Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202400105)

Decision
Case ID	202400105
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a house with her 3 children. She had reported her concerns about damp and leaks in the property and cracks to walls. She had also reported various repairs. She was concerned about the effect on her daughter who had respiratory issues and the structure of the house because of the cracks.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and leaks, cracks, crumbling plastering to walls and the bathroom ceiling, back door and skirting.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her external lights and window lock.
4. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and leaks, cracks in walls, crumbling plastering to walls and the bathroom ceiling, issues with her back door and skirting.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her external lights and window lock.
7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

8. There were significant delays to the repairs in the resident’s complaint the landlord’s offer of compensation did not sufficiently recognise.
9. The landlord carried out the repairs to the external lights and window lock within a reasonable period.
10. The complaint responses did not address all outstanding repair delays and did not provide clear explanations or meaningful resolutions in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses. The Stage 2 response lacked clarity as it did not explain why the complaint was only partially upheld or the basis for compensation.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience for the delays in carrying out the repairs £250 being the amount the landlord offered at Stages 1 and 2 of the landlord’s complaint process, if not already paid. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 January 2026

 

 

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property including the roof and the bedroom. Consider the cause and extent of the cracks in the hall and living room. Produces a survey report. The survey report must set out: Photographs of areas checked for leaks. Measurements for temperature and humidity. The most likely cause of damp if any. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution to the issue.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	Report and works order The landlord should provide the resident with a copy of the inspection report with schedule of any works This should include: likely timescales to commence and complete any works. This should include plastering the cracks in the living room and kitchen and any damaged plaster. The landlord should contact the resident and agree a start date for the works. The landlord should provide the resident with a written commitment not to make any appointments without her agreement and ensure the repairs team and contractors comply with this agreement.	No later than 30 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 January 2024	The resident’s complaint: The landlord had written to her stating it had tried to contact her regarding repairs but she had not received a missed call, voicemail or email. Appointments were made without contacting her. She was using her annual leave to give access but operatives did not complete the job or turn up. The issues had been outstanding from over a year ago. Damp was affecting her daughter’s health.
19 January 2024	The landlord’s Stage 1 response: Its inspector did not identify damp on 15 September 2023 but raised repairs for the back door and damaged walls, including cracks. The works were scheduled for 25 March 2024. It had scheduled the work to the external light and to reinspect the leak for 26 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in scheduling the damp inspection. This was due to a staff shortage. It set out changes it had made. It offered £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the outstanding works.
24 January 2024	The resident’s request to escalate her complaint to Stage 2: Her repairs remained outstanding.
21 February 2024	The landlord’s Stage 2 response: It acknowledged systemic challenges regarding arranging appointments. It was introducing changes over a 5-year programme. The planning team should call the resident before booking appointments and, if unable to get through, leave voicemails advising of the booked appointment. It followed up with a letter with a telephone number in case the appointment was not suitable. It set out a number of appointments including plastering on 25 March 2024. It had raised jobs for the broken window lock, leak, and external light. It offered £100 for the inconvenience. It “partially” upheld the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the outcome because: There were outstanding repairs. She had taken time off work and operatives had not attended. She worked full time, was a single parent with 3 children, one of which was autistic, and was unable to give access without pre-arrangement. Appointments used up her annual leave. There was water damage from leaks which had also resulted in damp and mould. This was affecting her daughter’s health. There were still cracks in the plaster which were concerning. A window needed repairing. She had given up chasing the landlord. The situation was affecting her mental health.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and leaks, cracks, crumbling plastering to walls and the bathroom ceiling, back door and skirting.
Finding	Maladministration

Cracks to walls and bathroom ceiling

11. The resident reported plaster cracking to her hall and living room on 31 August 2022. The landlord attended on 20 September 2022. The repair log notes for that day refer to plastering works but the landlord did not raise the job until 16 January 2024, approximately 15 months later. This was unreasonable.
12. On 2 March 2023 the resident reported damp and wet walls as well as crumbling plaster and a rotten skirting board. The landlord did not inspect until 15 September 2023. The landlord did not raise this plastering job until 16 January 2024, which was booked for 25 March 2024. There was an unreasonable overall delay between the resident’s report of 2 March 2023 and 25 March 2024.
13. The landlord notified the resident of the appointment on 25 March 2024 by leaving a voicemail. However, she was also notified by the landlord’s reply to her MP and the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses. It was not clear why she did not give access on that date.
14. On 28 March 2024 the resident asked to rebook the job but this did not happen. The landlord has acknowledged to us that it did not explain to her its procedure it expected her to follow. In November 2024 the landlord told us it would contact the resident to rearrange. We do not know if it did so. However, the resident told us she was reluctant to get the plastering done to the living room and kitchen walls as she felt the landlord should first identify the cause of the cracks.
15. We find maladministration for this aspect of the complaint as there were significant delays to the repairs from August 2022 to March 2024 which caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. We do not find fault with the landlord for the period after March 2024 as the landlord had notified the resident of the appointment well in advance. After that, while the landlord acknowledged it failed to explained its processes, the resident chose not to pursue the replastering at that time.
16. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the cracks which appeared to go from the hall through to the adjacent room. While there was no evidence the cracks in the plaster were other than decorative, we will make an order that the landlord investigate the cause of the cracks before replastering.

Leak and damp

17. It is not clear at what point the landlord was aware of the resident’s daughter respiratory issues but it was aware after January 2024 when it referred the report to its relevant team. The landlord told us that her condition is recorded in its repair records.
18. We cannot assess if there was link between the condition of the property and the resident’s daughter’s health issues. However, we have considered whether the landlord took into account the household’s health circumstances when arranging inspections and repairs.
19. There was an unreasonable delay to the landlord carrying out an inspection following the resident’s report of damp in March 2023. According to the Stage 1 response, the landlord did not identify damp at the inspection of 15 September 2023. However, there was no inspection note or report. We do not know what the damp and mould inspection measured. The landlord raised leak detection damp works were on 28 September 2023 and were cancelled on 10 October 2023. The records do not state why.
20. While the landlord has told us there was no damp, we are not satisfied that it has taken reasonable steps to check this as damp and leak works were raised and cancelled and there was no report or measurements from the September 2023 survey. The resident told the landlord that a damp inspection was outstanding as at 5 February 2024. The landlord should have re-raised a damp inspection given the resident’s concerns and her daughter’s health.
21. On 10 October 2023 landlord raised an inspection of a leak. It attended in December 2023 without a step ladder. According to the Stage 2 letter it had arranged an appointment for 26 January 2024, prompted by the resident. It had told the MP it was arranged for 5 February 2024. The records stated that the job was raised on 5 February 2024. This was confusing. Given the inspection on 15 September 2023 had identified a leak in the kitchen, this is not satisfactory.
22. On 26 February 2024 the landlord made an appointment for 27 February 2024 regarding inspection of the leak. The resident wrote and said she had been unaware of the appointment or what it was for and was unable to take time off work to give access. The landlord did not rearrange the appointment. The landlord told us it cancelled the job. Given the resident had reported a leak a while ago, it was unreasonable to cancel the job without offering a further appointment.
23. The landlord raised a job on 4 April 2024 to inspect condensation causing the ceiling and wall to bubble and flake. The resident cancelled it and, according to the landlord, she did not report it again.
24. The evidence showed that the landlord attended emergency leaks as follows:
    1. On 19 May 2024 the landlord raised a job to inspect a leak from a pipe after the resident reported water ingress. The following day, the landlord adjusted the ball valve.
    2. On 12 March 2024 the resident reported a leak in the kitchen ceiling. The landlord reconnected bath overflow the following day.
    3. On 14 June 2024 it made safe an overflow from the tank the resident had reported 3 days earlier.
25. While the landlord attended on and resolved emergency leaks, we are not satisfied that the landlord properly investigated whether there was ongoing damp or leaks or explained whether or why there was water damage in the bedroom and crumbling plaster. The resident told us she stopped chasing the landlord because she had lost confidence that operatives would attend, provide her with contradictory explanations but nothing was resolved. She was also frustrated by the landlord’s appointment arrangements and lack of resolution.
26. While the resident had a responsibility for reporting the issues, she had notified the landlord of the issues, so the responsibility was also for the landlord to follow up the repairs.
27. There was no evidence that a suitably qualified surveyor had attended the property to carry out a proper inspection of the reported leaks and damp, evidenced with humidity measurements. The landlord did not follow up on the resident’s reports. In the circumstances, we find maladministration and will make an order for a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out an inspection.

The back door and skirting

28. On 10 October 2023 the landlord raised a job to “renew” the back door and cracks round the frame and replace the skirting. The job was raised again on 5 February 2024. It is not clear when or whether the skirting was replaced. The door was not replaced until 9 September 2024. The delay was not fully explained but there was a reference to the landlord deciding it was beyond repair when it attended in April 2024. While we have noted the resident changed the appointment twice from February to April 2024, we consider it unreasonable that the landlord did not identify the issues sooner or replace the back door sooner. We therefore find maladministration for the delay.
29. The landlord’s Stage 2 reply explained that its appointment system was to contact a resident by telephone and if they don’t reply, offer an appointment which a resident can change. This, in principle, avoids a resident losing the slot. However, the evidence indicated this was not working as it should. Moreover, the resident asked that the landlord contacted her first which it said it would do. The evidence showed, and the landlord acknowledged, that it made appointments at late notice or without checking with resident. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to accommodate appointments at late notice. The landlord gave assurances from time to time that this should not happen. We note the complaints officer asked its repairs team to contact the resident to arrange appointments but there was little evidence of it doing so. This led to a number of cancellations and delays. It also caused a great deal of frustration for the resident.
30. The landlord offered £150 for the delays to reporting the damp at Stage 1 of the complaints process. It offered a further £100 at Stage 2 but did not specify what it was for and therefore we have treated it as being for all the delays. We do not find that sufficiently recognises the significant delays and impact on the resident.
31. The landlord repeatedly failed to act within reasonable timescales, with significant delays in raising and completing plastering and damp-related repairs, inadequate communication, and poor follow-up on appointments. It did not provide clear explanations, failed to arrange inspections promptly, and did not ensure a suitably qualified surveyor assessed the property or evidence or communicated its findings. This caused prolonged inconvenience, frustration, and loss of confidence for the resident. While emergency leaks were addressed, the landlord did not resolve underlying problems or provide assurance about the property’s condition.
32. Given the significant delays to the repairs, the frustration caused by how the landlord managed its appointments, we find maladministration for the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports and will make orders accordingly.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her external lights and window lock.
Finding	No maladministration

The external lights and window lock

33. On 15 January 2024, the landlord raised a report for the external light. It was repaired on 5 February 2024. We consider the overall timescale reasonable and broadly within its policy timescale for a non-urgent repair of 20 working days.
34. On 21 February 2024 the resident reported an issue with the porch light. An appointment was made for 20 March 2024. The resident thought the landlord would not need access to her home and she did not provide access. It is not clear whether this was due to a misunderstanding, however that was the cause of the delay. The repair was carried out on 2 April 2024. We do not find fault with the landlord as it was not able to get access sooner. Given it was an exterior porch light, the impact of the delay was not significant.
35. The resident reported an issue with the window lock on 5 February 2024. The Stage 2 letter confirmed that a job to repair this had been raised. That was reasonable.
36. We find no maladministration in relation to this complaint because the landlord carried out repairs within a reasonable period.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

37. The Stage 1 response acknowledged and apologised for the delay to the damp inspection of 15 September 2023. It outlined organisational improvements and next steps.
38. However, it did not address the delays of the other outstanding repairs. We noted that the complaints officer made proactive efforts to chase repairs and stressed the importance of contacting the resident before scheduling appointments. While this was a positive intervention, it did not achieve the intended outcome.
39. The landlord did not address all the issues it had listed in the Stage 2 letter, including a damp inspection. It acknowledged its poor management of appointments and apologised and again referred to organisational long-term improvements. However, this did not assist the resident in the short term. We did not see an improvement in the overall handling of the repairs. We consider this could be due to a failure to monitor the repairs after Stage 2 of the process.
40. The Stage 2 letter did not explain why the landlord only partially upheld the complaint or which aspect of the complaint the offer of £100 compensation covered. Although we noted an internal investigation took place, the responses lacked a meaningful account of what went wrong. There was no evidence of any learning. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

41. We note that the landlord has ongoing organisational plans so we are not making any recommendations about its processes. However, this case has highlighted issues with the landlord’s communication, appointment management and record keeping.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. There was some confusion whether an inspection of a kitchen leak was booked for 26 January 2024 or 5 February 2024. The landlord told us in November 2024 that the resident cancelled the appointment on 5 February 2024 as it was no longer required. This contradicts her email of 5 February 2024 stating this was outstanding and the repairs log which stated the job was raised that day.
43. We were also concerned there were no notes of the inspection of 15 September 2023.

Communication

44. As has been highlighted in this report, the communication about appointments was poor. There was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident or being clear about what action it was taking in response to her reports.