London Borough of Lambeth (202452181)

Decision
Case ID	202452181
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	5 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the fifteenth floor in a block. The resident sublets his property. The resident in the property above is a tenant of the landlord.
2. In April 2024 the resident reported a leak from the balcony above when it rained. During October the landlord began investigating the cause of the issue. It experienced difficulties gaining access to the property above. It carried out the repair in April 2025.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s report of a leak.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of a leak.

5. The landlord’s initial investigation into the leak was delayed and it did not proactively try to gain access to the property above.
6. The leak was not resolved until 12 months after the original report.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and it failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in a timely manner.
8. It failed to set out its reasons for the decision on the complaint and its responses lacked detail.

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 03 December 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £925 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. 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.	No later than 03 December 2025
3	Take Specific Action order Contact the resident to: Clarify if he wants to make an insurance claim. It should set out the outcome in writing. If he wishes to make a claim it should respond in line with the homeowners handbook.   Discuss his current concerns about an ongoing leak. It should set out its response in writing. If appropriate it should include a time bound action plan.	No later than 03 December 2025
4	Case Review order The landlord should carry out a case review to establish what went wrong and what it will do differently in future. This should include but is not limited to its response when there is no access. A copy should be provided to the resident and to us.	No later than 17 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 July 2024	The resident asked to make a complaint about the delay in repairing the leak. He outlined the events that had taken place since April when he originally made his report. He asked the landlord to cover the cost of making good damage to the bedroom ceiling and rental loss.
8 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response as follows: It ended its relationship with the contractor previously assigned to the repair. The new contractor would take over from 1 August and would attend the property on 14 October 2024. It signposted the resident to make a claim on its insurance. It upheld the complaint due to the delay and apologised for the inconvenience.
30 January 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate his complaint. This was because the repair was outstanding despite him chasing.
6 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being: It had identified that the leak was coming from the property above. To date it had been unable to gain access to carry out a repair. It would attend the property above on 12 March 2024. If there were no further issues with access the works would be completed. It partly upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
23 March 2025	The resident made an online complaint to us. He wanted the landlord to do the repair and compensate him for its inaction.

 

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	Response to reports of a leak.
Finding	Maladministration

9. In his email to the landlord of 11 July 2024 the resident said when he first reported the leak he was told it would inspect on 26 April 2024. However, no one attended. He said that it told him this was due to a “miscommunication.”
10. He said another appointment was booked for 9 May 2024 but again the landlord failed to attend. The next 2 appointments were cancelled and rescheduled. It attended on 25 May to identify the repair and said it would contact him to book the repair itself.
11. He said that because he didn’t hear anything further from the landlord he raised a complaint. He said his tenant’s clothes and bedroom were getting wet and she’d asked for a reduction in rent. He was also concerned about the damage being caused to the property by the ongoing leak.
12. The resident has not provided independent evidence to corroborate his account. However, the landlord’s repair records are also not comprehensive in this case. Furthermore, it’s noted that it did not dispute the content of his email.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 October 2024 said a new contractor was due to take over from 1 August. This cannot be correct as this was before the date of the response which is a record keeping failure.
14. It made a new appointment to try to progress works. However, there’s no evidence that it attended on 14 October 2024 as set out in its response. This was inappropriate because it was part of its complaint resolution. The landlord’s repair logs note that the resident called to chase in November and December 2024 and January 2025.
15. The landlord’s inaction caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who requested to escalate his complaint.
16. The repair logs show a works order was raised on 26 February 2025 to attend and report on the leak in the resident’s property. This is the first entry on the repair log in relation to the leak. There are no records relating to any previous appointments or works orders which is a record keeping failure.
17. The landlord’s response was not set out in its repair logs. However, its stage 2 response of 6 March 2025 set out steps it had taken to resolve the leak. It’s noted that the resident did not dispute the facts it provided.
18. It established the leak was coming from the property above and had tried to visit during October 2024. The neighbour was not in so a calling card was left. A follow up with the neighbour was “pencilled in” for December. However, the contractor did not have the neighbour’s contact details so this was not actioned. A further appointment was made for 12 March 2025 but this was dependent on the neighbour providing access.
19. The new appointment was almost 12 months after the resident first reported the leak. He told us that the repair was carried out on 10 April 2025. However, in an email to us dated 31 October 2025 the resident said the leak still happens when it rains.
20. There was an initial delay due to the issues with the previous contractor. It was positive that the new contractor attended to identify the cause of the leak. However, the landlord failed to take proactive action to ensure access to the property above in a timely manner.
21. The delays between access attempts were unreasonably long. Furthermore, it failed to consider whether it was reasonable to take enforcement action in line with the terms of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. In doing so it failed to have regard to the impact on the resident and reassure him that it took the situation seriously.
22. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to reflect on its response and take action to put things right by resolving the leak.
23. The landlord’s Homeowners Handbook says resident should report leaks from a tenanted property as soon as possible. It will repair the source of the leak and provide a job number which can be passed to its insurer as proof that work has been completed. Its insurer would then deal with any claim for any damage that was caused within your home.
24. In this case the repair was completed after the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued. It’s unclear if it followed the procedure above with regards to insurance. This has been addressed in our orders.
25. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays and provided some explanation as to why. However, it failed to comply with its Compensation Policy which it says it may offer compensation which reflects factors including distress, time and trouble.
26. The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. The landlord’s repair records lacked detail such as repair completion dates and details about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records.
27. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

28. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
29. The resident submitted his complaint on 11 July 2024. In his email to the landlord of 10 March 2025 he said he received an acknowledgement on 17 July. However, he did not receive a response which is why he submitted it again on 23 August 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord disputed this was the case.
30. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 October 2024. This was outside its response time of 10 working days. It failed to acknowledge the delay and therefore failed to try to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
31. Entries on the repair logs dated 8 November and 2 December 2024 referred to the resident’s dissatisfaction at having to chase the landlord. The first entry says an internal request was made to raise a complaint and the second says the resident asked to make a complaint.
32. The Code says that if all or part of the stage 1 complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2. It therefore would’ve been reasonable for the landlord to have considered escalating the complaint.
33. That it did not do so was a failure which caused time and trouble for the resident who contacted the landlord again on 30 January 2025 to request to escalate the issue. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March which was within its timescales when taken from 30 January 2025.
34. The Code requires landlords to set out its decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decision made. Its stage 2 response partly upheld the complaint but failed to explain why. The resident’s frustration was evident in his response dated 10 March 2025 when he asked the landlord to explain its position.
35. Also in is email of 10 March 2025 the resident raised concerns over the accuracy of the complaint response which he said was inaccurate and “misleading.” He provided details of additional events that had not been included. This included the times he’d chased both the repair and its complaint response.
36. It’s unclear whether the omissions were caused by a lack of a thorough investigation or because the information was not recorded on the landlord’s systems. In any event it amounted to failure of service.
37. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £125 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Learning

38. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to demonstrate its learning from the complaint which is an essential part of the complaint resolution process. This has been reflected in our orders.