Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202423045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423045

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

31 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. communications with the resident.
3. handling of a door repair.
4. response to the resident’s concerns about caretaking.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. Her tenancy of the property began in 2006. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident’s teenage daughter lives with her. The resident has mental health conditions, including anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
In early July 2024 the resident sent a significant number of emails to the landlord, in particular to 2 housing officers. She explained in the emails that for the last 3 years a “drug dealer neighbour” had regularly harassed and threatened her. She said she had reported recent incidents to the police. She indicated that she and her daughter had temporarily moved out of the property due to fear. She asked the landlord to rehouse her.
On 18 July 2024 and 22 July 2024 the resident submitted formal complaints to the landlord. She said:
1. her neighbours had stalked, harassed and abused her for 3 years. The situation was getting worse and they were threatening her on a daily basis. She lived in fear for her life and her child’s life. Her mental health had declined. She was at “breaking point”.
2. she had emailed the 2 housing officers about this, but they had been ignoring her emails and phone calls.
3. she wanted the landlord to house her in a safe environment.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 29 July 2024. It said:
1. it had referred her to NHS mental health services. It understood she had since then had an appointment with a mental health nurse.
2. it had referred her reports about her neighbours to a multi-agency Problem Premises Panel.
3. it was investigating counter reports about ASB carried out by the resident. It had sent her a warning letter about this.
4. its Neighbourhood Panel would consider her request for a priority move based on the information she had provided. It would advise her of the outcome within the next 2 to 4 weeks.
5. if the Neighbourhood Panel agreed her case should go to an Allocations Case Review Panel, it could take up to a further 12 weeks before it made a decision. This was due to a backlog of applicants requesting a priority move.
6. it had obtained information from the police about the recent reports she had made of harassment and malicious communications. These did “not substantiate that [the resident was] at immediate risk by remaining in [her] home”.
7. she should continue to report any further incidents to the police.
Meanwhile, in late July 2024 the landlord boarded up the front door of the property following a forced entry by the RSCPA. We do not know the exact date this occurred. On 1 August 2024 the landlord inspected the door and determined that it was beyond repair. It told the resident it would order a new UPVC door but that it may be “several weeks or longer” before it was available. It said it would fit a temporary door in the interim. It moved the resident into a hotel while it fitted the temporary door.
During the remainder of August 2024, the resident remained in regular contact with the landlord. She explained she and her daughter were homeless as she felt unable to return to her property due to fear that her neighbours would attack her. In response, the landlord advised it did not consider her to be homeless as she held a tenancy. It provided her with contact details for support organisations.
On 9 September 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She provided additional information in support of her escalation request in a further email sent on 13 September 2024. She said:
1. the 2 housing officers were ignoring her emails and phone calls.
2. the landlord was still charging her full rent even though she was in a hotel.
3. her neighbours threatened her again while she was in the hotel.
4. she required an urgent transfer to a different property due to the ongoing threats of violence she was experiencing.
On 19 September 2024 the landlord informed the resident that her stay in the hotel would end that day. It explained that it had fitted the temporary front door on 2 August 2024 and was satisfied her property was secure.
The resident responded the same day and explained she was too afraid to return to her property. She said she would be sleeping on the streets as a result of the landlord’s decision not to extend the hotel stay. She also raised concerns within this email about:
1. a neighbour storing drugs in a communal cupboard in the building.
2. that the caretaker had given the neighbour a “master key” and that this would enable him to access her property.
3. the caretaker’s conduct, in particular that he was “always rude” and spat on the floor at her when he was cleaning the block.
4. the temporary door not being a fire door.
The landlord informed the resident on 20 September 2024 that its Neighbourhood Panel had decided not to refer her application for priority rehousing to its Allocations Case Review Panel. It explained this was because it had received no supporting evidence from the police to state she required a priority move. It said it would reconsider her case if police support became available.
On 25 September 2024 the landlord received a letter from a police inspector. The inspector said it was their “professional opinion” that the resident should be relocated from her property due to the ongoing threats and ASB she was experiencing.
Upon receiving this letter, the landlord decided that it would refer the resident’s case to the Allocations Case Review Panel. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with temporary accommodation pending the Panel’s decision.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 22 October 2024. It erroneously suggested that it had not referred the resident’s priority rehousing application to the Allocations Case Review Panel as it had not yet received a letter from a police inspector.
In the remainder of the stage 2 response, the landlord addressed a number of the issues raised by the resident in her escalation emails of 9, 13 and 19 September 2024. It said:
1. it was liaising with the police for any updates on their investigation of the reported ASB, threats and harassment.
2. it provided her with temporary accommodation on 1 August 2024 while it fitted a temporary door. It completed this work and was satisfied the property was secure on 2 August 2024. It should therefore have ended her stay in temporary accommodation on this date, but did not do so until 19 September 2024. It was sorry for this error.
3. it had referred her case to the Problem Premises Panel to ensure she was provided with support when returning to her property once her stay in temporary accommodation ended on 19 September 2024.
4. it was ready to fit the new permanent front door and would be in contact with her to arrange this.
5. a caretaking supervisor inspected the building in light of the resident’s complaint. He checked all the cupboards in the communal area and found “no evidence of any drug paraphernalia, drug dealing or transient drug users in the block”.
6. the caretaker had never given anyone a key. The caretaker also did not have access to a key that would allow him to open residents’ doors.
7. it would carry out an employee conduct investigation into the resident’s complaint that the caretaker was rude and spat at her. It would take appropriate action based on the evidence available, but would be unable to advise her of the outcome as it was a confidential employment matter.
On 21 November 2024 the Allocations Case Review Panel wrote to the resident and advised her it had not awarded her priority rehousing status. It said it was satisfied there was “no further risk” to her and that the police had closed all reported incidents without taking action against any alleged suspect. It advised her that her case could be resubmitted to it for reconsideration if further incidents involving her neighbours occurred.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and referred it to us. It became one we could investigate on 18 March 2025. By this time, she was living once again in temporary accommodation provided by the landlord. It agreed to this following a further incident involving a neighbour in December 2024 which the police were investigating.
In May 2025 the Allocations Case Review Panel reconsidered the resident’s case and awarded her priority rehousing status. As of the date of this report, we understand she remains in temporary accommodation pending a permanent property becoming available. She recently told us the outcome she seeks is for the landlord to provide her with suitable permanent accommodation. She also wanted it to compensate her for the impact its actions have had on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 requires councils in England to set up and maintain a housing allocations scheme. The allocations scheme must set out the circumstances in which councils will give “reasonable preference”, often referred to as priority, to certain applicants.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), rather than the Housing Ombudsman, is responsible for reviewing complaints about applications to housing allocations schemes established under Part 6. The LGSCO’s website explains it can consider complaints about a council’s, “assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference”.
The LGSCO is also responsible for considering complaints about how councils have dealt with homelessness applications. This includes complaints from individuals who have told a council that they are threatened with homelessness due to their circumstances.
The landlord in the current case is a council. Its Allocations Case Review Panel considered the resident’s application for priority rehousing in November 2024 and May 2025. This forms part of the council’s housing allocations scheme which it established to comply with its Part 6 obligations. Given this, it is not within our remit to investigate any decisions made by the Panel. If the resident is unhappy with how the Panel has handled her rehousing application, she should contact the LGSCO who will be able to advise her if it can investigate.
We are also unable to order the landlord to offer the resident a permanent property, which is the main outcome she seeks to her complaint. In exercising its Part 6 functions, we understand it has now granted her priority rehousing status. However, any offers it makes will be determined by available housing stock, her preferences, and its established processes. It would be inappropriate for us to direct it to give her priority above other individuals with priority status as we do not know their circumstances.
The resident also told us she wants the landlord to compensate her for damage to her mental health due to its handling of her case. The Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue this, she should seek independent legal advice.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Most of the ASB reported to the landlord by the resident was criminal in nature as it involved threats and harassment. Upon receiving her reports in early July 2024 that there had been recent incidents, the landlord promptly took the following appropriate action in line with its ASB policy:
1. it contacted the police and asked for details of the recent incidents. The police provided it with an incident report on 17 July 2024. The landlord used this information to assess risk and determined that there was no immediate need at that time to move the resident into temporary accommodation.
2. it referred the resident’s case to a Problem Premises Panel. This was a multi-agency forum that reviewed ASB reports from residents and ensured they received appropriate advice and support.
3. it referred the resident to the local NHS mental health team. It was aware she had been discharged from mental health services the previous year. It was concerned that the volume of emails it had received from her, over 400 in the space of a week, indicated she required further mental health support.
4. it informed the resident it had taken the above action. It told her to let it know if there were any further incidents and, if criminal in nature, to report it to the police.
The resident continued to report concerns to the landlord about her living situation. She raised her formal complaint on 18 July 2024 about its response to these reports and she asked it to rehouse her urgently. Over the next 3 months, the landlord took the following appropriate action:
1. it explained to the resident what information she needed to provide in support of her priority rehousing application. It advised her that she should complete a medical housing application due to her PTSD. It explained that any letter of support from the police should come from an officer of rank inspector or above.
2. it processed her rehousing application in line with its allocations policy by first referring it to the Neighbourhood Panel. Upon receiving a police letter, it then referred her application to the Allocations Case Review Panel. As explained above, it is outside our remit to investigate the Allocations Case Review Panel’s handling of her application or its decision making.
3. it attended 2 multi-agency Problem Premises Panel meetings in September and October 2024 to discuss the resident’s case.
4. it continued to liaise with the police, in particular the safer neighbourhood policing team which was at that time reviewing the resident’s reports of drug use and threatening behaviour in the building.
5. it reconsidered whether temporary accommodation was required whenever it received updated information from the police or when circumstances changed. For example, it provided temporary accommodation in August 2024 whenever it was replacing the resident’s door. It provided it again in late September 2024 when it received the letter from the police inspector and pending a decision by the Allocations Case Review Panel.
6. when confirming to the resident she was safe to remain in the property, or to return to the property when it was ending the temporary accommodation arrangements, it explained:
  1. it was carrying out tenancy patrols in the building to monitor for any ASB.
  2. it would install a smart doorbell to the property if she wished it to do so.
  3. she should let it know of any further incidents affecting her. If appropriate, she should also report these to the police.
7. it responded to queries from an elected representative who was in contact with it on the resident’s behalf.
8. in addition to making a mental health referral for the resident, it also made a safeguarding referral in relation to the resident’s teenage daughter. It made the resident aware it had made this referral.
9. it explained to the resident why it did not consider her to be homeless but provided her with information about third party support organisations who could potentially assist her.
Overall, we are satisfied the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Communications with the resident

The resident complained about the landlord’s communications with her. In particular she complained that the 2 housing officers who she was in most frequent contact with, were ignoring her emails and phone calls. The landlord did not address this within its complaint responses even though it had a reasonable opportunity to do so. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s communications with the resident as part of our investigation.
We have reviewed the landlord’s correspondence records. We note that the 2 housing officers received a significant volume of emails from the resident within short periods of time. For example, one officer received over 400 emails in a week in early July 2024. The other officer received 10 emails within the space of hours later that month before he had an opportunity to reply. There were other examples of intensive email contact from the resident, with the landlord reporting to the Problem Premises Panel that at times it was receiving up to 50 emails a day from her. We understand this was because the resident was fearful and in a highly distressed state. We recognise that she was in a difficult position and reliant on updates from the landlord.
Both officers attempted to manage the resident’s expectations around contact by explaining that in line with the landlord’s policy, they had 10 working days to respond to emails. Based on the evidence we have seen, we are satisfied they did not usually take the full 10 working days to respond and mostly provided the resident with timely updates on her case.
However, there was a period in late August and early September 2024 when the resident sent the officers numerous emails seeking updates and they did not respond to her. This led to the resident escalating her complaint on 9 September 2024. Within her escalation email she said the officers were “actively ignoring” her. She said she understood about the 10 working day policy but that the officers had not responded to her within this timeframe. That they had not was service failure in the landlord’s communications with the resident. It failed to acknowledge or apologise for this in its stage 2 response.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure. We also recommend that the landlord considers if it should put a contact agreement in place with the resident. This may assist it with handling correspondence from her and may help to manage her expectations about when she will likely receive a response.

Handling of a door repair

The landlord boarded up the front door of the property following a forced entry by the RSPCA. We do not know the exact date of this, but it appears to have been in late July 2024. The resident was living away from the property at that time as she was concerned for her safety due to ASB.
On 1 August 2024 the landlord attended the property again and determined that the door was beyond repair. It told the resident it would order a new UPVC door but that it may be “several weeks or longer” before it was available. It said it would fit a temporary door in the interim. It moved the resident into a hotel while it fitted the temporary door. It then fitted the temporary door a day later on 2 August 2024.
In line with its repairs policy, the landlord responded promptly and ensured the property was secure following the forced entry and pending a permanent replacement. It also appropriately placed the resident in a hotel while it fitted the temporary door. This should only have been for one night but in error it did not cancel the hotel booking until 19 September 2024 which was over a month later. It apologised for this oversight in its stage 2 complaint response. Given that the resident wanted to remain in the hotel, we have found that the landlord’s oversight did not have an adverse impact on her. We are therefore satisfied that it did not offer her compensation for the mistake in its stage 2 response.
The resident was concerned that as the door was temporary, it was not secure. She told the landlord in numerous emails in August and September 2024 that she had received multiple threats from a neighbour that he would break into her home and attack her and her daughter. She explained that she was therefore particularly worried about security and did not feel safe returning to the property until it fitted a permanent door.
The landlord provided the resident with assurances that the temporary door was secure. One of the housing officers who she was in regular contact with told her he was there when the repairs team fitted the door. He assured her on 23 August 2024 and 19 September 2024 that he was satisfied the door was secure. He explained it was “deemed adequate” until the landlord fitted a permanent door.
This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. However, she then raised further concerns, including in her escalation emails, that the temporary door was not a fire door. The landlord has confirmed to us it was a fire door and that it complied with fire safety regulations. However, we have seen no evidence it provided this assurance to the resident at any stage. It should reasonably have done so in its stage 2 response.
It was evident that no matter what assurances the landlord provided, the resident would not be satisfied the property was secure until it fitted the permanent door. However rational or not this was, the landlord knew she was living in a heightened state of fear at the time due to the ongoing issues with her neighbours. She told it she would not return to the property while there was a temporary door fitted. Given this, the landlord should reasonably have prioritised the fitting of the permanent door. It failed to do so.
By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 22 October 2024, it had still not fitted a permanent door. It explained in the response that this was partly due to its contractors being unable to gain access to the property as the resident had misplaced the keys for the temporary door. However, it also acknowledged that it was partly responsible for the delay due to staffing changes. It appropriately apologised to the resident for this. It said the “new front door is now ready to be fitted” and that it would be in touch with her to arrange this.
The landlord may have provided redress to the resident’s complaint through its stage 2 response had it then proceeded to fit the new door. Instead, it transpired that the information provided in its response was inaccurate. It needed to survey the doorway again before ordering the new door. It explained to us that due to an “ongoing staff restructure” this further survey did not take place until December 2024 and it did not order the door until April 2025. It fitted the door in June 2025.
Overall, we have found that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the door repair. This is due to its delay in installing a permanent door. We acknowledge that during the period of delay, it ensured there was a secure and fire safety compliant temporary door in place. However, it knew the temporary door was causing the resident distress and was an influential factor in whether she felt safe to return to the property. Therefore, that it took over 10 months to obtain and fit a permanent door was, in our view, excessive.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.

Response to the resident’s concerns about caretaking

The resident raised concerns in an email to the landlord on 19 September 2024 that:
1. a “drug dealer” neighbour was storing drugs in a communal cupboard.
2. the caretaker had given the neighbour a “master key” that allowed him access to the whole building, including her property.
3. the caretaker was rude and spat on the floor at her.
The first 2 issues were connected to her complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB as they involved one of the neighbours who she reported had been threatening and harassing her. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord addressed these concerns in its stage 2 response to the ASB complaint rather than opening a new stage 1 complaint.
Prior to issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns about the cupboards. A caretaking supervisor inspected the building on 26 September 2024. We have seen a contemporary record of this inspection. It shows that he checked for evidence of drug litter, as well as the general cleanliness of the building, and found nothing of concern.
The landlord advised the resident of this in its stage 2 response. It confirmed that the supervisor checked the cupboards during the inspection. It also confirmed that the caretaker had not given the neighbour a “master key”. It assured her that the caretaker did not even have such a key that would allow him access to residents’ properties.
In response to the resident’s complaint about the caretaker being rude and spitting on the floor at her, the landlord advised her in its stage 2 response it would investigate this. It explained it would be unable to advise her of the outcome of the investigation given it was an employment matter but assured her “appropriate action would be taken based on all the evidence available”. It has confirmed to us that it did subsequently investigate.
We are satisfied, based on the nature of the reports, that this was a reasonable response to the staff conduct aspect of the resident’s complaint and that it carried out a proportionate investigation. If the resident has any further concerns about staff conduct, she should report this to the landlord.
We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about caretaking. It investigated her concerns and explained the steps it had taken in its stage 2 response. Overall, its response was reasonable and proportionate.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to:
1. acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
These timeframes are in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
We have seen no evidence that the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of her complaint at either stage. The acknowledgement is an important part of the complaint handling process. In line with the landlord’s policy and the Code, the landlord should set out within the acknowledgement its understanding of what the complaint is about and the outcome the resident seeks.
It would have been particularly beneficial for the landlord to provide acknowledgements in this case as the resident’s complaint and escalation request were contained in a number of webforms and emails at each stage. An acknowledgement letter or email would have given the resident the opportunity to confirm to the landlord that it had understood her complaint in full before it investigated and responded. It may have meant that it would not have failed to address her complaint, as explained in the communications assessment section above, that 2 housing officers were ignoring her phone calls and emails.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the resident submitting her complaint. However, it took 31 working days from receiving the resident’s escalation request before it issued the stage 2 response. The resident chased it for a response during this time. When it issued the response, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay or its failure to comply with the timeframes set out in its policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require it to provide up to date information in its responses about any decisions it has made and any outstanding actions. The landlord appears to have initially drafted its stage 2 response in late September 2024. It explained it had not referred the resident’s priority rehousing application to the Allocations Case Review Panel as it had not yet received a letter from a police inspector. However, the situation had changed by the time it issued the stage 2 response on 22 October 2024. By then it had received the police letter and had referred the resident’s application to the Allocations Case Review Panel. It had placed her in temporary accommodation over 3 weeks earlier pending the Panel’s decision. That it did not update its complaint response to reflect this was a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord also inaccurately confirmed to the resident in its stage 2 response that it was ready to fit the permanent front door. As we have explained above in our assessment of its handling of the door repair, by the time of the stage 2 response it had not even ordered the new door.
Overall, due to the number of complaint handling failures, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to acknowledge the complaint at both stages, did not address all the issues raised by the resident, delayed in issuing its stage 2 response, and provided out of date and inaccurate information. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience these failures caused her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. service failure in the landlord’s communications with the resident.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of a door repair.
4. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about caretaking.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation which is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its communications with the resident.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the door repair.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord considers if it should put a contact agreement in place with the resident.