Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202404580)

Background

1. The resident’s complaint relates to the condition and suitability of the kitchen, including lack of storage, damp and mould. The resident sought a full kitchen replacement. The landlord said that repairs were appropriate and that the kitchen did not meet its replacement criteria.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Condition of the kitchen

4. The landlord raised repairs quickly. It explained to the resident that it would not be replacing the kitchen. It reiterated its offers to repair the issue in its complaint responses.

Damp and mould

5. The landlord attended the property to complete a mould wash within its timescales. After the resident declined this, the landlord proactively contacted the resident to explain the importance of the mould wash, and the potential health impact of leaving mould in place.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident requested this. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response but did not offer any redress.

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 resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2024. He said that the kitchen was in poor condition and there was insufficient storage, affecting his ability to use appliances. The resident asked the landlord to install a new kitchen.
8. The landlord attended the property on 19 March 2024. The repair notes say the resident asked if the operative was measuring up to install a new kitchen. When they told the resident that it was to repair the existing kitchen, the resident asked them to leave.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The landlord attended the property within this timescale.
10. The tenancy conditions say that the landlord is responsible for repairing kitchen installations. The landlord says that it will only look to replace a kitchen that is over 20 years old and in which 2 or more major components have failed. It states the kitchen did not meet these criteria, so it arranged repairs.
11. Under its repair policy, there is no requirement for the landlord to replace the kitchen. There is no evidence to show that the kitchen was beyond economic repair. The landlord’s offers to repair the existing kitchen were reasonable.
12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had not scheduled to replace the kitchen as part of its major works programme. It reiterated that it could repair the existing kitchen.
13. The landlord attended the property within its stated timescales. It took action to repair the kitchen, but the resident refused this. The landlord reiterated it offers to repair the issues. The landlord’s responses to this issue were reasonable.

14. On 9 October 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in his kitchen, living room, bedroom, and bathroom. The landlord attended on 14 October 2024 to treat the mould. The resident declined the mould wash.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete a mould wash within 7 working days of a resident reporting this. The landlord attended within this timescale. The tenancy conditions say that a resident must allow the landlord access to the property to inspect or carry out repairs.
16. The landlord attempted to complete the works, but the resident did not allow this. The landlord followed this up with a call to the resident, in which it explained the potential health impact of the mould. The landlord took proactive steps to inform the resident of the hazard, and the actions it could take to resolve this.
17. We have not found any failings in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Since issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord has attended the property and completed a mould wash.

18. The resident submitted a complaint on 5 March 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 5 working days. After acknowledging, the policy says it will issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is inline with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 March 2024, which was not within the policy timescale of 5 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 March 2024, which was within the required 10 working days from acknowledgement. While the acknowledgement was late, the resident did not suffer any detriment as the landlord issued its stage 1 response quickly.
20. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 19 March 2024. The landlord responded to the points the resident raised but did not escalate the complaint.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had incorrectly treated the request as a further stage 1 complaint, rather than a stage 2 escalation. The landlord apologised for this error.
22. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 response until 23 November 2024, following intervention from the Housing Ombudsman Service. This was several months after the resident’s request to escalate and significantly outside the policy timescale of 20 working days.
23. In this period, the resident did not contact the landlord to request a response or follow up on the complaint issues. While there was a significant delay, this did not have a significant impact on the resident.
24. The landlord acknowledged this failure and identified complaint issues inline with the Code. However, it did not offer any compensation, which it can consider under its complaints policy.
25. Under our remedies guidance, we suggest compensation of between £50 and £100 if we find service failure. In this case, we consider compensation of £50 and an apology to be appropriate redress.

Learning

26. The landlord raised repair orders promptly. It clearly explained the purpose and importance of mould works, while also ensuring it documented this in case records.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord did not track the progression of the complaint, particularly the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2. Clearer and more accurate record keeping would help it to ensure it progresses complaints in line with policy.

Communication

28. The landlord should ensure it communicates clearly and proactively with residents it delays issuing a complaint response or when errors occur. This includes providing clear timescales and explanations in line with the Complaint Handling Code.