Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202504415)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat in a building of 6 flats owned by the landlord. She reported a leak she believed came from the property above, which is also a leasehold property. She said the water ingress damaged her property and made her bathroom ceiling unsightly and unsafe. She also reported damage to a communal wall inside the building, which she believed was caused by the same leak. She complained that the landlord had not taken any action.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the property above and a repair to a communal wall.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the above property, and repair to a communal wall.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above and a repair to a communal wall

6. The landlord did not take ownership of the resident’s reports and passed responsibility between teams without coordinating a clear response. It did not provide the resident with clear or timely communication about who was handling the issues or what actions it would take. These failures caused significant and avoidable delay in resolving the reported leak and related concern. The landlord only took the reports seriously after we intervened. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not recognise the significance of its failings for the resident over a prolonged period or reflect this in its response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s April 2024 complaint, which was a missed opportunity to address her concerns earlier. It only took the complaint seriously after our involvement, which occurred 15 months later. There were errors in its complaint responses, including failing to identify that the resident had been reporting the leak since December 2023. These failings created avoidable confusion and a significant delay for the resident. The landlord has not acknowledged these failings.

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. This investigation is not about disputing responsibility for repairs inside the resident’s leasehold property. Those responsibilities are set out in the lease, and we have not sought to reinterpret those terms. We have considered whether the landlord’s actions and communication were reasonable in managing the repair responsibilities arising from the leak.
9. In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the structure, exterior, and communal areas of the building. The leaseholder is responsible for repairs and maintenance inside their own property. This includes responsibility for baths, showers, and for leaks that affect other properties, including any damage caused by those leaks. However, the lease states that the leaseholder must also keep their property in good repair and ensure it does not affect other parts of the building.
10. On 27 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that there was a leak entering from her bathroom ceiling. She believed it was likely coming from the flat above, which was also a leasehold property. The resident asked how she could go about arranging a property inspection to understand the cause and get it resolved. As the leak did not originate from the resident’s property, it was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to identify the source of the leak. It was also reasonable for the landlord to establish who was responsible for carrying out any required repairs. However, the landlord did not take this action at an early stage.
11. We have reviewed the email correspondence between the homeownership team and the resident from February to September 2024. The correspondence shows the landlord wrote to the leaseholder above twice, first in January 2024 and again in April 2024. These letters warned the leaseholder that they may be breaching their obligations under the lease. The landlord said that if the leaseholder did not respond by 4 May 2024, it would refer the matter to its legal team, who would take action. We have not been provided with any communication between the landlord and the leaseholder above, as these would not be shared due to data protection reasons.
12. After further chasers from the resident in May 2024, the homeownership team said it had referred the case to the repairs team. It told the resident that the repairs team would contact her directly. It also provided the landlord’s insurance details and said she could make a claim for cosmetic damage once the leak was resolved.
13. It was poor that the repair team did not contact the resident after the referral. This was a failure in the landlord’s service, as the resident then had to chase repeatedly from May to August 2024. During this period, she also reported that the damage to her bathroom ceiling and cupboard had worsened and provided photographic evidence. The homeownership team told the resident it was chasing the repairs team for an update. However, there were still no details recorded on the repair log, despite the resident reporting the issue since December 2023. This shows poor record keeping.
14. The landlord’s policy states it will carry out a repair which is not its responsibility where it is necessary to avoid further damage to the property or to safeguard the health and safety of its residents. It also states a leasehold resident will allow it access to their property to investigate the likelihood of emergency remedial works such as leaks that are affecting other residents in the building. Any cost of remedial works or works carried out to remedy resultant damage to neighbouring properties or communal areas the leaseholder will be recharged, as outlined in their lease.
15. On 21 and 22 August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to update her and its insurer about the leak. In its reply on 27 August 2024, the landlord said the repairs team had no record of this leak being reported. We have not seen evidence of contact with the landlord’s insurer, but the resident told us that the insurer closed the case at that point because the landlord reported it had no record of a leak. It is possible that the landlord’s poor record keeping had resulted in inaccurate information being shared.
16. The emails show the resident continued to ask the landlord for assistance during this period. The repairs team told her they had no repair logged and advised her to contact the homeownership team. The homeownership team then told her to contact the repairs team directly. This left the resident returning to both teams without clear direction, for which she expressed her frustration.
17. On 13 September 2024 the homeownership team said it had exhausted its breach of lease process. It explained that the leaseholder above had responded, so the case was sent to the repairs team to progress. It said it had emailed the repairs team, damp team, and complaints team with the case details again. It also confirmed there was nothing further the homeownership team could do.
18. Also on 13 September 2024, a task was raised for a damp surveyor to inspect damp issues between the two leaseholder properties. The landlord recorded that a visit took place on 10 October 2024 and noted the communal wall on the staircase was drying out which they said suggested the leak was repaired. It also noted that a further appointment was needed when both leaseholders were at home. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of any appointments, she also told us that she never received any communication about visits form the landlord. Thers is also no evidence that the landlord took any further action after this point. The repair log included leak reports relating to other properties, and not the resident’s and property directly above.
19. It was a further detriment to the resident that, following our intervention in July 2025, the landlord said it had no earlier reports from her about the leak. This was inaccurate, as the landlord’s records evidence that the resident had contacted it several times during 2023 and 2024.The landlord’s record keeping was poor, and it did not maintain clear communication with the resident throughout the period of concern.
20. The landlord only began to take the resident’s reports seriously after our intervention. It recorded inspections on 14 August and 23 September 2025. The landlord identified that a poorly installed shower in the bathroom of the property directly above was causing the ongoing leak into the resident’s property. This represented a significant delay in finding the cause, as the resident first reported the issue in December 2023. The landlord noted that the leaseholder above already knew about the problem and had arranged for a qualified plumber to attend. It was also recorded that the tenant in the property above had been urged to stop using the shower until the repair was completed.
21. We do not know when repairs in the flat were completed, however, the landlord’s inspection on 13 October 2025 recorded that the leak in the property above had been repaired. The resident told us she had not arranged repairs to her bathroom because she has never been assured that the leak above was resolved, and the area remains damp. It was also recorded that day that the water damage to the communal stairway wall was drying out. The resident told us that no work had been completed on the wall and it was left in an unsightly condition.
22. To summarise, the landlord did take some action by attempting to progress the lease‑warning process with the other leaseholder, but it did not provide evidence of what this amounted to. It did not take effective steps with the resident until we became involved. Once we intervened, the landlord acted appropriately, but the resident should not have needed to escalate to us for action to begin. This meant there was a delay of over 1½ years before the landlord took meaningful action. During this time, the resident described frustration, distress and inconvenience, and said she was living in unacceptable conditions with damp and safety concerns. She also said she was worried about her bathroom ceiling falling in when she used the bathroom. The landlord did not identify the root cause within a reasonable time, which left the resident affected for an extended period. It also failed to respond adequately to her concerns about the safety of the ceiling. The resident said the delay affected her ability to put the property on the market. Overall, the delay was unreasonable, and the landlord could have avoided its impact if it had responded appropriately to her initial reports.
23. Throughout, the landlord did not coordinate responsibility between its teams, and no single team took ownership of the issue. It did not provide clear or timely explanations of what was happening or who was responsible. This contributed to the overall delays of having the issue resolved.
24. In its stage 2 response on 29 September 2025, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer. However, the resident told us she had not begun a new claim since the other case was unfairly closed, as she had not been told whether the leak had been fixed. We understand it will be very disappointing for the resident, that we cannot award costs for repair work inside her property. If she wishes to pursue these costs, she may make a claim through the landlord’s insurer. However, we cannot say whether such a claim would succeed, as assessing insurance liability is outside our remit.
25. We can consider compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures described in this report. We have assessed this in line with our remedies guidance for cases where failures adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged its failings. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £500. In addition, we have also ordered the landlord, to inspect both properties to give assurance to the resident that the issue is resolved. Also, to inspect the communal wall and make reasonable steps to complete any required repair work in a timely manner.

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
27. The landlord’s complaint handling fell significantly below the expected standard. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint made in April 2024. This was a missed opportunity to address her concerns and resolve the issues earlier. The landlord only took the complaint seriously after our involvement, which was 15 months later. This was a significant service failure.
28. There were notable errors in the landlord’s complaint responses. Its stage 1 response failed to identify of earlier reports from December 2023. When the resident provided evidence of those reports, the landlord did not acknowledge this appropriately. These were further service failures.
29. The landlord also provided unclear information in its stage 2 response. It first said the communal wall issue had been sent to a carpentry team. It was not clear why that team was suitable, given the repair involved water damage to a plastered wall. It then said this was incorrect, that it had not gone to the carpentry team as the resident was a leaseholder and was therefore responsible. This created avoidable confusion, as it did not explain why it was not taking responsibly for the communal wall, which the lease required.
30. The resident said the delay in accepting and taking ownership of her complaint affected her over a prolonged period. It is evident she spent considerable unnecessary time repeatedly chasing the matter and involving us to eventually obtain a response. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200. This aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where the failures have had a significant impact on the resident and the landlord has not addressed the impact.

Learning

31. The landlord should use this case as a learning opportunity to review how it manages reports from leaseholders and how it assigns responsibility between teams. It should review how it diagnoses reports of leaks within its properties to ensure that the source is identified promptly and appropriate action is taken. It should also review its procedures to ensure staff take ownership of repairs from the first report and coordinate actions clearly. The landlord should share the learning from this case with relevant staff and use it to improve practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. The landlord should also strengthen its processes for keeping accurate records and providing clear, timely communication to residents about responsibility and next steps. The spotlight report also provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving their information management practice.

Communication/Complaint Handling

33. The landlord should use this case to review how it identifies and responds to complaints at the earliest opportunity. It should ensure staff understand how to recognise a complaint, including when a resident expresses dissatisfaction and seeks a response.
    It should improve its processes so that all complaints are logged correctly, acknowledged promptly, and progressed within the required timescales. The landlord should also strengthen quality checks to prevent inaccurate responses and ensure all available evidence is considered before issuing a complaint outcome. It should provide staff training on the Complaint Handling Code to reinforce expectations about ownership, communication and learning from complaints. The landlord should use this case as an example to support that training and improve its overall approach.