Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202300445)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300445

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

25 June 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above which was causing damp in her bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat. The landlord owns the freehold of the block. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
In March 2022 the resident expressed concern about damp appearing on the wall of the recessed bathroom window at the property. In May 2022, the resident informed the landlord of a leak through her bathroom ceiling from the tenanted property above. The resident continued to report water damage and damp walls prior to her complaint. She sought help to progress her repair needs from the local councillor and cabinet member for housing.
On 11 October 2022 the resident made a stage 1 formal complaint. She disputed the landlord’s assessment in May 2022 that damp was due to condensation. She reminded the landlord it completed a further inspection in June 2022. It determined the damp and running water marks were caused by the leak from the tenanted property above. In order to progress her insurance claim and repairs, she asked the landlord to retest the walls for damp.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 25 October 2022. It said her complaint was about “her request for a damp test in her bathroom since August 2022, which it had not responded to.” The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay resolving the leak into the resident’s property and upheld her complaint. It offered £50 compensation to cover the excess of the resident’s insurance claim.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) on 26 October 2022. She said:
1. She disputed that she had not allowed access to inspect damp on 12 August 2022 and advised she was not home that day. She said this had been discussed with the landlord.
2. As the landlord was unavailable to complete a damp test until 29 November 2022, she proposed arranging one herself and for the landlord to reimburse her.
3. She considered the landlord’s refusal to tell her when repairs to the tenanted property would be completed, due to GDPR, as unhelpful. This delayed her ability to progress her insurance claim and repairs.
4. The landlord should reduce her service charges due to her time and effort to progress matters.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 2 December 2022. It summarised its repair actions and referred to the resident not providing access on 29 November 2022 for it to complete a rearranged damp inspection. It said as it had offered to provide a damp inspection without charge, it would not reimburse her for an independently arranged survey.
The resident brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service in March 2023. She said the landlords handling of the leak and its communication had led to repair delays and disputed not allowing it access to the property. She considered the landlord’s failures prevented her from progressing her insurance claim and own repairs.
In October 2023 the resident advised us that the insurance company had paid for alternative accommodation as she was without a functioning bathroom. Its contractors remained unable to complete the repair as the landlord had failed to provide a lasting leak repair, and her bathroom walls remained damp. She advised us her bathroom was finally repaired in March 2024. The resident’s complaint became one we could formerly consider on 25 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that, although not raised as a specific complaint point, the resident’s correspondence referred to her health being affected during the delays to complete repairs to her bathroom. We do not doubt the resident’s comments.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We note that within the resident’s correspondence to the landlord, she requested a reduction in her service charges. This matter has been raised by the resident as a separate complaint and will therefore not form part of this investigation. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org in relation to how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above which was causing damp in her bathroom

The landlord’s leaks in leaseholder properties policy states:
1. Paragraph 2.1.1 leaseholders have a responsibility to undertake repair work to the parts of the flat that they own.
2. Paragraph 2.2.1 the landlord has responsibility for those parts of the building that are not part of the flat, as defined in the lease.
The landlord’s repair handbook outlines its response times to repairs. This is determined on how serious the repair need is. Its response times are as follows:
1. 2 hours for an emergency repair.
2. 1 to 5 working days for an urgent repair.
3. Up to 20 working days for a non-urgent repair.
It is not disputed by the resident that she is responsible for repairs for parts of the property she owns, as defined in her lease agreement. However, due to the nature of the unexplained damp, the resident requested the landlord complete an inspection of the bathroom wall in March 2022. This was raised by the landlord on 11 March 2022 with a target date for completion of 16 March 2022. Given these dates, it is reasonable the landlord was treating this as an urgent need, which fell within its 1 to 5 working day response timescale. Therefore, it was not appropriate the landlord did not complete this inspection until 28 March 2022.
While the resident suggested an external downpipe may be the source of the damp, it was the landlord’s responsibility to use its expertise to locate and identify the possible cause. It was therefore reasonable on 28 March 2022 that its plumber suggested an inspection inside the resident’s property, as no repair had been identified externally.
The landlord raised an inspection request and a property services officer inspected the resident’s property on 17 May 2022. It was now 45 working days since the plumbers inspection request. This was not appropriate as this was beyond the expectations of the landlord’s responsive repair timescales.
While the landlord’s inspection on 17 May 2022 did not directly apportion blame on the resident, its assessment that the recessed bathroom window wall was “slightly wet” and possibly affected by condensation, did not demonstrate a thorough investigation. It was reasonable for the resident to question how this assessment could be accurate when only one section of the wall was wet and the landlord had not taken any damp readings.
During the landlord’s inspection on 17 May 2022 it was reasonable for it to remind the resident of her internal repair responsibilities as a leaseholder. The resident did not dispute her responsibility to complete repairs and redecoration; however she was unable to do so while the cause, which was the landlord’s responsibility, had not been correctly identified or repaired.
There is evidence the landlord arranged for a precautionary drain check and clear. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it taking steps to rule out a cause. This was completed on 15 June 2022.
On 19 May 2022 the resident reported a leak to the landlord. She informed it water was entering through her bathroom ceiling from the property above. There is evidence between 19 May 2022 to 7 September 2022 where the resident experienced difficulty with the landlord’s handling of the live water leak and damp walls. The evidence shows:
1. The landlord provided the resident with the telephone number for its “occupied repairs team” to report the active leak. Having called them on 19 May 2022 she had still not received a response by 25 May 2022. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s responsive repair timescales.
2. The resident encountered further difficulty and was incorrectly passed back to the landlord’s contact centre by its occupied repairs team. This caused further time and effort trying to progress matters. The landlord’s records state that this was an error and said it was “regrettable that the agent was unable to deal with the resident’s request.” This demonstrated a training need.
3. On 27 May 2022 the landlord’s plumbing supervisor questioned why colleagues had sent the resident’s enquiry to them, rather than raising a job through its “occupied team”. This demonstrated a further training need and further delayed the progress with the required repairs.
4. Between May to June 2022 the resident says the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and determined that condensation was not the cause of the damp. The resident said the landlord’s surveyor considered the damp was caused by the leak from above. While this assessment has not been disputed by the landlord, the date of the inspection is unclear and not recorded. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
5. On 6 June 2022 the landlord’s chief executive office intervened and sought an update regarding the required repair. There is evidence that shows that it had been unable to identify its repair actions as “there were no notes” on its systems. This demonstrated a further record keeping failure.
6. Between 7 and 9 June 2022 the landlord’s record’s state that it had raised a job with the neighbour for the middle of June. It said “due to the reduced workforce” the plumbing team were unable to attend jobs sooner. It said the resident should call again if she was still suffering and if the leak became an emergency. This was not reasonable. The resident informed the landlord that her bath and a bucket did not cover the length of the leak, yet no repair date was confirmed.
7. On 9 June 2022 when the resident chased the landlord again, she was informed that it could not tell her when the repair would take place due to GDPR. It is appropriate for a landlord to be cautious when handling personal information. However, it is unclear what steps the landlord took, if any, to consider whether the repair information was necessary to form a legitimate interest. Rather than a refusal, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive and taken steps to seek the neighbours permission to share information with the resident. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a data protection training need.
8. On 7, 17, and 21 June 2022 the resident says she discussed the outstanding repair with the neighbour. The resident says both parties chased the landlord as appointments were missed or no work undertaken when the landlord did attend. This was shared with the landlord by email. This demonstrated a further record keeping failure and delayed progress with the repair.
9. On 4 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. She explained the ceiling was still leaking. She said she was following the landlord’s instructions of 7 and 9 June 2022 to contact it again if she was still suffering with a leak. This delay and process was not appropriate. While the landlord acknowledged that it had a reduced plumbing workforce and was experiencing delays, it should have taken alternative steps to ensure this repair was addressed within its responsive repair timescales.
10. On 12 July 2022 the resident chased the landlord regarding a repair letter she had received that day. It was dated 25 June 2022 and addressed to the ‘occupier.’ She emailed the landlord a copy as proof. The landlord informed the resident it had no record of the letter and the reference number was not one it recognised. Upon further investigation, the landlord identified the letter was meant for the resident’s neighbour. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and did not demonstrate the landlord was in control of the situation. This demonstrated a further record keeping failure.
While querying the letter on 12 July 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a repair update. There is evidence the landlord communicated internally regarding the repair need. The landlord’s complaint handler said “we are in contact with her about this (I emailed her several times yesterday). I believe she is now just sending multiple emails to multiple departments as she does not like what she is being told by us.” This communication is dismissive and unhelpful. The damp was caused by a leak which the landlord was responsible for, which had been affecting the fabric of her property since at least March 2022. This did not demonstrate a landlord showing empathy towards the resident and demonstrates a failure to foster a positive resident focused culture.
There is evidence the resident was assisted by her local councillor and the council’s cabinet member for housing to progress repairs. Concerns were raised about “future costs to the council and reputational damage.” Emails were sent to the landlord in May 2022, July 2022, October 2022, and July 2023. While the landlord reassured the councillors repairs were in hand, these communication dates demonstrate the repairs remained unresolved beyond the date the complaint became one we could formally consider. This was not appropriate, not in line with its responsive repair timescales, and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, although the landlord continued to inform the resident of her responsibility for internal repairs and redecoration, it failed to acknowledge that she was unable to achieve this until it fully resolved the leak from the property above. There is evidence this continued until March 2024, 2 years after initially raising a repair need.
While the landlord recorded completing the identified repairs to prevent further leaks on 22 July 2022, it is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that these were unsuccessful. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to request another damp inspection as she was unable to progress any repairs to her bathroom.
The landlord states that on 28 June 2022, 12 August 2022, 21 October 2022, 29 November 2022, and 24 January 2023 the resident failed to provide access to the property. The resident disputes these dates. It is the resident’s position that apart from the 12 August 2022, when she says she discussed with the landlord not being available on that date, she received no advanced warning or arrangement for the other appointments.
We note there is evidence of an email to the resident from the landlord on 21 October 2022. It asked her to confirm, before its proposed inspection on 29 November 2022, if she decided to arrange her own damp survey. While the landlord states the resident did not allow access on 29 November 2022, she had responded to the landlord on 21 October 2022. She considered the delay unreasonable and requested contact by the landlord within the week. The landlord simply advised it would not reimburse the resident for an independent survey as it had offered to complete one free of charge. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to clarify with the resident whether the appointment was suitable.
It is unclear from the evidence supplied how the other appointments were confirmed with the resident. The landlord says voicemail messages were left on the resident’s landline. This does not demonstrate the landlord discussing the suitability of the proposed dates with the resident. Nor does it evidence that it had received confirmation that she had received the messages and confirmed her availability. Given the extensive correspondence between both parties by email, it is unclear why the landlord has not been able to provide written evidence. This indicates a further record keeping failure.
Furthermore, given the ongoing repair needs, which the resident was actively chasing the landlord to repair, it is unclear why she would not keep appointments if she knew about them.
The landlord’s stance that it had “offered” a survey free of charge is unreasonable. It was obliged to identify the repairs and damage caused by the leaks which were its responsibility to complete. The resident had reported issues in March and May 2022 and remained unable to progress her insurance claim or repair needs due to the landlord’s delays and failures. The delay was not appropriate and significantly beyond the landlord’s responsive repair policy. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the resident to suggest arranging an independent survey. This was undertaken at a cost of £240. While we have not seen a copy of the report, there is evidence the landlord acknowledged the findings and the ongoing repair needs to the property above.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould published October 2021, recommended landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. It should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. However, there is no evidence the landlord arranged for a survey to identify the root cause of the damp.
Given the landlord had acknowledged a reduced workforce and repair capacity, it is unclear why it did not explore the option to reimburse the resident. This would have reduced the time the resident’s property experienced damage from the leak and helped to identify the cause sooner.
The landlord’s complaint responses solely focussed on the resident’s request for her bathroom walls to be inspected for damp. It is unclear why the landlord did not address its failures that led to the walls becoming and remaining damp for an unreasonable period of time. Given the landlord’s failure to identify and repair a leak from the property above, it was reasonable for her to expect it to investigate its handling of this repair and assess the damage caused to her walls.
In this case, it is appropriate for us to give due regard to events beyond the landlord’s final response. The landlord’s continued delays in the months after the final complaint response indicate that it did not learn sufficient lessons and similar failings had a continued effect on the resident. While the landlord acknowledged its attendance to complete repairs was delayed, it also failed to identify and provide a lasting repair to prevent the leaks from the property above. This prevented the insurance company and contractors progressing the resident’s repair. This continued until March 2024 with the resident spending time away from the property.
In view of this, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above which was causing damp in her bathroom. The landlord’s offer to pay £50 compensation to cover her insurance excess was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1,000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £1,000 compensation.
The resident experienced a prolonged period of detriment, approximately 24 months, where she was unable to remedy her own bathroom repairs. This delay was caused by the landlord’s failure to correctly identify and resolve the leak causing damp to her walls. This detriment included the loss of enjoyment of her property and the temporary need to be moved to other accommodation. Given the identified failures and duration of the repair needs, this sum is appropriate for a maladministration case where the redress required to put things right is substantial to the original offer.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure stated that it would respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 15 working days.
At the time the resident made her complaint, the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint procedure for stage 1 complaints were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is noted that the landlord has since amended its complaints procedure, and the complaint response timeframes now match those set out in the Code.
The Code, 1 April 2022, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2022. Her correspondence included the need for the walls to be damp tested so she could progress an insurance claim. The landlord emailed an acknowledgement to the resident on 20 October 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 2 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement asked the resident to clarify what test she wanted done. It said, “as so often your wording is unclear.” This response was inappropriate and did not demonstrate a landlord communicating with empathy. It is unclear why the landlord’s complaint handler did not arrange to discuss matters with the resident if they were uncertain of the resident’s communication. This required further time and effort by the resident as she tried to progress matters. This placed further strain on the landlord and resident relationship.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. This was appropriate and within the response timescales expected by the Code.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged service failures, it failed to offer any redress for its complaint handling delays. Furthermore, it did not demonstrate any learning or explain what action it would take to prevent similar failures happening again. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response promised to update the resident when repairs were completed. There is evidence this only took place after the resident chased the complaint handler for updates. This was not reasonable and the landlord failed to demonstrate keeping to promises made within its complaint response. This delay was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 final response.
While there is evidence that correspondence continued between the resident and landlord, there is no evidence that a formal stage 2 complaint acknowledgment was sent to her. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 2 December 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 12 working days beyond the timescales set out in the landlord’s relevant complaints policy. While the landlord’s email containing its response acknowledged its late response, there is no evidence that it had communicated this delay in advance nor did it agree an extension with the resident beforehand. This was not appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged complaint handling service failures but its apology alone was not sufficient redress in the circumstances. Furthermore, its complaint handling procedure failed to put things right and the resident’s repair remained outstanding beyond the ICP. Therefore it did not offer redress proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
In view of this, the accumulation of complaint handling service failures requires a finding of maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above which was causing damp in her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,150 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above which was causing damp in her bathroom.
  2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide complaint handling refresher training to the members of staff involved with this complaint. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of the date of this report, to review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights (January 2024) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report. It should provide a report to senior management and share it with staff involved with this case. The landlord should assess the way it handled the complaint, repairs, and its communication, to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified.
The landlord is to provide a copy of its report to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord request the necessary evidence from the resident to reimburse her £240 incurred to complete an independent damp survey.
The landlord is encouraged to provide refresher training regarding information sharing, data protection, and GDPR regulations.