London Borough of Lambeth — case 202422466

Decision Case ID 202422466 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Leaseholder Date 6 March 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat on an estate. She asked the landlord to remove items from the estate. She referred the complaint to us because she was unhappy with its response. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Report of fly tipping on the estate.

Complaint. Our decision (determination) We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of fly tipping on the estate. Complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Report of fly tipping on the estate The landlord delayed in removing the items from the address the resident identified. She had to chase the landlord for a response and provide a photograph before it cleared the items. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses, it did not offer any redress for the inconvenience caused.

Complaint The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint and its escalation within 5 working days. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 03 April 2026 2 Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation made up as follows:  £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in removing the reported items from the estate  £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint It must pay the offer directly to the resident by the due date.

It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 03 April 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord writes to the resident and responds to her query as to whether it would refund service charges from October 2022 to June 2023. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 9 May 2023 The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about items dumped outside a property next to hers on the estate.

She provided the door number to notify the landlord where the items were. She wanted the items removed. 25 May 2023 The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for any shortfall in its service and said it had removed the items. On the same day the resident escalated the complaint because she said the landlord had not cleared the items from the property. 8 June 2023 The resident chased the landlord about the complaint and said that dumped items had been outside the property since October 2022.

She provided a photograph of the location of the dumped items. The landlord removed the items on the same day. 28 June 2023 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in clearing the items from the estate and for any distress and inconvenience caused. It explained it had previously removed items from the nearby car park and that it was not until the resident provided a photograph that it found and cleared the items she had reported. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said that the landlord had not removed the reported items from the estate from October 2022 to 8 June 2023.

She said in that time the walkway was not clear, and it was a health and safety concern. She wanted her service charges refunded from October 2022 to June 2023. She wanted the landlord to learn from this, so it removes reported items efficiently in 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 Report of fly tipping on the estate Finding Service failure The resident said she reported to the landlord in October 2022 that there was rubbish and a door left outside a neighbouring property. However, there is no evidence of this report from either party or of any actions taken. This has made it difficult to assess if the landlord ought to have done anything about this at that time. It had taken the landlord 30 days to remove the items from outside the address the resident specified in her report from 9 May 2023.

This was not in line with the leaseholder guide for the landlord to provide bulk rubbish removal to estates. The delay inconvenienced the resident as she had to report the issue again and provide a photograph before it removed the items. In the landlord’s complaint response, it apologised for the delay in clearing the items the resident reported. This went some way to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. However, it did not recognise the failures we have found, as set out under the summary of reasons of this report and it did not offer redress for the inconvenience caused.

This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have made orders to put things right which includes an apology for the failures, and compensation in line with our remedies guidance. This is for the failures that caused minor distress and inconvenience to the resident for the delay removing the items. Since the complaint response the resident asked the landlord to refund her service charges.

We recommend the landlord responds to the resident about this. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. The landlord had not acknowledged the complaint and its escalation within 5 working days. This was not in line with its complaint policy, which says it would acknowledge a complaint and any escalation of a complaint within 5 working days.

And that it provides its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days of those acknowledgements, respectively. This inconvenienced the resident as she tried to escalate the complaint twice, on 25 May 2023 and 8 June 2023. The landlord had not recognised any failings in how it handled the complaint and did not offer redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have made orders to put things right.

Our orders include an apology and compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its complaint handling failures. Learning The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for it to set out areas of learning within its complaint procedure. Knowledge information management (record keeping) Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records which can help it keep to its obligations.

The landlord had not provided evidence of all records about the issue from its contractor, such as when it collected the items. It may wish to review its record keeping with its contractor. Communication Landlords should acknowledge residents’ complaints and keep them updated. It had not done so in this case, which likely contributed to the inconvenience caused as the resident felt she had to escalate the complaint twice.