Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202418129)

Decision
Case ID	202418129
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat. She is deaf. She is unhappy that the landlord failed to attend an appointment to clean her gutter and when re-arranging this called her to do so. This is in spite of her reporting to the landlord that she does not speak on the phone or listen to voicemails.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about her gutters and request for reasonable adjustments.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her gutters and request for reasonable adjustments.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her gutters and request for reasonable adjustments

The landlord failed to attend to a follow-up appointment to complete necessary work to the resident’s gutter which it had made as part of its response and resolution to the complaint.
When re-arranging this appointment, the landlord again failed to take into consideration the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments causing her additional distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord recognised it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It offered the resident an appropriate amount of compensation for this failing.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the resident’s reports about her gutters. This is on top of anything paid for these failings as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 November 2025.
3	Work order The landlord must write to the resident outlining how it intends to make reasonable adjustments to its repair arrangement procedure for her. This should consider the resident’s specific needs and outline the practical steps it will take to ensure these are fulfilled. This must be provided to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 27 November 2025.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £25 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its failures in handling her complaint. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon this amount being paid to the resident.
The landlord should consider reviewing its repair appointment procedure as a whole to ensure it has sufficient capability to make reasonable adjustments for all residents

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 July 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint. She was unhappy it failed to attend an appointment to clean her gutters on 16 July 2024. She said she had waited in all day and wanted the landlord to complete the job. She also said she wanted the landlord to provide more information on jobs when it sent text messages.
01 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it partially upheld her complaint regarding the delay in attending to clean her gutters, however provided no compensation for this. It said that it was not upholding her complaint. It said it was unable to provide additional information about repairs via text, saying its planners call to arrange a new appointment and leave a voicemail if unable to get through. It then said following this voicemail it would send a follow-up text but that the information this could provide was limited due to its system. The landlord said it had called her to arrange a new appointment for 10 September 2024.
02 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said she found the landlord’s response to be discriminatory. She said the landlord was aware she was deaf and unable to speak over the phone. This meant she would be unable to answer the planner’s calls or to listen to the voicemails. She also felt the landlord’s contractor had failed to leave a card at the failed appointment.
04 September 2024	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaints at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord said it had spoken with its contractor who could not confirm if they had left a card following his attendance. It also acknowledged the resident’s frustrations about its contact. It said its staff should have checked its system before contacting the resident and failed to do so. It provided £325 compensation, consisting of £25 for its delays in answering her complaint, and £300 for distress, inconvenience and upset in its handling of the outstanding gutter clean.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 September 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had failed to attend the appointment it committed to as part of the complaints process, and that it again had failed to take her disabilities into consideration when dealing with this repair. To resolve her complaint, she said she wanted the landlord to ensure it was meeting the requirements of disabled tenants.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her gutters and requests for reasonable adjustments.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s vulnerabilities policy states it will “ensure equal access to services and make reasonable adjustments for those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010”. It goes on to say it has a “duty” to ensure that when applying its policies it makes “fair and suitable adjustments in consideration of existing vulnerabilities”. It lists “adjusting methods of communication” as one of the steps it can take to make a reasonable adjustment.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend to routine or non-urgent repairs within 20 working days of a resident reporting this to them.
The resident first reported that her gutters required cleaning on 7 June 2024. The landlord’s first arranged appointment to attend to this repair was on 16 July 2024. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repair policy for routine repairs and represented a failure to act within the timescales set out in the policy.
The landlord’s records recorded this as a no access appointment, noting that its contractor left a card. After the resident disputed this, the landlord checked with its contractor who said they could not remember if they left a card. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 complaint response for previously saying it had left a card and the subsequent distress this had caused the resident. Whilst it was good for the landlord to recognise its failings and apologise, this still demonstrated a failing in the landlord’s record-keeping procedures. It should have ensured it recorded accurate information and provided supporting evidence about appointments.
Following this the landlord contacted the resident over the phone, leaving her a voicemail when she did not answer. The exact date of this call is unknown as the landlord has not provided evidence of this. This call informed the resident of a rearranged appointment to clean the gutters on 10 October 2024. The landlord was aware on its system that the resident was deaf and therefore unable both to discuss the appointment on the phone or to listen to a voicemail. Its internal correspondence noted its staff should have checked its system for vulnerabilities and alerts prior to contacting the resident. It acknowledged that its failure to do so represented a failing from it within its complaint responses.
As part of its complaint responses the landlord arranged a new appointment for completing the repair to the gutters. It failed to complete this work, and once again contacted the resident by phone to arrange a new appointment. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint, or that it had taken sufficient steps to provide reasonable adjustments for communication with the resident. This represented a significant failing from the landlord.
The landlord’s internal correspondence about the 10 September 2024 repair said that once again staff had not seen the alert on its system which stated the resident should be contacted by text or e-mail. The landlord’s actions in failing to consider the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments so soon after the complaint demonstrated it failed to truly consider the resident’s concerns or to take meaningful steps to put into place ‘fair and suitable’ adjustments.
The landlord stated it would not be able to provide the resident with additional information on repair appointments via text due to a limitation on the number of available characters in each message. Whilst we will not comment specifically on the landlord’s internal systems, the Ombudsman still expects to see evidence that the landlord is specifically taking into consideration each resident’s specific needs. This is especially the case where a resident has informed the landlord that they feel disadvantaged by a specific mode of communication.
The landlord has failed to provide evidence it took the resident’s requests into consideration or formally considered what steps it could take to ensure its staff to contact her in an appropriate and suitable manner for her needs. The landlord’s lack of any such evidence represents a failing to consider its statutory obligations to make reasonable adjustments as well as to learn from this complaint. This represented a serious failure in service from the landlord.
The landlord has been unable to provide the exact dates of specific calls which the resident had asked it to refrain from. It also has failed to demonstrate its record-keeping practices were robust enough to ensure its members of staff were aware of any potential disabilities or needs for alternative communication arrangements. The landlord’s record-keeping in these instances were therefore poor.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this period was also poor. It failed to keep her properly updated about the repairs and as highlighted already it failed to take her specific needs into account when communicating with her. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it took any steps to rectify any communication issues, or that it sought to communicate with her using her requested means.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her gutters and requests for reasonable adjustments therefore represented service failure. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for its failings in handling her reports about her gutter and her requests for reasonable adjustments. However, considering its failure to learn from the complaint as well as its failures to contact her appropriately and complete the works in the arranged appointment, the landlord should increase its compensation to £400.
This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a failing from the landlord which had an ‘adverse affect’ on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process it says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure, it says it will again acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 complaint response within a further 20 working days.
The landlord’s policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s own complaint handling code which represents good practice from the landlord.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 18 July 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 July 2024 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2024. These were both inside the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and represented good practice from the landlord.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 August 2024. The landlord failed to provide any acknowledgement of this request. It then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2024. This was 23 working days after the resident raised her complaint and represented a failure from the landlord to provide a response within its complaint policy timescales.
The landlord however recognised its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered the resident £25 compensation for its delay. Given the small delay this was a reasonable offer of redress. This is also in the range of figures recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when there has been a minor failure by the landlord.