London Borough of Lambeth (202508037)

Decision
Case ID	202508037
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident’s daughter complained to the landlord about “damage and deterioration” in the property, particularly in the kitchen, bathroom and WC. She raised concerns about health and safety, damp and mould, and pest infestations. She asked the landlord to provide a clear plan of action for resolving these issues and remains unhappy with its response. As she was acting with the resident’s authority and on her behalf, we have referred to both as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s property condition concerns.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s property condition concerns.
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 response to the resident’s property condition concerns

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it appropriately assessed all of the resident’s concerns when it surveyed the property and its communications with her were poor.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s first complaint and then delayed in responding to her second complaint. Its responses lacked substance and did not address all of the issues the resident raised in her 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 28 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to her property condition concerns. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the condition of the kitchen, bathroom and WC. Inspects all windows in the property. Checks for potential pest entry points throughout the property. Produces an inspection report. It should provide us and the resident with a copy of this report by the due date. The inspection report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any repair or property condition issues identified. Whether the landlord is responsible for repairing or resolving each identified issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to each identified repair or property condition issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 28 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 April 2025	The resident complained about the “deteriorating condition” of her kitchen, bathroom and WC. She said they were worn and below acceptable standards, that there was persistent damp and mould, and rodent and ant infestations. She complained the landlord had delayed in responding to previous reports of these issues. She asked it to conduct an urgent inspection and provide an action plan for resolving the issues.
16 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days.
1 May 2025	The landlord surveyed the property. On the same day the resident asked it for a written report of its findings, including an action plan with timeframes for any works. She asked it to confirm if it had found any hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
6 May 2025	The landlord emailed the resident and advised it had raised works orders for replacing the kitchen, the glazing in 2 windows and 2 toilet seats. It said she should contact pest control herself.
9 May 2025	The landlord told the resident during a phone call that it did not intend to replace the kitchen.
14 May 2025	The resident asked the landlord to clarify either way if it would be replacing the kitchen. She also asked if it had inspected the bathroom and WC, and to clarify who was responsible for organising pest control. The landlord said it would respond to these queries by 21 May 2025.
21 May 2025	The landlord had not responded to the resident’s queries by this date. As such, the resident raised a complaint the same day. She said: The landlord had given her conflicting information about whether it intended to replace the kitchen. She had called twice to discuss this and was advised someone would call her back, but nobody did. She was concerned photos taken during the 1 May survey did not capture the extent of the issues in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet. The landlord should either provide written confirmation of its findings in all 3 rooms or conduct a further survey to “properly assess” them.
29 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said it would respond by 12 June 2025. In response, the resident clarified that she wanted the kitchen, bathroom and WC to all be fully replaced.
17 to 18 June 2025	The resident asked the landlord twice to respond to her complaint.
20 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said: It was sorry for its delay in issuing the response. Its visit on 1 May was a repairs survey, not a stock condition survey. It would upgrade the kitchen but would not upgrade the bathroom or WC unless they were in poor condition. It suggested the resident provide photographs if she felt there were defects in these rooms.
23 June 2025	The landlord received an email from the resident in which she asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had “dismissed” her bathroom and WC concerns “based on a limited repairs survey”. She sent it photographs of both rooms which she said showed evidence of rodent and insect infestations, rotting floors, mould growth and peeling paint due to poor ventilation. She asked the landlord to: Review the condition of the bathroom and WC, not limited to photo review alone, and advise her of its specific findings in these rooms. Provide her with a timeline for completing the kitchen work. Provide her with a contact to discuss a potential HHSRS inspection.
14 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would respond by 28 July 2025.
29 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had not yet received an update from its repairs team about next steps for the bathroom or WC, or a timeline for the kitchen work. It said it would provide the resident with a “comprehensive update” by the following week.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us the week after she received the stage 2 response and told us she had received no further update from the landlord. She recently told us the situation has not changed and she remains concerned the kitchen, bathroom and WC are “unsafe and unsanitary”. She wants the landlord to carry out repair or replacement works in all 3 rooms and to provide her with a “clear and reasonable” timeframe within which it will do so.

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 response to the resident’s property condition concerns
Finding	Maladministration

Within the resident’s first complaint email on 15 April 2025, she raised concern about the condition of her kitchen, bathroom and WC, and said there was damp and mould and pest infestations in the property. The landlord’s initial response to this email appeared to be appropriate. It carried out a repairs survey within 28 days, which was in keeping with its repairs policy, and it raised works orders following this.
However, we cannot say with certainty whether it assessed all of the resident’s concerns during the survey as it has not provided us with a copy of its findings. There is no record of the survey within the repair logs it provided us with. This is poor record keeping.
The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to provide her with a written report outlining its survey findings, but it failed to do so. The only information it initially provided in response to her request for a report, was that it had raised works orders to replace the kitchen, 2 windows and 2 toilet seats. It did not say either way if it assessed the overall condition of the bathroom and WC or inspected the property for damp and mould and pest entry points. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repairs policy which required it to keep residents informed and resolve their queries.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for a report of its survey findings led to her raising a further complaint on 21 May 2025. However, even within its formal responses to this complaint, it failed to clarify either way if it had surveyed the bathroom and WC or inspected the property for damp and mould and pest entry points. This means we cannot be satisfied that it appropriately considered all of her concerns about the condition of her property.
In relation to the resident’s kitchen, we are unclear whether the landlord intends to replace this or not. It told her in an email on 6 May 2025 that it would replace the kitchen but appeared to retract this during a phone call 3 days later. However, within both its complaint responses on 20 June and 29 July 2025, it indicated it was intending to replace the kitchen, although it was unable to provide a timeframe for this. It did not explain why it had suggested during the previous phone call it would not be doing so.
Within the repair records the landlord recently sent us, we can see it raised a works order for replacing the kitchen on 23 July 2025. This works order appears to remain open as it is not marked as either complete or cancelled. However, within other information the landlord provided us with, it suggested it was not going to be carrying out any upgrades in the property due to “budget constraints and other pre-planned work” across its portfolio. It told us it had advised the resident of this. We have seen no evidence it has done so, other than its conversation with her on 9 May 2025 which was superseded by its complaint responses in which it said it would replace the kitchen.
We are therefore unclear as to what the landlord’s current position is in relation to the kitchen upgrade. We do not know what its specific findings were when it surveyed the kitchen on 1 May 2025 as we have not seen a report of that survey. This means we do not know if it identified any issues which, if it was not going to replace the kitchen, it should repair. Based on the resident’s reports, there is sunken flooring, damaged units and pest entry points, all of which are the landlord’s responsibility to repair under the tenancy agreement. If the landlord decided not to replace the kitchen, it should have instead resolved these repair issues in line with its repairs policy. We have seen no evidence it has done so.
Our Remedies Guidance sets out that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. In ordering £350 in compensation, we have considered the timeframe of the landlord’s delays and the distress and inconvenience this caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord failed to formally respond to the resident’s initial complaint which she submitted by email on 15 April 2025. The resident sent this email to the landlord’s complaints department and specifically stated she was making a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this as a complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. We do not know why it did not do so. If, for example, it later decided to treat the email as a service request rather than a complaint, it should have notified the resident of this and secured her agreement to proceed in this way.
When the resident submitted her second complaint, the landlord should have issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement email. Instead, it took 16 working days to respond and this was only after the resident sent it 2 emails to chase a response. It apologised for this delay in the stage 1 response and said this was because it was trying to get up-to-date information before replying. While that may have been the case, it should have followed its complaints policy and notified the resident in advance of the original due date that there was going to be a delay.
The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days of receiving it. Instead, it took 15 working days to acknowledge the request. It then took 1 working day longer than it should have to issue the stage 2 response.
The stage 2 response read as though it were a holding response. If the landlord was not able to provide a substantive response at that stage, it should have used the provision within its complaint policy to notify the resident that it required more time to respond. Although it said in the stage 2 response it would provide a more comprehensive response the following week, it failed to do so.
The resident asked the landlord in her escalation request to provide her with a direct contact who she could discuss a “HHSRS-level inspection” with. She had previously asked it numerous times whether it had identified any category 1 or 2 hazards under the HHSRS. Although landlords are required to make sure their properties are safe and free from hazards, the HHSRS is a risk-based assessment tool primarily used by local authority environmental health departments. The landlord failed to explain this to the resident and did not signpost her to environmental health.
Our Remedies Guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £200 are appropriate in these circumstances where the landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failings and has made no attempt to put things right. In ordering £150 in compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and lack of substantive responses.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Many of the works orders in the repairs history report provided by the landlord lacked detail or were incomplete. Some of the works orders were raised for jobs that were then marked as having been completed months previously, suggesting the works orders were raised retrospectively. For example, the landlord raised a works order in July 2025 to board and make safe 2 windows. This was marked as having been completed in May 2025. The works order stated the windows were to be replaced but it is unclear if it then completed this work. The repairs history report also did not provide any detail of inspections carried out by the landlord’s own staff, such as its survey on 1 May 2025.
We are aware the landlord has been developing a records management strategy in recent years. We would encourage it to keep this under review and learn from complaints such as this where record keeping issues have been highlighted.

Communication

The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor. Prior to and throughout the complaints process, it failed to clearly explain to her what it surveyed, what it found, and what its intended plan of action was. This was despite the resident clearly requesting it provide this information. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy which states it will be easy for residents to access its services, it will keep them informed, and it will resolve queries at the first point of contact.