Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202430607)

Decision
Case ID	202430607
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property. She reported several issues, including a gas leak and a water leak that caused damage to her home. The resident also raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors during repair visits.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:

• Reports of a gas leak and associated repairs.
• The landlord’s handling of repairs associated with a leak from a neighbouring property.
• The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its contractors’ conduct and damage caused to the resident’s property.

3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a gas leak and associated repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs associated with a leak from a neighbouring property.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its contractors’ conduct and damage caused.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a gas leak and associated repairs.

8. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy by attending promptly, making the property safe and completed the necessary repairs.

The landlord’s handling of repairs associated with a leak from a neighbouring property.

9. The landlord failed to carry out timely works and did not act in line with its repair obligations.

The resident’s concerns about its contractors conduct and damage caused.

10. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

11. There were unreasonably long delays which were not in line with the landlord’s policies.

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	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 November 2025
2	The landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This includes: £400 for its handling of the resident’s repairs. Its previous offer of £250 for its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. £100 for its handling of the resident’s stage 2 complaint.	26 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2024	The resident experienced issued with her boiler twice in April 2024. This resulted in the boiler being disconnected whilst repairs were able to be completed. She raised a complaint about this to the landlord.
14 May 2024	The landlord said it was unable to provide a response and needed more time to investigate. It said it would respond by 28 May 2024
15 May 2024	Works to repair the resident’s bathroom commenced. The target completion date was 6 June 2024. During this time the resident was unhappy with the contractors’ conduct and damage caused to her property. She raised a complaint about this.
28 May 2024	The landlord said it was unable to provide a response to the resident’s complaints. It extended the deadline to 11 June 2024.
11 June 2024	The landlord said it was unable to provide a response to the resident’s complaints. It extended the deadline to 25 June 2024.
August 2024 – February 2025	The resident had reported a leak from the neighbouring property above. The landlord identified the caused of the leak above and completed a repair. The resident chased the landlord about repairs to her property. The leak had caused damage to her ceiling and wall.
26 March 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said this was because of staff shortages and backlogs. In recognition of the delays it offered £250. It apologised for its contractors conduct Regarding using her toilet, it confirmed at the time the contractor apologised. Toolbox talks were held with its staff to remind them about housekeeping. The landlord explained the windows were left open to ensure property airflow whilst works were being undertaken. Regarding the copper wire found in the freezer. Its contractors investigated these concerns at the time and believed it fell into the freezer. There was no damage caused to the freezer. It confirmed the contractors noted the condition of the resident’s floor before the works commenced. The matter concerning damage to the oven top was not raised with the contractors at the time. Regarding dirt in the home and a missing bathroom light, the landlord said this was resolved during handover. The landlord explained its contractor visited her home in September but had no access. A follow up appointment was made on 8 October 2024 and it identified the cause of the leak above to be due to the neighbour’s damaged flooring. It confirmed repairs were completed.
9 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 21 April 2025.
16 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged its services had fallen short of expectations. Its position regarding the resident’s complaint remained the same.   It did not comment further on its handling of the resident’s repairs following a leak from the property above.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident explained she was seeking for the landlord to: Fix the damage caused. Pay compensation.

 

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	Reports of a gas leak and associated repairs.
Finding	No maladministration

12. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs to the boiler.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy says where there is a loss of heating and hot water, it should attend the property within 1 working day. In this case, the resident reported a detected gas leak on 5 April 2024. The landlord and the gas company attended that same day. The evidence shows the gas company disconnected the boiler.
14. The evidence shows the landlord’s engineers also attended to ensure everything was safe. This was in accordance with its policy timeframes.
15. The repair records show the contractor attended on 8 April 2024 to repair the boiler. It found that additional materials were required to fix the boiler. The landlord provided the resident with fan heaters and ordered the required parts. It reattended to carry out the required works on 11 April 2024. The evidence shows a repair was completed and the contractor confirmed it was working.
16. We understand the resident’s frustration with the repeated boiler issues. However the evidence shows the landlord appropriately attended within a timely manner and acted reasonably to make the property safe while awaiting parts.
17. The repair records show that a further report was made on 15 April 2024. The resident had reported an uncontrollable water leak from the boiler. The evidence shows the contractor attended that same day to make the boiler safe. It identified that a new diverter valve was required. This repair was completed the following day.
18. We recognise 2 separate incidents occurred closely together regarding the boiler. However we have not seen any evidence to suggest that these incidents were related. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately attended to the repairs within the expected timeframe and took steps to reasonably resolve the matter.
19. The resident stated there was a carbon monoxide leak, but we have not seen evidence to support this. The evidence from the landlord and the gas company suggest it was a gas leak.
20. Overall we are satisfied the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its repair obligations.
21. The resident reported a water leak from the boiler had caused damage to her belongings. The landlord’s repairs policy advises residents to have insurance. It also offered residents the option to use its home insurance schemes. In cases where it is at fault, residents can claim for damage under its insurance. In this case, we have not seen evidence to suggest the landlord’s actions directly resulted in the boiler leak. The landlord appropriately informed the resident of its position. It also signed posted the resident to make a claim to its insurer if she though it was responsible.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs associated with a leak from a neighbouring property.
Finding	Maladministration

22. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days.
23. The resident says she had reported a leak to the landlord in May 2024. In its stage 1 response, the landlord says this was reported in August 2024. We have reviewed all correspondence and have not seen evidence to show the resident raised this in May 2024.
24. The correspondence shows the resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2024 regarding the leak. She also provided images showing the condition of the ceiling and wall. On 22 August 2024 the landlord requested for remedial works to be carried out on the damaged wall and ceiling in the resident’s property.
25. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that its plumbers attended on 26 September 2024, but there was no access. The resident disputed this, stating this visit was to the neighbour’s property. The repair records state that a visit was made, however we cannot confirm if this was for the resident or neighbour.
26. This matter remained outstanding until the contractors identified the cause of water ingress on 8 October 2024. This was nearly 2 months after the resident’s report was raised on the landlord’s system. We would expect to see the landlord had taken reasonable steps within a timely manner to identify the cause, however we are not satisfied this was done.
27. The resident chased repairs in November 2024. An appointment to carry out a repair was scheduled in February 2025. This was 6 months after the landlord raised repairs. We find this to be unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s required standards.
28. The landlord cancelled its February 2024 appointment due to staff shortages. The resident had already booked the time off work and therefore was unhappy with the inconvenience caused. The repair records show the landlord left a voicemail to inform the resident prior to the appointment. While this demonstrates some effort to communicate, the cancellation and short notice were poorly managed.
29. There is no confirmation these works were completed. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord about outstanding repairs in April 2025. We have spoken to the resident recently and she said that repairs remain outstanding. We find this to be unreasonable and it demonstrates a continued failure by the landlord to complete the necessary works within a reasonable timeframe.
30. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs caused by the leak. The landlord has not demonstrated that it dealt with these matters within a timely manner.
31. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its contractors’ conduct and damage caused to the property.
Finding	No maladministration

32. The landlord’s repairs policy includes information about its customer care standards. It expects its contractors to treat residents’ homes with respect. This is also stated in its code of conduct policy.
33. The resident had raised several concerns about the contractors’ conduct. This included:
    1. Defecating in her toilet without her consent and leaving a mess.
    2. Leaving her home unsecured.
    3. Leaving waste and rubbish in her home and communal area.
    4. Leaving their belongings in her home.
    5. Causing damage to the kitchen floor, oven top and back door.
34. The landlord took appropriate steps and spoke to its contractors about their behaviour. Following the resident’s report, its contractor apologised face to face to the resident.
35. It was positive that the landlord held toolbox talks with its contractors and reminded them of housekeeping standards. We understand how distressing the contractors’ conduct was for the resident. However we find it took appropriate steps to apologise and ensure lessons were learnt to prevent recurrence in the future.
36. The resident disputed damage caused to her property whilst works were carried out. We have considered whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns.
37. Following the resident’s reports of damage to her kitchen floor, oven top and back door. The landlord appropriately investigated these concerns and inspected the damage. The evidence shows it spoke with its contractors who denied causing the damage. It also analysed images taken from before the works started, however was unable to verify if its contractors caused the damage.
38. In cases where there is no evidence of fault, it is difficult for the landlord to confirm its contractors were responsible. We understand this was not the outcome the resident wanted, however we find the landlord appropriately considered the evidence and informed the resident of its position.
39. In summary we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of its contractors’ conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

40. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where a response cannot be provided within the target timescales, it will advise residents of the delay and provide a new timeframe. This extension should be no more than 10 working days beyond when the response was due.
41. It policy states that if it needs to extend the deadline again, it will seek consent from the resident. Where this cannot be obtained, it will refer the resident to our service.
42. In this case there was a significant delay of 11 months in providing the resident with a stage 1 response. While we recognise the landlord explained this was because of staff shortage, this delay was unreasonably long. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to our service sooner.
43. We recognise that the landlord apologised for this delay and offered the resident £250 compensation. We consider this amount was fair and reasonable considering the prolonged delay in issuing the stage 1 response.
44. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 April 2025. In line with its policies it should have provided a response by 6 May 2025. The resident received its response on 16 May 2025.
45. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response. However the apology alone was not sufficient to put matters right as this was a repeat issue of delays which further impacted the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy.
46. We have made an order for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

47. The landlord should ensure that repairs and complaints are managed within its expected timescales. It should also ensure resident are kept updated and informed of its progress.

Knowledge information management (record keeping).

48. The landlord should ensure all repair visits, communications and decisions are accurately logged. This will help to prevent any confusion about when reports were made.

Communication.

49. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout the repairs and the complaints process. It should ensure that it provides timely updates, explaining reasons for delays and expected timescales on when it aims to resolve matters.