London Borough of Lambeth (202526104)

Background

1. During July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that there was damp and mould in the property caused by a broken downpipe. The property is a 3-bedroom first floor flat with no direct access to the garden. The resident’s son has cancer, and at the time of the complaint was undergoing treatment.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord did not actively pursue access to carry out the repair to the broken downpipe. There’s no evidence that it considered the impact on the resident and her son. Despite identifying failures in its service it failed to consider compensation in line with its compensation policy.

Handling of associated complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was unreasonably delayed. Furthermore, it failed to demonstrate that it carried out a thorough complaint investigation.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported damp and mould on 29 July 2024. It raised a works order for its surveyor to attend. The resident says it inspected the property on 9 August 2024. This was in line with its damp charter which says it will inspect within 28 days. However, the inspection and its outcomes are not recorded in the landlord’s repair logs which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it carried out a mould wash within 7 days in line with its charter.
7. An entry on the landlord’s repair logs show that on 22 August 2024 it contacted the resident’s neighbour to request access for 28 August 2024. However, when it attended it did not get access to carry out the repair.
8. It was positive that the landlord attempted to complete the repair. However, there’s no evidence that it updated the resident as to the outcome or that it followed up the access issue. This caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted the landlord to chase the matter on 23 September 2024 and 31 January 2025.
9. An entry on the repair logs dated 4 March 2025 says the landlord allocated the guttering job to its contractor. The entry was updated on 25 March 2025 to say the gutter had been cleaned and water tested on completion.
10. This is consistent with the resident’s formal complaint raised on 8 April 2025. In her complaint she said the job was closed due to no access. The evidence shows that the landlord only attempted to gain access via her neighbour once between 29 July 2024 and 8 April 2025, a period of 8 months. There’s no evidence that it considered the ongoing impact on the resident or how it might escalate the access issue in line with its repairs and damp policy. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it considered carrying out internal works to limit the impact on the resident in the meantime.
11. The landlord’s repair records show it tried to gain access via the resident’s neighbour on 28, 29 and 30 April 2025. While this was positive it’s unclear if these attempts were appointments arranged with the neighbour, which is a record keeping failure. There’s also no evidence that the landlord updated the resident accordingly.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2025 to chase the repair. A works order was raised to contact the resident to arrange access. The records show it called the resident on 7 May 2025 but there was no answer so it left a voicemail. It attended on 13 May 2025 but could not get access because it went to the resident’s property. She again advised that her neighbour needed to provide access. The landlord’s error compounded the distress caused to the resident and added to the existing delay.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 June 2025 said a works order had been raised. She emailed on the same day to confirm she’d told the contractor several times that access needed to be provided by her neighbour. She asked what steps could be taken to escalate the repair. The landlord failed to respond and she emailed again on 4 and 27 August 2025. She asked the landlord to contact her neighbour urgently to resolve the issue. In her email of 27 August 2025 she said the damp had spread to her son’s bedroom. She set out her concern that it could severely impact on his health.
14. On 29 August 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to report that rainwater was coming through the wall into her electrical socket. She had no lights or electrics in her kitchen. She acknowledged that it attended to remedy the issue. However, she said she was frustrated that it happened because it had failed to complete the repair to the downpipe.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 10 September 2025 failed to acknowledge the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities and failed to demonstrate any empathy. It also failed to proactively pursue access via the resident’s neighbour over a lengthy period. Its conclusion that part of the delay was outside its control was therefore inappropriate.
16. The repair logs shows that as of 14 October 2025 the repair to the downpipe was outstanding. In her call to us on 19 February 2026 the resident said the landlord had confused this repair with one to the guttering which was causing a leak to the communal area. As a result it believed the issue was resolved. She confirmed the downpipe was fixed later during October 2025. While this was positive it was 15 months after the issue was first reported.
17. Where it did identify failures it again failed to consider offering compensation to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles and its compensation policy. There’s also no evidence that it identified learning from the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles.
18. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse impact on the resident. Were it not for the landlord’s attempts to gain access in August 2024 and April 2025 we would have found severe maladministration in its response.
19. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £600 and above are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident. In ordering £600 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delayed response and its communication failures.

20. 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. It says it will acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It will provide a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
21. On 16 April 2025 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint of 8 April 2025. It issued its response on 2 June 2025. This was 30 working days from the date of its acknowledgement and 20 working days out of time. There’s no evidence that it contacted the resident to manage her expectations which was inappropriate.
22. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the delay. While this was positive it failed to provide an explanation. It also failed to offer compensation in line with its compensation policy which says it can consider financial redress where there has been failure to follow policy.
23. On 4 August 2025 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 September 2025. It’s unclear whether it acknowledged the complaint and if so on which date. However, its response was no more than 7 working days out of time and the distress caused to the resident was therefore relatively low.
24. The brevity of the landlord’s complaint responses demonstrated that it did not carry out a thorough and open-minded assessment of its response to the damp and mould. Its stage 1 response of 2 June 2025 only considered events from 24 April 2025 onwards. This was put right to some extent by its stage 2 response of 10 September 2025. This is because it acknowledged that the original report was made in July 2024. However, it failed to consider whether its response from that date was reasonable.
25. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such circumstances. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

26. The landlord failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles. Given that it failed to pursue access to complete the repair it would be appropriate for it to review its response to improve its service to residents.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. We highlighted gaps in the landlord’s evidence provided to us for the purposes of this investigation. It’s vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to update the resident regarding the progress of her repair. This was acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response of 10 September 2025.