Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202214272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214272

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

7 November 2024

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. The resident’s reports of communal issues, including subsidence and repairs to the staircase and the roof.
2. Repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the second floor. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident said that he reported concerns about the communal staircase in 2018, including that the building had subsidence issues which was causing the staircase to move. The resident said that he reported issues with the communal roof in 2019 and the landlord had agreed to repair the external roof lining. On 5 March 2021, the resident reported that his balcony door handle had come off and he was unable to close the door.
On 27 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that he was unhappy because the landlord had not completed repairs to the external roof lining, the subsiding staircase, or his balcony door.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it was monitoring the subsidence around the communal staircase to find out the extent of the movement and if underpinning was required. The landlord said it had chased its “planned works team” for an update. The landlord said its repairs team had attended the property in March 2021 to inspect the balcony door. The landlord said that the parts were “obsolete,” and the door required a full replacement. The landlord said it had forwarded the repair to its ordering manager however, this was not progressed because of its revised focus following COVID-19 restrictions. The landlord agreed that it would contact the resident to arrange to measure the balcony door.
On 9 March 2022 the landlord provided an update to its stage 1 response. It said further investigations were needed on the staircase as it appeared to be “peeling away from the gable wall.” It suggested that the joint between the two blocks was checked to confirm if there was a lateral restraint and to confirm that they were sufficient and in adequate condition to restrain the staircase.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord provided a further update to the resident. It said it was arranging for scaffolding to be erected to the staircase to remove the ceiling. Once this was completed, the landlord said it would be meeting with a structural team to inspect and determine the next steps. The landlord said its planned works team would continue to investigate the matter, until it was confident that there was no subsidence to the building.
The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 12 July 2022. It said it had carried out some works to the staircase and it was monitoring this until it could implement further repairs. The landlord confirmed it would renew the communal roof felt during the 2023/2024 investment plan.
On 30 September 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. The resident said that he had not received a further update on the subsidence issues in the communal areas.
The landlord said it replaced the balcony door on 15 November 2022.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. its contractor was monitoring the building for movement and once it was satisfied that the “stabilisation had been successful,” a design to install lateral restraints would be implemented.
2. it had reassessed the building in October 2022 and determined that its method of crack width monitoring would not be applicable to the building. Once a way forward had been agreed it would provide a further update to the resident.
3. traditional level monitoring would produce more meaningful results which would allow it to understand if future ground stabilisation works would be successful. The landlord said it was in discussion with its contractors to determine how to carry out this level of monitoring.
4. there was no immediate health and safety risks to residents within the block.
5. there had been a lack of communication along with delays in providing the resident with updates about the subsidence issues.
6. it had upheld the resident’s complaint as it had failed to keep him updated about the repairs due to a lack of communication.
On 24 October 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said the whole building was suffering with subsidence which was putting the staircase under pressure. The resident said recent repairs had failed and there were new cracks appearing in the boundary walls. The resident said the landlord did not underpin the whole building, only the staircase, and this had not remedied the issue. The resident said he wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and a refund of half of his rent from 2018. In addition, the resident raised concerns about other communal repair issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other concerns he has raised with the landlord, including:
1. repairs to an entry door and window frames.
2. the communal intercom system.
3. works to widen the tarmac area near the staircase.
4. the communal lights.
5. the maintenance of the communal garden areas.
6. the communal garden sheds.
7. the external cladding of the block and energy efficiency.
8. caretaking services and street cleaning services.
9. a communal Freeview aerial installation.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

It is unclear if the resident has raised these issues as a formal complaint with the landlord. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to this Service. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 January 2022. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident brought a previous complaint to the Ombudsman in 2018 about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal staircase (201817541). The Ombudsman made a determination on this case in November 2021.
Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: l. Seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.”
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had an ongoing dispute with the landlord about its handling of repairs to the communal staircase. This continued after the previous complaint was determined in November 2021 and the resident raised new issues to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the staircase in 2021 and 2022.
The Ombudsman cannot consider the issues it has already determined. However, the resident’s complaint in January 2022 appears to have raised new issues about repairs to the communal staircase, the communal roof, and his balcony door. Therefore, the focus of this investigation regarding the communal staircase will be from 27 January 2022.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. respond to urgent repairs within 1 to 5 working days, depending on the nature of the repair.
2. respond to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will reimburse residents for the complete or partial loss of 1 or more rooms, where they are uninhabitable during a period of repair works.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure, exterior and communal parts of the building including drains, gutters, and external pipes.

The resident’s reports of communal issues, including subsidence and repairs to the staircase and the roof

It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported issues with the roof, or how the landlord identified that repairs were needed to the roof lining. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any inspection reports about the communal roof.
On 27 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that the landlord had not completed repairs to the external roof lining and the building had subsidence, which was affecting the communal staircase.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord said that it was monitoring the subsidence around the communal staircase, and it would provide further updates to the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord sought advice from a structural engineer about the monitoring of the subsidence and the communal staircase. It provided updates to the resident on 9 March and 7 April 2022 about the monitoring process and the proposed works to the staircase. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 12 July 2022. It said it had carried out some works to the staircase and it was monitoring this until it could implement “lateral restraints.” The landlord also said it would renew the communal roof felt during the 2023/2024 investment plan. However, it did not provide the resident with a date when the repairs to the roof would take place.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain when it would repair the roof, why it could not renew the roof felt sooner, or whether there would be any impact to the building by it renewing the roof felt in the 2023/2024 investment year. This would have ensured that the resident was clear about the landlord’s decision not to renew the roof felt within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy for urgent or non-urgent repairs.
Due to a lack of further updates from the landlord throughout September and October 2022, the resident had to invest more time and effort in contacting the landlord to obtain updates on the subsidence issues. This was unreasonable. The landlord said it had forwarded the resident’s queries to its structural engineers. The Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time to complete them. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed with the resident:
1. how long the monitoring process would take.
2. when it would provide updates about the repairs.
3. the proposed frequency of any future updates.
This would have better managed the resident’s expectations, so that he did not feel he had to chase for updates.
In April 2023 the landlord received reports that a piece of concrete had fallen from the staircase and injured another resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 April 2023 and expressed his concerns about the staircase and the health and safety of the residents living in the building. The resident asked the landlord for an update about the repairs. He said the time and trouble in chasing the landlord about the repairs was impacting his mental health.
The landlord provided an update to the resident about the subsidence issues on 3 and 17 May 2023. The landlord continued to correspond with a structural engineer during this time about the repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord relayed the information it received from the structural engineer to the resident. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
On 25 May 2023 after speaking to its structural engineers, the landlord reassured the resident that there was no imminent danger to residents, and it was regularly monitoring the building. While the Ombudsman recognises that the issues with the staircase would have understandably caused concern to the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord relied on the expertise of its contractors and provided a reasonable response to him about his concerns.
On 8 June 2023 the resident raised concerns that the monitoring of the staircase was based on visual inspections only, instead of using a laser to survey the building. The landlord regularly referred to the “monitoring” process in its communications with the resident. However, the Ombudsman has not seen copies of any monitoring reports or surveys to confirm exactly how it was monitoring the subsidence and the staircase.
Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided him with a detailed explanation as to why laser monitoring was not needed, what the monitoring process specifically involved, and why a visual inspection was sufficient in the circumstances. This would have provided some reassurance to the resident about the monitoring process.
The landlord contacted all residents on 22 March 2024 and informed them that it was underpinning the communal staircase. The landlord said it would start works on 15 April 2024 for a period of 2 months.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has since completed these works. However, the landlord has not provided a post–works survey to confirm whether the repairs have resolved the issues raised by the resident. The resident said that recent repairs had failed and there were new cracks appearing in the boundary walls. The resident said that the landlord did not underpin the whole building, only the staircase and this has not remedied the issue. It is also unclear if there are any outstanding works to the communal roof. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord has completed all the repairs that it was obliged to.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there had been a lack of communication and delays in providing the resident with updates. While the landlord acknowledged the delays, it failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord provided updates to the resident, but its communication about the monitoring process and the repairs to the communal roof could have been clearer.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal staircase and the communal roof.
The resident said he spent a considerable amount of time and trouble in contacting the landlord for updates about the repairs to the staircase. In addition, the resident said he was concerned for the health and safety of himself and other residents living in the building.
The resident said he wanted a 50% rent reduction from 2018 because of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the communal repairs. There is no evidence that the communal staircase was out of use during the period of the resident’s complaint or that the resident was unable to access the property. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider a rent rebate in the circumstances. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified above.
The landlord has been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for its failings in its handling of repairs, as identified by this investigation. With consideration to our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its poor communication about the communal repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
The Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether the repairs have fully resolved the issues that the resident has complained of. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to complete a post–works survey of the communal staircase and the roof area to identify any outstanding works. The survey should address the issues with the external roof lining, the resident’s concerns about the structural integrity of the staircase and his concerns about the health and safety of residents living in the building. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

Repairs to the resident’s balcony door

On 5 March 2021 the resident reported that his balcony door handle had come off and he was unable to close the door. The landlord attended the property on 11 March 2021 and noted that further parts were required to repair the door. The landlord screwed the door shut.
There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident when it would complete the repairs to the balcony door. This left the resident without a resolution to the issue and would have caused uncertainty. This was not appropriate.
In May 2021 the landlord said that the repair parts were “obsolete”, and a new balcony door was required. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident again about the balcony door replacement in 2021. This would have likely caused further uncertainty and frustration for the resident as he was left without being able to use his balcony door. This was not appropriate.
Following the resident’s complaint in January 2022, the landlord contacted its contractor to request a visit to measure the balcony door. It is unreasonable that the resident had to raise a complaint to the landlord for this issue to be progressed.
The landlord said that its contractor tried to arrange a survey of the balcony door for 3 February 2022 however the resident was not available at this time. In June 2022 the resident requested an update on the balcony door replacement. The landlord’s contractor measured the balcony door on 1 July 2022. The landlord said it replaced the balcony door on 15 November 2022.
There was some confusion about whether the resident was able to provide photographs of the balcony door and his availability for a survey of the door. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident between February and June 2022 or that it followed up the survey with the resident.
The landlord said that the delays were partly due to restrictions during COVID-19. It said its repairs service were undertaking emergency and urgent repairs only, and the balcony door was not considered an emergency or urgent repair.
While this may have been the case and we acknowledge the impact that COVID-19 had on repairs services, the landlord should have updated the resident in writing about its position on repairs during COVID-19 restrictions. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. In addition, the evidence suggests that COVID-19 restrictions were not the only reason for the delay and the landlord should have been more proactive in chasing the repairs with its contractor.
The resident said the issue with the balcony door impacted his ability to enjoy his home, particularly during summer months because he was unable to open the door to ventilate the property. The resident also said he incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates about the balcony door.
Considering the failures identified and the impact to the resident, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.
The resident said he wanted a 50% rent reduction from 2018 because of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. There is no evidence that the resident could not use the property, or that it was uninhabitable. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident was unable to use his balcony door for 20 months to ventilate the property, and this would have likely impacted his enjoyment of the property.
With consideration to our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of the property caused by the delays and the lack of communication about the balcony door. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint. Landlords should respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days of it acknowledging the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 February 2022, which was 14 working days later. While not excessive, there was a delay of 4 working days more than the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 30 September 2022. On 20 October 2022 the landlord said it declined to escalate the resident’s complaint as it had been over 7 months since it had provided its stage 1 response. On 15 December 2022 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident.
While the landlord provided a 2-month timeframe for residents to request an escalation of their complaint, we also expected landlords to be flexible in imposing a firm deadline and should instead take account of all of the circumstances of a complaint. In this case, the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that ongoing monitoring was required, and further investigations would take place, therefore the landlord had not provided a final outcome to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 January 2023 which was 18 working days later. However, there was a delay of 72 working days from the date of the resident’s escalation request.
The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process and in bringing the matter to this Service.
The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal roof. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the external roof lining in its complaint responses. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint about the repairs to the roof.
The landlord also upheld the resident’s complaint about the communal repairs, but it did not offer any redress to him to recognise the distress and inconvenience this may have caused. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint for the reasons outlined above. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal areas, including issues with subsidence, the staircase, and the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £750 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress an inconvenience caused by the lack of communication about the communal repairs.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of the property caused by the delays and the lack of communication about the balcony door.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the complaint handling.
  4. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
3. arrange an inspection of the building (to include the communal roof) by a suitably qualified surveyor or structural engineer and request a copy of the report. The landlord must provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman and the resident, which must:
  1. address the resident’s concerns about the cracks and the movement of the staircase, including whether there is anything further that can be done to resolve the issues.
  2. determine whether there is any health and safety risk to residents.
  3. confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs in the building.
  4. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
4. the landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 3 months of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specified in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.
5. write to the resident to confirm whether further monitoring of the building is required and how long the monitoring process will take following the completion of the work. The landlord should confirm with the resident if it is able to provide regular updates about the monitoring, including the agreed frequency and contact method of any updates.
6. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders.