Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202311393)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311393

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

13 June 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of ceiling damage caused by a leak from the property above.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. He moved into the property, a flat, in July 1989. The landlord has confirmed to us that the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. On 23 June 2022, the resident reported that a leak into his property was coming from the empty property above and said he was worried that his ceiling may collapse. The landlord isolated the leak within 24 hours. On 27 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to repair his ceiling as it was stained from the leak.
  3. The landlord attended again on 20 September 2022 to assess the internal damage. It found that the water damage was isolated to a false ceiling which had been installed by the resident. It said that the ceiling was not its responsibility to repair and advised the resident to make a claim on his contents insurance.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 July 2023 as he was unhappy that the landlord would not repair his ceiling. He requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience he had experienced. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 August 2023 and did not uphold his complaint. It said that it did not find evidence of service failure as the affected ceiling was classed as an additional fitting under the tenancy. It reiterated its suggestion that the resident claimed against his contents insurance.
  5. The resident told us that he attempted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 30 August 2023. The landlord has no record of this, and the resident could not provide us with evidence. With the support of this Service, the resident escalated his complaint on 24 November 2023. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 December 2023, and it did not uphold the complaint.
  6. On 25 March 2024, the landlord replaced the suspended ceiling as it had gone through it to gain access to gas pipes above. We asked the landlord for confirmation of the scope of works, but it has not responded.
  7. The resident is still unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak and subsequent damage. He has requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced throughout the period investigated.

Assessment and findings

  1. The original tenancy document does not specify who is responsible for additional fittings and fixtures within the property and it is not disputed that the resident installed the suspended ceiling. The repairs booklet states that residents are responsible for:
    1. Fixtures and fittings they have installed.
    2. Any alterations or improvements they have done to their home.
  2. The repairs policy also states that for individuals over 65 who are disabled and/or on means-tested benefits, the landlord runs a handy-person service which can support with minor repairs. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the landlord to consider offering the resident a referral to this service.
  3. The landlord sent a plumber, electrician, and plasterer to the property to trace and repair the leak in the flat above within 24 hours. We cannot say with certainty how severe the leak was as repair logs were not clear. In the original report, the resident said he was concerned the ceiling may collapse; however, there is no mention of physical damage to the ceiling in the landlord’s records, only decorative.
  4. The resident told us that the ceiling was “stained, an eyesore, and this prevented him from inviting visitors into his home.” If the ceiling required repainting rather than structural work, the landlord would not have been responsible for this. However, the landlord could have used its discretion to consider whether it could refer the resident to the handy-person scheme or provide decorating vouchers given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It was not obligated to do this, however.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident make a claim on his contents insurance. However, it should also have given the resident the details of its own liability insurer as the damage to the resident’s property was caused by a leak from another of the landlord’s properties. The decision would then lie with the insurer regarding whether it would compensate the resident.
  6. The landlord’s decision not to make repairs to the suspended ceiling was compliant with its policies and the tenancy. While we do not discount the resident’s statement that he experienced stress and anxiety, the landlord took appropriate action to stop the leak and complete repairs within its tenancy responsibilities.
  7. For the reasons above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ceiling damage which was caused by a leak from the property above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ceiling damage caused by a leak from the property above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether it can refer the resident to its handy-person scheme, and if so, it should offer him a referral.