Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202318040)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202318040

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

Landlord type

Local Authority

Occupancy

Leaseholder

Date

3 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident’s property was damaged following a leak from the property upstairs. She said that the works completed by the insurance company were ineffective and caused further damage. She complained that the landlord failed to take responsibility for the insurers refusal to repair the ceilings.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to repairs completed to the property by the building insurance provider.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs completed to the property by the building insurance provider.
  2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

What we have not looked at

  1. The resident told us that her mental health was impacted by damage to her property. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
  2. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that a leak from the above property in 2019 caused damage to her property. However, there is no evidence she raised a formal complaint which has completed the landlord’s complaints process about the leak or that she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the resident’s reports of works completed following the leak from the above property made prior to April 2023.

What we have looked at

  1. The resident asked the landlord to take responsibility for the works that the insurance company refused to complete in her complaint in April 2023. This included damage to the ceilings in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms.
  2. On 13 October 2023, in its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that she was responsible for completing repairs to the inside of the property. It directed her to make a claim with the building insurance. This was appropriate because the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, and not internal repairs under the lease.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the insurers refusal to complete works and explained she did not feel it was her responsibility to repair the ceiling. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 March 2024 and explained that it cannot intervene with how insurance companies manage claims, as it does not have the power to overturn an insurers decision. This was an appropriate response given that the landlord cannot be responsible for the decisions of the insurance company.
  4. The landlord was only made aware of the historic leak when the resident complained to the landlord in 2023. While the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, under the lease, the resident did not inform it of the issue at the time and used the building insurance instead. Therefore, the landlord would not have been able to complete any repairs to the structure of the property, as it was not aware of the leak.
  5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs completed by the building insurance provider. The landlord was not responsible for the repairs that the insurance provider refused to complete. It cannot be responsible for the insurance companies refusal to complete the works. Whilst the situation likely caused the resident distress, we did not find fault with the landlord’s actions. This is because the landlord’s actions are in line with the information set out under the lease.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 1 response and 118 working days elapsed between the resident’s complaint and its response. It also delayed in providing its stage 2 response, and 68 working days elapsed between escalation and stage 2 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  2. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case the delays were significant and likely caused the resident distress. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered her £150 in compensation. This was reasonable in view of the delays and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  3. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is not clear from the information provided by the landlord whether it has learnt from outcomes following the delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. Therefore we recommend that the landlord reviews our Centre for Learning for landlords which can be found on our website at Centre for Learning | Housing Ombudsman Service

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £150 offered in its complaint response for the delay in providing the stage 1 response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

We recommend that the landlord reviews our Centre for Learning for landlords. This has a wealth of e-learning and webinars on a wide range of topics including learning from complaints. The Centre for Learning can be found on our website at Centre for Learning | Housing Ombudsman Service.