London Borough of Lambeth — case 202441932

Decision Case ID 202441932 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 29 January 2026 Background The resident lives with her young daughter in a property owned by the landlord. Her daughter has asthma, which the landlord is aware of. The resident reported damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom in June 2024. The landlord said it needed to inspect the room and conduct further works, however the resident complained on 4 October 2024 to say she had not heard anything further.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of damp and mould. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Damp and mould The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy or keep clear records.

Although it has now completed the works, it did so far outside its published timescales. Complaint handling The landlord missed its response deadline at stage 1, however, its apology was reasonable in the circumstances. 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 £400 to recognise the failings identified in this investigation. It must pay this directly to the resident and provide evidence of this by the due date. No later than 26 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 13 and 14 June 2024 The resident asked the landlord to arrange a surveyor inspection.

This was on the recommendation of an operative who had visited following her reports of damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. 2 October 2024 The resident complained to the landlord, stating a surveyor had been in touch to suggest an appointment date, but they had not responded to her since. 1 November 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised and said it was due to inspect the property on 7 November 2024. 22 November 2024 The resident escalated her complaint.

She said nobody had arrived on 7 November 2024 and the mould was still there. 3 December 2024 The landlord inspected the property, and its surveyor recommended remedial works to resolve the issue. 27 December 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would complete the recommended works by 15 January 2025. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to us as she said the landlord had not done the works it promised, and the mould remained an ongoing problem.

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 Damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we have not investigated The resident said she was concerned about the effect on her daughter’s asthma.

If she believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected her family’s health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further. What we have investigated It is unclear when the resident first reported the problem. An operative attended on 13 June 2024 to conduct a mould wash, but there was no mould present on the day.

The resident said she had been continually cleaning the wall herself. The operative recommended she contact the landlord to request a full inspection, which she did the next day. There are no records to show what the landlord did next, but in the resident’s complaint she said a surveyor had attended in June 2024 and suggested the problem was with the guttering. The resident explained the surveyor had emailed her on 29 July to suggest a further survey appointment for 26 November.

She said she had replied promptly to say the date was too far in the future, particularly given her daughter’s asthma, however she had not heard anything further. The resident questioned why another survey was necessary. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was due to inspect the property on 7 November 2024, 4 working days later. This was at least 5 months since the resident’s original report, far outside its repairs policy timescale of 28 working days. The landlord did not clearly explain the reason for the delay, and nothing in the evidence explains it either.

The resident escalated her complaint because she said nobody arrived on 7 November 2024, and someone from the landlord had told her it had marked the job as ‘complete’ despite it not conducting any works. She asked it to explain why this happened and when it planned to inspect the bedroom wall. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the bedroom on 3 December 2024 and recommended it repoint the brickwork and conduct a full mould treatment. In its stage 2 response of 27 December, the landlord stated it would complete the works by 25 January 2025.

It explained it did not have a record of any planned appointments for 7 November (despite giving the date in its first complaint response) and there may have been a system error. The landlord did not explain why it had marked jobs as complete when this was not the case. The landlord also listed a wide range of other repairs in its stage 2 response which do not relate to the matters in this complaint. It has since told us this was an error due to misinterpreting the survey report.

Acknowledging the mistake was appropriate. However, the landlord has not provided evidence showing it clarified this with the resident. When the resident referred her complaint to us in April 2025, she said the repairs were still outstanding and the mould kept returning following each wash. She recently told us the landlord has since resolved the problem and the wall is free of mould. However, there is no evidence to show when it completed the works. The landlord was aware of the resident’s damp and mould reports for at least 6 months, however it failed to address the issue in a reasonable timeframe despite the resident’s concerns about the impact on her daughter’s asthma.

The evidence shows the resident was clearly distressed about the ongoing problem, and the landlord’s inaction was contrary to the zero-tolerance approach recommended in our spotlight report on damp and mould. These factors, together with the errors and omissions in the landlord’s complaint responses show poor handling by the landlord of the issues the resident reported. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days.

It will then respond within a further 10 working days, unless it requests an extension during this time. This aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and it issued its response 7 working days outside the timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. However, it recognised this and apologised, which reasonably resolved the issue in the circumstances as the delay was not excessive.

The landlord issued its stage 2 response in line with its policy and the Code, which requires it to acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days, and respond within a further 20 working days. Learning The landlord may have avoided the mistakes in its complaint responses had it kept clearer records, and it may wish to review this case to consider whether it needs to make any improvements. This might include ensuring that relevant staff can either better understand survey reports, or that they can easily clarify matters with its repairs teams.