Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202427609)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property and started to report repairs to the landlord. He complained about its handling of those repairs and the condition of the property. He has a mental health condition, although the landlord has not recorded this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Various repairs including to the kitchen and bathroom, intercom, and extractor fan vent.
   2. Reports of damp.
   3. Queries about asbestos and request to move his electricity meter.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Various repairs including to the kitchen and bathroom, intercom, and extractor fan vent.
   2. Reports of damp.
   3. The complaint.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of queries about asbestos and request to move his electricity meter.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s handling of repairs overall was poor, and it did not comply with its repairs policy timeframes. Its communication was also poor. The landlord further delayed in completing repairs after it said it would complete them within its stage 2 response.
6. Despite the landlord suspecting damp during a property inspection, it failed to investigate. This was despite the resident having reported damp. It delayed its damp inspection, failed to investigate thoroughly and delayed in identifying an active wastewater leak.
7. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint or escalation request within its policy timeframes. Its responses did not fully address the complaint or set out its proposed remedies in detail. It also failed to recognise, apologise for, or offer any remedy for its complaint handling failings.
8. The landlord complied with its asbestos policy and gave correct advice regarding the electricity meter. It was not obliged to move the meter or consumer unit but gave permission to the resident.

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.

9. The landlord has not provided a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into all tenancies repairing obligations. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, and installations for the supply of services including water and sanitation. Under its policy it categorises repairs as either emergency (make safe within 24 hours), urgent (repair within 5 working days), or routine (repair within 20 working days).
10. Within its repairs’ handbook for tenants, the landlord says it has a lettable standard. Before letting a property, it will complete safety inspections and complete any essential repairs. It is not clear what checks or inspections the landlord did prior to letting and it has not provided any evidence of these. When the resident moved into the property he started to report repairs within a few days.

Kitchen and bathroom

11. The resident first reported repairs needed to the bathroom in April 2024 and further repairs in May 2024. The landlord’s repair records to not say whether it completed these repairs which is a record keeping failing. Positively, it did inspect the property after the resident asked it to on 1 June 2024, but this was outside of its repair timeframes. The landlord’s lack of action led to the resident’s complaint.
12. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had asked internally for updates about the kitchen repairs, when it should have had this information. It would have been more appropriate for it to have confirmed what works were needed, and when it would complete them. It also said it would check if the property was on the list for a new bathroom, which it should have confirmed either way before providing its response. That way it could have arranged repairs then and that it did not was a failing. Positively, the landlord did update the resident on 11 July 2024, but it was unable to say when it would survey to confirm whether he could have a new bathroom. This did not resolve the complaint.
13. By its stage 2 response in November 2024 the landlord accepted the kitchen and bathroom needed significant repairs. It said it had appointed a named surveyor to oversee this, which was solution focused. However, it had taken several months to do this which was a failing. It also failed to say when it would complete the repairs. This meant the resident had to continuously chase it until March 2025, when it asked him if it had done the repairs. This was a significant failing in handling repairs, record keeping and complaint handling.
14. Following its inspection on 24 March 2025 the landlord said it would replace the kitchen and the bathroom. However, it then said this was an error and it would not 2 days later. This was a further failing which caused frustration and disappointment. The landlord did carry out repairs, but this was over a year after the resident first raised concerns about the condition of his kitchen and bathroom. The resident has subsequently completed his own improvements. He discovered issues with how the bath was installed, the condition of the walls, and said that the standard of the landlord’s works prior to letting was poor.

Intercom

15. Within his stage 1 complaint the resident said he had been without a working intercom system since he moved into the property on 15 April 2024. This caused inconvenience including a missed repairs appointment on 4 June 2024 and a missed damp inspection on 2 July 2024. While the landlord approved repairs, which included replacement of the communal door, this was delayed. It said it would complete a major installation between 26 to 28 August 2024, which it did. The landlord’s repairs policy does not say whether its repair timeframes apply to communal repairs. However, it was still under a duty to complete repairs within a reasonable time. It took over 4 months which was not reasonable and so a failing.

Extractor fan

16. Following the resident’s report of the vent cover for the extractor fan being broken the landlord correctly raised a repair. However, when it attended it said it could not repair it as it was 4 floors up. The landlord knew the property was a fourth floor flat within a block, and that the vent cover would be on an external wall. Therefore, it would have known it would need a way to reach it when it raised the repair. That it attended without the correct equipment was an obvious failing and waste of a repair appointment. It then failed to book a follow-on appointment until after the resident had chased it. While it is positive it completed the repair on 20 June 2024, this was outside of its 20-working day policy timeframe and a failing.

Conclusions

17. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2. It accepted there had been a significant delay in repairs and apologised, which was appropriate. It committed to completing the outstanding repairs which was positive. It also offered £350 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, and our guidance on remedies.
18. The landlord’s communication had been poor, and it delayed further in completing the repairs it said it would do. It gave the resident false hope and a legitimate expectation of having a new kitchen and bathroom installed, before saying this would not happen. Its handling of repairs overall was poor, and it did not comply with its repairs policy timeframes. Therefore, there was maladministration, which caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that it pay £500 additional compensation to the resident.

19. Under its repairs policy the landlord says it will take measures to reduce damp and mould. It will investigate potential defects which may be the cause and will provide dehumidifiers when there is excess water due to a leak. It will respond to reports within its repairs timeframes.
20. The landlord has provided its self-assessment against the recommendations in our spotlight report on damp and mould. It said its staff have experience and knowledge of damp and mould and are “highly proactive in identifying early signs of damp and mould.” It also says it identifies “opportunities to undertake further diagnosis” to identify buildings that have the same design and are likely to suffer from the same problems.
21. The landlord inspected the property on 1 June 2024 and noted a smell of damp from where the soil stack (waste pipe) was located. But it failed to take any action to investigate this. When the resident raised damp in his stage 1 complaint the landlord delayed in raising a damp and mould inspection for 17 working days. It booked it for 4 working days later, but then said it could not get access due to the broken intercom. It finally inspected one month after the resident made his complaint which was not in line with its policy timeframe. It has also failed to provide an inspection report to us.
22. It was solution focused that the landlord provided a dehumidifier and compensated the resident for the use of his electricity. It did this as there had been a previous leak. However, the landlord failed to identify a leaking stack pipe (where damp had been smelt on 1 June 2024). When it did discover this, by chance on an out of hours repair, it repaired it within its routine repairs timeframe.
23. The landlord accepted within its stage 2 response that it had delayed in completing repairs, apologised and offered compensation. It did not specifically mention its handling of damp. The landlord failed to act within its policy timeframes, complete a thorough inspection or provide a report. While it did provide a dehumidifier, it did not identify the active leak until a later date, despite the resident raising his concerns. Overall, there was maladministration which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

24. The landlord has a legal duty to manage asbestos, which it explains within its asbestos policy. It says it will assess, identify, and record any asbestos within its properties before undertaking any works liable to disturb asbestos. The landlord followed its policy in February 2024 by completing an asbestos survey and producing a report.
25. When the resident made his stage 1 complaint, he said he had reported concerns about asbestos to the landlord but had not had an inspection. In its response the landlord confirmed it had previously completed one. It is not clear whether it provided a copy of its report to the resident. It would have been helpful if it had done so at sign-up. However, it had complied with its policy.
26. When the resident asked to move his electricity meter the landlord explained his electricity supplier would need to do this. It repeated this within its complaint response. As suppliers own electricity meters this was the correct advice. There may have been confusion over whether the consumer unit (‘fuse board’) was also to be moved. While the landlord could have moved this, it was not obliged to.
27. There was no maladministration.

28. Under its complaints policy the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its policy is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint outside of its policy timeframe which was a failing. It then asked for an extension of time, as permitted under its policy and the Code. It then provided its stage 1 response within that extension. Within its response it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failing.
30. The Code states a complaint response must address all elements, give clear reasons for decisions, and detail any remedies offered to put things right. Despite the landlord’s request for an extension of time to allow it to get internal updates, its response did not provide them. Instead, the landlord provided a response that it would provide an update at an unknown later date. This did not offer an explanation or remedy and had no hope of resolving the complaint.
31. The resident had to make 2 escalation requests before the landlord escalated the complaint. It acknowledged escalation 33 working days after the resident’s first request, far in excess of its policy timeframe and not in compliance with the Code. Although it then provided its stage 2 response within 16 working days, this was still 49 working days after the resident’s escalation request and a failing. It failed to recognise, apologise for, or offer any remedy for its complaint handling failings within its response, which was a further failing. Its response also failed to provide clarity despite saying that it trusted that it had.
32. There was maladministration, which caused additional and avoidable further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that it pay £150 compensation to him.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s repair records are poor and do not contain necessary information. They do not give a date on which it completed each repair or notes on completion. Additionally, the landlord has not recorded the resident’s mental health condition on its system and has not provided a complete copy of his tenancy agreement.

Communication

34. The landlord’s communication was poor. There is evidence of the resident having to chase for contact and responses, and periods with no responses to his communication.