Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202304441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304441

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

24 July 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request to transfer to a more suitable property on medical grounds.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. Reports of a leak in the roof affecting the communal stairs.
4. The resident’s health and safety concerns and request for a fire risk assessment.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom top floor flat. The block has 3 storeys. She lives in the property with her young child.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she had reported a leak in the roof that was affecting the communal stairs. She advised she had been reporting this to the landlord since at least 2021.
On 12 January 2023 the landlord logged in its works order history, that the resident had slipped on the stairs. This was noted as being due to a bucket being out to catch drips from the leaking roof. The landlord noted that the resident caught her child’s pram on the bucket and fell hurting her back. On 19 January 2023 an incident report was completed for a fall that the resident stated happened in October 2022. The reported cause of this fall was due to the floor being slippery because of the leak. It is unclear if these 2 reports noted in the landlord’s records are of the same incident. The resident has only advised the Ombudsman of one fall in which she slipped on the wet floor and injured her back and shoulder.
The resident made a complaint on 9 February 2023. She advised she had no disability access lift and that she had a 21-month-old baby. She stated she had fallen due to the slippery stairs and that she had had to leave her home as she no longer felt safe. She advised she was now on medication due to the fall and that she had requested a copy of fire safety risk assessments (FRA) but had not received these. The resident stated the situation had made her feel “isolated and helpless”.
The landlord responded at stage 1. It advised that there was an outstanding repair to the roof and that it would provide an update on this in the next 10 days. It also provided a copy of the latest FRA.
The resident was unhappy that the FRA was from 2020. On 20 April 2023 the resident requested to speak to a manager. The resident contacted the landlord again to say she wanted to complain about the leak in the roof as it was now soft from water damage. The resident complained again on 17 August 2023 and 1 September 2023. The landlord responded on 7 September 2023 to say it would not respond at stage 2 as the resident did not escalate the complaint within 2 months of the stage 1 response.
The landlord subsequently discussed internally whether to respond to the complaint at stage 2. On 25 September 2023 it acknowledged the escalation. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 December 2023. It advised that a new FRA had been done and the risk was graded medium. It confirmed that FRA’s for this building size were 3-yearly. It advised recommendations in the FRA were being acted on. It stated that it had inspected the stairs, and they were found to be in good condition. It stated that the roof was repaired on 1 July 2023.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she also complained about the landlord’s response to her request to move and about antisocial behaviour.
The resident remains concerned about the risk in her property. She has advised the matter has caused a lot of stress and inconvenience and wants the matter to be investigated.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.” Assessing a resident’s need for rehousing on a medical ground is the responsibility of the local authority. Therefore, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman would be the better placed Ombudsman to look at this aspect of the complaint.
Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. The evidence does not show that the antisocial behaviour concerns were raised during this complaint, or that the landlord responded to this in its complaint responses.
As such both these matters are out of jurisdiction for this investigation.
The Ombudsman does not usually consider complaints more than 12 months before the complaint was brought to the attention of the landlord, as per paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman scheme.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has a record in its works order history, dated 16 January 2020 of an issue being reported with a leak in the roof in the communal stairwell. The matter was noted as repaired, with further works to be completed. The matter was reported several more times between then and 5 September 2022, which is the first event in this investigation. The Ombudsman will not assess events back to 2020, however this information provides context around the extent of the issue.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the roof of the communal stairs.

On 5 September 2022, the resident reported that the stairs were slippery. This was due to a leak in the roof of the communal stairway. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to a leaking roof within 5 days. The landlord should have ensured that it took action to address the repairs and considered any risks in the interim. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the repairs concerns, or that it considered the risk.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord noted in its work history that the reported roof was damaged, and joists needed repairing. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action in relation to this report.
On 12 January 2023 the resident reported that she had slipped and hurt her back. The resident has advised this was reported to her housing officer in October 2022, however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this was logged at this time. An incident report dated 14 January 2023 stated that the slip was reported on this day although it happened in October 2022. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot confirm that the matter was reported to the landlord in October 2022. However, we also note that the incident report provided the incorrect date of reporting, as there are records from 2 days earlier which confirm the landlord was aware of the fall. The landlord should have completed accurate incident forms as soon as the matter was reported to it.
The incident form provided a space for the landlord to state what corrective actions it had taken to prevent a similar incident. This included any training or review of risk. The landlord completed this box with “not applicable”. The landlord should have taken the risk seriously, considered whether there were any outstanding repairs, and considered how it could keep the resident safe. If it felt no actions were necessary, it should have clearly noted its reasoning for this. However, based on the evidence, it was likely that there was an ongoing risk and as a minimum the landlord should have noted on the incident form what repairs it needed to complete.
On 19 January 2023, there were internal communications within the landlord that it wanted to conduct a visit. This was chased on 3 February 2023. There is no evidence that the visit was completed. There is also no evidence of any works being done to repair the roof, or of any interim measures to ensure the stairwell was safe.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord spoke with her on 15 February 2023. The resident had advised the landlord that she had nerve damage in her shoulder and pain in her back due to the fall. She required medication for this and was having physiotherapy. The resident felt she was no longer able to live in the home as she had to use the communal stairs when coming in or out. She advised she wanted temporary accommodation or to hand the property back and declare herself homeless. The landlord should have provided reassurance to the resident and confirmed what actions it would take next. There is no evidence it did this.
There are internal emails dated 16 February 2023. These were discussing the repairs and whether additional mopping could be done where possible, and whether wet floor signs could be put up. The landlord also stated that the resident had sent in a video which had shown the leak. A member of the landlord’s staff stated that the repair was completed the weekend prior. There was no further information about the repair, so it is unclear what was done, and whether this resolved the issue. It is also unclear if the video was taken before or after the repair. The landlord should have fully satisfied itself that the repair to the roof was complete and that the risk was removed. The repair was not noted in the works order history. There is insufficient evidence to confirm if the repairs fully rectified the leak and given that it was reported again a short time after, it is likely that any repair done at this time, was not a permanent resolution.
On the 7 March 2023 the landlord noted that it was investigating overflow that had been reported by roofers. The landlord should be recording the details of any investigation in sufficient detail so that it can be understood what actions it was taking. There were no further notes surrounding this investigation until 22 April 2024, when the landlord stated it spoke with the resident. The Ombudsman considers this to be an excessive period of time.
The stage 1 response stated that there was an outstanding roof repair, and that the landlord would obtain an update from the roofing team and report back within 10 days. There is no evidence that an update was sought, or that the resident was updated.
The resident reported the roof leak again on 4 May 2023. The landlord spoke with the caretaker on 17 May 2023, and he stated that he had no concerns apart from the leaking roof. The landlord should have acted on this report. The landlord advised it needed to visit to check the landing and the hallway. This was attended on 23 May 2023, and the landlord responded that the stairs were functional and there were no areas to repair. Although the landlord conducted a visit, it failed to inspect the roof, which was the source of the concern. Both the resident and the caretaker advised that the issue was the leaking roof and there is no evidence the condition of the stairs was reported as a repair in its own right.
The resident asked the landlord whether the inspection was completed during dry or wet weather. The landlord confirmed that it had been dry. The resident advised the leak occurred when it was raining. The resident challenged that the inspection would not have detected the leak. This was a reasonable challenge from the resident, as she had regularly reported that the matter occurred when it rained. The landlord should have considered this and completed another inspection in which it could test the impact when water was on the roof. There is no evidence the landlord considered this, or that it conducted another inspection.
The resident further reported the leak on 20 June 2023 and 26 June 2023. An internal email stated that the roof was fixed on 1 July 2023. This is not shown in the works orders and there is no detail regarding the repair. The resident was also not informed at this time. On the 17 July 2023 there was a note in the landlord’s works order history saying scaffolding was needed for a roof repair. Although the Ombudsman cannot definitively say that the repair was incomplete on the 1 July 2023, on the balance of probabilities it seems unlikely that it was a permanent repair, given the need for scaffolding a short time later.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord noted that the resident was unhappy due to her injury and the time it had taken to complete the repair. The landlord requested a video of the leak, however the resident refused as she felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to inspect the repair. It was important for the resident to co-operate with landlord to get the repair completed. However, given that the resident had previously sent videos, and that the landlord had noted the repair as outstanding at this point, it is understandable why the resident was frustrated and wanted the landlord to complete the inspection itself.
The resident continued to report the leak. There is evidence that the landlord attempted to raise an order for a repair, but on the 18 September 2023 this was noted as having gone to the roofing department instead of plumbing, which the landlord said was the wrong department.
On 20 October 2023 there was an internal email to state that entry was forced into the top floor flat and a leak to a water tank was repaired. This was in relation to internal emails around leaks from communal tanks. On the same day the works order history noted that the resident had reported leaks to the roof in the communal stairwell. The landlord noted this needed investigating. Although the landlord had conducted a repair, there was insufficient curiosity from the landlord to confirm if this had resolved the main concern the resident had raised. Throughout the works history, significant damage had been noted to the roof, including rotten joists. The resident had also made clear the leaks happened mostly when it rained. It was therefore unlikely that completing a fix on a water tank would have resolved the repair.
Although the landlord has made notes of some repairs, and some inspections, the records are insufficient to show that any permanent repair was ever completed. This is despite having repeated reports from the resident, and from the caretaker of the building. The resident explained the impact the matter was having on her, which included increased anxiety, specifically after a fall. The resident also described an injury that happened. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the causation of any injuries, as it is not within our expertise. However, we recognise that the resident considered the injuries to have been a result of the fall, and that this would likely have increased her anxiety until the repair was fixed.
The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor. It has failed to provide reassurance or provide updates with enough detail to confirm what action it was taking to support the resident. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment, despite having the opportunity to do so when completing the incident report. The Ombudsman considers that the delay was excessive and that it is unclear if the repair has been completed at this time. We therefore consider there to be maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to a leak in the roof on the communal stairs.
When considering the orders, the Ombudsman has considered what is necessary to remedy the matter. The landlord should address any outstanding repairs and ensure the resident is updated. We have considered the compensation and that the issue impacted on a communal stairwell. Whilst this did not impact the resident in her own home, the resident had made the landlord aware that it had left her feeling isolated and helpless and had increased her anxiety. We consider there was a significant emotional impact, and in line with our remedies guidance, consider the amount of £600 to be an appropriate award.

The resident’s health and safety concerns and request for a fire risk assessment.

It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first requested a copy of the FRA. The complaint stated that as of 9 February 2023 she had been waiting over a month for the documents. The Information Commissioner’s Office states that a Freedom of Information (FOI) request should normally be responded to within 20 working days. The Ombudsman is not the expert in FOIs, however if the FRA was easily available to the landlord, and it did not compromise any data protection laws, 20 working days would seem a reasonable response time. The landlord took 48 working days from when the resident first requested the information in writing. The Ombudsman considers that in the absence of any explanation, this time frame was excessive.
The FRA that was provided to the resident was dated 1 June 2020. The landlord’s fire safety policy states that for this size of building, an FRA will be done every 3 years. The resident was unhappy that the document she was provided was 3 years old, however the landlord had acted within its policy. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that a new fire risk assessment was conducted on 19 July 2023.
Although the landlord only required a new FRA every 3 years to comply with its policy, the landlord failed to consider why the resident was requesting the document. This was due to her having concerns about her escape route, which would involve going down a stairway which she had reported as being slippery. The government published “Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats” provides guidance to landlords on how to remain compliant with fire safety regulations. Paragraph 40.2 of this document states that a review of an FRA should take place when there is a “significant change in matters that were taken into account as the risk assessment was carried out”. The resident raised concerns that the roof leak occurred after the 2020 FRA. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to conduct a review to ensure that the resident’s escape route was not compromised due to the reported leak.
On 4 May 2023 the resident requested that a person-centred risk assessment be completed. This was due to the concerns with the stairs, but also that following her fall she struggled to go up and down the stairs with her child. A person-centred risk assessment was completed on 9 May 2023. It identified that there were risks to the resident, including a previous fire, smoking within the property, sensory impairment, and a history of a fall. The fire risk assessment made no note of the resident’s concerns regarding her escape route. However, it noted that the resident was at an increased risk of fire, because she was less likely to react to a fire alarm and would have a reduced ability to escape. The document does not have any commentary on any actions the landlord considered to assist the resident in case of fire. The resident consented for the document to be shared if necessary.
The Ombudsman recognises that there are limitations in what can be done in ensuring fire safety and prevention. However, the landlord should have been demonstrating that it considered the person-centred risk assessment and that it considered if it could take any further actions to keep the resident safe. There is no evidence this took place.
The landlord shared its latest FRA with the resident for the block of flats. There was not an area of the report which would appropriately identify the potentially compromised escape route. The landlord would also have unlikely spotted the risk at the time this new assessment was completed, as it was during the summer months and less likely to be a wet day. The landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns and considered what actions it could take to minimise the risk in case of a fire.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord noted that there was a medium risk to the building identified in the latest fire safety risk assessment. It stated that it was already completing actions to rectify this. However, it provided no details. Given that the resident was already concerned about fire safety, it is possible that discovering that the property was medium risk may have caused concern. The landlord should have provided a greater level of detail as to what works were taking place and when these would be completed.
The landlord has complied with its own policy in completing new FRA’s every 3 years. However, it did not consider the resident’s specific concerns about fire safety. It did not conduct a review on becoming aware of a possible new risk. It also failed to consider the resident’s higher risk from fire and any actions it could take to keep the resident safe. The Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s health and safety concerns and the request for a fire risk assessment.
In considering the orders the Ombudsman has assessed that compensation should be paid. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has not had a fire during this time. However, it also understands that the resident has had concerns ongoing, and that these have not been addressed correctly. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman considers £200 to be appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it responded to stage 1 complaints in 15 working days. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. However, the landlord has since updated its policy to reflect the Code’s timescales.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in 48 working days. This was considerably out with the landlord’s timescales. The stage 1 response did not address several concerns that the resident had raised. This included that she had had a fall, and that she had concerns about entering and leaving her home. The landlord did acknowledge an outstanding roof repair, but it did not acknowledge the number of times the resident had reported this, or how long this had been outstanding. The landlord apologised that the resident had cause to complain, but it did not identify any learnings for the future.
The resident stated on 19 April 2023 that she was unhappy with the FRA being from 2020. Although the landlord provided an explanation for this, it may have been appropriate to escalate the matter to stage 2. The resident also asked for a manager call on 20 April 2023. The landlord should have considered if this merited escalation to stage 2 as it was a clear expression of dissatisfaction.
The resident emailed on the 20 June 2023 to raise a complaint about the damaged roof due to water. The resident stated on 1 September 2023 that she was unhappy with the response in relation to the leaking roof and the FRA. The landlord responded on 7 September 2023 to say it wouldn’t respond at stage 2 as the resident had not escalated her complaint within 2 months of the stage 1 response being issued. The Ombudsman considers that there were sufficient expressions of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 as soon as it considered the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. This response had several new issues, and it also noted the reports of leaks to the roof. It stated this had been repaired on 1 July 2023. The landlord should not be issuing 2 stage 1 responses to the resident for the same matter. This can cause confusion and difficulty for a resident to escalate their complaint.
From when the landlord acknowledged that it would escalate the complaint until the stage 2 response was 63 working days. This was significantly out of the timescales noted in the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days. The Ombudsman considers the actual delay was also considerably longer due to the landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint. There was an excessive delay in responding to the resident.
The landlord’s response did not uphold the resident’s complaint around the resident’s request for an FRA. The landlord did not consider all the circumstances. It failed to acknowledge the delay in providing the resident with the documentation. It also failed to acknowledge the reasons why the resident had requested an FRA and whether the FRA provided any assurances around the resident’s escape route concerns.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint about the stairs was that the matter occurred when it rained. It stated that it arranged for the stairs to be inspected and that they were found to be safe. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns that this inspection had been insufficient due to it being a dry day.
The landlord stated that the roof was repaired on 1 July 2023. There were at least 7 further entries in the landlord’s records relating to a leaking roof since this date. The landlord provided no detail and no information around the repairs. It also did not acknowledge how long the issue had been outstanding, how often the resident had reported it, or the impact on the resident.
The landlord did uphold a complaint about the incident report from the fall, although it said it did so in a separate response, which the Ombudsman has not seen. This appears to be specifically in relation to the landlord completing the incident report. Due to insufficient evidence, the Ombudsman did not consider this aspect of the complaint in this report, and as such any compensation paid for this will not be considered when looking at the remedies.
Due to the significant delays and the poor responses at both stage 1 and stage 2, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has awarded £250 in compensation for complaint handling. This is to recognise the number of errors made and the impact this has had on the resident. This includes the resident feeling unheard, and that the poor complaint handling has delayed the resident from being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to a more suitable property on medical grounds is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Reports of repairs to a leak in the roof on the communal stairs.
2. The resident’s health and safety concerns and request for a fire risk assessment.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident. This should fully acknowledge where the landlord has not taken the correct actions as highlighted in this report. It should also acknowledge the impact the resident has stated this has had on her, and any actions it will be taking to improve service in the future.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,050 in compensation. This is made up of:
1. £600 for the failures to respond to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof in a communal stairway.
2. £200 in the failure to respond to the resident’s health and safety concerns and request for an FRA.
3. £250 for the complaint handling failures.
The landlord is to conduct a risk assessment to identify any possible issues that may make the stairwell dangerous in the building. It should consider the vulnerability of the resident and any other vulnerable residents in the building. It should provide evidence of this risk assessment and what actions it is taking to keep resident’s safe in the interim.
The landlord is to review the FRA with specific attention given to the communal stairways and whether the leaking roof has any possible impact on evacuation, particularly during wet weather.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with orders 59 – 62 within 4 weeks of this report.
The landlord is ordered to conduct an inspection of the roof above the communal staircase. It should consider whether the roof can sufficiently keep water out, particularly during periods of rain. The landlord is to provide a schedule of works to the Ombudsman and the resident. This should include what works are to be done, if any are identified, and the timescales for these works. This should be done within 6 weeks of this report and provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to revisit the resident’s personal FRA. It should provide more specific details around the mobility concerns and the sensory impairment so that it is clearly understood what might impact the resident in a case of fire. It should also consider if it needs to take any additional steps to support the resident.
The landlord should have a senior member of staff review the complaints handling in this complaint. It should consider whether training is needed for staff to recognise when an escalation is appropriate. It should also consider whether further training is needed on ensuring that responses are appropriate and reflect the resident’s concerns.
Orders 64 – 65 should be completed within 6 weeks of this report, and evidence of this provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations.

The Ombudsman is aware the resident has other outstanding complaints. Due to the landlord’s complaints handling, the resident does not have clear complaint responses to all her concerns. This could present the resident with difficulties in escalating her complaints. The landlord should review what responses it has issued and contact the resident to ensure that her complaints are all either satisfied, have a final response, or are currently within the internal complaints process.
The landlord should consider that there has been a breakdown in the relationship with the resident and the landlord due to the responses she has received. The landlord should consider third party mediation to rebuild a productive working relationship.