London Borough of Lambeth (202434327)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434327

Lambeth Council

29 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in her kitchen.
This report has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant in a 3-bedroom, ground floor conversion flat. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord was aware that the resident was grieving the loss of her partner, who passed away in March 2024, at the time of the events complained of.
On 2 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report there was water coming into her property from the property above. She stated that her smoke alarm was damaged and that there was “water everywhere” in the kitchen. It is unclear whether the landlord took any action following this. On 8 May 2024 the resident called the landlord to say that the leak was still present. It told her it would ask its contractor to contact her.
The resident called the landlord again on 17 May 2024 and said she wanted to make a complaint because:
1. there was an ongoing leak from her kitchen ceiling when it rained, and she had not heard back from anyone.
2. she had to disconnect her smoke alarm as it was a “safety hazard”.
The landlord left the resident a voicemail message on 17 May 2024 to tell her it had arranged to inspect her property on 4 June 2024. It asked her to let it know if this was inconvenient. It is unclear from the records whether the inspection went ahead. The resident continued to contact the landlord between 6 June and 9 September 2024 for an update on what it was doing to address the leak in her kitchen. On 23 September 2024 the landlord attended the property to check the electrics.
On 4 October 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had scheduled an appointment for an operative to attend her property that day to trace and remedy the leak in her kitchen. It added that it had not upheld her complaint because this was the “first time” the resident had raised the matter.
The resident responded on the same day to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted to escalate her complaint. She stated that she had reported the leak 9 months prior and it had taken it until 4 October 2024 to carry out the repair. She added that she had “had enough” of being told by the contractor that it would contact her and then failing to do so.
On 16 October 2024 the resident commissioned an independent survey through her solicitor as part of a disrepair claim. The survey noted:
1. water penetration from the roof, causing damage to the kitchen and living room.
2. an active leak through the ceiling of the dining room and kitchen.
3. a risk that electrical components in the ceilings may be water damaged and required inspection by an electrician.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. It stated that:
1. it had arranged to repair the leak, but its scaffolder had been unable to gain access to her neighbour’s property. It stated that this had caused an “unavoidable” delay.
2. its contractor completed the repair to the balcony on 22 October 2024. It added that it had been unable to source any asphalt, therefore it had applied a liquid membrane instead. It stated that this was “more than adequate” to prevent the leak.
3. it upheld her complaint due to its lack of contact and “lengthy delays” in completing the repairs. It added that it was sorry its service did not meet its usual standards.
On 8 November 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She stated that:
1. following her report of a leak from her neighbour’s balcony, she had faced “extensive delays” and “communication breakdowns” from the landlord.
2. the electrics in her property were impacted by the leak, which created an “unsafe living environment”.
3. despite “numerous attempts” to chase up the repair, she had not received a satisfactory response from the landlord for “many months”.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy lists 3 categories of repair. The landlord attends to:
1. emergency repairs within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours to 1 working day.
2. routine repairs within 7 to 28 working day depending on what the repair entails.
3. planned repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. The first stage is referred to as “local resolution”, while stage 2 is referred to as the “final review”. At both stages, the landlord logs the complaint and sends an acknowledgement within 5 working days. It aims to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. If an extension is needed, the landlord will contact the complainant to explain why and provide a revised timescale.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that if extensions beyond 10 working days are required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should consider applying a remedy when, after investigating a complaint, it finds that a failure in service has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the occupant. The policy does not specify any amounts of discretionary compensation it will pay.

Reports of a leak in the kitchen

Our spotlight report ‘Damp and mould. It’s not lifestyle’, published in October 2021, advises that landlords must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
In addition to policy timescales, the landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
In response to our request for evidence, the landlord has provided limited records. We have not been provided with inspection reports or communication logs, either between the landlord and resident, or landlord and its contractor. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. It has therefore been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the resident’s reports of a leak.
The resident told us that she had reported a leak from her kitchen ceiling on 5 January 2024. While we do not seek to dispute this, the first entry relating to a leak in the landlord’s records is dated 2 February 2024. There is no evidence of any contact between 5 January and 2 February either.
Nevertheless, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord took appropriate action to ensure any necessary inspections and repairs were completed in a timely manner. It took the landlord around 9 months to repair the leak. This was excessive, and a significant departure from its repairs policy. Furthermore, the landlord could not demonstrate that the delays were unavoidable. This would have left the resident with the impact of an ongoing leak for longer than necessary, and caused her significant distress and inconvenience as a result.
The landlord has not provided evidence to show it had undertaken any inspections of the leak. It is therefore unclear during the period covered by the complaint if and when contractors had attended to assess the leak or made any findings or recommendations.
However, there are notes on the landlord’s repair logs dated 23 September 2024 and 10 October 2024 that mention the leak. The operative’s notes from an appointment to complete a mould wash in September 2024 details that leaks were “still coming from the ceiling in the kitchen”. In the note from the appointment on 10 October 2024, the operative who came to check the electrics recommended that a plumber or surveyor attend urgently. He commented that there was “very bad damage” to the property from the leak. It is evident therefore that the leak was ongoing and that it had caused significant damage during this period.
The landlord cited2 reasons in its stage 2 response for the delay in repairing the leak. It stated that it was unable to gain access to her neighbour’s property to put up scaffolding. In addition, it stated that its contractor was finding it difficult to obtain asphalt. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward. Also, it is acknowledged there can be physical challenges, as suggested in this case.
However, where obstacles are identified or a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source of a leak is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The reasons the landlord gave do not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily explain why it took 9 months to repair the leak. The landlord was therefore unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to track the leak and then complete a repair. This was a failure that contributed to the delays experienced by the resident.
There is no indication the landlord took any steps to lessen the damage and impact caused by the leak or that it had kept the resident updated during this period. Clear communication about the delays and the reasons for them at the time may have helped to mitigate some of the inconvenience caused to her.
The landlord is obliged to ensure that the property is habitable and free from the certain risks. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property. It lists 29 risks of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a property. One of those is electrical hazards, which include hazards from shock and burns resulting from exposure to electricity. A further hazard is fire, which covers defects to the electricity supply, wiring, sockets or switches. Therefore, landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the means by which residents are exposed to these risks.
Furthermore, the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022 state that landlords must ensure at least one smoke alarm is equipped on each storey of a property, where there is a room used as living accommodation. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy categorises emergencies as, “when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe”.
The resident told the landlord on 2 February 2024 that her smoke alarm had been damaged by the leak. On 17 May 2024 she reported that, due to the ongoing leak, she had to remove her kitchen smoke alarm, which she said had become a safety hazard. The landlord’s repair log shows that it was not until 23 September 2024, around 7 months later, that it had attended to check the electrics. The records show that that landlord attended again on 10 October 2024 and found the electrical points in the area of the leak to be dry. However, there is no indication of whether it had reconnected the smoke alarm.
We note that the landlord had attempted to initially carry out an electrical safety check on 19 September 2024. However, the repair log notes the operative was unable to gain access. Its repair log states that the resident was “not available”. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord had given the resident prior notice of the appointment. We have therefore been unable to determine if the delay from 19 to 23 September 2024 was unavoidable.
When put on notice of potential water in the electrics and a disconnected smoke alarm, the landlord should have raised an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours to inspect and make safe. It should have also taken steps to ensure the resident’s smoke alarm was put back into use as soon as possible. That it could not demonstrate it did so was a significant failure and departure from the repairs policy.
The landlord was unable to evidence it had given reasonable regard to the potential risks, or the safety of the resident and her property. She was already distressed by the landlord’s delays in addressing the leak. This was heightened as a result of her concerns about the electrics, and the safety of her household. By not demonstrating it had adequately considered the resident’s concerns, the landlord failed to meet its duty of care, or show it was taking the matter seriously. This would have caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience during an already difficult time.
Landlords should reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. They should also keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Code.
There is evidence the resident had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding repair, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The available records show that the landlord consistently failed to provide updates or respond to the resident’s enquiries. Furthermore, it is evident contractors had failed to contact the resident after it said it would. The landlord and its contractor’s poor communication and lack of customer focus caused her unnecessary additional distress and inconvenience.
There is no evidence of effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy for completing repairs. We accept that contractors might not be available due to capacity issues or busy periods, and when their services are in high demand. However, the landlord’s contractors are accountable to its service agreement to enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. Landlords should ensure its contractors make reasonable efforts to contact residents to provide updates. There are no records to show that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident, or that the landlord was taking adequate steps to chase it up. This was a missed opportunity to document the steps it was taking to progress the repair.
The landlord’s inability to demonstrate effective repair management meant that it failed to ensure its it was proactively managing its approach to addressing the leak. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repair. The failure to do so would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress, and the subsequent excessive delays in completing the necessary works.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, we consider the landlord failed to:
1. carry out an inspection or complete a repair within a reasonable amount of time, or in line with its obligations.
2. take prompt action to ensure the safety of the household from possible electrical hazards.
3. adequately communicate with the resident to provide updates or respond to her enquiries.
4. tracked the outstanding repair or monitor its contractor to ensure it was progressing it and making reasonable contact with the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that she had experienced “lengthy delays” and lack of contact. However, it made no attempt to put things right or to learn from the outcome of the complaint. It did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the excessive delay in addressing the leak, or for its poor communication. Furthermore, it did not offer a sincere and considered apology or any redress for its failings. The landlord’s failure to show any empathy in its response was particularly unreasonable considering the resident had suffered a recent bereavement.
The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience while experiencing the impacts of an ongoing leak in her kitchen, and associated safety concerns. This would have significantly affected her enjoyment of her kitchen during this period. Furthermore, she had to spend avoidable time and trouble pursuing the during a particularly difficult period. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration. To put things right, we will order that the landlord pays appropriate redress to the resident in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her kitchen.
The resident has paid approximately £757 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s failures. We can reasonably consider this to have started in February 2024, which the records show was when the resident first reported the issue. This is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the landlord took to repair the leak. We have also taken into consideration the landlord’s delay in carrying out an electrical safety check.
Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,363 compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her kitchen for 9 months. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, we consider this to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

There is no indication the landlord logged or acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint when she raised it on 17 May 2024. The records suggest that it was only when she chased the outstanding repair on 9 September 2024 that the landlord logged her dissatisfaction as a complaint. It then issued a response on 4 October 2024.
That it failed to initially record or acknowledge her complaint, and then took 99 working days to respond was a significant departure from its complaints policy, and the Code. This is further evidence of the landlord’s poor coordination and communication. Furthermore, given the landlord’s complaint handling obligations, it should not have been necessary for the resident to remind it that she had raised a complaint.
We note that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within 25 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
We note that the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the first report it had received of the leak was on 9 September 2024. This was incorrect. Its repair log shows that that resident reported a leak from the property above on both 2 and 23 February 2024. Furthermore, it is evident from its records that the resident had called it on 17 May 2024 to make a complaint about the delay in addressing the leak.
There is no indication the landlord had checked its records prior to issuing its response. It should have reviewed its own information to verify correct dates, and ensure the information it was giving was accurate. This error would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion. It also demonstrates a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way, and a failure to be thorough in its assessment of how it had responded to the repair. The landlord should always ensure its responses are properly checked before issuing them to avoid providing inaccurate information.
The landlord’s stage 2 response made no mention of its failure to log and acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint when she initially raised it. Furthermore, it failed to mention the significant time it took to issue its brief response, or to offer an apology or any redress for this. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. To put things right, we will order that the landlord pays the resident £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling, and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence the landlord provided to this Service in response to our requests for information was severely lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019 stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
We have previously reviewed the landlord’s record keeping as part of a special report published in February 2022. We found that: “Incomplete records meant that the landlord could not evidence it had appropriately diagnosed or completed repairs it was responsible for, so could not satisfy itself or the Ombudsman that it had fulfilled its obligations or acted reasonably. It also meant that it was unable to track or monitor repairs in real time or follow up on outstanding repairs, which exacerbated delays. This also meant that it could not provide accurate information to residents when they made enquiries. We also found that poor record keeping hampered the landlord’s ability to respond in a meaningful way to complaints.”
The findings in our special report are equally as applicable to the findings in this complaint investigation. This is disappointing to note as the events giving rise to the resident’s complaint occurred over 1 year after we published the special report.
The Ombudsman continues to keep the landlord’s record keeping under review through our casework. In September 2023, we ordered it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight report (case reference 202204121). In response to that, the landlord carried out a gap analysis and drafted a strategy and action plan. It consulted with residents on the draft plan. In its latest update to us in September 2024, it advised us the plan was with its senior management team for sign off.
Given this, we have made no orders relating to record keeping in this investigation report. However, we would encourage the landlord to keep its records strategy and action plan under regular review. It should continue to seek resident feedback and learn from its complaints, particularly where record keeping failings have been identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in her kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The apology should come from the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
2. pay the resident £1,563 compensation calculated as:
  1. £1,363 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her kitchen for 9 months, while waiting for the landlord to take action to repair a leak.
  2. £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord should also emphasise to its complaint handling staff the importance of checking complaint responses for accuracy prior to issuing them.