Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202425589)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425589

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

15 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 complaint is about:
    1. The handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
    2. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat and she lives there with her husband and children, one of whom has additional needs.
  2. On 7 December 2023 the resident reported mould in the property. She re-reported it in May 2024 and said it was affecting her and her 3-year old child’s health. The landlord inspected the property the same month and identified faults with the windows in multiple rooms and a possible leak from the bathroom above. It completed a mould wash the following month.
  3. The resident made a complaint in July 2024. She said:
    1. While the landlord had taken action, the mould was unresolved.
    2. There had been miscommunication about her rehousing application, which meant she had not been given increased medical priority since 2019.
    3. She had experienced racism and victimisation by landlord staff, and gave details of 2 incidents in 2015 and 2017.
  4. The same month the landlord said it visited the property above and confirmed there had been a historical leak, but this was not ongoing. It also completed works to the resident’s windows.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 October 2024 it partially upheld the complaint as there had been a delay in it addressing the damp and mould. It apologised and offered £100 compensation (£50 for the delays in its handling of the damp and mould and £50 for complaint handling delays). It did not uphold the resident’s complaints about her rehousing application or staff conduct, but apologised if she felt unsupported or victimised.
  6. The resident reported mould on the ceilings and walls in the bedrooms on 5 November 2024. The landlord said it attended the same day and completed a mould wash.
  7. On 27 November 2024 the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said there was severe mould in the property and, despite the landlord doing multiple washes, it had come back worse. She felt the landlord had offered compensation to avoid taking responsibility for its failings. She was dissatisfied with its response to her complaints about staff conduct and her rehousing application.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 February 2025 said:
    1. It had reinspected and completed a further mould wash. It had identified works required to the bathroom extractor fan and airing cupboard, which it had raised orders for. It apologised for the delay in addressing the damp and mould and offered increased compensation of £150. This part of the complaint was upheld.
    2. There was no action it could take about the allegations of staff misconduct, following its investigation. It did not uphold this part of the complaint.
    3. It did not uphold the complaint about the handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
    4. It acknowledged there had been delays in its complaint handling, apologised and offered increased compensation of £100.

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme says we cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
  2. The resident is registered for rehousing via the council’s housing register and has reasonable preference. This is a function of the council that sits outside its capacity as landlord. Therefore, the handling of the resident’s rehousing application falls outside our jurisdiction and we cannot investigate it. It would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider. As a result, this matter is not considered further in this report.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. When the resident reported mould in December 2023, the landlord raised a works order to remove it. However, there is no evidence it took any action to do so or updated the resident until after she re-reported this 5 months later, on 3 May 2024. This delay amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel ignored.
  3. When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords not only treat it, but also seek to identify and resolve the underlying cause. Following the resident’s contact in May 2024, the landlord raised works orders to complete a mould wash and inspect the property. This showed it wanted to treat the mould, as well as identify what was causing it, which was sensible.
  4. The works order for the mould wash was raised on 16 May 2024. This was raised as a routine repair, which the landlord’s repairs book says it will complete within 20 working days. Considering the 5 month delay in the landlord progressing this, and that the resident had told the landlord the mould was negatively affecting her and her 3-year old child’s health; it should have raised this as an urgent repair, which its repairs book says it will complete in 1 to 5 working days. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord did not care about the impact on her and her family.
  5. The landlord completed the mould wash on 6 June 2024, 15 working days after the job was raised. This was in line with the 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. However, as the landlord should have treated this as an urgent repair; and considering the resident had reported this nearly 6 months earlier, it took too long to complete, and should have done this sooner. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  6. Following the landlord’s inspection on 24 May 2024, it raised routine works orders the same day to measure the windows for replacement and repair the trickle vents. It attended a week later to measure the windows and returned 41 working days later, on 26 July 2024, to replace them. While this was over the 20-working day committed timescale for routine repairs, considering it was replacing 9 windows and these needed to be specially made, this timescale was reasonable.
  7. The landlord also attended on 1 July 2024 to repair the trickle vents, 26 working days after the order was raised. This was again over the 20 working day committed timescale for routine repairs. However, the records indicate an earlier appointment had been arranged but was changed at the resident’s request. As this slight delay was not attributable to the landlord, this was not a failure.
  8. During the inspection on 24 May 2024, the landlord identified a possible leak from the property above and said this needed investigating. The landlord has confirmed it attended the neighbour’s property 16 working days later, on 17 June 2024, to investigate this but could not gain access. We have not seen evidence to confirm how the landlord categorised this repair, but considering it was investigating a possible leak into the property, it should have treated this as urgent. Its response time suggests this was not the case, which is a concern. Similarly, we do not know if the landlord told the neighbour in advance about the appointment on 17 June 2024. If it did not, it could not reasonably expect them to give access.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord was able to gain access to the neighbour’s property on 18 July 2024. This was 39 working days after it identified the possible leak from above. While there was no leak identified, the landlord did not know this when ordering the work. Therefore, it should have treated this as an urgent matter and attended sooner to reassure itself and the resident that there was no ongoing leak. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  10. The landlord told the resident on 3 June 2024 that it had raised a works order to investigate the possible leak from above. However, it did not keep her updated on its progress, which left her feeling the landlord had not taken any action. In response to a further enquiry from the resident on 10 June 2024, the landlord told her on 5 July 2024 that it had raised another works order, the day before, to investigate the leak in her bathroom; but did not update her on the attempted visit the previous month. This suggests the landlord did not properly check its records to confirm what action had been taken. This reinforced the resident’s belief that no action had been taken, which was disappointing for her. This amounts to maladministration.
  11. When the landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 18 July 2024 it also visited the property. The resident has confirmed that an operative attended on this date and said this was unannounced. She subsequently told the landlord this caused distress as she is a domestic violence survivor and having an unknown person turn up unannounced was triggering for her. The landlord addressed this in its response to an MP enquiry in October 2023. It recognised the impact of this and apologised. While the landlord’s response was positive, this should not have happened.
  12. The landlord’s repairs book says it will give at least 24 hours’ notice for repair appointments, except in an emergency. In this case, the appointment was not an emergency and so the landlord should have arranged access in advance. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and caused significant upset and distress to the resident, because of her individual circumstances. We have made an order for the landlord to provide guidance to staff responsible for booking repair appointments on the importance of arranging access in advance and the possible impact of not doing so, based on learning from this investigation.
  13. On 2 October 2024 the landlord visited the resident to repair water damage caused by the leak. It noted redecoration was required to the bathroom and toilet ceilings, but further drying out time was needed before works could be completed. While reasonable that works could not be completed on this date, the landlord should have arranged to revisit to complete this work, after a further drying out period had passed. There is no evidence it did and we have seen no evidence that it has completed works to address this to date. This amounts to maladministration.
  14. In addition, the landlord should have considered whether any action was needed to speed up the drying out process, for example, supplying a dehumidifier on a temporary basis. This was particularly important as the resident had told the landlord the damp and mould was negatively affecting her and her children’s health and so it should have taken all steps it could to resolve the issue quickly. There is, again, no evidence the landlord did this, which meant the resident was left living with damp and mould for longer than she should have been. This amounts to maladministration.
  15. It was sensible of the landlord to complete a mould wash on 5 November 2024, when the resident re-reported this. The landlord has said it completed this the day she made the report, which was within the timescale for urgent repairs and showed it was taking this seriously. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any other action to identify the underlying cause of the mould. When a landlord only treats the mould and not the cause, this is only ever a temporary resolution and so it is vital that it seeks to do both. The landlord’s failure to do that on this occasion resulted in the mould recurring less than a month later and causing further distress for the resident and her family. This amounts to maladministration.
  16. As part of her stage 2 complaint on 27 November 2024, the resident reported the mould was severe. Despite this, the landlord did not take any action until more than 5 weeks later, when it raised works orders, on 6 January 2025, to complete a mould wash and inspect. This delayed response showed a lack of care and consideration for the resident’s circumstances and amounts to maladministration.
  17. The works order for the mould wash was raised as urgent, which was sensible considering the circumstances. The landlord noted it attended 18 working days later on 29 January 2025, which was over the committed response time of 1 to 5 working days. This again, showed a lack of urgency in the landlord’s actions and indicates it had not fully understood the impact of this on the resident and her family. Even when the landlord attended on this date, it could not complete the mould wash in full. It noted it reattended to do so 8 working days later, on 10 February 2025. This means it took the landlord a total of 26 working days to complete the mould wash, when it should have taken a maximum of 5 working days. This amounts to maladministration.
  18. The landlord reinspected the property on 9 January 2025. During this, it identified the bathroom extractor fan was not working, which was a possible contributing factor to the damp and mould. Despite raising works orders for this in January and February 2023, the landlord has told us this was not completed until June 2023. This was 5 months later and significantly over the 20 working day response time for routine repairs. This amounts to maladministration.
  19. We can see there have been further concerns raised about damp and mould since the stage 2 response was issued, and as recently as June 2025. The landlord said it attended on 7 July 2025 to inspect again but this did not go ahead. Therefore, it appears the issues remain unresolved and it is important that the landlord takes robust action to investigate and resolve this in the long term. We have made an order for it to inspect to identify works required to treat the damp and mould and address any possible underlying causes. Following this, it must send a written update to the resident confirming the outcome, including what works it will complete with timescales for completion.
  20. The resident told the landlord on at least 3 occasions in June and July 2024 that, due to water damage caused by the leak from above, her electrics were tripping. However, the landlord did not raise a works order to investigate this until 26 July 2024. This delay amounts to maladministration.
  21. The landlord raised this as an urgent works order and attended 3 days later, which was within the committed timescale for urgent repairs. Despite this, the landlord’s response time was inappropriate as it should have dealt with this as an emergency repair, which its repairs book says it will attend within 2 hours. This is because there is a high risk associated with water and electrics and it should have attended as quickly as possible to assess and manage this. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  22. The resident reported mould in December 2023, which was more than 18 months ago. While the landlord has taken some action to investigate and resolve it, it has not done enough in a timely manner to properly investigate and address it. This means the resident’s family have been living in the property with worsening damp and mould for an extended period. This is particularly concerning as the resident told the landlord this was negatively impacting her family’s health but it failed to tailor its response in recognition of this. This was disappointing for the resident and has caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
  23. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the damp and mould, apologised and offered £150 compensation. While positive, the redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation, inclusive of the £150 already offered if not done so. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced as a result of this.
  24. We acknowledge the resident has said the damp and mould negatively affected her and her children’s health. However, we cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. This is more appropriately assessed via a public liability insurance claim. Therefore, we cannot order compensation in that regard.

Staff conduct

  1. Our investigation of this issue is focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, rather than the actual conduct of individual members of staff. The staff conduct itself is an issue for the landlord to address internally and is not for us to determine.
  2. From the records provided, the resident first raised concerns about staff conduct on 3 May 2024. She said this included racial profiling and inappropriate advice given by 2 members of staff. In response, the landlord asked for further details so it could formally investigate her concerns. This was reasonable as the resident had not provided the staff member’s names or details of when the incidents took place, which the landlord needed to investigate. The landlord’s response showed it was taking the matter seriously and wanted to do more to investigate.
  3. The resident provided further information about the 2 incidents on 30 July 2024, as part of her stage 1 complaint. She confirmed they occurred in 2015 and 2017, what was said and the staff member’s job titles. She also provided the name of one of the staff members, but not the other and subsequently confirmed she could not remember this.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would not accept complaints about issues that occurred more than 6 months ago. Despite this, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns as part of the formal complaint, even though the incidents had occurred between 7 and 10 years earlier. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, this was sensible and showed the landlord was taking the concerns seriously.
  5. In its response to the complaint, the landlord confirmed it had interviewed the named member of staff and provided their response. It said due to the time passed and the lack of witnesses, there was no further action it could take. It advised it could not investigate the second incident as it did not know the identity of the officer. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s actions and conclusions were reasonable. It did all it could to investigate her concerns, considering the significant amount of time that had passed and the limited information available.
  6. Despite not being able to progress action in respect of the resident’s concerns, the landlord apologised for any upset caused and reassured her on a number of occasions that it took these types of allegations seriously. This was sensible and its actions supported this statement.
  7. We acknowledge that the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation into staff conduct. While these incidents were distressing for her, the landlord did what it could, in the circumstances, to investigate and responded reasonably. Therefore, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. In an email to the landlord on 10 June 2024, the resident indicated she wanted to make a complaint. Despite this, the landlord did not log a formal complaint, but did send a written response to her on 5 July 2024. This referred to the resident’s contact as a complaint and gave details in response to her concerns. However, this was not a formal complaint response as it did not include a complaint reference number, complaint stage, the decision on the complaint or how to escalate the matter, in contravention of the landlord’s complaints policy. This was confusing for the resident and meant she had to expend time and trouble re-raising her complaint on 16 July 2024.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord formally acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. The policy also said where a response could not be provided within the target timescale, it would contact the resident to tell them and give a revised timescale. The landlord did that on 3 occasions in July, August and September 2024. However, on the third occasion it did not give a revised timescale and only told the resident the response was delayed. This was in contravention of its complaints policy and meant the resident did not know when she would receive the response.
  3. After the third update on 18 September 2024, it was a further 30 working days before the landlord sent the stage 1 response and there is no evidence of any updates being sent to the resident during this time. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 75 working days, significantly over the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. While the landlord extended the deadline for some of this period, it did not meet the extended deadlines or keep the resident sufficiently updated during the entire period of delay.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 9 December 2024, 9 working days after the escalation request was received. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 52 working days. This was also over the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy.
  5. Overall, the resident’s complaint took 127 working days to complete the landlord’s complaints process. This was more than 4 times the 30 working day target timescale set out in its complaints policy; and equates to a delay of more than 13 weeks. This was disappointing for the resident and caused her to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
  6. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not uphold the complaint about its handling of damp and mould. Despite this, it went on to apologise for delays, offer compensation and confirm this element of the complaint was upheld. This was confusing and indicates the landlord did not properly check the response before sending.
  7. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling, apologised and offered £100 compensation. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. The landlord has told us that, since these failures were identified, it has recruited more staff and delivered training. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to learn from outcomes.
  8. While positive that the landlord has taken action to put things right and learn from outcomes, considering the multiple failures and the extent of the delays, the redress offered is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided guidance to staff responsible for booking repair appointments on the importance of arranging access in advance and the possible impact of not doing so, based on learning from this investigation.
    2. Inspected the property to identify works required to treat the damp and mould and address any possible underlying causes. Following this, it must send a written update to the resident confirming the outcome, including what works it will complete with completion timescales.
    3. Paid the resident £600 compensation, made up of:
      1. £450 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould (inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so).
      2. £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so).