London Borough of Lambeth (202528547)

Background

1. The resident reported mould in her hallway in February 2024. The landlord later identified the damp was caused by a leak from the roof. The resident complained due to the landlord’s delays to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to repeated reports of mould and after identifying a roof leak in the resident’s property. As at the date of our determination, the leak remains unresolved.
5. The landlord’s investigation into the complaint was not appropriate. It relied on mistaken assumptions and did not put things right through its complaint process.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has said that the issue affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. We have considered events up to the date of this determination when assessing the impact of the leak on the resident. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Consequently, we have not investigated the landlord’s response to new reports of damp and mould made on 10 December 2025. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. If the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s response, then she should contact the landlord to discuss making a new complaint.

What we did investigate

8. The resident first report mould in her hallway on 21 February 2024. This was part of a wider report of damp and mould which also affected the area under her bath. The landlord addressed the damp and mould under the bath. However, there is no evidence to show whether it inspected or addressed the reported mould in the hallway. There is no evidence the landlord completed an inspection or monitored the resident’s reports. This indicates gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping and its ability to demonstrate compliance with its repairs and damp policy.
9. The resident reported mould in the hallway again on 20 May 2024. The landlord attended the property on 1 July 2024. The landlord’s repairs and damp and mould policy states it will complete a mould wash within 7 working days. The landlord attended after 29 working days. This was not in line with its policy.
10. During the July 2024 visit, the landlord identified damp to the wall and ceiling, which it assessed as coming from the roof. The landlord’s records do not refer to mould at this visit, nor does it confirm whether a mould wash was completed. As a result, the landlord cannot evidence that it followed its repairs and damp and mould policy. This raises further concerns about its record‑keeping.
11. The landlord determined that a surveyor’s inspection was required to assess the damp. A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 5 November 2024 and identified that there was a roof leak. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 working days. It took 91 working days from the July 2024 visit for the surveyor to attend.
12. The resident notified the landlord of a roof leak on 5 November 2024. The evidence shows the landlord took no action until 18 March 2025, when it identified that scaffolding was required. The landlord chased the issue internally in its stage 2 response on 17 September 2025 and again on 18 December 2025. On 31 March 2026, the landlord confirmed to us that it had taken no further action to repair the leak. As at the date of this determination, the issue remains unresolved, 368 working days after the resident reported it. The landlord’s repairs manual states that it should respond to a leaking roof within 7 working days.
13. During this period, the resident reported on 14 November 2024 that the leak was affecting the hallway lights. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 29 November 2024, which the resident rebooked to 4 December 2024. The resident then tried to rebook the appointment again. The landlord has provided no evidence that it completed this repair. This raises further concerns about its record‑keeping.
14. The landlord classified the issue affecting the hallway lights as a routine repair. Attendance on 29 November 2024 would have met routine timescales. However, the resident reported that water was affecting the electrical fittings. Given the health and safety risk, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair. Its repairs manual requires attendance within 1 working day for unsafe electrical fittings. The landlord failed to assess the risk correctly, misclassified the repair, and did not meet its timescales.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its subcontractor did not proceed with the repair on 11 July 2025 because it lacked the resident’s contact details. The landlord’s repairs and damp and mould policy says it will proactively monitor repairs and intervene if they stall. There is no evidence the landlord acted when the subcontractor identified this issue. The repair stalled, and the landlord did not intervene. This was not in line with its policy.
16. The landlord’s complaint responses did not adequately acknowledge its failings or demonstrate learning. It did not award compensation and instead referred the resident to its liability insurers. Referral in relation to potential health impacts was appropriate. However, the evidence shows repeated service failures over a prolonged period, which had a severe and long‑term impact on the resident. The landlord failed to put matters right through the complaints process and did not learn from outcomes. In line with our compensation guidance for severe maladministration, we order the landlord to pay £1,000 to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused.
17. The landlord also referred the resident to its insurers for increased utility costs. It said it did not award compensation for losses it could not quantify. This approach was not in line with its compensation policy, which requires consideration of both quantifiable and non‑quantifiable losses. The landlord did not evidence that it considered this. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to review any evidence of increased heating costs and then write to her to either offer further compensation or explain its decision.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
19. The resident made a complaint on 30 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2025, which was within 5 working days and in line with its policy. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of the date it issued its stage 1 response. While the acknowledgment was timely, the landlord has not been able to evidence compliance with its stage 1 response timescale. This represents a further record‑keeping failure.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that works orders confirmed a roof leak that required attendance and a remedy. The response suggested the landlord had taken action. However, the resident said no effective repair took place and the leak continued. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it properly investigated, monitored, or confirmed the outcome of the repair during its stage 1 investigation.
21. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 20 August 2025. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged this request. However, it issued its stage 2 response on 17 September 2025, which was within 20 working days of the escalation request. The landlord therefore met the required timescale at stage 2.
22. That said, the landlord’s stage 2 response accepted that it initially believed it had completed the repair. It accepted this was not correct. Its response showed that it had only identified the outstanding repair following the resident’s reports and further investigation. This demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s complaints process to ensure that it put things right. The evidence shows the landlord relied on incorrect assumptions, did not complete a thorough initial complaint investigation, and demonstrated poor monitoring of outstanding matters.
23. While the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the required timescale, it did not demonstrate effective complaint handling. It failed to carry out a thorough investigation, relied on incorrect assumptions, and did not put matters right through the complaints process. As a result, the resident experienced additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaint, as well as distress and inconvenience while the repair remained unresolved. We therefore order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Learning

24. Landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records. These provide an audit trail and increase a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems. Inaccurate or incomplete records can result in delayed or inappropriate action or missed opportunities to correct errors. They can also affect our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. These issues are evident in this case, and we have made orders accordingly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record‑keeping in this matter was not appropriate. This determination has identified several instances where the landlord could not evidence key actions or decisions. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also stated that works had been completed at the resident’s property on 11 July 2025. The evidence shows this was incorrect. This inaccuracy arose from poor record‑keeping and further undermines the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it managed the case effectively.

Communication

26. The landlord has not been able to evidence that it communicated appropriately with the resident during the handling of this matter. Aside from its formal complaint responses, the landlord has provided no evidence of written communication with the resident, despite the resident contacting it in writing. The evidence also shows that the resident made multiple telephone calls to chase responses. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded to those chases. The landlord’s communication was therefore not appropriate. It is encouraged to make use of our Centre for Learning, particularly the resources on knowledge and information management, which provide guidance on effective record‑keeping and communication with residents.