Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202448982)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with young children. She said the landlord initially said it would replace her kitchen and bathroom because of their condition, but it later said it would not. She was unhappy about this. She had also reported damp and mould in both rooms and was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response about the resident’s kitchen and bathroom upgrades.
3. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom
   2. the resident’s complaint 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the resident’s kitchen and bathroom upgrades
   2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom
   3. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Kitchen and bathroom upgrades

5. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right.

Damp and mould in kitchen and bathroom

6. The landlord failed to follow its Repairs Policy in its initial responses to the damp and mould reports. Its remedial actions during the complaint process did not go far enough to recognise the impact on the resident and put things right

Complaint handling

7. The delay in the responses had minimal impact on the overall responses and outcome. 

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.

8. The resident said in her complaint that the landlord had agreed to renew her kitchen and bathroom. After reviewing the evidence from both parties, we have not found confirmation of this commitment. We appreciate that this may be disappointing for the resident. However, our investigation must be based on the evidence available. In this case, we have focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
9. Its component renewal schedule showed it installed the kitchen in 2007, and was not due for renewal until 2037. It installed the bathroom in 2007, and was not due for renewal until 2047.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriate as it showed it acknowledged her concerns about the kitchen and arranged an inspection. It also arranged a mould wash for the bathroom. It confirmed it referred the property to its Capital Team but it was not part of its current refurbishment programme. It said it would complete repairs to address immediate hazards, helping set the resident’s expectations and put things right.
11. At stage 2 it was fair that it apologised for the lack of clarity regarding the kitchen and bathroom upgrade. It was reasonable its Capital Team reflected on its previous response, reviewed photographs of the kitchen and bathroom, and confirmed they did require upgrades. It said this was subject to validation, but was unable to offer timescales for this. It is fair that the landlord would be unable to offer timescales for such planned work but it should ensure the resident is kept updated once a programme of works is known.
12. It completed kitchen repairs in December 2024. The resident confirmed satisfaction with the work, but it was appropriate the landlord raised a follow-up job in January 2025 after the resident reported a defect in one of the cupboards.
13. It completed a mould wash in the bathroom in November 2024. Further works were completed in April 2025, including plastering and emulsion. It replaced the toilet in June 2025. This shows the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations when the resident reported issues.
14. The landlord acknowledged the delay and inconvenience caused by its response to her kitchen and bathroom upgrades. The landlord’s Repairs Policy and the Decent Homes Standard require homes to be at a good repairs standard. Through its complaint process it put things right by ensuring it met these requirements by carrying out repairs to ensure the kitchen and bathroom were safe and functional. It recognised its failings, took proportionate steps to address it and provided reasonable redress.

What we didn’t investigate

15. During recent contact with us the resident said she also experienced issues with damp and mould in the hallway and on the other side of the kitchen. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will look at the matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 17 December 2024, including any action it committed to as part of its final response. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before involvement of this Service.
16. She also explained she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to a vent repair. We have logged this issue under another case number. This is awaiting allocation for investigation.

What we did investigate

17. We have investigated the damp and mould issues reported on 8 January 2024 onwards reviewed in the landlord’s responses.
18. The landlord did not have a dedicated Damp and Mould Policy, at the time of the complaint. However, in its Repairs Policy it sets out that it would have appropriate measures in place to reduce the impact of damp and mould in residential properties. 
19. In the evidence provided, the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property on 8 January 2024. The landlord raised a job on 6 February 2024 for an inspection, but it cancelled this in June due to internal backlog. While there are no timescales in its Repairs Policy for damp and mould inspections, it does commit to removing hazards within 7 working days by carrying out a mould wash. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it did this or explained the timescale of this appointment date. The resident having to wait for this appointment without any other intervention was not appropriate. 
20. The resident requested further investigation on 29 July 2024, as she thought the damp and mould was caused by a possible leak. The landlord cancelled 2 inspections due to staff absence, but it called her to inform her both times. While this demonstrates some effort to communicate, the landlord should have ensured it rearranged the inspection promptly, and considered the impact of delay on the resident. In our Spotlight report on damp and mould, we said these issues require timely attention. Landlords should organise resources effectively to avoid delays. When it attended on 16 August 2024 it was appropriate it raised follow on work to find the cause of the damp and mould, in line with its Policy.
21. The landlord has not provided records of the resident’s reports of the leak or its actions, so we can’t be certain what happened. However, we consider it likely the landlord didn’t resolve the leak in line with its Policy as that was what the evidence from October 2024 showed. She raised further concerns on 14 October 2024 about the leak causing damp and mould on her wall and the impact this would have on her young child’s health. It was appropriate the landlord attempted a visit on 17 October 2024, but it could not gain access.
22. The resident said the landlord had not waited long enough for her to answer the door, when she got back in touch the next day. It was reasonable the landlord raised a further job and attended the same day. It found a possible leak under the floor from the main stop cock and agreed to follow this up with the water company. We have not seen any further evidence relating to this leak work. Therefore, we don’t know if the landlord was reasonable in its timeframes for resolving this. However, the evidence shows the resident did not report the leak again. 
23. Throughout the resident’s complaints, and an additional email she sent the landlord on 25 October 2024, she expressed how the issues had caused her “stress and anxiety”. It was unclear if the landlord considered her additional email. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to ensure it addressed all concerns and understand the impact it was having on the resident. This caused frustration for the resident that her concerns were not being fully addressed.
24. As part of its stage 1 investigation, the landlord arranged a mould wash in the bathroom. It completed this on 12 November 2024, but this was 22 days after her report of damp and mould in complaint 1. The delay was not appropriate and not in line with its policy commitment. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, especially as she had told them she had a young child in the property.
25. The Carpentry Team attended on 20 November 2024, as agreed at stage 1, and confirmed the kitchen repairs. These included moving the sink, carrying out a mould wash, and reinstalling the unit. The work was completed on 5 December 2024. This was outside the policy timescale but reasonable, as it required coordinating plumbers and carpenters to attend together.
26. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 it was appropriate the landlord raised further damp works on 3 December 2024. These included a mould wash to affected areas, plastering, insulation, and painting. It completed these on 18 December 2024. It completed further kitchen works including a mould clean on 23 December 2024.  This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns, and timescales were in line with its Repair Policy timescales of 20 working days for routine repairs. The resident confirmed she was happy with the work completed.
27. Overall, the landlord did not always act in line with its Repairs Policy when responding to the initial reports. Although it later completed the required repairs, earlier delays and poor record-keeping, were significant failings in its handling of the issue. While it attempted to put things right by arranging remedial works during the complaint process, this did not go far enough. Its Compensation Policy allows for discretionary payments, which would have been appropriate in this case.
28. The resident recently told us she was still experiencing issues was damp and mould in the hallway and the other side of her kitchen. She was concerned as she had a newborn child. We wrote to the landlord on 2 December 2025 giving it notice that this could be a material change under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required to consider and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard.

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are:
30. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
31. At stage 1, the landlord took 9 working days to acknowledge her complaint, which was 4 days over its policy timescales. When it was unable to provide her with its response by the required date it contacted her to apologise and confirm a new date. It replied within 6 working days of its acknowledgement, which was within its policy timescales of 10 working days.  
32. At stage 2, the landlord took 19 working days to acknowledge her request, which was 15 working days over its policy timescales. It replied within 2 working days of its acknowledgement, which was within its policy timescales of 20 working days.  
33. There were delays at both stages in acknowledging the complaints, but this caused minimal delays in the responses and overall outcome of her complaint.  

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure its compliance with policy commitments, such as removing hazards within 7 working days. Delays in mould washes and inspections caused distress and inconvenience in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord either did not keep, or did not provide us with, sufficiently detailed records of its response to the leak. As well as hampering our investigations, inadequate record keeping can limit its ability to resolve complaints. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices, with consideration being given to our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

36. Overall, communication with the resident was good. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports and let her know about any changes to appointments.