Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202302900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302900

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

11 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of external repairs which were linked to mould growth.
The Ombudsman is also considering the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, and they have held the lease since 2022. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a wider block. The resident rents the property out to tenants.
On 25 November 2022 the occupants of the flat directly below the property told the landlord their walls were damp and this was causing mould growth. The landlord wanted to assess if the damp could be coming from a leak in the resident’s property. As such, it asked the resident to inspect their property.
The landlord established that there was similar damp and mould issues in the resident’s property, which indicated there was an external issue affecting both properties. On 9 March 2023 the landlord conducted repairs to an external downpipe. Once the matter had been resolved the resident asked how they could recoup costs associated with the damage to the interior of their property. The landlord did not respond to this enquiry prior to the resident submitting their complaint.
On 30 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In the complaint the resident said:
1. A communal pipe had caused damage to their property.
2. They felt the landlord was unresponsive.
3. They were concerned mould could have affected the health of their tenants and the tenant’s young child.
In its stage 1 response dated 28 June 2023, the landlord said:
1. It had inspected the downpipe on 16 January 2023 and found no obvious faults, so a plumber recommended the landlord should establish if the leak was originating from the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s property manager contacted the resident on 2 February 2023 about the issues in the below property. The landlord apologised for the time it had taken to update the resident about this issue.
3. The landlord had tried to contact the resident’s tenants to facilitate access, but this had been unsuccessful.
4. When the landlord learned the resident’s property also had damp and mould issues on 1 March 2023 it contacted its roofing team. It repaired the damaged downpipe on 9 March 2023.
5. The landlord’s property manager had responded to the resident’s enquiry about compensation on 27 June 2023. The landlord said the property manager’s advice that the resident should submit an insurance claim was reasonable and accurate.
6. The landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of its delays in responding to the resident.
The resident escalated their complaint on 29 June 2023 as they felt the landlord had not addressed the complained of issues, or why the property manager had not answered phone calls for a significant period.
In its stage 2 response dated 28 November 2023, the landlord said:
1. The property manager had not answered phone calls as their work was not desk based, and their landline number only worked when they were working at a desk and logged into the landlord’s computer system.
2. The landlord’s property manager had provided the resident with their work mobile number.
3. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience the resident experienced from the property manager’s lack of timely responses. It said this had been discussed with the property manager and their line manager.
4. The landlord re-iterated its stance that it would not compensate the resident for the damage. It advised the resident they could submit an insurance claim if they wanted to pursue compensation.
5. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the resident’s complaint. It said the complaints team were experiencing delays from staff shortages.
6. In recognition of the time taken to produce its stage 2, the landlord offered the resident an additional £50 in compensation.
On 4 December 2023 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of external repairs which were linked to mould growth.

The landlord provides a repairs handbook for its residents. The handbook says it will attend emergency repairs within 1 to 5 working days. For non-urgent repairs the landlord will attend within 20 working days.
The handbook says leaseholders are responsible for repairs and maintenance relating to issues within their property. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building and certain communal areas.
The landlord’s housing services policy states it will consider requests to reimburse leaseholders who have incurred expenses linked to a service failure from the landlord. The resident is to provide evidence of the cost, and this will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The property’s lease says the resident is responsible for costs associated with keeping the property, fixtures and fittings in good repair and condition. The landlord is required to keep the exterior of the property in good repair and condition.
The resident’s downstairs neighbour first reported concerns about damp walls and mould growth on 25 November 2022. The landlord conducted inspections of this property, and it did not identify any defects with the downpipe. Notes from the inspections include that there had been a previous leak into this property from upstairs.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord’s plumber decided the resident’s property should be inspected to assess if a leak was originating from upstairs. At this time the landlord was unaware of any damp and mould issues in the resident’s property. When considering this factor, and the history of leaks, the landlord’s decision was reasonable and appropriate.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord asked the resident to conduct an inspection of their property within 7 working days to identify any potential leaks. This request was reasonable considering the content of the lease. The resident responded the same day and provided their tenant’s contact details. The resident said their tenant would allow the landlord access. It appears the resident did not identify that the landlord had asked them to arrange this work. Despite this the landlord attempted to contact the tenants, this was appropriate.
The landlord said it was initially unsuccessful in contacting the resident’s tenants, but it was able to contact the tenants on 1 March 2023. The tenants told the landlord they also had damp and mould in the property. Following this the landlord updated the resident about the damp and mould, and it contacted its roofing department to initiate repairs to the external downpipe. This was appropriate.
The landlord completed repairs to the external downpipe on 9 March 2023. This was 7 working days after the landlord learned that there was damp and mould in the resident’s property. This was a timely and appropriate response time. On 24 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the external repairs had been completed.
On 24 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord’s property manager a list of required repairs and costs associated with damage caused by the mould. The resident asked who they should contact to invoice for the associated costs. The resident chased the property manager for a response to this enquiry on 4 April 2023 and 11 April 2023. The property manager responded to this enquiry on 27 June 2023, this was an inappropriate response time. It was inappropriate because it took the landlord approximately three months to reply to the resident’s question about the costs they had incurred.
The property manager told the resident that under the terms of the lease the damage caused by the damp and mould was the resident’s responsibility. They advised the resident they could make an insurance claim for the costs. This advice was reasonable and accurate; however, it should have been given at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s housing services policy does say that it will consider requests for reimbursement from leaseholders who have incurred costs as a result of service failure by the landlord. However in this case the landlord completed repairs promptly after it was first made aware of the damp and mould in the resident’s flat. Therefore, there was no service failing by the landlord and it was not obliged to consider a request for reimbursement.
During the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident cited concerns about the landlord being uncommunicative in emails and over the phone. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for its poor communication. It said the property manager’s role was not desk based, which meant they often did not have access to their landline. The landlord highlighted at stage 2 that the property manager had provided the resident with their work mobile number.
This explanation, the landlord’s apology and the action taken to raise the issues with the property manager were appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of the distress experienced from its communication delays. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer was reasonable and appropriately remedied the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord provided the resident reasonable redress after considering:
1. The landlord acted quickly once it learned damage was occurring within the resident’s property.
2. The advice provided to the resident around compensation was appropriate when considering the content of the resident’s lease.
3. The landlord apologised for delays the resident experienced, and it raised this with the complained of member of staff.
4. The landlord offered the resident appropriate compensation for its failure to communicate with the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
5. It took approximately three months to reply to the resident’s query about costs. In our view the landlord’s offer of £150 was appropriate to recognise the length of the delay and resulting inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident, as it was the equivalent of £50 per month.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 15 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction made about its standard of service, actions or lack of actions.
On 12 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s property manager, in this email the resident asked the landlord to act on the email as a complaint. The property manager should have passed this email onto the landlord’s complaints department, or they should have provided the resident with information about making a complaint. It was inappropriate that this did not happen.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged this complaint 15 working days later on 19 June 2023. This was not in-line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 8 days later on 28 June 2023, this was in-line with its complaints policy. The resident escalated their complaint on 29 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the request on the same day. This was appropriate and in-line with policy.
There was a significant delay in the landlord producing its stage 2 response. The resident chased the landlord three times before it provided its stage 2, this indicated the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s response times. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023, 109 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s escalation. This response time was not in-line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord apologised, and said delays had occurred due to staff shortages. The landlord also offered the resident £50 in compensation. While the delays would have been inconvenient to the resident. At this stage the resident had received appropriate advice about the complained of issues from both the property manager and the landlord’s complaints department. As such the detriment to the resident was limited.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s apology and compensation offer appropriately remedied its complaint handling shortcomings and the resident’s associated detriment.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint in respect of its handling of external repairs which were linked to mould growth.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint in respect of its complaint.

Recommendation

The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £200 is paid to the resident if the landlord has not yet paid this amount.