Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202401564)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat in a block. He has mental and physical health conditions which he has told the landlord about.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of sewage, damp and mould at the property.
   2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of sewage, damp and mould at the property
   2. there was service failure in how it handled the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of sewage, damp and mould at the property

4. The landlord was slow to resolve issues with the drains in the communal car park, despite repeated attempts. When it completed repair works, it resolved all problems effectively. However, it failed to acknowledge the distress the resident experienced while he waited for the repairs. It did not acknowledge his health conditions when he mentioned them. It did not provide him with details of its liability insurance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord missed the response deadlines in its complaints policy. It did not communicate reasons for delays clearly, which put the resident to further time and trouble. Its oversight of the complaint was poor.

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.

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident considered the damp and mould in his flat to be a direct consequence of the sewage leak in the communal car park. We have considered both repair issues under one heading as they were linked in the complaint.
7. The landlord was slow to address the issues with sewage coming from the drains in the communal car park. It was first told about the problem on 4 January 2024 and logged 4 more reports from different residents and staff before the resident’s formal complaint. It carried out work to clear the sewage after each report which showed an intention to resolve the issue. But works were ineffective as they did not prevent the problem from recurring. While we recognise that some works can be complex, the landlord failed to identify that repeated jet washes were not solving the issue. Given the sewage presented a hazard to residents, it should have prioritised finding a lasting solution. The issue with the drains was resolved following works on 28 February 2024.
8. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in its approach to the cleaning of the sewage left in the car park. It said it recorded waste in the car park during a visit on 14 February 2024 but did not clean this until 4 April 2024 because it needed the approval of a supervisor. Given it had known about the problem for so long, this delay was unreasonable. It is not clear if it explained the delay to the resident before he raised a concern with his local councillor.
9. The landlord responded quickly when the resident raised his concerns about the sewage, damp and mould with his councillor on 17 February 2024. It conducted a damp inspection on 29 February 2024 and identified issues with poor insulation under his flat which resulted in condensation and mould. While it did not agree that the sewage leak had resulted in the damp, it took steps to address the issue as it was impacting him.
10. The landlord tried to schedule a mould wash on 23 February 2024, within the 7 days its repair policy allows. But it did not notify the resident of the appointment, which meant it was cancelled. Its rescheduled appointment was cancelled for reasons outside its control. It gave the work to its contractor following this which tried to schedule further appointments with him. It completed the mould wash alongside other repairs on 23 August 2024.
11. The landlord failed to acknowledge the level of distress the resident experienced while the issue went unresolved. In his complaint escalation, he said it had not considered the impact of living with the smell of sewage and cleaning damp and mould on a daily basis for 6 weeks. It apologised for any inconvenience he faced but did not provide a clear response to these concerns. It did not show it recognised he had been unable to fully enjoy his home, missing an opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.
12. The landlord did not consider the resident’s health conditions at any point in its response. The resident made clear in his initial complaint that he considered himself disabled and listed medical conditions he had, but it did not acknowledge or document these as its vulnerability policy says it will. It did not consider whether there was an increased risk to him as a result of the issue. It could have conducted a risk assessment when it was told about his health condition to understand if he was likely to be impacted more by the issue and associated works. It did not show it considered the impact of the issue on the health and safety of the resident as its Repair policy says it will.
13. The landlord responded clearly when the resident raised concerns about damage to his belongings. It explained it could not compensate for damage to belongings but that he could make a claim through his contents insurance. It acknowledged that some of the damage he reported was to decorations and gave contact details for its building insurance. While it was proactive in its response to his concerns, it could have done more. We are not able to make judgments on liability for damages. However, it would have been fair for it to explain how to make a claim through its own liability insurance since his complaint was that its negligence was the cause of the damage.
14. The landlord awarded £150 compensation for inconvenience caused by delays in its repair and responses. While this was appropriate, the amount does not reflect the distress the resident experienced. It is reasonable for additional compensation of £150 to be paid for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the reports. This includes its failure to:
    1. acknowledge the impact of the delays
    2. acknowledge the potential increased risk as a result of his health conditions
    3. explain how to make a claim through its liability insurance

This amount has been considered alongside our remedies guidance.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
16. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 27 working days (12 April 2024 to 22 May 2024) which was not compliant with the Code which allows 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 33 working days (3 July 2024 to 19 August 2024) which was not compliant with the Code which allows 20 working days
17. The landlord failed to contact the resident to request extensions to its response deadline at either stage. It should have explained the reasons for any delays and given revised timescales. The resident faced time and trouble as he chased it for a response.
18. The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation request on 1 June 2024 within its policy timeframe of 5 days. It did not acknowledge the request until 3 July 2024, 23 working days later. It said this was because it was not logged on its system, which showed failure in its oversight of the complaint. It offered the resident appropriate compensation of £50 for this delay. However, as detailed above, it failed to provide its response by its target date. Overall, its handling of the complaint put the resident to unnecessary time and trouble.

Learning

19. The landlord’s repair works were effective once they had been completed. It could reflect on whether its internal processes prolonged repairs unnecessarily.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping was not totally effective. It could reflect on its recording of vulnerabilities.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent. It could consider its approach to communicating delays in its complaint handling.