London Borough of Lambeth (202517305)

Background

1. The leaseholder corresponded with and complained to the landlord as it is the freeholder of the building. However he sub-lets the property, which is a ground floor flat. He complained about an ongoing leak from the flat above which the landlord owns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak from the flat above.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the flat above.
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

Leak

6. There was a delay of 9 months in the landlord resolving the leak. It failed to keep the leaseholder updated during this time and did not identify the full reason for the delay.

Complaint

7. There were delays in the complaint handling process. The landlord did not complete a thorough investigation which meant it did not use the complaint handling process to put things right.

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.

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.

8. The landlord’s repairs manual says that it will resolve queries at first point of contact and keep residents updated if it takes longer. It gives an example that it will repair a leaking bath within 7 days. However, it says that it may not meet this timescale if it needs to access another property to complete the repair but cannot get in, although it may force entry if necessary.
9. The landlord owns the flat above the leaseholder’s property and correctly took responsibility for resolving the leak.
10. The leaseholder reported the leak on 21 February 2025. There is evidence that the landlord tried to call the tenant of the property above at that time but received no reply. Following this we can see no evidence that it took any further action until the leaseholder called it again on 2 April 2025. The landlord’s failure to act for over a month was an error that cost the leaseholder time and trouble because he had to contact it again. It also meant that the leak took longer to resolve.
11. There is evidence that the landlord tried to contact the tenant above again following the leaseholder’s call. However, it received no reply and could not leave a message. An operative then attended on 8 April 2025 but could not gain access. When the operative returned on 16 April 2025, they found that there was a leak coming from within the kitchen but a carpenter needed to remove a base unit to allow further investigation.
12. Following this there was a further delay of 14 working days until the landlord raised a follow-on work order on 7 May 2025. This may have been prompted by the leaseholder’s complaint which the landlord received on the same day. This further avoidable delay meant that again the leak took longer to resolve than necessary which possibly caused further damage to the leaseholder’s kitchen.
13. The tenant above then did not give access to the landlord until 24 July 2025. During this time there is evidence that the leaseholder called and emailed it several times for an update which cost him further time and trouble. This could have been avoided had the landlord followed its policy and updated him on the situation.
14. The landlord finally resolved the cause of the leak in November 2025. This was 9 months after the leaseholder first reported the issue. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow its policy cost the leaseholder considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord. It also cost him time and trouble liaising with his tenants and organising another property for them to move into while the kitchen was replaced. It caused him distress as he was unable to resolve the issue for them. The landlord did not offer an apology or any compensation. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the leak.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 1 housing complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 housing complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If this is not possible it says it will advise the complainant why it needs an extension which should not exceed 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
16. In this case the landlord took 48 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and a further 27 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. It did not communicate with the leaseholder about the extension. These delays and failure to follow its policy caused him distress and inconvenience and delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
17. Despite the delay the complaint responses did not fully answer the leaseholder’s complaint. They merely told him what the landlord intended to do to resolve the issue. This cost him further time and trouble because he had to escalate the complaint.
18. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that complaint handlers must consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
19. In this case the landlord failed to identify that there had been an initial delay in it attending the flat above and another delay in it logging a follow-on repair. This failure meant that it did not acknowledge that something had gone wrong and provide remedies to put things right. This caused the leaseholder further distress and frustration.
20. In summary there was a delay in the complaint handling process, a lack of communication and a lack of full investigation. Therefore, the landlord did not use the complaints process to put things right and there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

21. The landlord should make sure that complaint handlers complete full investigations and provide appropriate remedies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. No issues identified.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout the process and this meant that the leaseholder had to keep chasing it to ensure that there was a resolution.