London Borough of Lambeth (202428095)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bed house owned by the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs affecting most of the rooms in the property and external works. This included leaks, damp, mould, joinery, and garden issues. The landlord responded within its complaints process.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Various repairs including leaks, damp, mould, joinery, and garden works.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to various repairs including leaks, damp, mould, joinery, and garden works.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to:
   1. Complete work within a reasonable timeframe.
   2. Provide full records to evidence its actions. This included a failure to evidence that it risk assessed the household needs in the context of the reports about the condition of the property.
   3. Manage works and communicate effectively with the resident.
   4. Comply with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and put things right for the resident.

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.

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.

6. The landlord is obliged to keep the property safe, free from hazards and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018’). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
7. A property can be unfit for human habitation if it is not reasonably suitable for occupation due to a defect, which can include if a hazard is identified under the Housing Health and Rating System (HHSRS).
8. When investigating complaints involving hazards, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has fully and fairly investigated the issue, engaged independent expertise where appropriate, and communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord’s response should reflect the resident’s individual circumstances, including any vulnerabilities or health concerns .This includes assessing whether a decant is appropriate and ensuring timely communication throughout the process.
9. There is evidence that a disrepair claim was raised. However, there is no evidence this case progressed to court and so we have continued with our investigation.
10. The resident reports that some issues have been ongoing since 2021. In the interest of fairness and in alignment with the complaint process, our investigation will begin from the May 2024 inspection of the property which took place a reasonable time period prior to the November 2024 complaint. As work remains outstanding relating to the complaint after the landlord’s complaint process ended, we will also reflect upon the more recent events within this report.
11. The landlord’s available records start from the beginning of May 2024 when it inspected the property and identified various issues including leaks, external repairs – blocked gulley’s and water penetration through a retaining wall. The landlord conducted a CCTV camera survey and unblocked gully drains. These were all reasonable steps in its attempts to resolve the external issues. However, it also agreed to fit external ‘acro’ drainage. it is unclear if this work was completed and whether the leaks were investigated as there were indications of no access issues.
12. In early August 2024, the resident reported a leaking radiator in the bedroom. The landlord’s records also noted the presence of “mushroom growth,” indicating possible damp or mould-related issues. While the landlord’s records show the leak was attended to within a reasonable 6-day timeframe, the records do not confirm what action was taken and whether the issues were resolved. This was inappropriate.
13. At the end of October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to chase outstanding repairs. She reported that garden works had begun in September 2024 but were left incomplete. She expressed concern about being unable to use the garden and that repairs to the stairs, vents, and a leaking radiator remained unresolved. Additionally, she stated that she had not been kept informed about the progress of the works.
14. In response, the landlord registered a stage 1 complaint and replied at the end of November 2024. It apologised for the delays and provided updates on some of the outstanding works. It stated it would contact her separately to arrange appointments. It also advised her to complete a separate incident report form to pursue compensation. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, it was not proactive in reassuring the resident it had a grip on the situation. We would have expected it to have provided her with an action plan including estimated timescales for completing repairs.
15. Poor communication is a recurring theme in property condition complaints. Landlords must ensure that residents are kept informed of inspection outcomes, planned works, and any delays. Follow-up visits and aftercare should be scheduled to confirm that issues have been resolved. Without this the landlord is unable to restore relations and trust in its ability to resolve outstanding work in a fair and reasonable manner.
16. It is unclear why the landlord did not make a decision on whether compensation was appropriate as part of its complaints process. The landlord’s own compensation policy states that financial redress can be considered in such circumstances. Despite this, the landlord directed the resident to pursue compensation through a separate incident report process, rather than assessing the matter directly as part of the complaint. It appears that this process was its insurance liability which is usually a route pursued where there is indication of landlord negligence. We cannot see evidence that this approach was aligned to its compensation policy and why it felt the need to direct the resident through a separate claims process. This extra step caused further delays in the landlord putting things right for the resident which was inappropriate.
17. In early December 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. By this time, it was clear the outstanding work was significantly impacting her wellbeing, and she requested to be moved out. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in mid-January 2025. It apologised for the delays, partly upheld the complaint, and committed to monitoring outstanding work to completion. These were all positive steps, however, its response failed to:
    1. Address her concerns about a temporary move.
    2. Evidence it had risk assessed the property and her individual circumstances in line with HHSRS requirements.
    3. Tell her how it would proactively plan and manage works including estimated timescales for completion.
    4. Tell her how it would keep her updated on progress throughout the works.
18. For these reasons, we are not satisfied the landlord’s response provided her with reassurance it had oversight to effectively manage work to completion.
19. Following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, it appears that garden-related works remained incomplete, however, the resident stated an external leak was resolved at the beginning of February 2025. At the end of March 2025, the resident contacted the landlord again to raise concerns about the worsening condition of the garden wall and footpath, which she described as deteriorating and “dangerous”. There are no available records confirming whether the landlord responded directly to these concerns. This was inappropriate.
20. Between April 2025 and September 2025 there is evidence the landlord:
    1. Arranged planned works to address the external issues.
    2. Carried out a mould treatment.
21. However, work remained outstanding resulting in the resident pursuing a disrepair claim. This resulted in an independent survey at the end of August 2025 which identified various items of disrepair. The landlord prepared a schedule of works in October 2025 after its own inspection. This included several areas of the property that also related to this complaint: roof leaks, windows, bedroom, living room, kitchen, staircase, separate toilet. However, due to the landlord’s lack of records, it is difficult to compare the repair issues raised in the complaint with repairs that remain outstanding. It is also unclear whether the landlord has temporarily relocated the resident until it completes the full extent of work.
22. In conclusion, it is of serious concern that there has been a prolonged delay—lasting at least 17 months (May 2024 to date)—in completing various repairs at the property, with some works still outstanding. Given the extent of repairs, this has caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
23. The landlord’s record-keeping has been poor, with limited evidence of action taken beyond the initial inspection in May 2024. Crucially, there is no indication that the landlord carried out a risk assessment in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) at an early stage, despite repeated reports from the resident of how outstanding work was impacting on her health and wellbeing. Additionally, the landlord’s own records from July 2024 noted the property was not in a “stable condition” but despite this, it did not take proactive steps to resolve the issues. This was inappropriate causing additional distress to the resident.
24. Further, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issues through its complaints process and failed to ensure that the necessary works were completed. This was inappropriate causing significant delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. We have therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs at the property. This failure caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and led to her repeated, avoidable contacts with the landlord.
25. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord should compensate the resident £1500 (including £700 distress and inconvenience). This is to recognise the significant detriment on her during this period. The landlord’s own assessment details serious concerns about the property condition as early as July 2024 and despite this there is no evidence that the issues that warranted this position have been resolve at the point of our determination. We have made orders to ensure the remaining work is completed in a timely manner while taking into account the resident’s individual needs. We have also made an order for the landlord to review this case and provide its written learning report to the resident and us.

26. The resident raised her complaint on 28 October 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 25 November 2024: 20 working days later and not in compliance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code’s) 10 working day target. This was inappropriate.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 December 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 January 2025; around 28 working days later and slightly outside of the Code’s 20 working day timeframe. There is no evidence it kept her informed of its delays and agreed a mutual extension timescale. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate.
28. In conclusion, the landlord failed to comply with the Code’s response timeframe at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints procedure. Further, there is no evidence it acknowledged the complaints or sent holding letters to the resident to explain its delayed response. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate.
29. Additionally, the landlord did not comply with its compensation policy in considering whether it felt compensation was necessary for its failures and therefore did not consider its full range of tools to put things right for her through its complaint process. We have therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. Without robust records it cannot audit and evidence its actions to satisfy itself and us that it has fulfilled its repair obligations. It should refer to our Spotlight report: Knowledge Information and Management (KIM – May 2023) and our Spotlight report: Repairing Trust (May 2025).

Communication

31. The landlord’s overall communication was poor. It did not keep the resident informed of delayed repairs and put the onus on her to chase up works. It failed to acknowledge her request to be moved and provided no reassurance it would improve communications going forward. The landlord must review the complaint and tell us how it will learn from the failures identified within this report.