Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202301448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301448

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

26 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks to the resident’s property and subsequent repair works.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident’s property is a ground-floor maisonette. The resident is disabled and has anxiety which the landlord is aware of. At the time of her complaint the resident had 4 children under the age of 10.
On 27 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was rising damp in her property, causing a bad smell and the walls on the ground floor to crumble. She said that there was mould forming on her bedroom ceiling. She said her 4 young children all had coughs and colds which she believed was due to the damp. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to say it had raised works to complete a mould wash at her property.
The resident reported to the landlord on 23 February 2023 that there was water leaking from her property out into the street. She said her front step was wet with wastewater leaking out through the bricks. The landlord contacted the resident the same day, to say that it had raised a repair but had not yet scheduled an appointment.
On 12 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was water squelching out from under her laminate flooring. She said the floor was ruined, and that the walls were damaged. She said it was costing her a fortune to keep her house warm and dry. On 17 April 2023, she reported the leak again and said she had slipped and fallen due to the wet floor. On 19 April 2023, the landlord identified that the leak was due to a rotten waste pipe from a neighbouring property.
On 20 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was having to walk through dirty water coming from her neighbour’s waste pipe. She said there was black mould on her stairs. She said the situation was affecting her mental health.
The landlord raised works to repair the leak on 21 April 2023 and it completed these works by 25 April 2023.
On 30 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak from a waste pipe under her stairs. The landlord attended the same day to make the leak safe.
The resident complained again to the landlord on 5 May 2023. She said an operative who had attended her property on 30 April 2023 had laughed at the fact she was having to lay a new floor. She said they had been rude and insulting to her. She said her front door was damaged due to the swollen floor and the front step had been raised by 2 inches which was a trip hazard for her younger children.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord repaired the leak under the stairs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It said:
1. Following the resident’s report of rising damp and mould on the ceiling, it had raised works to carry out a mould wash at her home. This was scheduled for 23 June 2023. It acknowledged it should have arranged these works within 20 working days of receiving the resident’s report. It said it had staff shortages and was recruiting more staff in the coming months.
2. It had no records of any reports of a leak prior to 17 April 2023. It asked the resident to provide evidence that she had reported the leak before that date. This would allow it to investigate why it had taken no action in relation to this report. It said it was sorry to hear that she had slipped. It had carried out works to remedy the leak within its timescales for doing so.
3. The leak under her stairs was unrelated to the leak from the neighbour’s property. It had initially booked follow-on works for June 2023. However, it recognised that it should have taken into consideration the impact the first leak had on the resident and her family. It had therefore brought these works forward to 11 May 2023. It had also arranged an inspection of the property for 7 June 2023.
4. It acknowledged her complaint about the behaviour of one of its operatives and said it would respond to this complaint within the next 10 working days.
5. It apologised to the resident and offered her £350 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 22 May 2023. She said she had reported the leak in February 2023. She said the leak under her stairs had happened as a result of the landlord’s failure to repair the leak to the neighbour’s wastepipe properly. She wanted compensation for the repairs she had had to carry out herself. She said she had been forced to move out of her home. She reiterated her complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s operative. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 May 2023 and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 3 July 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said she had had to replace all flooring on the ground floor and her stair carpet, and she was still waiting for the landlord to replaster and repaint the walls, replace the skirting boards and make safe plug sockets. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of purchasing and running a dehumidifier, cleaning products and her hoover which had been damaged in cleaning up the wastewater. On 25 July 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman that she had not received a stage 2 complaint response from the landlord. She said she had had high gas bills due to trying to dry out the property after the leak.
On 26 August 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming through her bedroom ceiling.
The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s skirting boards on 4 September 2023.
On 19 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in it doing so. It said:
1. The resident had not provided it with any evidence to show that she had reported any leaks to it prior to 17 April 2023. It said the leak had been unforeseen.
2. It had inspected the property after repairing the leak. It had noted there was some damp in the property, however it said this would resolve itself in time. It said it had not identified any rising damp.
3. It had yet to book an appointment for the repainting of the living room.
4. It understood why the resident had felt the need to leave the property. However, it would not have agreed to provide her with alternative accommodation as she had access to a water supply, electricity, bathing and cooking facilities.
5. Floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility to replace; therefore, she would need to claim for any damage to her laminate flooring or carpets, via her contents insurance. If she did not have contents insurance, she could try and make a claim to the landlord’s liability insurance. However, the landlord would make an assessment as to whether it had any liability before agreeing to a claim.
6. If the resident could confirm what repairs she had carried out herself and could provide receipts, it would look into whether it could reimburse her for these repairs.
7. It acknowledged that the delay to its stage 2 complaint response was unacceptable. It said this had been due to staff shortages. It said it had reminded its complaint handling staff to provide residents with revised dates if they were not able to meet its timescales for providing complaint responses. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by this delay.
8. It offered the resident revised compensation of £550 broken down as follows: £150 for the delay in carrying out the damp inspection and the second leak, £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.
On 20 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it had made an error in not recording the resident’s initial report that there was water pouring out over her front doorstep, as a leak. It said that this had meant that it did not raise an order to trace and remedy the leak.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord replaced the skirting boards and made good the damage to the walls in the living room.
On 6 March 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman she had spent a week living with family as the leaks had made living in her property unbearable for her and her children. She confirmed to the Ombudsman. that the landlord had treated the walls and that her electrics had been made safe with involvement from her utility company. However, the landlord had not inspected the damage to the front door caused by the swollen floor.
We asked the landlord to provide a copy of its disturbance fee policy on 6 March 2025. It provided a copy of its compensation procedure which makes reference to its disturbance fee policy; however, it did not provide a copy of the disturbance fee policy itself.

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairs to waste pipes, walls, and wiring and electrical fittings. The policy states the landlord will treat leaking water pipes as an urgent repair and will respond within 1-5 working days. The policy states that it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. It also states that residents should take out their own contents insurance to cover their possessions and decoration against damage.
The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint has 2 stages. The policy states that at stage 1, it will respond in 15 working days. At stage 2, it will respond in 20 working days. The policy states that if the landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint, it will let the resident know.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health and the health of her children was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about her health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We can consider the general risk, however, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. We can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her children’s health.
On 3 July 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of purchasing and running a dehumidifier, cleaning products, and her hoover. On 26 August 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a new leak coming in through her bedroom ceiling. These issues are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. she may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of leaks and subsequent repair works

As noted above, the resident reported to the landlord on 27 January 2023 that she had rising damp in her property. The landlord responded to the resident the same day to say that it would organise a mould wash. Simply advising the resident that it would arrange a mould wash, was an inadequate response, particularly as the resident had told the landlord that she had 4 young children under the age of 10 and the damp was affecting her children’s health. The landlord should have arranged an inspection of the property within its timescales for completing routine repairs to establish the cause of the damp and what steps it could take to remedy the issue. The landlord has apologised for the delay and offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of this failure. This was a reasonable offer in relation to its failure to inspect the damp.
On 23 February 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was water leaking from her property out into the street. She said her front step was wet with wastewater leaking out through the bricks. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord told the resident it had not been able to find any reports of a leak prior to 17 April 2023. Since its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has admitted that it made an error in relation to this report and that it should have arranged for a plumber to inspect and remedy the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy, set out above, states that it will treat leaking water pipes as an urgent repair and will respond within 1-5 working days. The landlord took no action in relation to the leak for over a month and a half. This was a failing which will have likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
The resident told the landlord that she had to move out due to the amount of dirty water on the ground floor of her property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it would not have offered her alternative accommodation as she had access to a water supply, electricity, bathing and cooking facilities. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the potential health risk of wastewater, particularly as the resident had already told it she had slipped on the wet floor and that she had 4 young children under 10 years old at the time of the leak. As noted above, we asked the landlord to provide a copy of its disturbance fee policy, however it has not done so. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a disturbance allowance of £210 for the week that she had to stay with family, broken down as: £30 per day for 7 days. The Ombudsman considers £30 per day to be a reasonable level of compensation for the disruption the resident’s family experienced.
The landlord told the resident that the leak under her stairs she reported on 30 April 2023 was unrelated to the leak from the neighbour’s wastepipe, however, the resident disputes this. We understand that the leaks to her property will have been very distressing for the resident, and we acknowledge her comments that they are linked. However, the leaks were unforeseen, and we have not seen any evidence to suggest that the leaks were related or were caused by poor workmanship.
In her complaint of 5 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that her front door was damaged due to the swollen floor in her property. She also said that the front doorstep had been raised by 2 inches which was a tripping hazard for her young children. The landlord did not take any action in relation to these reports. This was a failing. The landlord is ordered to inspect the front door and the front doorstep and carry out repairs to remedy these issues if necessary.
The landlord acted appropriately in arranging an inspection of the property on 7 June 2023 to establish what repair works were needed after the leaks. It identified that the skirting boards needed replacing, the living room needed painting and the walls on the ground floor needed repairing. However, the landlord did not replace the skirting boards or make good the damage to the living room walls until 3 October 2023. This was nearly 3 months outside of its timescales for completing routine repairs of 20 working days. This delay will have likely caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to claim on her contents insurance for her damaged laminate flooring and stair carpets. This is because residents are generally responsible for replacing floor coverings and the landlord is not responsible for this. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident to contact its insurance department to make a liability claim if she did not have contents insurance. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature to manage such costs. The resident has said the landlord did not send her the right forms in relation to her making a claim. It is recommended that the landlord resend the resident the relevant forms now, so she can make a claim should she wish to do so. If the resident were to submit a liability claim for damage to her floor coverings and this was dealt with by an insurance team internal to the landlord, the resident could complain to the landlord if she felt it had not dealt with her claim correctly. Once any complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, she may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. If, however, liability claims are dealt with by an insurer external to the landlord, it would be outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate as the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of external insurers, only at the actions of the landlord.
The landlord’s errors in its handling of the leaks and subsequent repairs to the resident’s property, amount to maladministration. The landlord has apologised and offered the resident £450 for its delays and the distress and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100-£600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £150, bringing the compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £600, including the landlord’s earlier offer of £450. This amount better reflects the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident submitted complaints to the landlord on 20 April 2023 and 5 May 2023. The landlord responded to these complaints on 10 May 2023. This was within its 15-working day timescale for responding to stage 1 complaints. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 22 May 2023. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 19 September 2023. This was over 2 months outside of its 20-working day timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints. The landlord has acted reasonably in apologising to the resident for this delay and offering her compensation of £100 for the inconvenience this will have caused her.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord told the resident it would respond to her complaint about its operative’s alleged behaviour within 10 working days. It did not do so. This was a failing which may have made the resident feel it was not taking her concerns seriously. It is not practical for the landlord to investigate the alleged behaviour of the operative now, given the length of time that has passed and the likely availability of evidence after such a long time. However, we can consider the time, trouble and inconvenience this error will have likely caused the resident, including the frustration caused by the fact that the operative’s alleged behaviour will not be investigated now. The landlord should pay compensation for this. As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, states that where we identify maladministration, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to offer the resident an additional £100 compensation for this issue, bringing the total compensation for the errors in its complaint handling to £200.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks to the resident’s property and subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect the front door and front doorstep and carry out any necessary repairs.
2. Pay the resident a disturbance allowance of £210 for the week she and her children, were living with family.
3. Pay the resident an additional £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the leaks and subsequent repairs to her property.
4. Pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord resend the resident the relevant forms so that she can submit a liability claim should she wish to do so.