We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202225840)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225840

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

20 December 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.  

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 15 January 2018. The property in question is a 1-bed first floor flat.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in his property on 9 December 2022. Works orders were raised for repairs to a window and to the downpipe outside the property and a damp and mould inspection was requested.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 21 December 2022 due to the service he received since reporting the damp and mould. He claimed he had been given inconsistent information regarding the booking of appointments and questioned the time taken to address the issues he raised.
  4. The landlord carried out an inspection on 27 January 2023 and identified damp and mould in the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. The resident raised concerns about works that remained outstanding and about the conduct of the surveyor shortly after the inspection was completed. 
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 February 2023 and upheld the complaint. It said that it had repaired an extractor fan and carried out a mould wash but it was awaiting completion of the downpipe repair. It said the service provided was “below the expected standard”. It provided details of a recent gas service and directed the resident to its insurers to make a damages claim. The landlord also offered a compensation payment of £150 for its failings. The downpipe was repaired on the same day that the response was issued.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 April 2023, providing a detailed timeline of events since he reported the damp on 9 December 2022. The resident disputed elements of the landlord’s claims and detailed his complaint about the manner in which the property was inspected and the service offered during the required works. He added that he wanted to claim back the additional energy costs he had incurred due to the damp and reported other repairs that he felt were linked to the damp and mould.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 13 June 2023 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the behaviour of the inspector in January 2023 and accepted that it had made mistakes with its position on additional energy charges he had claimed for. The landlord said that the required mould wash was booked for 6 July 2023 and it would raise orders for the other outstanding works.
  8. Further works and inspections were booked following the stage 2 complaint. The information provided indicates that a second damp and mould inspection did not go ahead, despite several being booked.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.

  1. Within this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021), we recommended that landlords ensure that responses to damp and mould were timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case, it is clear that the landlord failed to provide timely responses to the resident’s damp and mould concerns. We have assessed each aspect in turn below.

Inspection

  1. After the resident reported damp and mould in the property on 9 December 2022, it would be expected that the landlord attend and carry out an inspection soon after. However, it took the landlord over 6 weeks to attend. This delay is a service failing by the landlord. As the landlord had not made a diagnosis or put in place any preventative measures, it is likely that further damage and deterioration to the property occurred during this period.
  2. Following any damp and mould inspection, it would be expected that a landlord would receive or produce a detailed report. This report should detail its findings, the potential cause of damp and further details, such as photographs and moisture readings, to show the severity of the issue. However, the landlord did not provide a copy of any such report and the resident said that a moisture meter was not used as part of the inspection.
  3. The lack of detail from the inspection reduced the potential for the landlord to identify any improvement in the situation if it were to continue (as no comparison could be made). The landlord’s records show that following the inspection, it acknowledged damp and mould in the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen and it booked a repair to the extractor fan.
  4. Within this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould from October 2021, we recommended that landlords “avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leave residents feeling blamed”. The resident noted in his email to the landlord that “I honestly felt the surveyor was passing the blame on to me”. 
  5. The landlord’s records show that in discussing the findings, the surveyor diagnosed the main cause to be a lack of circulation in the property. However, it did also make reference to the “vast number of guinea pigs” in the property. Although it said the surveyor “didn’t like to pass comment on whether or not they were a contributing factor”, this was an unusual avenue of consideration. More weight seems to have been given to this than the broken downpipe, which the local councillor noted as “causing water to sit on the walls” following their visit to the property the day after the inspection.
  6. It is evident that the initial inspection failed to highlight required repairs to the balcony doors and the bedroom window. Both the resident and his councillor highlighted damp and mould to these areas (with photographs provided to the landlord) around the time of the inspection but neither was referred to by the surveyor. The landlord later agreed to carry out repairs to both. It is understandable that the resident called into question the quality of the inspection given these omissions from its findings. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as the resident has had to continue to chase these works when they should have been identified as part of any comprehensive inspection.
  7. The landlord agreed to carry out a further damp and mould investigation as part of the stage 2 complaint response. This was reasonable given the resident was unhappy with the first surveyor’s conduct. After refusing to arrange for an independent survey, the landlord booked a further inspection on 17 August 2023. However, it demonstrated a lack of consideration of the situation as it arranged an inspection with the same surveyor the resident had previously complained about. When he refused to accept this, it had to delay the appointment for several weeks until 21 September 2023.
  8. The appointment on 21 September 2023 was rescheduled by the resident. Two  further appointments were arranged but neither went ahead, as the resident rescheduled the first and refused access for the second. There was no service failure on the part of the landlord in regard to these appointments. 

Treatment and associated repairs

  1. After the resident reported a broken downpipe on 9 December 2022, the landlord failed to repair it until 17 February 2023, over 2 months later. Given that this was likely a contributing factor to the damp and mould in the property, the landlord should have sought to repair this as a priority. Under the landlord’s repair policy, this would likely be considered a ‘non urgent repair’ and have a 20 working day timeframe. The repair of the downpipe fell outside of this timeframe. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  2. The landlord also failed to complete mould washes in line with its non–urgent repairs timeframe. The first of the mould wash treatments took place on 6 February 2023, around 2 months after the resident requested it on 9 December 2022. The following visit to treat the other two rooms took an additional 5 months, as it was completed on 6 July 2023. This meant it took 7 months for the mould wash treatments to be carried out in full. This was another service failing by the landlord.
  3. The landlord said that the resident first made it aware of the need for a repair to the bedroom window in April 2023. The resident reported that there was a continuous damp patch. Given this description and the ongoing concerns of damp, it would be reasonable for the landlord to repair this quickly. However, it did not raise a works order for this until 6 July 2023, around 3 months after it was made aware of the problem. The information provided by the landlord said that due to rescheduling of appointments for this repair, this remained outstanding as of April 2024. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to show necessary urgency in raising the works order and failed to carry out the repair in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy.
  4. There was a similar delay arranging repairs to the resident’s balcony door, which he reported as showing evidence of mould. The landlord said that it was first made aware of the fault with the door in April 2023. However, the resident mentioned this issue in his email dated 6 February 2023. The landlord first raised a repair for the balcony doors on 4 August 2023, almost 6 months after first made aware of the fault. Although the landlord said that this work was completed within the timeframe of 20 working days, on 1 September 2023, this overlooks the 6 month delay in raising the works order. This is another service failing by the landlord which could only have added to the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. The resident said that he advised the surveyor of cracks in the wall on 27 January 2023 but he was told he would need to repair them. The resident mentioned this to the landlord in his email dated 31 January 2023, in which he questioned the advice offered during the inspection. Similarly to the balcony door works, the landlord said it was first made aware of the cracks in April 2023 and again it failed to raise a works order to repair them until 4 August 2023. The repair was completed on 13 November 2023, some 9 months after the resident made it aware of the problem. This is another service failure on the part of the landlord.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord failed to investigate and treat reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property in a timely manner. Its initial inspection was not carried out quickly, it failed to identify all damp and mould related repairs and the manner in which the inspection was completed was called into question. Although the landlord carried out some repairs within a few weeks of the inspection, two out of the three repairs had already been requested by the resident. Further works to treat the areas affected by the damp and mould took months to be completed and the resident had to continuously chase the landlord.
  2. Throughout the complaint period, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports of required repairs, in some cases requiring multiple reports. When it did acknowledge the repairs, some took months to be raised as works orders with similar delays in the completion of those repairs.
  3. When considering the delays and service failings at stage 1 (February 2023), the landlord made a reasonable compensation offer of £150. However, when providing its stage 2 response, despite acknowledging continued delays and further service failings, the landlord did not offer an increased compensation payment. It is the view of the Ombudsman that given the additional failings and delays, the compensation offer should have been increased.
  4. Having considered the service failings and the detriment to the resident in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports and the associated repairs, this Service makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to provide a timely response to the stage 1 complaint. Its complaint policy says that it should provide a response within 10 working days but it did not do so until 39 working days after the complaint was raised. Its policy says that it should make the resident aware of any delays and provide revised timeframes. During this time, the landlord failed to provide any updates about the delay or make the resident aware of the reason for it. This is a service failing by the landlord and the resident was left unaware of how his complaint was being considered, adding to the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response took 39 working days to be issued, rather than the 20 days outlined in its policy, it did keep the resident aware of those delays.
  3. Across both stages of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged his claims for a reimbursement of the difference in his energy charges due to the presence of damp and mould. It acknowledged at stage 2 that its initial response was based on incorrect information and requested further information from the resident. This Service has not been made aware of any payments being made in respect of the energy charges. The landlord did indicate that these would be considered and the Ombudsman will recommend that this offer be maintained.
  4. Overall, the landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s complaints and acknowledged its service failings and the associated delays. It failed to manage the stage 1 complaint in line with the timeframe set out in its policy but both responses were significantly delayed. Despite acknowledging the additional service failings and delays, no further compensation offer was made at stage 2 and it failed to manage the proposed repairs from its response. Having considered the failings in this process, this Service makes a finding of service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident.
  2. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £700 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the damp and mould reports and the associated repairs (inclusive of the £150 it awarded through the complaints process);
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a damp and mould survey. A risk assessment should be carried out, along with a full report detailing its findings. This should ensure that all possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired and that all remedial works have been completed to a good standard. If any further works are required, it should put in place a schedule of works for any relevant works or treatment. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident within 14 days of the inspection, along with details of any timescales for any works that it finds to be outstanding.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and set out its position on his claim for a reimbursement of the difference in energy charges.