London Borough of Lambeth — case 202505597

Decision Case ID 202505597 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 25 June 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat with his wife and 4 children, one of which has asthma. There was a leak from the roof which caused damage to the resident’s hallway ceiling. The resident complained about the delay in the landlord remedying the associated damp, mould and ceiling damage. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp, mould and a cracked hallway ceiling following a roof leak.

Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp, mould and a cracked hallway ceiling following a roof leak. Associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord did not respond to or resolve the reported leak and remedial repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Although it acknowledged some failures and offered compensation at stage 2, this was insufficient to remedy the situation.

Repairs remained outstanding at the time of the final response, resulting in a prolonged period of disruption, distress, and inconvenience for the resident. There were delays in the landlord responding to the complaint and it failed to investigate all the complaint issues. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing updates. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failures and therefore did not put things right. 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: A senior member of staff provides the apology.

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 23 July 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and ceiling repairs. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.

No later than 23 July 2026 3 Review order The landlord must contact the resident to review and discuss any increase in his energy bills caused by delays in repairing the roof leak, damp, mould and ceiling repair. It should explain whether it will consider reimbursing her for any additional costs from November 2024 until the repairs are completed. The landlord must set out its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for its decision. No later than 23 July 2026 4 Post inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The inspection report must set out whether: The roof repairs have resolved the leak. All the re-decorating has been completed following the hallway ceiling repair.

The resident has adequate insulation in his ceiling. A copy of the of the report must be shared with our service. No later than 20 August 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 14 February 2025 The resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said he and his family were suffering from damp, mould and a cracked ceiling due to the poor state of the roof. He said the hallway ceiling was becoming dangerous and could fall at anytime. 28 February 2025 The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord and said: He had raised an emergency repair for the crack in his ceiling several times.

A contractor attended on 19 February 2025 but did not complete any repairs and left without making the ceiling safe. He said he was worried the ceiling would fall down. He had made a complaint on 14 February 2025 but has had no response. He was paying for a flat which felt unsafe and has had mould many times. He was paying high energy bills due to the leaking roof and damp. He was being ignored by the landlord. Not dated The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it said on 24 February 2025 a job was raised to make good the defective ceiling with a target date for 5 March 2025.

It apologised for the inconvenience. 17 March 2025 The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said: The ceiling damage had been left unaddressed for a long time, despite several repair appointments. The appointment to complete the repair was scheduled for 5 May 2025, which was over 5 months since he reported it. He has lost earnings and the repair has had a negative impact on his family’s quality of life. He wanted compensation in the form of a rent relief or discount until the repair is resolved.

24 April 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it: Said the leak had been repaired which was causing the damp and mould, so this should no longer be an issue going forward. The resident should report any further issues. Said it acknowledged the delay in repairing the crack in the resident’s kitchen ceiling. It said the repair would be completed on 2 May 2025. Said although the damage was present, it did not prevent the resident or his household from using the kitchen.

Offered £100 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident approached our service as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. 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 Reports of damp, mould and a cracked hallway ceiling following a roof leak Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate Following the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 April 2025, the resident submitted a further complaint about the roof leak, damp, mould, and cracked ceiling. The landlord issued a final response in May 2026. However, our role is limited to investigating the landlord’s handling of the complaint raised in February 2025. We will not consider additional or historical issues that were not part of that complaint.

This new complaint has not yet been brought within our formal remit. Therefore we have not progressed it through our standard process for investigating a case, including gathering relevant evidence. The resident may bring his new complaint to our service separately if he wishes. Any reference to events that have taken place since the completion of the complaint under investigation have been included for context only. What we did investigate On 14 February 2025, the resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould in his property.

He said the hallway ceiling above his front door was at risk of collapsing. On 17 February 2025, the landlord advised that the only outstanding repair was gutter cleaning and asked whether the roof was leaking. The resident confirmed that there was a leak when it rained. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had raised a job to repair the cracked ceiling, with a target date of 5 March 2025. However, evidence shows the landlord was already aware of a roof leak reported in November 2024.

Its contractor inspected this on 13 December 2024 and identified that scaffolding was required to carry out works, including clearing moss and guttering and re-pointing. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not update the resident on these roof works or the need for scaffolding in its complaint response, as this was central to the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord made the hallway ceiling safe by 5 March 2025, as promised. Instead, it attempted to arrange 3 mould washes before addressing the underlying issues or making the ceiling safe.

This was unreasonable. Not all of the mould washes were completed, as the resident raised concerns that the ceiling and roof repairs had not yet been resolved. In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that the roof works had been completed but did not confirm when these took place or what work was carried out. Evidence shows the works were completed on 31 March 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a post inspection of works. This is a concern given the history of the case.

As the resident continued to raise concerns after the end of the internal complaints process, the issues appear to have persisted. The landlord advised that the ceiling repair would take place on 5 May 2025. Although a contractor attended on that date, the ceiling was not repaired until 13 March 2026. This was over a year after the complaint was made and significantly exceeded the landlord’s 28‑working‑day target for routine repairs. The evidence shows the landlord was aware that one of the resident’s children had asthma.

While this was noted on some repair records, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the resident or carried out a risk assessment. It also failed to address these concerns in its complaint responses, demonstrating a lack of empathy. On 18 February 2025, the resident told the landlord that he was paying high energy bills due to the leak, damp, and mould. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to address this issue within its complaint responses and potentially left the resident to incur a financial loss.

In summary, the landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe, did not properly consider household vulnerabilities, and failed to communicate effectively. In its final response, it apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delays and inconvenience. While this acknowledged some failings, the landlord has not demonstrated that it learned from the complaint or took sufficient steps to put matters right. At the time of this investigation, the resident advised that the landlord had still not responded to his concerns about energy bills.

He also said that, although the ceiling had been repaired, redecoration works were incomplete. In addition, insulation had not been installed, leaving him concerned that damp and mould may return. Given the identified vulnerabilities within the household, these failings had a significant impact on the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise, carry out a post‑inspection to confirm the outcome and any further required works, and review the resident’s concerns about increased energy bills.

We have also ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 compensation. This is in line with our guidance for failings that have had an adverse impact on a resident. We are satisfied that the total compensation awarded appropriately reflects the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, and is proportionate to the failings identified up to the end of the complaints process. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process.

It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It should then issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with our Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The resident made a complaint on 14 February 2025. Although this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord did not recognise it as a complaint. As a result, the resident had to chase a response on 28 February 2025. We have not received any evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint.

It failed to communicate effectively with the resident or manage his expectations. It is unclear when the landlord issued its stage 1 response, as the response was undated. In addition, it did not address all the issues raised by the resident on 14 and 28 February 2025. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest stage. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 March 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 1 April 2025, which was outside its published timescales.

It is noted that this acknowledgement was only provided after the resident chased a response on the same day. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 April 2025, one day later than the timescale set out in its escalation acknowledgement. Although this caused the resident no detriment, it should have communicated the delay with him. The stage 2 response did not demonstrate that all aspects of the complaint had been fully investigated, leaving some issues unresolved. It also contained incorrect information, referring to the resident’s use of his kitchen, when the complaint related to his hallway ceiling.

In summary, there were delays in the landlord recognising and escalating the complaint. It also failed to fully investigate all of the issues raised, leaving the resident without a resolution to some matters. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings or take steps to put things right. We therefore find maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

This is in line with our compensation guidance. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord did not manage the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and repairs effectively. Its repair records were incomplete and unclear in places. Landlords are expected to maintain clear and accurate records of all contacts and repairs to provide a reliable audit trail and to ensure that any issues can be identified and addressed promptly. Communication The landlord did not show that it properly considered the household’s vulnerabilities when arranging repairs.

Landlords should record residents’ vulnerabilities accurately and carry out risk assessments where needed. This helps ensure repairs are prioritised appropriately, risks are identified and managed, and residents are protected from avoidable harm or distress. It also supports clear communication and enables landlords to make reasonable adjustments, particularly where delays or safety issues may have a greater impact on vulnerable households.