London Borough of Lambeth (202440702)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 5 young children and she is pregnant. She raised 2 complaints to her landlord, one about damp, mould and window replacements. The other was about repairs and the safety of her staircase. She referred both complaints separately to us. This case concerns replacement windows, damp and mould which she reported in the 2 years leading up to her complaint. She was concerned about the impact the housing conditions were having on her and her family’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window replacements, damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window replacements, damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of window replacements, damp and mould

4. The landlord identified the windows were rotten and that it needed to urgently replace them over 18 months ago. It acknowledged the repairs may be contributing to damp and mould. However, it has not replaced the windows or offered a timely resolution to the complaint. The resident said the issues caused significant distress and inconvenience to her and her young family over a prolonged period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed, and it failed to acknowledge her escalated complaint. This was not in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its responses were confusing because they referred to another complaint. It failed to recognise its complaint handling failures and did not offer redress for the distress and inconvenience the resident said it caused.

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident reported that the issues were affecting her and her family’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Therefore, we have not considered this when assessing this case. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have considered

7. We considered the overall impact of the situation on the resident. This includes her time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience she said the issues caused her.
8. On 3 May 2024 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and found 7 windows were beyond repair and needed replacing urgently. The landlord’s records are unclear about its immediate plans to replace the windows. They show the landlord was due to attend her property on 19 June 2024, but there is no record of this visit happening. It inspected the windows again on 13 August 2024, but we have not seen evidence of its findings. Landlords should keep accurate records so they can manage their residents housing needs and provide a good service.
9. The resident chased the landlord about her window replacement on 10 September 2024, but it was not proactive in following this up. She contacted the landlord again on 4 December 2024, when she reported the mould in her property was making it feel cold. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 6 December 2024. However, it again failed to book in works promptly.
10. The landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s complaints about damp and mould, which went against its own policies. It showed lack of due regard to the impact on her and her young family. In her complaint on 6 February 2025, she said she shared a mouldy bedroom with her 1- and 3-year-old children, which was affecting their health. She also raised safety concerns because she could not open the windows, making escape in a fire impossible.
11. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed and cancelled for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes, we expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. They should consider if there is anything they can do to mitigate the impact of any delays. This might include providing dehumidifiers or offering temporary accommodation. There was no evidence the landlord kept the resident fully updated throughout the repairs or considered any interim solutions. 
12. When responding to the resident’s first complaint on 12 March 2025, the landlord acknowledged its poor response to her window replacement. It said its contractor had changed which impacted its service delivery. It said it rejected the initial quote for replacing the windows, which caused further delay. However, it estimated it would start installing the windows by 26 May 2025. It said it needed to give notice to the leaseholders in the building, but this should not affect the window installation. 
13. Despite its assurances, the landlord failed to schedule the window replacement promptly. It inspected her property again on 24 March 2025. It found the property needed urgent mould removal and treatment. It said it carried out a mould wash in one of the children’s bedrooms. However, the resident complained this did not resolve the issue when she escalated her complaint on 13 April 2024.
14. The landlord surveyed the resident’s property on 16 May 2025. It found condensation and mould and recommended remedial works. The works included replacing the windows, cleaning the mould and installing a ventilation unit. The landlord completed another mould wash later that month. It apologised for the delay in replacing her windows in its final complaint response on 2 June 2025. It said the condition of the windows was contributing to the mould issues. It assured her it was “working to progress this matter as quickly as possible”. It offered £100 compensation for the distress, inconvenience the delays may have caused and outlined its next steps.
15. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We considered the events following its final complaint response and whether the landlord put things right. This includes whether it completed the works to tackle the damp and mould within its policy timeframe.
16. The landlord did not ‘put things right’ as the window replacement works remain outstanding. In its final complaint response, it said the work was on hold due to consulting with its leaseholders. This contradicted its previous response on 12 March 2025 when it said it had already told leaseholders in the block, and it should not affect her window installation. It has not provided any evidence of objections from leaseholders, or evidence it has started replacing the windows, which leaves the complaint unresolved.
17. The landlord took some steps to tackle the damp and mould. It did mould washes and agreed to install a ventilation unit, which the surveyor recommended in its report on 16 May 2025. However, it did not install the ventilation unit until over 6 months later, on 7 October 2025. This is despite the resident chasing the landlord on 28 June 2025. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have prioritised this or at least ensured it was completed within its 90-day policy timescale.
18. We found severe maladministration because the landlord has not replaced the resident’s windows which it identified it needed to replace urgently 18 months ago. This was not in line with its policies. It also acknowledged the repair was a likely cause of condensation and contributor to damp and mould, but it failed to prioritise the work. The resident said she continues to experience damp and mould, and she told the landlord she was worried about the health, safety and wellbeing of her and her young children (including toddlers).
19. The landlord attempted to remedy the complaint by offering £100 compensation, but this was not proportionate to the scale of our findings. We ordered the landlord to apologise, inspect the property, and start the window replacement. We also ordered the landlord to pay £1,500 compensation to recognise the resident’s time and trouble chasing the works over a prolonged period and the distress and inconvenience the issues caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where we have found severe failings. 

20. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. This is in line with the Code. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its policy timeframe on 13 February 2025. However, it sent its stage 1 response on 41 working days after it had acknowledged her complaint. This exceeded its policy timescales, and there is no evidence it communicated with the resident during the delay.
21. The resident complained that the landlord’s complaint handling was unclear because it merged its response to her two complaints. This includes when it incorporated its response to her window replacement in its first response on 12 March 2025. The Code says landlord must include any new related issues into its stage 1 complaint response, providing it will not delay it. The landlord’s first complaint response (in September 2024) was already delayed, so the landlord should have separated the complaints to avoid further delay.
22. The landlord tried to deal with the window complaint quickly, which was understandable. However, it failed to address the other issues in its response. This caused confusion. The landlord also mixed up the 2 complaints in its emails, which the resident said was misleading. On 29 June 2025 she raised her concerns and asked the landlord to keep the complaint responses separate.
23. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalated complaint, which she raised on 13 April 2025. This was not in line with its policy. She contacted us for advice, and in May 2025 we asked the landlord to respond. There is no evidence the landlord ever acknowledged her escalated complaint or agreed to extend its response timeframe. Its response on 2 June 2025 was delayed by 12 working days.
24. In her complaint on 6 February 2025 the resident raised concerns about her windows and cracked walls, which let in draughts. She mentioned similar issues with structural cracks in her other complaint. The landlord did not respond to this issue or explain whether it would deal with the cracks raised in her other complaint. This is not in line with the Code, which says landlords must address all complaint points.
25. The landlord did not acknowledge or remedy its complaint handling failures in its final complaint response. This was not in line with its policy. We found maladministration because we identified several failures. We ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This amount aligns with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

26. The landlord failed to respond to the repairs with the urgency they required. The resident is pregnant, has 5 children and she reported the housing conditions were affecting their health. The landlord would benefit from establishing its processes for ensuring repairs are handled in line with its policy timescales, particularly in buildings where there are residents with mixed tenures.
27. The landlord would also benefit from defining complaints more clearly to ensure all issues are covered and not duplicated in subsequent complaints. This will enable the landlord to more effectively monitor it complaints and provide a better service.

 Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s repair records could have been much clearer. It recorded several repairs as “completed” but the completion date preceded the date the repair was “raised”. It was evident that some of the repairs it recorded as completed were still outstanding. In some of the records we saw, it was unclear which repair belonged to which property within the block. The landlord should improve its repairs recording to operate an efficient service and better inform its complaints team when things go wrong.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident during the repairs and throughout the complaints process was poor. There is no evidence it kept her updated of any progress with installing new windows or informing her of reasons for the delays. Its records show it was attempting to progress repairs but not communicating these actions to the resident. This caused her inconvenience, as she was having to chase the landlord for a response.
30. There is no record of the landlord contacting the resident to discuss her complaint which would have been beneficial in this case, as the resident had 2 separate complaints running alongside each other. It also failed to acknowledge her escalated complaint, and she contacted us to intervene. The landlord should communicate more effectively when managing repairs and complaints to build its relationship with its residents.