Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202419950)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat in a purpose-built block and experienced a leak from the property above. She complained as she believed the landlord had not responded appropriately to her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would inspect the property to assess the damage once the leak was resolved. However, it did not complete the inspection until 8 months after the leak was resolved.
5. The landlord failed to complete a thorough investigation at stage 2 which led to the resident having to provide it with evidence to confirm when the leak was first reported.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

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. On 6 March 2024, the resident reported a bathroom leak and an issue with her kitchen tap. The landlord logged the job as non-urgent and attended on 9 April 2024. This exceeded the 20-working day timeframe for such repairs by 3 working days.
7. The landlord raised a non-urgent job on 9 April 2024 for roofers to attend to investigate the cause of the leak. They attended on 22 May 2024, 30 working days later, which was 10 working days later than the timeframes set out in its policy.
8. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord to say roofers had identified the leak as coming from the property above. She asked whether the upstairs tenant or the landlord was responsible for the repairs. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident, which was unreasonable and likely led to the resident feeling frustrated at the lack of clarity over the situation.
9. On 4 June 2024, the landlord raised an urgent job to investigate the cause of the leak and attended the same day, in line with its policy. It found the leak was caused by a cracked toilet pan in the property above and advised the upstairs tenant to arrange their own plumber as the bathroom had been privately installed. This was appropriate, as the landlord’s repairs guide says it is not responsible for repairs to fixtures installed by residents.
10. The landlord was due to inspect the property above on 14 June 2024, but the appointment was cancelled by the upstairs tenant and rescheduled for 4 July 2024. However, the landlord had no notes from the visit and was unaware of the outcome. As the landlord failed to keep accurate records, as it reasonably should have, it had to complete another inspection causing further delays in resolving the issue.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged service failure in its handling of the leak and poor communication. It arranged an inspection of the property above for 5 September 2024 and awarded £400 compensation, £200 for its failure to deal with an ongoing leak and £200 for inconvenience. This amount was reasonable and aligned with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
12. In an email to the resident on 13 September 2024 the landlord confirmed the inspection on 5 September had taken place and no leaks were found. The resident replied the same day, confirming that the leak had stopped but her walls were still damp. A plumber attended on 21 October 2024 and confirmed the leak was resolved and the walls were now dry.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would inspect the resident’s property once the leak was resolved and carry out any necessary remedial works. It later confirmed to this Service that the inspection took place on 13 June 2025 and all remedial works were complete. While it is positive that the issue is now resolved and the landlord eventually met the commitments it made at stage 2, it is unclear why it took over 8 months to inspect the property after the leak had been fixed. This is an unreasonable delay.
14. Overall, the landlord identified its failings and made steps to put them right through the complaints process. However, the events since the stage 2 response, namely an 8-month delay in completing the property inspection, highlight that the landlord has not made sufficient learning from the outcome of the complaint. For this reason, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak and made an appropriate order.

15. The landlord updated its complaints policy on 11 September 2023. The policy aligned with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and reflected changes implemented to the Code in April 2024. The policy says complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days, with stage 1 responses issued within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
16. The resident raised a complaint on 5 June 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on 18 June 2024, 9 working days later. It responded on 26 June 2024, 15 working days after the complaint was raised. Although the acknowledgement was 4 days late, this did not affect the overall response time so there was no detriment to the resident.
17. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 10 July 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on 17 July 2024, 5 working days later and in line with its policy.
18. The stage 2 response was due on 14 August 2024 but landlord was unable to provide a response on time. Its policy says that if a response could not be given on time, the resident should be informed before the due date, given a reason for the delay, and a new response date.
19. On 6 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident it was unable to provide a response on time due to staffing issues within its repairs department. It said it would provide the response by 20 August 2024. This was in line with its policy.
20. On 21 August 2024, the landlord requested a further extension to 4 September 2024, again due to staffing issues. However, this was not in line with its policy, as it did not inform the resident before the date the response was due.
21. The landlord provided its response on 9 September 2024, 3 working days after the extension date. The response was 18 working days late overall. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised and awarded £50 compensation. This amount was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure that occurred over a short duration and had minimal impact on the resident.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it could not see any evidence that the resident reported the leak on 6 March 2024 and that the first record it had of the leak was 4 June 2024. However, copies of the landlord’s works order logs it supplied this Service show the resident reported a leak in her bathroom on 6 March 2024. This indicates that the landlord failed to do review its own records to provide a thorough response. This is likely to have affected the resident’s confidence that the landlord had done a comprehensive investigation into her complaint.
23. The landlord failed to identify when the leak was first reported, so its investigation did not fully assess its response. It did not consider reports from 6 March and therefore did not review its actions between 6 March and 4 June or whether it followed its own policies and procedures.
24. In the response the landlord asked the resident to supply evidence that she had reported the leak on 6 March 2024. She did this via email on 10 September 2024. While the landlord responded to the resident, acknowledged the error and apologised, it was unnecessary for the resident to have had to take the time and effort to supply evidence to prove to the landlord she raised the repair when she said she had. The landlord should have been able to review its own records for clarity on the matter.
25. Although the landlord acknowledged and remedied its late response, it failed to carry out a thorough investigation. Its complaint policy says it should seek sufficient and reliable information, which it did not do. This likely caused the resident further time, trouble, and frustration. As a result, we have found service failure and made an appropriate order.