I couldn't get behind the pay wall of the Inside Housing article.
This come up in google:
Two severe maladministration findings for London Borough Lambeth’s failings on damp and mould case. Find out more.
www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk
Severe case of damp and Housing Ombudsman found that Lambeth hadn't dealt with it. Despite intervention by Ombudsman previously.
On trying to get confirmation that remedial works had been done they got dossier of email. Like loads they were expected to plough through. Instead of clear and straightforward record of repairs. They became involved again as Lambeth hadn't given confirmation to the tenant for works being done. Which clearly they hadnt. Or not properly.
It beggar belief that the Ombudsman has too get involved twice on same case. I pity the Council tenant. They obviously tried to get answers out of Lambeth and came up against this Council obfuscation.
The Ombudsman now says this is "systemic" problem.
Lambeth reply they have now reorganised and will deal better with record keeping of repairs and planned maintenance.
On planned maintenance of their buildings Lambeth imo don't have the will or expertise to do it. Maintenance is reactive. Planned maintenance would save money in long term.
Slightly off subject I've been reading surveyor's reports for the Brixton Rec. Specifically the heating in changing rooms. The ventilation and heating systems passed their usable life years ago. Yet haven't been replaced. Leaks leading to water damage are down to not clearing gutters to roof etc. Lambeth would save money and keep buildings in use for longer if they spent on planned maintenance. Often I've heard officers say of a building that its past its life. It needn't if maintained through planned maintenance. There are industry formulas to do this.