Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202424700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417205

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

15 September 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 the kitchen extractor fan replacement.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
4. On 27 June 2024 the landlord raised an order to inspect the kitchen extractor fan after it accidentally damaged it during a separate repair. It booked an appointment for 1 July 2024 but could not gain access. It attended the property again on 12 July 2024. It found that the fan required replacement.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2024. He said that:
   1. His kitchen fan was not working, and the landlord had failed to replace it.
   2. He had recently decorated his kitchen, and he was concerned that the landlord would damage the wall when it replaced the fan.
   3. He had health issues, including COPD and asthma, and the lack of air flow in the kitchen was impacting these conditions.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had inspected the extractor fan on 12 July 2024 and confirmed that it would replace the fan like for like. It aimed to complete this replacement on 12 August 2024.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 August 2024. He said that:
   1. The landlord had replaced the extractor fan, but the air was not flowing.
   2. The operative had informed him that the landlord would need to complete urgent structural work following the replacement.
   3. The landlord had damaged his recently painted walls when it replaced the fan.
   4. The landlord had placed the fan base in a position that would cause damp and mould. He also said he was concerned about the impact the outstanding repairs would have on his health.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024. It did not uphold the complaint and said that:
   1. It did not attend the appointment on 12 August 2024 to replace the extractor fan because it had received a high amount of emergency repairs on this date. It confirmed that it had left the resident a voicemail to inform him that it had rescheduled the appointment to 27 August 2024.
   2. It replaced the extractor fan on 27 August 2024. It said that its operative did not find any structural issues, but they recommended that it would need to install 6-inch ducting. It said it would contact the resident to arrange a date for this work.
9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint on 25 September 2024. He said that the ducting had not been installed, and this was impacting his health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident raised concerns about a fence repair in his initial complaint to the landlord. However, this was not part of the stage 2 escalation or response. The Ombudsman does not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. We will not therefore investigate this as a separate issue.
11. In his communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how this situation impacted his health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. 

Handling of the kitchen extractor fan replacement

12. The landlord’s guide to repairs sets out the following timescales in which it will attend repairs depending on severity:
    1. Emergency repairs are within 2 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs are within 1-5 working days.
    3. Non-urgent repairs are within 20 working days.
    4. If it needs to complete an inspection before it orders a repair, it will tell the resident at the inspection when it should complete the repair.
13. The landlord accepted that it was responsible for replacing the extractor fan in the kitchen. It raised a job on 27 June 2024 and inspected the fan on 12 July 2024. This was within 12 working days. This response was appropriate and in line with its policy for a non-urgent repair.
14. At the inspection on 12 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that it needed to replace the fan. The resident requested a like for like fan to minimise the risk of damage to his newly painted walls. The landlord agreed to place an order for a like for like fan and it informed the resident that the replacement would take place on 12 August 2024. These actions were reasonable and in line with its policy.
15. The landlord could not complete the replacement on 12 August 2024 because it had emergency appointments. While this would have caused inconvenience to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise emergency repairs. It appropriately made efforts to contact the resident, and it scheduled a new appointment. The landlord replaced the fan on 27 August 2024. While there was a slight delay, this was not significant. It acted in line with its guide to repairs policy and kept the resident informed throughout.
16. During the replacement, the landlord found that it needed to install 6-inch ducting. In its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024, it confirmed that it had placed an order for the ducting, and it would contact the resident to arrange a date for it to complete the work. We have noted that, to date, it has not installed the ducting. We have considered this further in our complaint handling assessment below.
17. In summary, the landlord handled the extractor fan replacement in line with its guide to repair policy. It inspected the fan within timescales, replaced it like for like, and completed the replacement within a reasonable timeframe. It appropriately placed an order for new ducting and confirmed it would contact the resident when it could install this. Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the extractor fan replacement.

Handling of the associated complaint

18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days from the date of receipt. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that when a landlord responds to a complaint, it must address all the points raised in the complaint definition and give clear reasons for any decisions. It also states that it must follow through to completion any remedies it has proposed.
20. The resident made a complaint on 12 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 July 2024, which was in line with its policy. Its response was reasonable; it gave a clear explanation of the events and the actions it had taken. It confirmed that it would replace the fan like for like to reduce the risk of damage to the walls and the date it would complete this replacement.
21. The resident escalated the complaint on 27 August 2024. The landlord provided its response on 25 September 2024, which was in line with its policy. However, its response did not address all the points raised by the resident. These being:
    1. That the landlord damaged his wall when it replaced the fan.
    2. That the fan was not working correctly and this was impacting his health.
    3. That the placement of the fan would cause damp and mould.
22. This was not in line with the Code. The landlord did not demonstrate that it fully understood the complaint, and the resolution the resident was seeking. By not addressing these issues, it missed an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns and put things right. As a result, the resident would have been left uncertain on whether the landlord investigated all of his concerns.
23. Furthermore, in its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to contacting the resident to arrange a date to install the ducting. The Code states that the landlord must follow through to completion any remedies it has proposed. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that, to date, nearly a year after it committed to replace the ducting, it still has not done so. As such, the main issue remains unresolved. This has left the resident without a resolution to his complaint.
24. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord appropriately addressed the issues raised and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. 
25. Overall, the landlord has failed to put things right for the resident. It did not address all the points the resident raised in his stage 2 complaint and, nearly a year later, it has not followed through on its commitments to install the correct size ducting. This would have likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As a result, the complaint remains unresolved, and a finding of service failure is appropriate.
26. In light of this, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when there was a failing by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen extractor fan replacement.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this determination and provide a copy to this Service.
    2. Pay £200 compensation directly to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. It must also provide this Service with evidence of payment.
    3. Set out an action plan for replacing the ducting. The landlord must give both the resident and this Service a timeframe for completing this repair.
    4. Contact the resident to establish if the wall was damaged when it installed the fan. It the wall was damaged; the landlord must set out its position on addressing this damage and provide an update to both the resident and this Service
30. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescale set out above.