Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202342794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342794

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

20 August 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

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. He lived in a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. He moved from the property in April 2024 but remains a resident of the landlord.
3. On 13 December 2023 the resident made a formal complaint regarding a staff member’s conduct when they attended a toilet repair in his property. He said he felt disrespected and requested compensation and an appointment to complete the works required.
4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 29 December 2023. It apologised and confirmed an internal investigation addressed the conduct. The landlord also booked another job for the toilet repair.
5. Whilst the resident was waiting for the stage 1 response, he asked the landlord for records of repairs logged to his property. The landlord sent these to him on 19 December 2023. The resident saw a comment on the job notes from 13 December 2023 which said, “Tenant wants new bathroom suite fitted PSO to inspect, tenant aggressive 2 men required.” The resident responded to the report to express his shock and disappointment in these comments.
6. On 16 January 2024 the resident requested a stage 2 investigation as he felt his complaint had not been fully addressed. He said there was inaccurate information in the stage 1 response and there were false allegations recorded on the job notes.
7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 February 2024. It confirmed the note was added in line with health and safety policy but agreed to remove it and update the resident in 10 days. It apologised for the upset caused by the stage 1 response incorrectly using the term ‘aggressive’ in its stage 1 response and apologised for the misunderstanding between the resident and the staff member about wanting a new bathroom.
8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman after the stage 2 response as he was unhappy with the lack of communication and dismissive approach. He said the landlord had agreed to remove the note, but they did not address the distress caused. He referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 September 2024. He said although he had moved from the property, he was unhappy with how the landlord had managed his complaint, he was unsure if they had removed the note, he wanted an apology, an investigation into staff conduct and compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct

9. The landlord’s repairs staff code of conduct confirms the standards staff are expected to meet to ensure a good service for the residents. Standards include:
   1. Always behave in a polite and professional manner.
   2. Communication with residents about the work in a way that it is clearly understood.
   3. Apply the council’s safeguarding policy and report any areas of concern to the relevant staff.
10. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord has a policy under which it investigates staff conduct, and that it would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident due to confidentiality reasons.
11. The evidence shows that when the resident raised a concern about the conduct of staff on 13 December 2023 the landlord investigated through its complaints process. In its stage 1 response it said it contacted the appropriate manager who had spoken with the member of staff in question. The landlord apologised for the unpleasant experience, and said it was regretful to hear about the rudeness and aggression by the staff member leading to incomplete work. It confirmed it had booked in the further work required. This response was appropriate in the circumstances and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
12. When the resident became aware of the note included on the job he included this in his escalation to stage 2 along with the inaccuracies he found in the stage 1 response. As part of his escalation, he also requested supervisors or managers accompany repairs appointments whilst the investigation was ongoing.
13. In its stage 2 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the errors and misunderstandings contained in the stage 1 investigation. It recognised the upset caused by the note on the job, so it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to remove this from the record. It promised to keep the resident updated within 10 working days.
14. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to not address the residents request for joint management visits. This caused the resident further frustration that his complaint was not being fully addressed.
15. The Service agrees that the apology and promise to remove the note was fair and proportionate to put things right for the resident. When the resident initially reported his concerns, the landlord took it seriously and acted in a timely manner by investigating and responding within its complaints process.
16. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that shows the landlord did not follow through on what it said it would do by removing the note in a timely manner and updating the resident. In the evidence provided, the note was deleted from the system in November 2024 which was 9 months after the stage 2 response.
17. Although the landlord had experienced technical difficulties in removing the note, the lack of communication was not appropriate. This could have avoided further upset and frustration for the resident. When referring his complaint to us he explained he had not received a phone call throughout and this caused distress. The landlord failed to follow through on its commitment at stage 2 and in doing so further weakened the landlord and resident relationship. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found service failure and has decided that a further apology and an award of compensation is appropriate.
18. The Ombudsman’s compensation policy allows for discretionary awards where there has been distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions/inactions. Therefore, the landlord should pay £100 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused following the stage 2 response.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

Orders and recommendations

20. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident confirming the deletion date of the note from the system.
    2. Apologise for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
    3. Pay the resident £100 directly to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
21. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.