London Borough of Lambeth (202441051)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her daughter. She has said she has had ongoing issues with damp and mould. She also had a leak in 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. A leak and subsequent damage.
   3. Concerns about a security gate
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. A leak and subsequent damage.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about a security gate.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

6. The works to address damp and mould were delayed, due to the discovery of asbestos. While some delay was reasonable, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took sufficient action to obtain an asbestos survey within a reasonable timeframe. It subsequently did not address the mould in the timeframes as per its repairs policy. It has not acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damage.

7. There were significant delays in repairing a leak in the property. The landlord has not addressed this in its complaints response. There were significant delays in repairing the damage from the leak. It did not provide an explanation for this.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about a security gate.

8. The resident raised concerns that unauthorised people were gaining access to the property. She felt this was unsafe. The landlord acknowledged these concerns and provided the resident with solutions it was considering.
9. The resident also raised that she wanted to receive deliveries through the security gate. The landlord advised that this was not the purpose of the gate. This was reasonable, as per the resident’s tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

10. There was a significant delay in the landlord issuing the stage 1 response. The complaint responses did not acknowledge what had gone wrong. The landlord did not demonstrate learning from 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.

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.

11. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first reported the damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs records say it attended to reports of damp and mould on 19 March 2024. It was able to carry out partial works, but it could not complete the job due to the potential presence of asbestos. Its repairs policy says that asbestos is dangerous and should not be disturbed. It was reasonable for the landlord to stop the works on noting the asbestos. However, we would expect the landlord to update the resident on how it intended to tackle the mould moving forward. We have not seen it did this.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2024 as she had not had an update regarding the asbestos in her property. On 1 May 2024 the landlord noted that it could not find the asbestos survey for her property. It said if it could not be located in 72 hours, it would complete a new survey. We have not seen evidence that the survey was located within 72 hours, or that a new survey was done. The landlord failed to keep its commitments to the resident.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 June 2024 to ask for an update on the asbestos work. There is no evidence that it provided an update. On 19 August 2024 it sent an internal communication with the asbestos survey. We would expect the landlord to have updated the resident regarding the next steps to tackle the mould, once it located the asbestos survey. We have not seen evidence it did this.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will investigate damp and mould within 28 working days. Following the investigation, it will write an action plan to address the issue. This will include timeframes. At the time of issuing the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had not completed further damp and mould works, since it first attended on 19 March 2024. This was 225 days since the landlord first attended to the mould. We consider this delay to be unreasonable as it was not in line with its repairs policy.
15. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had scheduled work for 4 November 2024 and 5 November 2024. The repairs records state that the contractor did not attend these appointments. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why these appointments did not go ahead.
16. On 20 November 2024 the landlord said there was a no access appointment for a mould wash. It is unclear from the evidence whether this appointment was rescheduled. Its repairs policy says it will send a text message when there has been a no access appointment. We have not seen evidence it did this.
17. The resident reports that there is still mould in her property. She noted in the complaint that the mould had been reoccurring. In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says that for persistent damp and mould, a healthy homes partner will be allocated to help tackle this. We would expect the landlord to address the resident’s concern that the mould is reoccurring, in line with its policy. We have not seen evidence that it did this.
18. The landlord’s complaints response did not address the significant delays in dealing with the damp and mould. We have seen limited updates from the landlord to the resident, whilst the matter was outstanding. The landlord took a significant amount of time to locate the asbestos survey. It did not act with urgency once it had located it. The appointments provided in the stage 2 response were not attended. We have not seen evidence that the landlord has fully addressed the damp and mould. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
19. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance when considering financial recompense. The landlord’s policy says it will award £10 a week when it has delayed in providing a provision that has a moderate impact on the resident. We have calculated from 19 March 2024, when the matter was first reported, until 20 November 2024 when the landlord attempted to carry out mould works. This equates to £350.
20. The landlord should review whether it took reasonable steps after t 20 November 2024 to address the mould. If it did not it should consider if further compensation is due as per its policy.
21. We have further considered a payment for distress and inconvenience. We have awarded £150. This brings the total compensation to £500. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration, where there has been significant delays which impact on the resident.

22. On 3 June 2024 the resident reported that a water pipe from her boiler was leaking. The landlord’s repairs policy gives timescales for repairs depending on their urgency. It says the timescales comply with the Right to Repair Scheme. We note the scheme says leaks from water pipes should be repaired in 1 day. The landlord gave the repair a priority that meant it needed to attend within 7 days. We have not seen evidence as to why the landlord made the decision that the repair should be considered routine, rather than emergency or urgent.
23. On 6 June 2024 the landlord said it had booked an appointment for the leak for 14 June 2024. This is outside the timescales for routine repairs, as outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has not given an explanation for the delay.
24. On 13 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that no one had attended an appointment for the leak. It is unclear from the evidence when the appointment date changed from 14 June 2024. The landlord said it would attend that day. The landlord attended the appointment. However, it has not kept detailed records of what happened when it attended.
25. On 14 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that a gas contractor and a plumber had attended. She said both parties said it was the others responsibility. She said her kitchen was flooded and her daughter had to wear wellington boots when walking in there. We would expect the landlord to contact both contractors to get an urgent update, given the impact the leak was having. We can see that the landlord said it had emailed both contractors. We have not seen the emails, or if there was any response.
26. On 18 June 2024 the landlord reallocated the job to a gas contractor. The records indicate that the landlord downgraded the repair to being less urgent. It is unclear from the records why it took this action particularly as the resident had described that the leak was significant.
27. On 25 June 2024 the resident again reported that the gas contractor felt it was not their responsibility. The landlord noted that it emailed both contractors. Whilst it was appropriate to email the contractors, the landlord had done this previously. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the repair. We have not seen it did this.
28. On 3 July 2024 the resident reported that the leak had got worse and was now going to the property below. The landlord emailed both contractors again. We note that it sent the same email to both contractors again on 22 July 2024. The landlord had made no progress by emailing the contractors since 25 June 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what other actions it could take to resolve the leak. We have not seen evidence it did this.
29. There are no further records regarding the leak, however, we note that the resident did not report it again. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 7 October 2024, the landlord confirmed the leak was repaired. It did not provide a date for the repair. The repair was outstanding for at least 35 days. This is outside the landlord’s repairs timescales, regardless of the priority it was allocated.
30. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2024. She said the landlord attended the property on on 3 September 2024. It had identified a number of outstanding repairs in the property. Some of these repairs were for damage from the leak. She said she had not heard anything since that time, despite chasing a response on 15 September 2024. We have not seen a record from the landlord regarding this visit.
31. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said this was because it had booked follow on works for 19 November 2024, to complete the redecoration. The repair was identified on 3 September 2024, or before. The repair was outstanding for a minimum of 77 days. This is outside the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs. It did not acknowledge the delay in completing the repair.
32. We understand the appointment on 19 November 2024 did not go ahead, and we have not seen evidence as to why. The landlord’s repairs records say it rebooked the jobs for 6 and 7 January 2025. It is unclear if it attended this job. A note from 12 June 2025 said it was raising an inspection to look at the painting in the property, which we consider is likely to have been a post works inspection. As such we consider it likely the landlord has completed the repairs to water damage. However, the repairs took significantly longer than the timescales in its repairs policy.
33. There were significant delays in the landlord repairing the leak. There were also delays in it repairing subsequent damage. The landlord has not met the timescales within its repairs policy. It has failed to demonstrate that it acted with urgency. There is limited evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated on her repair while it was outstanding. The landlord has not provided an explanation or apology for the delays. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damage.
34. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance when considering financial recompense. The landlord’s policy says it will award £10 a week when it has delayed in providing a provision that has a moderate impact on the resident. We have awarded £70 for the time the leak repair was outstanding.
35. We are unable to determine when the landlord first raised a repair for the leak damage. We are also unable to determine when it was repaired. The Ombudsman has not been made aware of what the leak damage was. As such we are unable to determine if there was impact to the useability of rooms at the property. However, we recognise that the delay is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience.
36. As per our remedies guidance we have awarded £400 for distress and inconvenience. This recognises that the resident lived with a leak for 7 weeks and leak damage for several months after that time.

37. In the resident’s complaint, dated 2 October 2024, she said that there were issues with unauthorised people gaining access to the property. This had caused her and her daughter distress, as she had to pass them when coming home. She said she was concerned for their safety. She noted that locking the front gate was a solution. However, she said this was a disadvantage for her, as people could still get access from the back entrance. She also said she received deliveries through that gate.
38. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would put a new padlock on the gate on 11 October 2024. It also noted that a third gate was already locked. On the same day as the stage one response the resident’s housing officer sent a second email confirming that it was considering raising a fence around the block. This would be part of planned works. It said this was subject to approval. If approved, it would take place in the next financial year. It identified that there were desolated sheds which might be being used by unauthorised people. It said it would remove them soon. The landlord has demonstrated that it understood the resident’s concerns regarding unauthorised people accessing the property. It identified possible solutions to the problem and advised the resident.
39. The resident reiterated to the landlord that she used the gate for deliveries. The landlord responded that the gate was not meant for deliveries and using it was a breach of tenancy. The resident’s tenancy agreement says residents must not interfere with security or safety equipment. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the purpose of the gate.
40. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding unauthorised people. It provided correct information regarding the purpose of the security gate. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the security gate concerns.

41. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and issue the response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and issue the response within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the timescales in our Code (April 2024).
42. The resident first raised a complaint on 11 July 2024. She contacted the landlord again on 2 October 2024 as she had not had a response. The landlord took 83 working days to respond at stage 1. This was significantly outside of the timescales.
43. The stage 1 complaint did not address initial leak, the damp and mould or the length of time to complete the leak damage repairs. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge what it did wrong and give an explanation as to why, in its complaints responses. It upheld the resident’s complaint but failed to identify or acknowledge where it had made mistakes. The landlord has not followed its complaints policy.
44. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 7 October 2024. The landlord responded to the stage 2 escalation request in 17 working days. This was within the timescale of its complaints policy.
45. The landlord did not address all the issues in the stage 2 response. It did not address the initial leak, or the delays in completing damp and mould and repairs works. It failed to acknowledge any failings, or any impact on the resident. We consider this is likely to have caused frustration to the resident. It may have had a negative impact on the landlord/resident relationship.
46. There was a significant delay in issuing the stage 1 response. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy as it did not address all the resident’s concerns. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
47. Due to the delay and failure to acknowledge what went wrong, there was likely distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have awarded £150 in recognition of this. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there has been a delay, and a landlord has not acknowledged failings.

Learning

48. As noted in the report, the landlord has not demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint. It has not recognised where it failed to follow its repairs policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

49. There appears to be records which have not been updated with adequate details. This includes the visit made by the landlord on 3 September 2024. The landlord has not updated its records when it has completed repairs.

Communication

50. We have seen limited evidence that the landlord was updating the resident.