London Borough of Lambeth (202519737)

Decision
Case ID	202519737
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 March 2026

Background

The resident has lived in the studio property since 2021. She lives with her new baby, born on 6 February 2026. She reported a leak in January 2025 and later reported damp and mould. Investigations indicate a garage below may be the source of the leak.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Although the landlord carried out several surveys and investigations, it failed to do so with sufficient urgency or in line with its repair and damp policy.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in line with its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (the Code). However, it took too long to reply to the stage 1 complaint and did not address all her complaint issues.

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 it is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 17 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid £700 directly to the resident made up of: £600 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failures responding to reports of a leak, damp and mould. £100 for time and trouble caused by complaint handling failures.	No later than 17 April 2026
3	Survey order The landlord must take all reasonable steps to complete its planned CCTV drainage and plumbing investigations to establish if there is a leak affecting the property. It must also inspect the property for damp and mould. If it is unable to do so it must provide documentary evidence of its attempts no later than the due date. The landlord must provide the resident with a written record of its investigations, inspections and surveys that sets out: If a leak, damp or mould is affecting the resident’s property and the most likely cause of this. Whether it is responsible for repairing or resolving issues together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution and the likely timescales to start and finish any remedial work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary, either because of the condition of the property or during the work.	No later than 17 April 2026
4	Take specific action The landlord must reimburse the resident £238.80, the total cost of the specialist damp survey.	No later than 17 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 May 2025	The resident complained that: The landlord delayed surveying the property and treatments were ineffective. Mould was hazardous, affected her health and resulted in her moving household items. She took time off work to facilitate repairs but contractors did not arrive or could not complete work. She asked for an Environmental Health Team (EHT) inspection and a schedule of work. She also asked for compensation for damaged personal items and disruption.
1 September 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referenced an inspection on 12 June 2025 and said follow up work had addressed the leak. It acknowledged multiple appointments and signposted the resident to make a liability claim for any damages.
3 September 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint.
8 October 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it planned to locate and fix a leak in the garage and had booked a drain survey for that day. It apologised for complaint handling delays and agreed to provide a schedule of work when it had located the leak.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident says the issue is unresolved and affecting the health of her newborn baby. She wants the landlord to move her to an alternative property due to the extent of any remedial work and the size of the property. She also wants the landlord to reimburse the cost of a damp survey she instructed.

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 handling of reports of a leak, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

We do not know exactly when the resident reported the leak but, on 28 January 2025, the landlord raised work to trace and remedy it. It also noted it affected a garage below, which was not part of the property. The landlord’s repair and damp policy says it aims to respond to non-urgent leaks within 1 to 7 days. However, it also says it may not be able to meet this timescale if it needs to access another property to trace the source of a leak and fix it.
While the landlord arranged 2 inspections for 31 January and 4 February 2025 it could not access the property. We do not know if the landlord notified the resident of these appointments but it arranged a third one for 12 February 2025, with her agreement. However, the resident called that day to say the contractor had not attended. She said she had taken a day off work and had previously received ‘no access’ cards, inferring she was unaware of previous appointments.
Despite the resident’s contact, the landlord closed the repair the following day as it had been unable to access the property on 3 occasions. This was inappropriate as the resident told the landlord the contractor did not attend. Even if the landlord disputed this, it should have re-booked the appointment after the resident’s contact, in line with its repair and damp policy.
This did not happen until 11 March 2025 and we do not know what prompted it. An inspection on 19 March 2025 found paint in the living room, bathroom and hallway cupboard was ‘peeling’.
Moisture or damp is widely regarded as the most common cause of peeling paint. We understand other situations may cause it, including inappropriate applications. As the resident had reported a leak, it was reasonable to expect the landlord would investigate whether damp was contributing to the peeling paint. There is no evidence it did. Nor did it further investigate the resident’s belief there was a leak affecting the property. Instead, it noted work was complete.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 April 2025 and asked for an update. While the landlord arranged an appointment for 21 May 2025 to redecorate areas affected by peeling paint, there is no record it investigated the cause. The resident contacted it on the day of the appointment, highlighting that the operative was only instructed to decorate while her cupboards were filled with water due to a leak. She asked what the landlord would do to resolve it.
Another contractor attended on 11 June 2025 and documented they removed loose paint and applied a stain block to affected areas. They recommended a surveyor attend, and both complaint responses refer to a survey on 12 June 2025. However, we have not seen a record of this.
The landlord said the surveyor recommended investigating the source of a possible leak. They also recommended a mould treatment but the landlord decided this could not go ahead until the leak was resolved. It was now nearly 6 months since the resident reported a potential leak. This was significantly outside the timeframe the landlord aims to address such issues.
The landlord arranged 3 further inspections between 26 June and 30 July 2025. These found no leaks but various damp patches around the heating system. While the inspector on 30 July 2025 believed the source of the damp and associated mould was in the garage below, there is no record the landlord followed this up at that time. This was not in line with its repair and damp policy. This says it will inspect and diagnose the cause of damp within 28 days and agree and write a timebound action plan to resolve it.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was inappropriate. While it acknowledged multiple appointments to address the source of the leak, there is no evidence it considered the resident’s complaint that these inconvenienced her. Its compensation policy says it should consider applying a remedy (such as compensation) when a service failure has had an adverse effect on the complainant. While it committed to doing this later, it should have considered the impact of its failures at both stages of the complaint process. It could have increased any compensation award later, if appropriate.
The stage 1 response was also incorrect. It said the issue was resolved as records noted work was complete. This was despite outstanding investigations and the resident’s complaint that the issue was unresolved. This meant the matter was not progressed and remained ongoing at the point of the landlord’s stage 2 response. Further, while the stage 2 response referred to a drain survey of that day, records show the landlord only instructed it that day.
With regard to the resident’s claim for damage to belongings, the landlord’s signposting to its insurer was appropriate. Its compensation policy says it should not consider awarding compensation for issues covered by its insurance policy such as damages to personal effects.
The landlord’s agreement to consider temporary alternative accommodation later was also appropriate. Its repair and damp policy says it will consider offering this, if part of a property is uninhabitable because of work. As the cause of the leak was not known, it could not determine what remedial work was needed or if it would result in the property being uninhabitable
The landlord did not uphold the complaint on the basis it could not treat mould until the leak was resolved and it was difficult to find the source. We acknowledge the landlord had carried out multiple investigations to identify if there was a leak. However, its actions were reactive and often prompted by the resident’s contact. The problem was unresolved nearly 9 months later. It had not followed up work and often closed it prematurely. The resident had no clear plan of action as to how the landlord intended to resolve the issue. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its stage 2 response and missed an opportunity to put things right.
The drain survey of 17 October 2025 found there was likely to be a significant fault in a drainage pipe. The surveyor documented they also assessed the pipework in the garage below and found it was leaking and there was a mass of mould on the ceiling which could be the cause of mould in the property. The surveyor recommended high power jet washing the affected garage area to clear the pipework, and that a plumber inspected the leaking water and pipework. We have not seen the landlord progressed these recommendations at that time.
On 6 November 2025 we told the landlord the resident had indicated there may be a hazard in the property (damp and mould) that may need to be addressed under Awaab’s law. It appears this prompted the landlord to arrange a mould wash. While this was marked as completed on 19 November 2025 it is unclear if it went ahead.
The landlord also inspected the property that day. The inspector noted there was no mould and walls felt dry. Although they also noted they peeled away ‘bubbling paint’ which was ‘perhaps a little moist’. However, the inspector said the resident could resolve this by heating the property.
We understand the purpose of the inspection may have only been to establish if there were emergency or significant hazards the landlord needed to address under Awaab’s law regulations. We are not assessing the landlord’s actions in respect of this, as it does not form part of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord should have considered that previous investigations found damp and mould and the cause was unresolved. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to progress the unresolved leak.
Further, that day a midwife confirmed the resident was nearly 28 weeks pregnant. She said mould was dangerous to both mothers and newborn babies who have very small lungs. She asked for the issue to be addressed before the baby was born.
The landlord notified the resident of the outcome of its inspection on 20 November 2025. It said there were no hazards and no further action was required. This prompted her to arrange her own damp specialist survey at a cost of £199 plus VAT. We understand this was her decision and we would not necessarily expect the landlord to act on any findings.
However, it was reasonable for the resident to pursue this course of action. Despite previous investigations confirming damp and mould may be due to defective drainage in a garage below, the landlord had not pursued any recommended work or investigated further to rule it out. The resident had no commitment or plan of action confirming that the landlord intended to resolve the issue. She also believed the issue may affect her health and that of her baby.
The resident instructed an accredited damp surveyor. Their report of 23 November 2025 documented high moisture readings in the walls, indicative of rising damp. The resident forwarded this to the landlord on 24 November 2025, in addition to the midwife letter of 19 November 2025. She highlighted she had reported the issue in January 2025 and it was unresolved.
It appears this prompted the landlord to act. It instructed another CCTV survey that day to trace and repair the leak. It also arranged for its surveyor to visit again on 27 November 2025. They found severe damp in the hall cupboard caused by water ingress. They also observed water ingress in the living room and damp in the bathroom and noted they were both likely to be due to the same leak affecting the hall. They recommended pursuing the CCTV survey to fix the cause of the leak.
The landlord chased the outcome of the CCTV survey on 7 January 2026. While records suggest an appointment was arranged for 21 January 2026 we do not know if this went ahead. The landlord told us on 4 March 2026 that it had asked the contractor to visit as soon as possible. This means the issue is unresolved, more than 12 months after the resident reported it.
The multiple failings identified in this report amount to maladministration. They have contributed to water ingress being unresolved for a prolonged and unnecessary period. It is positive the landlord identified some of these failures in a later review of the case. However, it has not put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise, progress investigations, and pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has not acknowledged or put right failures that adversely affect a resident.
In determining appropriate compensation, we have considered that the resident has lived with the effects of water ingress and damp for more than 12 months and mould for part of this period. This has caused inconvenience and affected her enjoyment of the property.
We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. However, we acknowledge the issue caused distress which was exacerbated by household vulnerabilities. We have also considered the resident spent time and trouble progressing the issue over a prolonged period and facilitated numerous repair appointments that did not resolve it.
Finally, we order the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of the damp survey. The landlord’s compensation policy says it aims to put residents back to the position they would have been in, had there not been a failure. As we have explained, the landlord’s failures to progress work and provide a plan of action contributed to the resident’s decision to commission this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframe. However, it did not issue its response by 5 June 2025 when it told the resident to expect it. Although it later revised the timeframe to reply until 9 July 2025, again we have not seen it replied by this date. It did not do so until 1 September 2025. This was 42 working days outside its complaint policy time limit.
The resident spent time and trouble chasing a reply, including contacting our office. While the landlord has apologised for complaint delays, we have not seen it properly considered the impact of these or whether to award compensation in line with its compensation policy. This says it can award between £50 and £250 depending on the extent of such inconvenience.
Further, the stage 1 response did not address the resident’s request for an EHT inspection. We understand why it may not have believed this was appropriate. The EHT could not enforce any action against the landlord as it was part of the same local authority. However, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s request.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s complaint that contractors failed to attend. While we have seen the resident reported this issue, repair records did not support this and instead said the contractor could not gain access. Therefore, we cannot say with any certainty whether the landlord missed appointments. However, it should have looked into it further and addressed it in its complaint response.
Records show the resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2025. The landlord’s complaint response says this happened on 1 September 2025. Regardless, it issued its stage 2 response 27 working days from the earlier date. This was within its policy time limit, allowing for a 20-working day extension as permitted within the Code.
The landlord’s failures addressing the complaint at stage 1 of its process amount to service failure. The landlord has not put it right. Therefore, we order it to apologise and pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a service failure causes time and trouble and delays getting matters resolved.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records are often unclear and lack detail. Some show when it raised and completed repairs, but do not detail what work took place, if any. Further, we have not seen evidence of any process to monitor and progress outstanding repairs. These issues impacted the landlord’s ability to deal with repairs effectively.
Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights how weaknesses in data and information causes problems for landlord’s services. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlord’s keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

We have not seen the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Our spotlight report on ‘Repairing Trust’ explains that landlords can avoid failures when they:
1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
2. Gather feedback and conduct inspections to ensure work is satisfactory.