Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202529569)

Decision
Case ID	202529569
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident previously complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s approach to damp and mould at the property. Following our investigation, it arranged an inspection to address the issues. However, after a leak from a property above caused further repair issues, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the repairs identified in the inspection and of the subsequent leak. She said the ongoing problems were impacting on her and her family’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of reoccurring damp and mould and a leak.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s general complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of reoccurring damp and mould and a leak.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould and a leak 

5. The landlord took steps to address the damp and mould but it is unclear what steps it took to address concerns while the leak was ongoing and its response to the resident’s concerns about delays failed to acknowledge her vulnerabilities.

The complaint

6. The landlord failed to meet its policy timescales to respond at both stages of its complaint’s process and incorrectly issued a third complaint response.

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 £350 made up as follows: £250 to acknowledge its failings in addressing the resident’s concerns about damp and mould £100 to acknowledge its complaint handling failures The landlord must provide evidence it has paid this sum directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. 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 areas of the property that the resident says have a recurring damp and mould issue and produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation the most likely cause of any issues a full scope of whatever works are outstanding to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue the likely timescales to commence and complete any work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 25 June 2026

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
The landlord should respond to the resident’s request for a permanent relocation by providing information about her housing options and explaining what support it may be able to offer her.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 July 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a reoccurrence of mould and damp following a leak into the property. She raised multiple issues, only some of which have been brought to us. Those included: it had offered temporary accommodation while it did the repairs but with very short notice and not in line with her family’s needs the repairs were taking too long and mould had reoccurred she and her family had health conditions and asked for compensation to recognise the distress suffered
3 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
11 August 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said: it had attempted to address the leak, which originated from a leasehold property above the resident’s flat but acknowledged this was still outstanding it apologised if she was unhappy with the temporary accommodation offer and explained how the property had been offered and why there were only limited options
12 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She repeated her concerns about delays or poor-quality works and asked for a permanent move.
23 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it apologised for its delay in responding the resident had declined temporary accommodation and delayed repair works by refusing access it had considered court action to obtain an injunction (to gain access to complete the works)
15 October 2025	The landlord provided an update, describing it as a stage 2 response. It said: the resident had refused “multiple decant” options as she had refused access it intended to proceed with court action
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said ongoing damp and mould was affecting her children’s health. She reported feeling pressured to accept temporary accommodation and said her medical vulnerability had been disregarded. She said separate inspections produced contradictory findings and the landlord had referred her to social services, which caused unnecessary distress. She requested an independent assessment of the required works, permanent rehousing, and compensation for distress, delays, and unsafe living conditions.

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	Damp, mould and the leak
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

7. This investigation focuses on the period following our first investigation and looks at the landlord’s responses to the issues raised in this complaint.
8. The resident has raised with us complaint issues which she did not include in her complaint or complaint escalation. These are the landlord’s referral to social services and what she said were contradictory inspection reports. These issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate them.
9. The resident told us that the conditions at the property and the stress she incurred affected the family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim about this. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they – have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on these matters. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

10. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said delays to addressing damp and mould were caused by access issues to a leaseholder’s flat, the resident refusing or pausing works, and declining “multiple” offers of temporary accommodation. It said it was considering court action to gain access. In its second stage 2 response, in October 2025, it said it was proceeding with legal action.
11. The evidence supports some of the above but not all. In the light of that, the landlord’s complaint responses, especially in the later stages, were unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of empathy.
12. The landlord inspected the resident’s home in March 2025 and identified condensation mould problems. Its records note that blockages to the sink and bath contributed to the problem. The records also say that she declined several proposed measures to reduce condensation (such as an extractor fan).
13. The landlord completed a mould wash in late March 2025 and arranged bathroom repairs for May 2025. The records about this appointment are not wholly clear, but the landlord says the resident refused access. It also arranged 2 further mould wash appointments in early May 2025. Both were cancelled and the records do not explain why.
14. As far as these events went, therefore, the landlord had reason to consider that the resident was reluctant and indeed, refused access to complete works.
15. However, on 19 May 2025 the resident reported a leak into her flat from the property above. An operative attended the upstairs flat, which was owned by a leaseholder but could not gain access. The landlord inspected the resident’s property again on 4 June 2025 and identified a need for internal decoration. It also visited on 10 June 2025. On this occasion, the evidence shows it considered “the wider damp and mould impact”.
16. The landlord visited the leaseholder on 17 June 2025. The leaseholder said they were taking action to resolve the leak. However, it was not resolved until August 2025. While the landlord was not responsible for managing the leak, as it originated from another property, there is no evidence it considered any interim measures to mitigate the impact on the resident’s home while the issue remained unresolved.
17. The landlord did, in July 2025, offer the resident temporary accommodation. She refused that offer because it was not close to support networks but explained she was not refusing temporary accommodation in principle. The landlord’s statement that the resident declined multiple offers was therefore incorrect.
18. In her complaint, the resident said she would prefer a permanent move rather than temporary accommodation.  In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain her housing options in its complaint responses. It did not do so, and this was a missed opportunity to provide support. We have made a recommendation in this regard.
19. When the leak was resolved on 27 August 2025 the landlord took appropriate action to raise works to the kitchen and bathroom.
20. In its final complaint responses in September and October 2025 the landlord said the resident had caused the delays, partly by refusing works. This was partially true, as she refused works in September 2025. However, she explained this was following a hospital visit and she had concerns for her physical and mental health. She also expressed reluctance and sought reassurance about works in October 2025. On the day of the second stage 2 response in October 2025, she refused a mould wash.
21. Internal records note that the landlord did not wish to pressure the resident for access but it was also concerned that she would be left in unsuitable conditions. This balanced approach was not reflected in its stage 2 complaint responses, which did not acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and health-related reasons for concerns about the works, or the fact that she was still willing to co-operate about the temporary accommodation. Instead, the landlord said it was considering legal action against the resident. It also repeated the incorrect assertion that she had declined multiple temporary accommodation offers.
22. The landlord later told us that it decided the remaining works could be completed without the resident moving out. It said an inspection in November 2025 found no mould. However, it also said that “remedial works to remedy damp and mould” were completed in December 2025. The evidence does not show what happened between 10 June 2025 where the landlord had concerns about mould and November 2025, where it had none. The information provided by the landlord about what work was completed in December 2025 is also unclear. The resident told us the issues are ongoing and the landlord is continuing works.
23. Overall, the landlord met with some resistance from the resident between March and May 2025 and again in September and early October 2025, which contributed to delay. However, despite having concerns about damp and mould from June 2025, there is no evidence, that during the period where the leak remained unresolved, the landlord took steps to investigate that further or attempt any interim actions. It is also unclear what work has been completed.
24. Due to this lack of clarity, we have made an inspection order for the landlord to confirm what works have been completed and what, if anything remains outstanding. We have also made a compensation order to recognise the distress and frustration the resident says the situation caused, in line with our compensation guidance for failings of the scale and nature found here.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
26. Its policy aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
27. The landlord was 18 working days above its timeframe for responding at stage 1 and 10 working days above its timeframe at stage 2. Each time it acknowledged and apologised for the delay.
28. However, the landlord issued a further second stage 2 on 15 October 2025. It says this was only an update but it was entitled ‘stage 2’ and so effectively added a third stage to the process. This is contrary to the Code, which states that the stage 2 is the final response.
29. Along with its earlier delays, the above shows service failure in its handling of the complaint. It apologised for its delays, but on its own that was not a sufficient remedy.

Learning

30. The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing in parts because it referred to multiple incorrect reference numbers. We encourage landlords to visit the library of resources on topics such as complaint handling and record keeping on the centre of learning page on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s repairs records were only partially helpful with note-sections missing. It might find the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management a helpful aid to improve accurate record keeping.

Communication

32. Apart from in its complaint responses, the landlord communicated with the resident in a clear and sympathetic manner. This was particularly demonstrated in the emails sent by the landlord’s damp and mould manager.