Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202341112)

Background

1. The resident is a joint leaseholder of a 2-bedroom, third floor flat within a purpose-built flat block. The resident’s flat is on the top floor. The lease began on 4 November 2013.
2. According to the records provided for this investigation it is evident that the resident had reported his concerns with the exterior of the building since 2017. In July 2018 an order was raised to inspect the building due to his concerns, which included, damp, blown cladding, window frames and plaster. Similar reports were also made in December 2020, December 2021, and January 2023. In November 2023, the landlord issued its notice of intention to carry our major plumbing works to the block.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1.   Major plumbing works, including the costing of these.
   2.   Damp and mould in his property, due to problems with the external cladding and windows.
   3.    The landlord’s approach to general maintenance.
   4.   Its handling of his complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. Service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about major plumbing works, including the costing of these.
   2. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his property, due to problems with the external cladding and windows.
   3. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its approach to general maintenance.
   4. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The resident continued to disagree with the landlord’s reasoning for the plumbing works to take place. Although the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, the landlord advised of its position on this matter in both its complaint responses which was reasonable. The landlord failed however, to address the resident’s concerns about not being able to arrange to view documents in a timely manner or manage its communications with him effectively.
6. The landlord did not demonstrate that it carried out a recent investigation into the resident’s concerns about the damp in his property and relied upon historical inspections which was not reasonable. The landlord also failed to address fully the resident’s concerns about the windows within its complaint process.
7. The landlord appropriately advised in its stage 1 response that it had a reactive repairs and maintenance service; it could have gone further and advised the resident if it had a general maintenance schedule for the common parts of the building.
8. The Ombudsman’s assessment has found lengthy delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling as well as failures in applying its own policies and procedures. Throughout the initial stage of the complaint, interventions from the Ombudsman failed to prompt the landlord to address the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

9. In this case, the resident has questioned the apportionment of the costs of the major plumbing work. The landlord in response, advised the lease dictates the apportionment of costs. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make findings about the level of, or, the reasonableness of service charges, as such authority lies with the First Tier Tribunal. The tribunal has the authority to review the terms of the resident’s lease in conjunction with the costs charged to the resident and make a decision as to whether the apportionment of charges is correct. The tribunal also can decide whether the landlord has charged a reasonable fee relative to the service it provides.
10. The resident has also questioned the tender process and whether this was completed in a transparent manner. If the landlord has failed to follow correct procedure in this respect, and there is an application to the tribunal regarding the consultation procedures, the tribunal may consider the landlord’s failure when making their decision.
11. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on pursuing these matters further.

What we have looked at

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect on or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
13. The resident’s lease says that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior of the building and flat. This includes the pipework, drains, structure, exterior, and communal parts of the building. The landlord is also responsible for recovering its costs in upholding these obligations from the leaseholder as a service charge.
14. The landlord’s repair handbook distinguishes between emergency, urgent and non-urgent repairs. The Ombudsman understands that where specialist assessment and corresponding works are required, the stipulated timeframes in its policy are not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delay, and keep the resident informed.
15. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, (updated by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) the landlord must consult the resident about some of the work and services that he must pay for where the individual contribution is likely to be above £250. It is evident that the landlord notified the resident of the proposed works on 23 November 2023 under the section 20 process.
16. Part of the resident’s complaint was about not being able to access the documents as set out in the initial notice of intention. He said that he even attended the office to do so as per the notice however was advised the team were not available. This was not reasonable; the resident had made clear efforts to view the documents, the landlord’s records do not indicate this was ever arranged. Whilst the adequacy of the landlord’s consultation process is not within our remit, it is of note that the resident incurred inconvenience spending time and effort in approaching the Ombudsman at this point.
17. Following this the resident was in communication with a project manager however he remained dissatisfied with the project managers level of knowledge or willingness to discuss matters. It is not clear that the landlord responded further to the resident on this point throughout his complaint.
18. It is evident that the landlord met with the resident alongside its contractor in early April 2024 to go through its reasons for needing to complete the plumbing works and to answer the residents’ concerns about the works. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet with the resident, however this could have been timelier, as the resident had made his concerns clear in early February 2024. In addition, it is clear he spent time and effort during this time to communicate his concerns without having any meaningful discussion with the landlord.
19. The resident continued to disagree with the landlord’s reasoning for the works to take place, he questioned why no testing of the current system was carried out and questioned the workmanship once the works were completed. Although the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, the landlord advised of its position on this matter in both its complaint responses which was reasonable. The landlord failed however, to address the resident’s concerns about not being able to arrange to view documents in a timely manner or manage its communications with him effectively. While the adequacy of the landlord’s consultation process would be matters for a tribunal, the consequential detriment to the resident was avoidable time and trouble. Taking this into consideration a finding of service failure has been made.

What we have not looked at

20. The landlord is a local authority. Where a landlord is a local authority, the Ombudsman can only assess its actions in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. Our remit does not extend to considering the actions of other local authority departments or functions.
21. In this case the resident complained about the windows and questioned whether these met building regulations at the time, these concerns would have been best responded to by the landlord’s building control team. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the suitability of the windows in relation to building regulations. If the resident is unhappy about this, it would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to determine.
22. The resident has said the landlord’s inaction contributed to mould damaging his personal belongings. He has said he had incurred costs to redecorate many times which he had not been reimbursed for and sought compensation for damages. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the upset that may be caused by damage to personal belongings, it is important to explain that we cannot make decisions on liability for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. The resident could consider seeking independent legal advice on this matter for this redress.

What we have looked at

23. As noted above, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior of the building. On receiving a report of issues with the exterior of the building, the landlord would be expected to carry out an inspection, establish the root cause, and identify a potential appropriate course of action. It would then be expected to undertake the necessary works to resolve the issue in line with its prescribed timescales and any statutory requirements. Given that the issues were concerning for the resident and directly affected his property, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident updated throughout this period, notifying him of progress of repairs and any delays.
24. It has been difficult to ascertain the landlord’s full response to the resident’s concerns about the damp in his property. In its stage 1 response on 23 May 2025, it said a previous complaint had answered the resident’s concerns about mould in his property and the windows. The landlord has not provided this information to the Ombudsman; it therefore cannot demonstrate that it acted appropriately to the resident’s reports in this complaint.
25. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 1 response that it had inspected the cladding twice in 2023; therefore, it had no plans to carry out any repairs to the cladding. Due to the time period since it had last inspected and the resident’s more recent reports, it would have been reasonable for it to arrange an inspection to be assured no repairs were required.
26. In addition, its stage 2 response detailed an inspection on 21 February 2023, where it was noted access to the roof would be required to investigate the cause of the damp fully. It is not evident that this was ever followed up, and the landlord advised it would provide an update on this in its stage 2 response, but again it is not evident it did so which is not reasonable. From the evidence provided the landlord arranged a damp inspection for March 2025, some 6 months after its stage 2 response. This amount of time is unreasonable, especially as it stemmed over the winter period.
27. The landlord also advised in its stage 2 response that it had asked for a response to the residents’ concerns from its capital investment team about the windows and the cleaning. It is not evident from the information provided if it followed up with an additional response to the resident on this aspect of his complaint which is not reasonable.
28. While internal communications from after its final complaint response detail the landlord clarifying the resident would be responsible for any mould inside his property, it is not evident this was communicated to the resident. Also, where there has been a delay to the landlord’s repair action resulting in required repairs, the landlord should consider its responsibility in circumstances such as this. In this case it is not evident it did.
29. In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate that it carried out a recent investigation into the resident’s concerns about the damp in his property to determine any current repair responsibility and relied upon historical inspections which was not reasonable. The landlord’s inaction and failure to investigate the windows or cladding to establish a position based on solid evidential foundation caused a period of prolonged uncertainty, which no doubt caused the resident further distress and inconvenience in pursuing his concerns.
30. Taking the above into consideration there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, which he believes is due to defects in the windows and cladding. The landlord also failed to address fully the resident’s concerns about the windows and cladding.

31. Part of the resident’s complaint included that he felt the landlord did not carry out any ‘maintenance’ to the building, which resulted in more expensive repairs being required. Although the landlord responded to this in its stage 1 response and appropriately advised that it had a reactive repairs service, it could have gone further and advised the resident if it had a general maintenance schedule for the common parts of the building. It is insufficiently detailed whether the landlord considers any preventative planned maintenance. Therefore, recommendation has been made for the landlord to advise of any schedule of maintenance in relation to this under its obligation to maintain the common parts under the lease. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this, a new complaint can be made to the landlord.

32. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it should respond at the stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement of a complaint. At stage 2 of this procedure, the landlord should provide its response to the resident within 20 working days of its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint. At both stages it will acknowledgement a complaint within 5 working days. Its policy states that, if it is unable to meet either of its timeframes for response, it should contact the resident to explain why and provide an updated timeframe.
33. Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to respond to his complaint on 11 March 2024. We chased the landlord for its response on 8 April 2024 and again on 16 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged our request on 18 April 2024 and advised that it hoped to be in a position to respond the following week. However, despite advising it hoped to be able to respond, the landlord did not issue its response until 23 May 2024. This was over 25 working days after it had acknowledged the Ombudsman’s requests and 63 working days after it had logged and acknowledged the complaint. This is significantly outside of its policy timescales.
34. It was only upon being chased by this Service that the landlord acknowledged the need to respond to the resident’s complaint, it is not evident any attempt was made to manage the resident’s expectations prior to this. Although it is noted it was in communication with the resident about the substantive issues.
35. Its stage 1 response did offer an apology for the delay, it advised it was due to staff shortages and a backlog. It offered £150 as a goodwill gesture to recognise its failure at this initial stage.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 response was also delayed; it provided its response 40 working days after the resident’s communication on 4 June 2024. It is not evident it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request.
37. The Ombudsman’s assessment has found lengthy delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling as well as failures in applying its own policies and procedures. Throughout the initial stage of the complaint, interventions from the Ombudsman failed to prompt the landlord to address the complaint in line with its complaints policy which was not reasonable.
38. It is noted that the landlord attempted to put things right by offering a total of £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, the Ombudsman considers that this offer of compensation was not proportionate in putting matters right for the resident. It took the landlord 6months to respond to his concerns through its complaints process. In addition, its communication with the resident about his complaint was poor and it failed to keep him updated on the delays, the resident had to approach this service to get the landlord to respond. The landlord missed numerous opportunities to put things right and it failed to act in accordance with its own complaints policy. It failed to demonstrate that it followed through on commitments made in its responses. These cumulative failings meant its complaint process missed any opportunity for local resolution and amounts to a finding of maladministration.
39. Given the time and trouble spent by the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the effect this had on him. This award is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for circumstances where, like here, maladministration is found that has adversely affected the resident and not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.

Learning

40. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively and fairly. The Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
41. It is important for landlords to adhere to both its Complaint Handling policy and the Code. Failing to do so resulted in a delayed response and impacted the resident in this case.

Communication

42. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1.   Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2.   Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
43. In this case, the records do not show the landlord communicated effectively with the resident. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the followed our spotlight report recommendations.