Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202330963)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330963

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

13 August 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 resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the temperature in her child’s bedroom.
    2. Housing Application
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 30 November 2017. The property is a 2 bed maisonette. The resident provided medical evidence to the landlord which showed she has anxiety.
  2. On 16 February 2023, the resident reported that despite the radiator getting hot in her child’s bedroom the room remained cold. The landlord attended the following day, checked the heating system, and confirmed it worked properly.
  3. The resident reported drafts through the window on 17 February 2023. The landlord attended on 27 March 2023 when it found no fault with the windows but adjusted the trickle vents. It believed the draft was coming through the vents and adjusting them meant the resident could close the vents at night.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 March 2023 with regards to the cold in her child’s bedroom and her housing application.
  5. The landlord arranged to inspect the size of the radiator to ensure it was adequate for the size of the room. The resident declined this appointment and said it was not needed.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It did not uphold the complaint, explained the action it had taken to inspect the bedroom and confirmed it had found no repairs.
  7. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on the same date following which the landlord asked for further clarification on her reasoning for the request. The resident raised a further formal complaint about the same issue, including her request to move property, on 11 October 2023 following which the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  8. It provided its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. It said the resident had not provided details as to why she was dissatisfied following stage 1. With regards to the cold in the bedroom, the landlord said the engineer visited in February 2023 and recharged the system. It had arranged a further visit which the resident declined. It could see no other repairs raised and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
  9. In referring her complaint to us, the resident requested to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  2. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The LGSCO can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
  3. Since the resident’s rehousing request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), we cannot review it and therefore is outside of our jurisdiction.
  4. Throughout her complaint the resident raised the impact the cold and overcrowding in the property had on her and her family’s mental and physical health. While we do not dispute this, it is outside our remit to determine any effect from the landlord’s actions or inaction on the health of the resident or her family. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court and the resident has the choice to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this matter further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature of her child’s bedroom.

  1. The resident reported to the landlord, on 16 February 2023, that the radiator in her child’s bedroom did not warm the room despite it being hot. The landlord appropriately attended, in line with its repairs policy, the next working day. During the visit, on 17 February 2023, the landlord recharged the resident’s heating system and confirmed it had found no defects. The landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified professionals when they confirmed it found no defects in a system. We have not seen evidence to show this opinion was not valid.
  2. Following the visit the resident reported drafts around the windows in the same bedroom. The landlord attended on 27 March 2023. This was 6 days outside of its 20-working day commitment as set out in its repairs policy. Landlords need to ensure they attend within the set timescales to ensure a prompt resolution for residents. However, the delay was not significant.
  3. When the contractor attended it was unable to find fault with the windows but adjusted the trickle vents. Again, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified professionals to do repairs and determine if it considers an issue resolved.
  4. Following this, the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord then raised to a works order to attend to ensure the size of the radiator was sufficient for the room. It was appropriate of the landlord to consider the sufficiency of the radiator given that it had found no faults with the system itself or the windows. However, the resident said she no longer needed the appointment. The landlord therefore closed the job down, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. It is important to note that the landlord attended on 4 May 2023 to undertake its annual gas safety check during which it also found no issues or defects with the heating system in the property.
  6. On 11 October 2023, the resident raised a further formal complaint about the cold in her child’s bedroom and requested a house move on that basis. However, while the landlord had previously attended to this issue, we cannot see that it took any further action following the resident’s further reports. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reattended to investigate the issue further. Or to have explained to the resident why it would not take any further action; To do nothing was not reasonable and may have given the resident the impression that it was not listening to her or taking her concerns seriously.
  7. The resident then reported an airlock in the radiator on 31 October 2023. The landlord attended, in line with its repairs policy, on 6 November 2023 and bled the radiator. Furthermore, it carried out a heat test and left the system in working order. This was a reasonable response, in line with the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs.
  8. Taking into account all the above, while it would have been helpful for the landlord to have considered a further inspection following the resident’s further complaint in October 2023, it had checked the heating system was working properly in response to the resident’s concerns. Its failure to do so does not lead to an adverse finding in this case.
  9. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature in the child’s bedroom.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 10 April 2023 which was outside its complaints policy timescales of 5 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. This was 19 days outside of its 10-working day timescale. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the delay to the resident or apologised in its complaint response. This was not in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices.
  2. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on the same date. The landlord acknowledged the request, significantly outside of its 5 working day timescale, on 13 June 2023. It asked the resident to provide further details but said it intended to respond by 11 July 2023.
  3. Neither the Code nor the landlord’s complaint policy states that a resident needs to provide reasons for escalating the complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the stage 2 response following the escalation request. Instead, it closed the complaint as it had not heard from the resident. The resident was inconvenienced by having to raise a further complaint about the same issues on 11 October 2023.
  4. The landlord acknowledged complaint on 13 October 2023 and said it would respond at stage 2 as the issues had already been through stage 1; This approach was reasonable. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. This was 13 days outside of its 20 working day timescale. Again, the landlord did not inform the resident of the delay or acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. This is not appropriate. The delays in this case caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to her complaint.
  5. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. We order the landlord to pay compensation of for £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature of her child’s bedroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord handling of the resident’s housing applications is outside our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £150.