From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202422734)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422734

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

26 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident’s partner as vulnerable due to having multiple health conditions.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord, through us, in October 2022 to make a complaint about cannabis and cigarette smoke entering his property from his neighbour. He raised a concern that the smoke was getting in through the service pipe in the kitchen. It does not appear the landlord took any action at the time.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 November 2023. It offered to fit “flaps” over the holes in the service pipe that gave access to the water stop taps. The notes show the resident declined the offer.
  4. A fire safety operative for the landlord inspected the resident’s property around 28 November 2023. The operative reported there were no “visible breaches of fire stopping” between the properties. The notes reflect a recommendation to inspect the kitchen duct to identify any possible areas smoke was getting in.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2023. It apologised for the delay in sending the response, and attending to the repairs. It said it had raised a repair in November 2023 to look at blocking the “gaps” in the service pipe. It set out the actions it had taken in relation to discussing the allegations with the neighbour. It “partially” upheld the resident’s complaint.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2024 and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. He said the works to cover the stop taps did not get to the “root cause” of the issue, and said the source of the smoke “infiltration” was from the duct in the kitchen.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. It outlined the findings of the fire safety inspection. It said it had passed the investigation of the kitchen duct to its repairs team, and apologised for the delay in progressing with the matter.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord completed an asbestos inspection of the ducting around October 2024, the results were negative. The landlord completed works to the ducting in February 2025.
  2. The resident contacted us on 20 February 2025 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord had done some works but it had not completely resolved the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint about ASB centered around cigarette and cannabis smoke entering his property. The resident explained he was satisfied with the actions the landlord had taken in terms of engagement with his neighbour in his stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not address this aspect in its stage 2 complaint response. It is therefore not something we have investigated.
  2. We have also seen evidence the resident raised concerns about noise disturbance from his neighbour and smoke ingress through the electric cupboard, in early 2025. This was nearly a year after he exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Our Scheme says we cannot assess matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the smoke ingress issue raised in the initial complaint (ducting in the kitchen). We recommend the landlord inspects the electrical cupboard if it has not already done so.
  3. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters raised after he exhausted its complaint procedure, he may wish to raise a further complaint. We may then investigate if the resident remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. It is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. We acknowledge the situation was distressing for the resident and we do not dispute his claims about the ASB. Our investigation has focused on whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. We have also considered whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. The resident raised concerns that the smoke ingress into his property impacted on his wife’s health, as she has asthma. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  6. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his wife’s health was affected by the landlord’s response to this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and the associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it has 3 categories of responsive repairs. For emergency repairs it says it will attend within 2 hours. For urgent repairs it says it will attend within 1 to 5 working days. For routine repairs it says it will attend within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it considers drug and alcohol related nuisance as ASB.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the smoke ingress issue from November 2022. There is no information that shows the landlord took any action at the time. This was unreasonable. The resident was evidently distressed about the issue. The lack of action by the landlord may have increased the distress he experienced. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord about the issue before it took action, in November 2023. We acknowledge the resident refused its offer to install flaps to cover the stop tap access holes at the time. This may have impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the matter.
  4. We welcome the fact the landlord instructed a fire safety officer to inspect the property. It is noted the main concern was about cannabis and cigarette smoke ingress. However, it was appropriate to instruct a specialist officer to inspect, considering the resident raised concerns about fire safety. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and sought specialist advice. However, it failed to follow up on the recommendations made by the fire safety officer (to inspect the kitchen ducting) at the time. This was a failing in its response that evidently caused frustration to the resident, as he specifically raised this concern in his stage 2 complaint.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out it had inspected the property in November 2024, but did not give an outcome of the inspection. This was inappropriate considering it sent the response a month later. This lacked transparency and it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously by setting out its planned actions. It also offered no detail about the fire safety inspection, which was unreasonable, and lacked transparency.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the above error by setting out its plans for the repairs. It was also appropriate it apologise for the delay in inspecting the kitchen ducting. Given the length of the delay, it was unreasonable it did not offer compensation for the accepted error.
  7. We acknowledge the need for an asbestos survey added complexity to the kitchen ducting inspection/repair. However, it was unreasonable it did not complete the asbestos survey for nearly a year after the recommendation to inspect the ducting. Following the survey, it did not complete the repair for another 4 months. This was unreasonable, and the resident was inconvenienced by the further delay. He was evidently distressed by the alleged smoke ingress. The further delay may have increased the distress he experienced.
  8. Considering the errors identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance says for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £175 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlords must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. We have not seen evidence showing the resident complained to the landlord before he contacted us for assistance in October 2022. We therefore consider the landlord as on notice about the complaint when we wrote to it on 31 October 2022. It was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling it did not respond at the time. The resident was inconvenienced by the failure to respond to his complaint.
  3. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response over a year after the initial complaint. This was an unreasonable delay. It appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it was unreasonable it did not offer compensation, considering the length of the delay.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 2 months after he made his stage 2 complaint. While less of a delay than at stage 1, it was unreasonable not to acknowledge the delay. This was a further error in its complaint handling. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right for the resident in both its complaint responses.
  5. We have decided there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £125 in compensation in recognition of the errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and the associated repairs.
    2. Complaint Handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with our guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £300 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and the associated repairs.
      2. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord inspect the electrical cupboard the resident raised concerns about being another source of smoke ingress. (if it has not already done so).