London Borough of Lambeth — case 202408530

Decision Case ID 202408530 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 24 March 2026 Background The resident reported that his kitchen sink was blocked. The landlord booked an appointment for the next day, but the contractor did not attend. The resident subsequently arranged and paid for a private plumber and asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of this. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of a blocked kitchen sink.

The resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found that: There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a blocked kitchen sink. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord did not carry out the qualifying repair within the expected timeframe or consider the impact of this delay on the resident. The landlord did not comply with the timeframes set out in the Code or its own policy.

It apologised but did not consider the impact of its delays. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £120 made up as follows: £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the blocked kitchen sink. £50 for the distress and inconvenience for the handling of the complaint. £20 as previously offered at stage 2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payment it has already made.

No later than 22 April 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 February 2024 The resident raised a formal complaint following a missed appointment. He said he arranged for a private plumber which cost him £100 and he wanted the landlord to reimburse him. 7 April 2024 The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and for the communication issues. It said the repair had been correctly raised as a routine repair with a completion time of 7 days and offered £20 for the missed appointment.

19 April 2024 The resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. He said he was unable to use his kitchen that weekend and had paid for a plumber as he did not know when the repair would be completed. 29 April to 29 May 2024 On 29 April, the landlord requested photo evidence and a receipt from the resident. On 29 May, it issued its stage 2 response and said the contractor had attended within the repair target date of 7 days and that the photo evidence provided by the resident did not show a blockage.

It concluded that the repair had been raised correctly and declined to reimburse the resident’s costs. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the cost of the repair. 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 handling of a blocked kitchen sink Finding Service failure The landlord’s repair policy says routine repairs should be completed within 7 days, or within 3 days for certain qualifying repairs. It also specifies that blocked sinks should be repaired between 1 and 3 days but does not clarify whether these are working or calendar days.

We have understood this to be working days, in line with the right to repair scheme. The landlord booked a repair appointment for the day after it was reported, which was in line with its policy, but the contractor failed to attend. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it told the resident when the appointment would be re-booked, but the contractor next attended5 working days later, outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. However, by this time, the resident had already paid for a private repair.

While we understand why the resident chose to arrange this, repairs remain the landlord’s responsibility and he did not check if the landlord would be willing to cover this cost before he went ahead with the work. This meant that the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to either get the work completed itself or consider whether the resident should arrange this and it would cover the costs. As the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to consider its position before the resident arranged the works himself, it is not obliged to offer reimbursement for the resident’s privately incurred costs.

The landlord failed to recognise that it did not attend to the repair within the timeframe set out in its policy and it did not consider the impact of the delay on the resident. It offered £20 for the missed appointment, but this alone was not sufficient. Given the repair delay, poor communication and inconvenience incurred by the resident, further compensation of £50 is appropriate. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not acknowledged or fully rectified a service failure.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code. The landlord did not comply with the timescales set out in the Code or its own policy, as it took 34 working days to respond at stage 1 and 27 days to respond at stage 2.

The landlord did apologise and give a brief explanation for the delay, but it did not offer any redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to address the impact of these failures. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) We did not note any concerns about the landlord’s record keeping during this investigation. Communication We have found the landlord’s communication to be lacking. It would also have been better if the landlord had explained what steps it would take to prevent complaint handling delays in the future.

Effective and timely communication builds trust between landlord and tenant and shows that the resident is being listened to.