident continued to report ongoing damp and mould at the property between April 2024 and June 2025. She set out how concerned she was about the health of her child, citing respiratory infections, nasal congestion, airway collapse, asthma, and hospitalisations. She also sent medical letters and pictures of the property.
23. The resident’s concerns about personal injury are best suited to consideration by the court or an insurer, as they can seek expert medical opinion. However, we have found there was a significant failure to appropriately consider the household’s circumstances alongside the ongoing property conditions. The delay left the household exposed to damp and mould, causing the resident prolonged concern for her child’s health and significant distress. The resident said the family are sleeping in the living room because of the continuing conditions. This is unacceptable.
24. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection for 1 October 2024, 8 months after the resident’s February 2024 report. This action was delayed and ineffective, as the resident continued to report damp and mould. The landlord has also failed to provide evidence the inspection was completed, what was found, or any follow up work agreed.
25. The landlord said it attempted 3 visits between January and March 2025 but could not gain access. Its repair logs show no record of these visits, and the resident disputed they occurred. It also said it attended on 1 April 2025, and found damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling, and reported that the resident refused treatment unless the ceiling was replaced. Again, the repair records show no evidence of this visit, or the advice given. Similarly, the resident disputed the appointment took place. Given the absence of other evidence corroborating the landlord’s comments, we cannot conclude that it acted appropriately.
26. In September 2025, following the complaint process, the landlord carried out a damp survey and identified condensation as the cause of damp and mould. It recommended a range of measures, including improving ventilation, upgrading insulation, installing a smart thermostat and dehumidifiers, repairing fixtures, and treating and redecorating affected areas with anti-mould paint.
27. Given the nature and frequency of the resident’s reports, it is unclear why these findings were not identified sooner. However, we consider there was a significant failure by the landlord to act appropriately at the earliest opportunity.
28. At the point of investigation, the resident told us the property conditions had deteriorated as well as the health conditions of her son. We gave the landlord a notice under Awaab’s Law to assess whether there was a hazard it needed to act on. It must ensure that it is taking steps to deal with this appropriately with Awaab’s Law in mind.

Kitchen leak

29. The resident reported an emergency leak under the kitchen sink on 5 March 2024, saying it was flooding the floor. Two days later, she reported the sink was not working, leaving her unable to wash dishes, cook, or use the washing machine.
30. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it:
    1. Responded to the initial report within 24 hours, which would have been appropriate given its repairs policy.
    2. Took steps to investigate the resident’s subsequent report.
31. A survey by the landlord in September 2025 confirmed that repairs to the sink were required. It is unclear why the landlord has not taken action to complete the repairs sooner. However, its handling of the matter is inappropriate and has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

32. The landlord acknowledges it is responsible for pest control including ants, on its website. We have not had sight of a relevant policy, but any actions taken in response should reasonably be proportionate and timely.
33. The landlord addressed the ant infestation in its stage 1 response but provided no record of when the resident first reported it. Without this, we cannot confirm it acted promptly.
34. It provided evidence of fumigation on 19 May 2025, but the resident said in her escalation request that the problem persisted, indicating the treatment was ineffective. The landlord appropriately offered a further pest control assessment in its stage 2 response, but there is no evidence this took place or what was found. A damp survey in September 2025 noted further assessment was required, showing the infestation remained unresolved.
35. Due to poor record keeping, we cannot confirm the landlord acted promptly or provided an effective remedy. This caused the resident distress. Given this, and that the situation remains unresolved, we have found maladministration.

36. The former Complaint Handling Code (2022) applied to the resident’s first complaint in February 2024. The current Code (2024) applied to her second complaint in August 2024.
37. The landlord’s complaint policy did not state its effective date. Nonetheless, it failed to meet the definition of a complaint and response times set out in both the former and current Complaint Handling Codes. We assessed the landlord against the Code that applied at each stage.
38. The landlord:
    1. Failed to identify and accept the resident’s initial complaint, which delayed matters.
    2. Failed to identify the resident’s August 2024 complaint and progress it appropriately.
    3. Acknowledged the complaint after 149 working days, which was a significant departure from the Code.
    4. Delayed in issuing its stage 1 response by 34 working days.
39. While the stage 2 response was issued in a timely manner, the delay in initially progressing the complaint was inappropriate. We note the landlord’s comments that it was communicating under the Housing Disrepair Protocol, but we advised it that the complaint procedure applied until proceedings were issued. It ought to have reasonably been aware of this. The landlord’s delay caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble trying to progress her complaint.
40. The landlord’s complaint responses did not follow the Code because it failed to address key issues, including household vulnerabilities, the impact of property conditions, damage to possessions, and what happened with repairs between January and October 2024.
41. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and the resident was caused distress and inconvenience which was avoidable as a result. It failed to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way and as it failed to assess its handling of matters, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge what went wrong, and to put things right

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case, failing to log initial report dates, visits, findings, and follow up actions. We have considered recent decisions we have made when deciding not to make an order in this case.

Communication

43. The landlord showed poor communication by failing to keep the resident informed about repair progress, missing and not confirming appointments. This left the resident feeling ignored and frustrated.
44. The landlord did not give the resident clear information about its arrangements or the managing agent’s repair service standards. This caused confusion and distress and leading to unnecessary back and forth between the resident, the council, the landlord, and the managing agent.