Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202232768)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232768

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

10 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Noise reports made by the resident’s neighbour.
2. Information relating to the resident’s son living at the property.
3. The resident’s concerns that the landlord has discriminated against her son.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 1997 and has occupied the property, a 2–bedroom basement maisonette, on a secured tenancy since 2009. The resident lives with her son who is transgender. He has resided with his mother all his life and changed his name in April 2016.
The resident had previously complained to the landlord about her neighbour knocking her door to complain about noise. The landlord had asked for her agreement to disclose her identity to the neighbour in order to be able to take action. On 10 October 2022 the resident explained she was unhappy with that. In addition, she said when she suggested her son speak about the issue, she was told he could not do that as he was not registered as living there. This was despite him living with her all his life. She complained that this amounted to gender discrimination.
The landlord responded on 27 October 2022 and explained it was its policy to disclose someone’s identity when an issue was reported. It had no record of her son, so asked for his details and proof of residency so it could update its records. It said it had spoken with the neighbour and asked them not to knock on her door again. The neighbour had said they had done it as they were being disturbed by noise from the property, so it wanted the resident’s response to the allegations.
The resident replied the same day and reiterated her complaint. She said if there had been noise at the property she would not have been woken when the neighbour knocked. She still felt she was being discriminated against as her son was transgender. The member of landlord staff that the resident made the allegations about sent an email in response and refuted any discrimination. They also said the neighbour had known it was the resident that had complained without the need to divulge her details. However, they would pass the complaint to a manager.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 November 2022 it apologised for having said it could not speak to her son about the noise allegations as he was not the tenant, as she had given verbal consent to speak with him. It said it had asked the neighbour not to approach her again if there was a noise issue, but instead to report it to the Community Protection Team. It acknowledged the resident had asked for her son’s name to be changed on the tenancy but it required evidence of the name change before it could to this. It did not accept that asking for this evidence was discrimination.
The resident provided her son’s change of name details on 9 December 2022. She said she had submitted it before but documents had gone missing, and she was concerned there was no record of her son since 2008. She was not sure why he had been removed as his name change happened after completion of his education. She also explained her son was disabled but this had not been noted and he had always lived with her. She hoped that was now remedied and wanted to know what was happening with her complaint about discrimination.
The landlord told the resident on 6 January 2023 that it was treating her email as a complaint escalation request. Although it had hoped to respond by 11 January 2023, it would now respond by 20 January 2023. The resident chased for a response on 19 February 2023, and the landlord apologised on 1 March 2023 for the delay. In her response of the same day, the resident reminded the landlord she was waiting to hear whether her son had been recorded as living at the property.
The resident chased the landlord again on 23 March and 22 April 2023 and said she was unhappy with the delay. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 26 July 2023 when it:
1. Confirmed it had changed the resident’s son’s name on 21 December 2022 upon receipt of the deed of name change.
2. Explained it had not received any evidence of a name change earlier, but if the resident had evidence it had been sent in the past by recorded delivery she should send that in. It apologized for any inconvenience caused.
3. Said it had no record that her son had a disability and asked her to provide evidence.
4. Apologised that she felt discriminated against but said it found no evidence of that being the case.
5. Offered £150 compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
On 25 September 2023 the resident accepted the compensation and asked for it to be credited to her rent account. She asked for confirmation her son had been added to the tenancy so he could report repairs. She also suggested that staff training on discrimination would be beneficial.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2024 saying, although she had been told her son had been added to the tenancy, when he called to report repairs he was told he was not registered at the property. In addition, although she had asked for the £150 compensation to be added to her rent account, that had not been done. She said she did not agree with the landlord’s findings on discrimination so wanted to know if there would be any staff training.

Assessment and findings

Noise reports made by the resident’s neighbour

Although the resident had complained in the past about a neighbour, the complaint made about the neighbour in 2022 was not one of noise or antisocial behaviour. It was about them knocking on her door and approaching her about an issue they had. Therefore, there is not a relevant policy to refer to.
The resident was unhappy the landlord said it was its policy to get her consent to disclose her identity in order to take her complaint about her neighbour further. However, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have shared information she provided without her agreement. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately. Nonetheless, to be helpful, the landlord spoke with the neighbour and asked them not to approach the resident again and explained the correct process for reporting issues. It therefore took the resident’s concern seriously and took prompt and proportionate action to address the behaviour which had upset her.
The resident disputed the neighbour’s allegation that there had been noise from the property. It is not for us to decide whether either party was at fault. Instead, we assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns to determine whether they were appropriate and proportionate. It was reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware that a complaint had been made and to notify the neighbour when the resident was unhappy with their behaviour. Overall, the steps taken by the landlord to address the resident’s report about her neighbour were fair, so there was no maladministration.

Information relating to the resident’s son living at the property

Evidence has been provided which shows the resident’s son changed his name in April 2016. Despite the resident saying she had provided the landlord with this information several times in the past, the first evidence of it being sent to the landlord was on 9 December 2022. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed her son’s details had been updated on 21 December 2022.
The resident has said her son has since been told when he called in to report repairs, that he was not registered at the property. However, the landlord has supplied evidence that shows its records were updated to show her son living there. Therefore, it took appropriate action to ensure its records were accurate.
No evidence has been provided to show that, prior to 2022, the landlord was made aware the resident’s son had a disability. When she mentioned this, the landlord, in its stage 2 response, asked her to provide evidence of her son’s disabilities so it could update its records. Despite asking the resident for evidence that she provided the landlord with this information, nothing has been provided to this investigation.
It follows that no criticism of the landlord can be made in that respect. As a result there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this point. If the resident has encountered recent issues with the landlord not acknowledging her son as a tenant, this should be raised as a new complaint.

The resident’s concerns that the landlord had discriminated against her son

We cannot make findings of discrimination, as such a finding can only be made by a court of law. However, we can consider whether the landlord went far enough to consider the allegation made and, in this case, we find that it did.
After alleging discrimination on the basis her son was transgender, the staff member involved addressed the allegation promptly. The landlord then investigated the matter at stages 1 and 2 of its complaints process, but found no evidence of discrimination. It noted it had asked for evidence of the resident’s son’s name change in order to update its records, but said asking for this evidence did not amount to discrimination.
From the correspondence, the resident’s main concern appeared to be about the landlord not updating its records, and this is addressed above. It is clear the landlord took the discrimination allegation seriously. While the resident may not agree with its view, we are satisfied it took reasonable steps to investigate her concerns. On that basis we find there was no maladministration by the landlord on this point.
The resident has asked the landlord to consider arranging training for its staff on discrimination. However, given that we have not found failure in its handling of her concerns, we do not consider that any associated order is warranted.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident’s complaint of 10 October 2022 was not addressed at stage 1 until 17 working days after it was received. It then took the landlord 158 working days to send its stage 2 response. This was only after the resident went to the trouble of chasing it up on a number of occasions. The landlord’s complaints policy says a stage 1 response should be issued within 15 working days. At stage 2, a response should be sent within 20 working days. It is therefore clear the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy, which is unacceptable.
While the delay at stage 1 was minor, the landlord failed to acknowledge this shortfall in its service. It accepted there had been a significant delay at stage 2 and it was right for it to offer compensation for the frustration caused by this.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The £150 compensation offered by the landlord for the extensive complaint delays is in line with our remedies guidance. We would therefore have considered this to provide reasonable redress in resolution of the complaint. However, the landlord did not then act on the resident’s acceptance of the compensation and has confirmed that it failed to make the payment. This failure is unacceptable and amounts to maladministration.
As it has been nearly 2 years since the landlord offered (and failed to pay) the compensation, it is now necessary to increase the award for this further delay. This is to proportionately recognise the additional failure and associated inconvenience suffered by the resident while waiting for payment. We therefore order the landlord to increase the compensation to £300, inclusive of the £150 already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Noise reports made by the resident’s neighbour.
  2. Information relating to the resident’s son living at the property.
  3. The resident’s concerns that the landlord has discriminated against her son.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the complaint handling failing identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £300 compensation for its poor complaint handling (inclusive of the £150 offered at stage 2).