London Borough of Lambeth — case 202329834

Decision Case ID 202329834 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 6 February 2026 Background The resident is elderly and was represented by a family member who complained to the landlord and us on her behalf. For the purposes of this report, we refer to both as the resident. The resident was unhappy with the condition of her property and made a legal disrepair claim against the landlord, which was settled in December 2020.

She remained unhappy because of outstanding repairs and made another disrepair claim in 2022. The resident has recently accepted damages to settle her claim. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Outstanding repairs. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s outstanding repairs. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding repairs The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs was poor. It offered compensation as part of her disrepair claim, which was proportionate to its failings. The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord did not send its stage 1 response in line with its complaints policy timescale. It also provided incorrect information in its response. 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 provided by a senior manager 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 06 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 06 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord: pays the resident the offer she told us she accepted of £9,815.50. Our finding of reasonable redress is on the basis this is paid provides the resident with a copy of the tenancy agreement contacts the resident about her outstanding repairs Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 July 2023 The resident complained to the landlord.

She said: there was major structural damage to the property there were several issues which included multiple cracks, mice infestation, a damaged leaking downpipe, rotten bathroom flooring, and rotten windows which let in cold air the landlord did not visit to check on her wellbeing it did not tell her the next steps following a recent survey or raise repairs for the bathroom and kitchen renewal 8 August 2023 The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for its late reply and the inconvenience it caused.

It said: the complaint was outside its complaints policy because the repairs were being managed as a legal disrepair case it had raised work orders, but the resident would need to speak to her legal representative about the timescale and scope of the repairs it had passed her correspondence to the relevant team to ensure the resident’s representative was updated 16 January 2024 Following escalation to us, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to send the resident a complaint response by 20 February 2024.

21 February 2024 The landlord did not send its response. We asked it to respond by 28 February 2024. 28 February 2024 The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It confirmed no legal proceedings had started and accepted it could have provided information in its stage 1 response. It apologised and upheld her complaint due to repair delays and its incorrect stage 1 response. It said it started work on the roof in January 2024, but this was on hold until it received the asbestos result.

It confirmed it would start any internal work on 4 March 2024. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to us because repairs were outstanding. The work was completed in July 2025, and the resident accepted compensation to settle her disrepair claim. She wants the landlord to take accountability for its failings and learn for the future. 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 the resident’s outstanding repairs Finding Reasonable redress What we did not investigate The resident said the delays with the repair, and the condition of the property, impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. The repair issues have been ongoing since 2020 when an initial legal disrepair claim was made by the resident. This investigation focuses on the complaint the resident made in July 2023.

What we did investigate In September 2022, the resident reported rotten bathroom windows and a damaged bath panel. She said the toilet’s waste pipe was rusty and leaked which damaged the kitchen ceiling. She also reported a leaking rainwater pipe. The landlord attended within its policy timescale to stop the leak, complete a mould wash and replaced the bath panel. In October 2022 it agreed to replace the windows and bathroom. Due to its delays and poor communication about the replacement work, the resident instructed solicitors to pursue a disrepair claim.

On 14 December 2022, the resident reported a leak from the attic. The landlord attended the following day and said it suspected the leak was from the roof. It raised follow-on work for roofers to attend but marked the job as complete on 15 December 2022, with no notes of the follow-on work or action it took. As part of the legal disrepair claim, the resident’s solicitors arranged an inspection on 19 December 2022 and found evidence of disrepair. The surveyor found ongoing structural movement, blocked guttering, water‑damaged kitchen walls and ceilings caused by a continuing toilet leak, a broken staircase rail, extensive fungal decay and rotten windows, significant cracks to the external brickwork and internal plaster, and reports of mice infestation.

The surveyor produced a schedule of disrepair and recommended 2 weeks for the landlord to instruct contractors and a further 8 weeks to complete the work. The surveyor confirmed the resident could remain in the property while the work took place. Between the inspection and the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed pointing work in April 2023 and repairs to the leaking pipes and guttering in May 2023. Its records are poor. The dates logged for raising the repairs are the same as the completion dates, despite the resident reporting the issues in October and November 2022.

On 27 June 2023 the landlord raised a work order for multiple repairs at the property. This included a structural repair to the roof and exterior, CCTV drain survey, renewal of a toilet, bathroom flooring and kitchen units as well as plaster and paint work to the walls and ceiling in the hall, landing, stairs and toilet. It did not complete this work by its target completion date of 6 July 2023. Its delay and poor communication caused the resident time and trouble complaining and reporting further ongoing issues between September and November 2023.

Due to concerns with the ongoing structural movement, another inspection was done in December 2023. The landlord did not send us a copy of this report. The resident’s solicitors said the new inspection showed the landlord took no meaningful action since the previous inspection a year earlier and confirmed they had instructions to issue legal proceedings. The pre‑action protocol for disrepair claims aims to ensure landlords complete remedial works promptly. The landlord did not do this, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience through repeated repair reports, chasing updates, and continuing to live in a property identified as being in disrepair.

The resident’s solicitors contacted the landlord in May 2024 for an update on the repairs. It said it completed all roof and internal work except for the window renewal and decoration. It explained it would complete the remaining external work once the weather improved. It confirmed the windows were being ordered and manufactured which would take approximately 12 weeks. In an email to the resident’s MP in October 2024, the landlord said it aimed to complete the window installation by November 2024.

A further inspection in December 2024 showed the window work was incomplete. The landlord has not sent us evidence of its communication with the resident to manage her expectations about the delay. In addition to the windows work, the inspection in December 2024 found the landlord had not started work on several other issues identified in the previous inspection. This included work to address the mice infestation, wet wall plaster, guttering, staircase rails and the structural movement and cracks.

A disrepair completion certificate shows the landlord completed all the work in July 2025, but it could not confirm when each individual item was completed and what the work involved. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. It did not complete repairs in line with the surveyor’s recommendations or its repairs policy timescale. Its policy for managing disrepair claims says it undertakes an agreed schedule of work to remedy disrepair within a reasonable period, which it did not do.

It did not complete all the disrepair work identified in December 2022 until July 2025. The landlord’s communication was poor. Where repairs are complex or take longer than expected, we expect landlords to update residents and manage their expectations. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates. Its lack of communication and delay caused her time and trouble complaining. The landlord said there were internal changes and issues with contractor availability. However, it did not keep the resident appropriately informed.

The landlord’s stage 1 response was also inaccurate. It did not provide a full complaint response to the resident and referred her to her legal representative, but proceedings were not issued. This was likely to cause confusion and affect her trust in its handling of her repair. It also caused her time and trouble escalating her complaint to us. In its stage 2 response, it upheld her complaint and apologised but did not offer compensation. The resident told us she has settled her legal disrepair claim without the involvement of the courts.

She told us she accepted an offer of £9,815.50 in full and final settlement. This covered the period from the last settlement in December 2020 up to completion of the work in July 2025. This offer covers the period we have investigated so we considered it as part of our assessment. The offer is proportionate to the failings identified and is also in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings which had a severe impact on the resident. In view of this, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the residents outstanding repairs.

Our finding of reasonable redress is on the basis the landlord pays the resident the offer she accepted. The resident said she requested a copy of the tenancy agreement, but the landlord did not provide this. She also believes there is some painting and sealing work outstanding to the windows. She is unsure whether this formed part of the legal disrepair claim or is a new issue. She said the landlord has not got back to her and referred her to her solicitors. We have recommended the landlord sends the resident a copy of the tenancy agreement and contacts her to discuss the concerns she has about outstanding work.

Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding Maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, said it would respond within 20 working days at the local resolution stage and within 25 working days at the final review stage. This was not compliant with our complaint handling code (the Code) in use at the time. For the purposes of our investigation, we have assessed its complaint handling against our former, 2022, complaint handling Code which was in place at the time.

The landlord sent it stage 1 response 26 working days after the resident’s complaint. This exceeded the timescales in the Code, which said landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days, unless it agreed an extension. The landlord’s stage 1 was inaccurate and did not address the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. By failing to accurately investigate and respond to her stage 1 complaint, it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.

This caused the resident time and trouble escalating her complaint to us. Following our intervention, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It did not send it within the initial timescale given. Due to the above failings, we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had no permanent impact. We have not ordered the landlord to review its complaints policy because its updated policy is compliant with our current Code.

Learning The landlord should learn from this case with regards to managing repairs and complaints where there is a legal disrepair claim. It should consider our guidance on handling disrepair and complaints. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s repair records were unclear. Several of its repairs had the same date recorded for ‘raised’ and ‘completed’ which was inaccurate. It was also unable to confirm when each item of disrepair work was completed.

It should maintain clear and complete records showing when issues are reported, the work raised including any follow-on work, and when it was completed. The landlord did not provide a copy of a structural survey completed in December 2023 and said it was unsure which survey we referred to. It mentioned this survey in its stage 2 response and in its communication with the resident’s solicitors. We expect landlords to have a full record of inspections showing what issues were found and what follow on work was completed.

Communication The landlord’s communication was poor. It should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates. Where internal challenges arise, such as contractor availability or service backlogs, the landlord should explain the reasons for any delays, the key steps involved and likely timescales.