From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202431006)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431006

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

21 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 reports of damage, damp and mould following a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat.
  2. On 19 August 2024 the landlord inspected the resident’s property. On 26 August 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. He said he first reported a leak from the flat above in November 2020, but the issue was never resolved. He explained that during the 19 August 2024 inspection, the landlord confirmed the leak was still active. He said the landlord was aware of the extensive damage to his flat and wanted a full explanation for the lack of action. He also asked for compensation due to the condition of the property.
  3. On 30 September 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It listed the steps it had taken to deal with the damp and mould since 2015, and said:
    1. It apologised for the delay in addressing the necessary repairs.
    2. It had not heard from the resident about these issues again until September 2024 when he reported that leaks had returned.
    3. It was not responsible for damage to his personal belongings, as the leak was caused by the property above.
    4. It had raised a job to investigate the source of the leak.
  4. On 4 October 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He questioned why the landlord arranged an appointment for 19 August 2024 and said the stage 1 response contained several inaccuracies. He felt the landlord was blaming him for the damp and mould, which he said had affected both his flat and his belongings. He repeated his request for compensation and asked the landlord to rehouse him while repairs were carried out.
  5. On 31 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It did not uphold the complaint. It provided a timeline and summary of events from 2020 onward. It also said:
    1. It raised a new job to assess the damp and mould on 19 July 2024, and an inspection was carried out on 19 August 2024 where it found further damage from a leak.
    2. Its contractor had tried to address the bathroom repairs but was unable to reach the resident by phone.
    3. A letter was sent on 17 October 2024 to arrange access, and its contractor would follow up on this.
  6. In his referral to us, the resident said the landlord’s formal responses had many inaccuracies. He explained that a serious leak in 2020/21 damaged the hallway, bathroom and front room, and these repairs were still outstanding. He described the situation as miserable and wanted to be compensated and rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We recognise that the resident first reported a leak from the property above in 2020. He also asserted that there were many inaccuracies in the landlord’s formal responses about how it had handled those earlier reports. We expect residents to raise a formal complaint within 12 months of an issue arising. As time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. The historical issues provide contextual background, but this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of reports from August 2024 up to its October 2024 final response.
  2. We recognise that the resident felt the landlord was responsible for damage caused to his belongings due to its handling of his reports. However, in this case, we are unable to determine the cause or extent of damage to the resident’s possessions. This would be better suited to an insurance claim or a court.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage, damp and mould following a leak

  1. The landlord provided a timeline of events and said that its inspection on 19 August 2024 was prompted by tenant feedback. According to the landlord, the resident reported in June 2024 that a leak caused damage and damp and mould. And the landlord’s repair records broadly reflect this.
  2. The evidence also showed that the landlord tried to arrange an appointment by telephone but could not reach the resident, and there was no voicemail facility. The landlord then arranged an appointment for 19 August 2024, and it sent a letter to the resident to confirm this. Given the contact difficulties, this was reasonable.
  3. However, we have not seen the surveyor’s report for the 19 August 2024 inspection. Without this, it is unclear what was checked at the property. Good record-keeping is vital. If evidence is disputed and there is no audit trail, it may not be possible to conclude that an action took place, or if the landlord acted reasonably.
  4. In this case, this is important because the resident has told us that during the inspection, the surveyor only looked at the bathroom. The resident said there was also damp and mould, and damage in other parts of the property, such as the bedroom. He provided us with photographs showing significant damage to the ceiling, walls and mould outside of the bathroom. This raises concerns about how thorough the 19 August 2024 inspection was.
  5. After this inspection, the landlord arranged another one for 24 September 2024. It is unclear why a second inspection was needed so soon after the first. This caused frustration to the resident, who raised further concerns on 18 September 2024. He did not understand the need for another inspection, could not take another day off work, and cancelled the appointment.
  6. The resident also said that due to the extent of the damp and mould he did not believe the landlord could properly resolve this while he remained living there. As a result, he asked the landlord to rehouse him while work took place. The landlord’s final response said it had asked its contractor to follow up again to arrange access for the necessary repairs, which it did.
  7. However, there was a delay between the resident’s September concerns and the landlord’s attempts to gain access in late October and November 2024. This was unreasonable, especially given the history of this problem. As these issues had been recorded during the resident’s occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that these matters required active management and oversight.
  8. The evidence suggests the landlord’s approach to addressing the resident’s concerns was overly focused on the bathroom, without looking at the whole property. Despite the resident repeatedly explaining that there was damp and mould throughout, there is no evidence that the landlord fully inspected other rooms or checked for wider damage.
  9. This narrow approach likely contributed to repeated access problems. Had the landlord taken a more comprehensive approach during its 19 August 2024 inspection, it is possible that the repeated access problems could have been avoided. It is important that landlords carry out thorough inspections in cases involving damp and mould. In this case, there is no evidence that it did so.
  10. We recognise that the landlord’s progress was also affected by access issues and cancelled appointments, which limited the action it could take. The resident maintains that he will only allow access for repairs if the landlord moves him to another property while work is carried out.
  11. Nevertheless, the failings identified in this report amount to maladministration. The landlord failed to carry out a full and appropriate inspection, which contributed to the repairs not being completed, and it did not respond fully to the resident’s request to be rehoused. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation. And to inspect the property and produce an action plan to address the damp and mould, and any other damage to the property.

Complaint handling

  1. It took the landlord 26 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was outside its 10-working-day policy timescales. It also failed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days contrary to its policy.
  2. We note that the landlord contacted the resident on 11 September 2024 to explain there would be a delay and said it planned to respond by 25 September 2024. It also said it would let him know if it could not meet this date. This did not happen. Instead, it responded at stage 1 on 30 September 2024, 5 days later than promised.
  3. Although these delays were relatively minor, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for them in its formal responses, which likely caused frustration to the resident. This amounts to service failure, and we have ordered £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests compensation of up to £100 for a minor failure that the landlord has not put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damage, damp and mould following a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 comprised of:
      1. £200 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damage, damp and mould following a leak.
      2. £50 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Inspect the property and arrange an action plan with timescales to address any repairs identified as a result of this. This must include an assessment of any damp and mould in the property and whether it is necessary to decant the resident while works take place. It must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident and this Service.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.