London Borough of Lambeth — case 202520647

Decision Case ID 202520647 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 16 February 2026 Background The resident lives with her 5 children. She has complained that the staircase is not sturdy, the handrail is not fit for purpose, and there are internal cracks within the property. The resident has advised that these issues remain unresolved. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Concerns about the safety of the staircase and handrail.

Request for a stair carpet. Reports of internal cracks. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the staircase and handrail. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a stair carpet. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal cracks. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Staircase and handrail The landlord delayed attending to the initial repair and did not respond appropriately to the potential hazards. It took 11 months to complete the staircase repairs, and it did not explain how it assessed the handrail as fit for purpose or why it did not require replacement, despite the resident’s safety concerns. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failures.

Request for a stair carpet The landlord’s response was consistent with its published guidance, which sets out that carpeting is the resident’s responsibility. Internal cracks The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about internal wall cracks at stage 1. As a result, it missed opportunities to clarify her concerns, arrange an inspection sooner, and progress the repairs at an earlier stage. When the resident raised the issue again, it delayed in arranging an inspection, which added to the overall delay.

Complaint handling There was a significant delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response, and it did not offer any apology or financial redress for this. Its responses did not fully address all the concerns raised in the resident’s complaints and it did not identify service failings which had occurred, despite available evidence. 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 member of staff.

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 16 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150, made up as follows: £750 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about the safety of the staircase and handrail. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of internal cracks.

£150 for the complaint handling failures identified. 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 payments it has already made. No later than 16 March 2026 3 Handrail explanation order The landlord must write to both us and the resident by the due date, setting out an explanation of how it assessed the handrail as fit for purpose, considering the safety concerns raised by the resident.

No later than 16 March 2026 4 Completing the works order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to repair internal cracks is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence.

It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. No later than 16 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 26 September 2024 The resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had reported safety concerns about her stairs, stair rail, and cracks in the walls in October 2023. She advised she had fallen down the stairs in July 2024, sustaining 2 ankle fractures. She explained that although some stair repairs had been completed, she still had safety concerns and had received no update about the wall cracks.

She also said that her request for a stair carpet had been refused. 12 March 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said repairs to the staircase were completed on 20 September 2024. It explained that residents were responsible for purchasing and installing their own flooring and that it did not supply or fit carpets. It also signposted the resident to information on its website about making a liability claim. 29 June 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said she continued to have concerns about how the landlord had handled the staircase and handrail repairs, as well as the response to her personal injury claim.

She advised that she and her family were living in unacceptable conditions and that she had been reporting issues with the staircase, internal cracks, and the general safety of the property since October 2023. 4 August 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that it was satisfied that the staircase repairs had been completed appropriately and that the handrail was secure at the time of its last inspection. It signposted the resident to seek support from the Citizens Advice Bureau or request a review from its insurance team in relation to the personal injury claim.

It said it was unable to consider the cracks in the walls because these issues had not been raised at stage 1. It also reiterated that carpeting was the resident’s responsibility. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said she had complained that the stair handrail was not fit for purpose, rather than it being in poor condition, and had requested an alternative type of handrail. She also stated that she had raised concerns about cracks in the walls in her complaints, despite the landlord saying she had not.

She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of support and action. 10 February 2026 During her contact with us, the resident explained that repairs to the internal cracks had not been completed and the stair handrail had not been replaced. She said the landlord had offered her permanent alternative accommodation. As an outcome, she said if the move did not go ahead, she would like the staircase to be made safe for her and her children, and for the internal cracks to be repaired.

She also asked us to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of the repairs she had reported. 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 concerns about the safety of the staircase and handrail Finding Maladministration What we have not investigated The resident told us that she had fallen down the stairs and was unable to properly grasp the handrail due to its design, which she said resulted in 2 fractures to her ankle.

We are not medical specialists and cannot determine impact on 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 have therefore not investigated this further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated In her initial complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident said she reported safety concerns to the landlord on 26 October 2023 regarding the stairs and handrail. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. The landlord’s repair records show contact with her on that October date, but the report related to an internal door. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events following the resident’s first recorded report on 24 July 2024.

In its stage 1 response on 12 March 2025, the landlord said the resident first reported an issue with the staircase on 24 July 2024 and told it she had recently fallen down the stairs. It said it raised a work order to repair the staircase, but that this was later cancelled when a new contractor took over the repairs service. However, the landlord’s repair records contain no evidence of this work order, highlighting shortcomings in its record keeping. On 10 September 2024, the landlord raised another work order with its new contractor to repair the staircase.

The repair record noted an insecure handrail and creaky, possibly loose, stairs. There is no evidence of any contact with the resident between July and September 2024, indicating that these were likely the issues she originally reported in July 2024. The repair was completed on 20 September 2024, 41 working days after her report, exceeding its 3 working-day routine repair timescale for issues of this nature. While the change in contractor may explain some disruption, it does not fully account for the length of the delay.

Given the reported fall, the potential safety risk, and the presence of 5 children in the household, this delay was unreasonable. Falls on stairs are a recognised hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and should be treated urgently. Due to a lack of clear and detailed records, it is unclear what work was completed on 20 September 2024. In her complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident said that although some repairs had been carried out, she still had safety concerns, which the landlord inappropriately failed to acknowledge.

On 10 January 2025, the landlord identified that the staircase required further work to secure it, as the stairs were still squeaky. It also noted that the handrail was old and that the resident wanted a safer, more secure replacement. The landlord said another staff member would need to attend to agree the new handrail. The staircase repairs were completed on 25 June 2025 – 11 months after the resident’s initial report. This prolonged delay had a significant impact on the resident and her family, leaving them with ongoing safety concerns about using the staircase over an extended period.

This likely caused her considerable distress and inconvenience. On 28 June 2025, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the stair handrail, explaining that the current one was not fit for purpose and that she had received no communication about a replacement. In its stage 2 response on 4 August 2025, the landlord referred to the repairs completed on 25 June 2025 and said the operative had found the handrail ‘secure and fit for purpose’. However, there is no evidence of this assessment in the landlord’s repair records, which indicates further shortcomings in its record keeping.

While the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional judgement of its operatives, it must also be able to justify its decisions and clearly explain how it reached them. In this case, the landlord’s final response did not set out how it assessed the handrail as fit for purpose or how it had considered the resident’s ongoing safety concerns. This lack of explanation failed to provide the resident with reassurance that her concerns had been properly addressed. After the complaints process ended, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 and 6 August 2025.

She explained that her concern was not the handrail’s condition – since it was securely attached – but its design, and she again asked for it to be replaced. She said the lack of replacement left her and her children in “continued danger”, as they had fallen down the stairs multiple times, and she requested a surveyor inspection. The landlord carried out the inspection on 4 December 2025, 4 months later. The length of time taken to complete the inspection was inappropriate, particularly given the seriousness of the concerns raised and the potential risk to a household with 5 children present.

Because of gaps in the landlord’s records, the outcome of the inspection is unclear. When we requested an update during this investigation, the landlord provided an email from the surveyor confirming that no defects or repair issues were identified with the handrail. We have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated these findings to the resident or confirmed that the handrail would not be replaced, suggesting it did not provide her with the explanation she reasonably required.

While it is not within our remit to determine whether the handrail should be replaced, we have made an order relating to the landlord’s communication on this matter. The resident requested compensation for injuries she said she had sustained from falling down the stairs. In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to information on making a liability claim. The resident then submitted a claim, which the landlord assessed and responded to, explaining why it did not accept it.

The landlord’s communication was clear, timely, and proportionate to the nature of the request. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and, as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £750 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a stair carpet Finding No maladministration In her initial complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident said she contacted the landlord on 23 July 2024 to request the installation of a stair carpet as a safety measure, but it refused her request. The landlord’s records do not show any contact on that date, which indicates a record‑keeping issue. The earliest documented response was on 10 September 2024, when the landlord advised the resident that carpeting was her responsibility.

This advice was consistent with the guidance in the landlord’s tenant handbook, which states that floor coverings are provided in wet areas such as the kitchen and bathroom, and that residents are responsible for flooring in all other parts of the property. The landlord repeated its position in both its stage 1 response on 12 March 2025 and its final response on 4 August 2025, directing the resident to the information in the tenant handbook. While this was understandably disappointing for the resident, we have not identified any failures in how the landlord handled her request.

The landlord acted in accordance with its published guidance and clearly explained what it was responsible for and what it could not provide. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal cracks Finding Maladministration The resident raised concerns about internal cracks in both her initial complaint on 26 September 2024 and her escalation request on 29 June 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it could not consider these concerns because they had not been raised at stage 1.

We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints process unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. In this case, the landlord did not provide a final response on this aspect despite evidence that the resident had raised it in her original complaint (assessed below under complaint handling). Because of this failure, we have included this element in our investigation. In her initial complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident said she reported internal wall cracks to the landlord on 26 October 2023 and asked for a surveyor to assess them.

She also provided the repair reference she was given at the time. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. The landlord’s repair records show contact with her on that date, but the reference relates to an internal door. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events following the resident’s initial complaint. In its stage 1 response on 12 March 2025, the landlord referred to replastering areas of the ceilings and walls following a leak but did not address the internal cracks the resident had specifically asked about.

Despite her request for an update on that repair, the landlord responded to a different issue. The landlord should have contacted the resident to clarify her concerns so it could set out a clear plan of action. It did not do so, which was unreasonable and left her with unresolved issues, contributing to her inconvenience. In her escalation request on 29 June 2025, the resident said she and her family were living in unacceptable conditions and that she had been reporting internal cracks, along with other issues, since October 2023.

As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord sought information from its surveyor, who confirmed that there were no records of inspections or reports relating to structural issues or cracking. At this stage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection, particularly as the resident said the problems remained unresolved. It did not do so, which was a missed opportunity to show it had taken her concerns seriously and to restore confidence in its service.

This likely caused the resident uncertainty and contributed to her ongoing distress. After the complaints process ended, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 and 6 August 2025. She provided extracts from her original complaint referencing cracks in the walls and again reported the internal cracks, asking for a surveyor to assess them. Additional evidence provided by the landlord during our investigation shows that it carried out an inspection on 4 December 2025, 4 months after the resident re-raised her concerns.

The reason for this delay is unclear, but the length of time taken to complete the inspection was inappropriate, particularly given the delays the resident had already experienced. On the same day as the inspection (4 December 2025), the landlord raised a job to repair wall cracks in the sitting room and 2 bedrooms. When we asked for an update during this investigation, the landlord confirmed the repair order remained open. It said it had tried to carry out the work on 27 January 2026 and 2 February 2026, within its 90-day planned repair timescale, but could not get access.

Although the landlord has started to progress the repair, the work remains incomplete 17 months after the resident’s initial complaint. While access issues caused some delay, there were failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the repair which have unreasonably prolonged the process. The resident should allow access for the works to be completed at an agreed time. An order has been made in relation to this matter. During her contact with us in February 2026, the resident said she was waiting for further information, but she had been offered permanent alternative accommodation.

The landlord has since provided us with an offer letter confirming that she has been offered emergency re-housing due to other repair matters not related to this complaint. The landlord did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £250 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.

Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding Maladministration Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints at both stages of the process. In assessing the landlord’s response times, the timescales for acknowledging and responding have been combined.

At stage 1, the landlord took 116 working days to provide its response, significantly exceeding the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. This prolonged the complaints process and delayed the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. At stage 2, it provided its response in 25 working days, within the required combined timescale. The landlord’s responses did not fully address the issues raised in the resident’s complaints about internal cracks. As a result, it missed an opportunity to resolve the substantive issue and to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, and it did not use its complaints process effectively to put things right.

The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue, yet it did not identify the service failures that had occurred in its management of the staircase and handrail repairs. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and shows a lack of thoroughness in its investigation. The landlord did not assess its own complaint handling, failing to apologise or offer any redress for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response. The landlord should have considered an award in line with its compensation policy.

We consider a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the delay and the other complaint handling failures identified. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. Learning The landlord should ensure it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints and keeps clear records of its findings. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint, providing clear and detailed explanations supported by relevant policies, legislation, and good practice where applicable.

The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified. Knowledge and information management (record keeping) There were significant gaps in the landlord’s repair records, with some repairs referenced in its complaint responses missing from its records. They also lacked sufficient detail about the outcome of appointments and inspections, particularly the inspection on 4 December 2025.

As a result, there was no record of the surveyor’s findings or any discussion with the resident. Several repairs were also recorded as “completed” before they had even been “raised”, highlighting further inaccuracies. These issues demonstrate the need for improved record keeping. Communication There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek updates regarding the repairs. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues.