London Borough of Lambeth (202437569)

Decision
Case ID	202437569
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

The resident lived in the property with her children. The landlord was aware that the resident and her children had vulnerabilities. After reporting ceiling repairs, the resident reported multiple issues including delays, a lack of cleaning, injury, forced entry, damage to possessions and the actions of its staff and contractors. She moved to a different property in February 2025.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of collapsed ceilings and remedial repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of collapsed ceilings and remedial repairs.
2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of collapsed ceilings and remedial repairs

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial safety concerns about the ceiling. It had a lack of oversight of its contractors and its communication on multiple issues including the timing and scope of the works was poor. It failed to respond to some issues the resident reported including injury to her child, damage to her belongings, and the actions of its staff and contractors.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge or set out its understanding of the complaint when it was logged. By issuing 2 stage 1 responses it effectively created a 3–stage complaints process, and it delayed in issuing the second stage 1 response. It did not meaningfully investigate various elements of the complaint.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of collapsed ceilings and remedial repairs £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must respond in writing to the resident’s concerns that: its contractors left doors and windows open causing the property to be unsecure, fiberglass and dust to spread and her cat to go missing its contractors’ actions caused injury to her family a contractor broke her bed she had tried to rearrange the appointment on 17 October 2024 and its staff member that facilitated the attempted entry had acted inappropriately it gave someone keys to the property without her consent. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its responses.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its learning.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 July 2024	The resident reported a leak was causing the ceiling to bow in both bedrooms. Contractors attended and repaired the water tank in the attic which it said was causing the leak.
15– 16 August 2024	The resident reported a leak in the same place. Contractors attended and noted follow on works were required to remove the tank. The resident reported the leak was ongoing and the ceilings were collapsing. She said the bedrooms were unsafe. Contractors noted damp but no leak. They said the tank was “secured” and raised works to drain it.
22 August 2024	The resident reported the bedroom ceiling was about to ‘cave in’ and the landlord attended to make it safe.
23 August 2024	The resident said the ceiling further collapsed. Contractors attended and told her not to use the room. The resident said she and her children stayed in temporary accommodation provided by the landlord.
26 August 2024	The resident reported her family had been bitten by insects in the temporary accommodation. She said it impacted her family’s health.
13 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said after the ceilings collapsed it offered a hotel, but her daughter was unwell due to insect bites. She said she was sleeping on the floor at the property with 3 vulnerable children and wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
18 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident. It: said it had offered other temporary accommodation and storage but that she had declined these offers discussed other rehousing options said it made an appointment for works, giving time for the damp to dry advised her to contact social services about care and support.
20 September 2024	The resident reported her child’s eye was injured by fiberglass as contractors had left doors open while completing works.
24 September 2024	The resident told the landlord: she had to leave the temporary accommodation due to insect bites it had not responded to the leak in a timely manner the property was not cleaned, and items were not covered as promised while works were completed contractors left windows and doors open and left the property unsecure. She said fiberglass and dust spread which injured her children and her cat went missing.
25 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She included the issues reported on 24 September and said a contractor had broken her bed.
16 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for the condition of the property, told her further works were raised on 14 October 2024 and partially upheld her complaint.
17 October 2024	The resident said the landlord attempted to force entry into the property. The resident escalated her complaint. She said: she was unhappy with the time it was taking to complete repairs the landlord had tried to force entry without offering alternative dates, after she had told it she was unavailable she was unhappy with the actions of a particular staff member it gave a family member keys without knowing who they were she wanted it to respond to her reports about an injury she said was caused by contractors’ failure to follow safety protocols.
23 October 2024	The resident sent the landlord evidence in support of her complaint about the landlord’s attempted forced entry and staff member and asked it to investigate.
21 November 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response and said: it expected contractors to manage works and schedule appointments it had offered the resident temporary accommodation, storage, and a key box to allow contractors to enter but she had declined this works were delayed as the resident could only give limited access if had notified her of the appointment and potential forced entry it had completed repairs to both bedrooms contractors would schedule a final appointment to paint and decorate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said it completed ceiling repairs in November 2025 and gave her money to redecorate in December 2025. The resident said she wanted the landlord to apologise, learn from any failures, and pay compensation.

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 residents reports of collapsed ceilings and remedial repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident raised issues with the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered due to bites. She also reported that a contractor had broken her bed. We have assessed the landlord’s response to these reports in this investigation. We understand the resident raised a separate complaint around 2 December 2024 about the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation including associated expenses incurred and damage to personal items. The resident has brought this complaint to us under a separate case reference. We will not refer to these issues in this investigation, apart from as mentioned above.
The resident reported that the landlord’s staff member acted inappropriately. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of our remit. However, we can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the property and installations for the supply of water and heating. When the resident reported a leak and ceilings bowing on 22 July 2024, the landlord completed repairs to the leaking water tank and confirmed the ceiling was safe. It did this within its repairs manual timescale of 24 hours for an urgent emergency repair. It did not confirm whether the ceiling required any follow-on works.
When the resident reported the leak had restarted, the landlord attended within its timescales for an urgent repair. It was reasonable for it to confirm the water tank was “secure” and to raise works to drain the tank, although it is unclear whether it completed this.
In response to the resident’s reports of the collapsed ceilings, the landlord agreed to repair the ceiling once it fixed the leak, which was reasonable. There is no evidence it initially confirmed its position on the resident’s safety concerns about the ceiling, which was unreasonable. It attended within its timescale for urgent repairs on 22 August 2024 and confirmed whether the ceiling was safe after noting it was about to “cave in”. However, it is unclear what action it took, and whether it assessed or mitigated any risks.
The landlord booked some follow on works and inspections in August, October, and November 2024. The evidence suggested contractors attended multiple times. The resident said they cancelled some appointments. The landlord has not provided complete records of works schedules, or evidence of when it completed works. Nor has it provided complete records of its communication with the resident. This has impacted our ability to assess its actions.
The resident said she received conflicting information from the landlord and its contractors. The landlord demonstrated a lack of communication about the works, despite the resident asking for details and clarification of the works schedule on multiple occasions.
The resident did not agree to the landlord’s reasonable offers to arrange storage for her belongings and to instal a key box to allow contractors direct access to complete repairs. It is unclear whether it made the implications of not accepting these offers clear to her. She agreed to provide access for contractors to complete works.
There were delays in the ceiling repairs being completed. The evidence suggested reasons for this may have included poor communication and scheduling, waiting for the ceiling to dry, and additional works required to clean and clear the property. The landlord said the resident had limited availability. The resident said the contractor did not provide notice of or attend appointments and did not book them when she was available.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the offers of temporary accommodation it referred to at stage 1, and we cannot assess these. In its stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for it to confirm its position on the resident’s reports that she and her children were sleeping on the floor at the property. It would also have been reasonable for it to outline any proposed solutions, including details of the alternative accommodation it said it had offered. This was a failure to meaningfully engage with the issues raised.
The resident raised the issue of having to leave temporary accommodation due to insect bites and sleeping on the floor in the property again on 24 September 2024. The landlord did not respond to this, or confirm any alternative solutions.
When the resident reported that her child was injured due to the way contractors completed works, the landlord did not respond to her concerns. It failed to do so despite her referring to an injury caused by contractors’ failure to follow safety protocols in her escalation request. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that the contractors leaving her windows and doors open made fiberglass and dust spread and caused her cat to go missing.
When the resident raised concerns that her belongings had not been cleaned or covered, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clearly set out its responsibilities and what it and its contractors had agreed to. It did not do this. The landlord asked the resident to move belongings and furniture, and she raised multiple queries about the order of works and having to move her belongings between rooms. The landlord repeated its offer to provide storage for her belongings on multiple occasions which was reasonable. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about putting her belongings in storage.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirmed that residents must allow the landlord to enter to inspect property and carry out repairs if given 24 hours written notice and may force entry if the resident does not let it into the property. The landlord has provided incomplete records of repairs appointments. It also failed to provide evidence of the notice given to the resident before appointments. The resident said the landlord wrote to her to confirm an appointment on 17 October 2024. She said she cancelled this appointment and tried to book an alternative date as she had an important prior arrangement. She said the landlord agreed not to force entry.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was necessary to select a date to complete repairs. It did not respond to her reports that she had tried to rearrange the appointment. It provided incomplete evidence of its correspondence with the resident before the appointment, why it was necessary to force entry, and details of the visit. This is a record keeping failure and has impacted our ability to assess whether its actions were reasonable. The resident said it caused her significant distress, which she said was increased by its failure to meaningfully respond to her request for it to investigate.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord confirmed contractors may provide cleaning but suggested the resident could clean to her standard. The resident raised concerns about cleaning and clearing due to a medical condition. The landlord confirmed contractors would clean and clear where needed, but later said she should discuss this with contractors as this was not a standard service offered. Its position on cleaning and clearing was delayed, unclear, showed a lack of oversight of its contractors, and failed to manage expectations.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it did not:
1. investigate the resident’s report that she had tried to rearrange the appointment on 17 October 2024, and why it considered it necessary to force entry in light of this.
2. respond to the resident’s concerns that it had given someone her keys without her consent, that a contractor had broken her bed, or concerns about its staff member.
3. confirm when the painting and decorating works would take place, which was unreasonable.
4. assess whether its contractors had managed works and scheduled appointments reasonably and in line with its policies, which showed a lack of oversight.
The resident said hers and her family’s life was severely disrupted and this caused significant distress. She said she lost trust in the landlord and its contractors and said the impact on her was increased due to her household’s vulnerabilities. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failures or offer any redress. We have therefore made orders for it to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which had a significant impact on the resident where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code). The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint at either stage which was not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response 3 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy timescales of 10 working days from acknowledgment.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 response under the same reference number. This was not in line with its complaints policy which confirmed its 2-stage complaints process. It issued the second stage 2 response 23 working days after the resident’s initial complaint, which was not in line with its complaints policy.
When the resident raised a complaint on 25 September 2024, the landlord said it logged the complaint but withdrew it on 30 October 2024 as it was considered a duplicate of the issues raised in her complaint of 13 September 2024. It did not acknowledge the complaint in line with its complaints policy. Nor did it respond to all the issues raised in its complaint responses in line with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 25 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This would have been within its 20 working day complaints policy timescale if it had issued an acknowledgement on the fifth working day after escalation.
At each stage, the landlord did not set out its understanding of the complaint when logging it. This was not in line with the Code. If it had done so, it may not have failed to respond to various issues raised, which was also outside the Code.
That the landlord did not assess whether there were any failures, or offer redress, despite partially upholding her complaint in its second stage 1 response was unreasonable. Its complaint handling at both stages demonstrated a lack of meaningful investigation of its actions.
The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failures or offer any redress. We have made orders for the landlord it to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right.

Learning

The landlord did not set out any learning from its complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide detailed records of scheduled or completed works, communication with the resident, or notice and details of appointments. This limited our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors and did not meaningfully investigate their actions. This likely contributed to the failures identified. The landlord failed to provide timely, clear communication to the resident about the works, despite her requests. It failed to respond to various issues the resident raised. We have ordered the landlord to set out any learning from the complaint.