Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202432004)

Background

1. The resident has physical disabilities and some health conditions which the landlord was aware of. After exhausting the landlord’s complaint process, she also told it that she had asthma. She informed us that she lived with her 16 year old grandson who has autism, although we have not seen evidence that she had told the landlord this. The landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen fan on 5 September 2024. However, she reported that she was unable to cook because the new fan did not work properly. The landlord made several return visits to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the kitchen fan.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the kitchen fan.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the kitchen fan

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the kitchen fan in keeping with its repair policy timeframe. However, it failed to address her concerns that the newly installed fan was not powerful enough for the size of her kitchen. It also failed to review the resident’s video evidence and there was a delay in exploring alternative ventilation. It also provided incorrect information about replacing the fan in October 2024.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It correctly informed the resident it needed more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint, but it only did so after the response was due. It then failed to issue the stage 2 response within the new agreed timeframe and inform the resident about this further delay.

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.

 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.

7. The landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy when responding to the resident’s reports that the newly fitted kitchen fan was not working. For instance, the resident first reported the issue on 9 September 2024, and the landlord attended to carry out repairs 4 working days later. After this visit, the landlord raised a further repair to replace the fan and attended 19 working days later. These actions were reasonable and aligned with the landlord’s published timeframe of attending to such repairs within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s repair logs for those visits did not record the details of the work carried out, which raises concerns about its record keeping.
8. The resident repeatedly reported that the new kitchen fan was not powerful enough for the size of her kitchen. In September 2024 she also said to the landlord that she had videos showing that “her kitchen turned into a sauna when she cooked”. The landlord did not show that it considered whether the installed fan was suitable for the room size or explained why it thought it was. It also did not show that it reviewed the resident’s videos. We recognise that the landlord’s stage 2 response said the fan met building regulations, but it did not explain whether this meant it suited the room size. Its failure to fully address the resident’s concerns and review her evidence caused inconvenience as she had to raise a complaint about this to try to obtain an answer.
9. On 17 October 2024, and in its stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that it had replaced the fan on 10 October 2024, as proposed in its stage 1 response. However, the resident disputed this. The evidence shows that both parties agreed that during the visit the landlord had informed the resident that it could not replace the kitchen fan. It explained this was because the available replacement units were identical to the one already installed, and that the existing fan was functioning. This suggests that the landlord had inspected the fan but had not replaced it in October 2024. The incorrect information in the later complaint response caused frustration for the resident, but we did not see evidence that it significantly affected the overall outcome.
10. The landlord’s electrical team advised on 17 October 2024 that the damp and mould team could explore alternative ventilation methods. The landlord did not show that it shared this recommendation with the resident or acted on it until after the complaints process. Its damp and mould team inspected on 16 January 2025, exceeding its repairs policy timeframe by 42 working days. Although this was a short delay, the landlord should have acted on its electrical team’s recommendations earlier. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who continued to report that she could not cook without her kitchen steaming up. This also further delayed reaching a resolution to the problem.
11. We understand that the damp and mould surveyor made recommendations following its inspection and the landlord upgraded the kitchen fan. However, we cannot assess the landlord’s actions beyond its stage 2 response as it has not had the opportunity to review these through its complaint process. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint for the landlord to investigate its handling of matters since January 2025.
12. However, the resident informed us in January 2026 that, although the landlord had upgraded the kitchen fan, it failed to resolve the problem. She said that the new fan was still not powerful enough for the size of her kitchen. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect and establish whether the fan is adequate for the size of the kitchen.
13. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation given the adverse impact caused by its failings between September 2024 and January 2025.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy mirrors the Code. It aims to acknowledge at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe.
15. The landlord did not provide evidence of when it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, it had logged the complaint within 1 working day and provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later, which was in keeping with the Code.
16. The resident escalated her complaint, and the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days. The landlord informed the resident that it needed more time to respond. However, it gave this update 4 days after the stage 2 response was due, which was unreasonable. We acknowledge the delay was short and had limited impact on the resident.
17. We recognise that the landlord provided its stage 2 response within the Code timeframe for an extended stage 2 complaint. However, it exceeded the timeframe it had agreed with the resident by 9 working days, which was unreasonable. We did not see evidence that the landlord communicated this additional delay to the resident. It also did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint response. This caused inconvenience to the resident who then brought the complaint to us.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s repair logs did not show details of the work completed. It should keep records of all repairs, including what work it carried out. Its failure to do so likely contributed to it giving the resident incorrect information about replacing the kitchen fan in October 2024.

Communication

19. Overall, the landlord’s communications with the resident about the kitchen fan were timely. However, it failed to inform the resident about the additional delays in issuing its stage 2 response.