Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202314199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314199

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

30 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress at the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor maisonette. She holds a secure tenancy with a local council landlord. The tenancy started on 1 March 2004. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident told the landlord on at least 2 occasions that she suffered with mental and physical health issues.
Following a leak at the resident’s property in November 2019 the landlord carried out repairs to the bathroom which it completed on 3 February 2020. However, on 3 November 2020 the landlord noted that the bathroom required additional remedial works. This included:
1. Rectifying mastic seal around the bath and behind the bath taps.
2. Sealing a gap between the wash basin and pedestal.
3. Filling a minor crack.
4. Smoothing walls behind pipework.
5. Replacing the bathroom flooring that had raised.
6. Reinstating a light in the bedroom.
The resident raised a formal complaint about outstanding repairs on 11 May 2023. In its response on 24 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It said it would inspect the property and then promptly raise and carry out any necessary repairs. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and made a goodwill gesture of £100.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2023. She explained that despite the landlord carrying out several inspections of her property, repairs were still outstanding. The resident explained that she was stressed and worried about the landlord’s continued delays and added that it had negatively impacted on her mental health and wellbeing.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 July 2023. It apologised for the time it had taken to carry out repairs and said that it had experienced difficulties with its contractors. It acknowledged and apologised to the resident for her time and effort chasing a response and said that it expected to complete all outstanding repairs by 10 August 2023. It increased its offer of goodwill compensation to £550, which included:
1. £500 for the delays and inconvenience caused.
2. £50 for its delay responding to her stage 2 complaint.
In recent correspondence with this Service the resident said that the landlord had failed to replace the wash basin and pedestal. She also said that despite the landlord completing a mould wash, the mould had reappeared.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her communication with the landlord the resident explained that the delays carrying out the repairs had caused her distress and worry. We are unable to draw any conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the landlord should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, we will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress.

According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord will complete urgent repairs within 1 to 5 days, depending on the type of repair. It states that it will respond to and make safe leaking water pipes within 1 working day but may require additional time to carry out a repair. The landlord aims to respond to non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord has not disputed that there have been delays in completing repairs at the resident’s property. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Our dispute resolution principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged that there were several outstanding repairs in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord closed the repair job on 6 January 2021. However, it is not clear to this Service which repairs had been completed. On 9 March 2021 an email from the landlord to its contractor confirmed that the bathroom floor had not been replaced. This was not appropriate. The landlord failed to carry out the repair within its specified timescale. Additionally, the landlord’s records do not clearly evidence which repairs it had completed.
On 22 January 2021 the resident reported a leak from her bathroom into the hallway. The landlord attended the property on 25 January 2021 and reported that there was no active leak at that time. The landlord failed to respond to the initial report of a leak within the timescale specified in its policy. This was not appropriate.
However, the landlord acted appropriately when it returned to the property on 5 February 2021 after the resident reported the leak again. Although the landlord could not find an active leak it suggested further investigation of plumbing behind the wash basin. The landlord noted that to reach the pipes it would need to carry out an asbestos check on the panelling covering the pipes.
In its repairs policy the landlord states that it will carry out a risk assessment prior to completing any repairs or major works. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged for an asbestos check prior to further investigation.
However, the landlord tested the wrong area for asbestos and consequently had to return to the resident’s property to re-test the correct area. The relevant asbestos checks did not take place until 12 May 2021. This was 66 working days after the landlord requested it. This was unreasonable. The delay in carrying out the asbestos check inevitably delayed the repairs to the leaking pipe, which the landlord completed on 4 June 2021. Although the leak was intermittent and not continuous, it was not appropriate that it took the landlord 82 working days to resolve it.
Additionally, the landlord noted that following completion of the repairs it would need to complete further repairs to make good the walls damaged during the works. The landlord arranged for contractors to carry out decorative works to the bathroom, hall, bedroom, and kitchen. Although it is not clear to this Service exactly when the landlord completed the decorative works, its evidence suggests that it completed some of the works on or around 19 July 2021 and following some minor snagging it had completed all decorative works by 30 November 2021.
Not including the snagging works, it took the landlord approximately 31 working days from the date it logged the repairs on 7 June 2021 to complete them in July 2021. This exceeded the landlord’s timescale for non-urgent repairs and was not appropriate.
On 9 August 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding the standard of repairs. The resident said that:
1. The landlord had told her it would replace the uneven flooring in the bathroom, but it had failed to do so.
2. There were gaps between the floor and the skirting boards, and both the resident and her son were scared to use the bathroom at night due to the presence of silverfish.
3. The replacement wash basin in the bathroom was too large for the room and did not match the pedestal.
4. The landlord damaged a wall when it replaced a radiator in the hallway and did not repair it.
5. There was mould in her son’s room.
Following an inspection of the resident’s property on 16 August 2022 the landlord instructed its contractor to make an appointment with the resident to carry out the following works:
1. Thermal board the external wall in the son’s bedroom and apply sealant around the window frames and decorate the wall.
2. Make good behind the radiator in the hallway.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 22 August 2022. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays and set out the action it would take. This was appropriate. Additionally, in a separate email to the resident it listed the works it had instructed the contractor to complete, and told her that it expected the contractor to complete the works by 4 October 2022.
However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the uneven flooring in the bathroom. Between 27 September and 19 October 2022, the resident raised her concerns again about the outstanding works in the bathroom. The landlord told her it would carry out another inspection of the bathroom once the contractor had completed the works identified during the landlord’s visit on 16 August 2022.
It Is not clear to this Service why the landlord did not include the issues relating to the bathroom as part of its inspection in August 2022. Given that the landlord was aware of the issue with the bathroom flooring since November 2020 it was unreasonable that it failed to include it as part of the agreed works.
The resident contacted the landlord again in January 2023 and May 2023 about the outstanding bathroom repairs and submitted a formal complaint on 11 May 2023.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 May 2023. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in completing the works. It confirmed that it would carry out another inspection of the property and assured the resident it would carry out any required repairs promptly and efficiently. Additionally, it offered the resident £100 compensation.
The landlord completed an inspection on 31 May 2023. It noted the following:
1. The bathroom flooring had not been replaced.
2. The resident was unhappy with the mismatched wash basin and pedestal.
3. The bath mixer taps were faulty.
4. There were paint splashes on the shower rail.
5. The sealant on the bath needed to be renewed.
6. The bath panel had been damaged during previous works.
7. There was water staining on the ceiling in the landing.
8. There was mould below the window frame in the back bedroom and a smear on the wall.
9. There was mould on the ceiling edge in the front bedroom.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property within an appropriate timeframe.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2023. She said that despite several inspections, repairs were still outstanding. The resident explained that there were silverfish in her bathroom because of the outstanding works. She said that this caused her fear and distress. Additionally, she said that the landlord’s failure to deal with the leak caused damp and mould in the kitchen, hallway and in her son’s bedroom.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord told the resident it would carry out the following:
1. Investigate the source of a possible leak from the property above.
2. Fix the bath mixer tap.
3. Order mould treatment works and decoration for the affected areas in both bedrooms.
Additionally, it said it had asked its contractor to provide a quote for outstanding repairs in the bathroom. The landlord’s actions and communication was appropriate.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 17 July 2023. It apologised for the time it had taken to carry out repairs and noted that some repairs were still outstanding. It confirmed that it had completed a mould wash in the bedrooms, and said that it expected to complete the outstanding bathroom repairs by 10 August 2023.
Additionally, it offered her £500 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused.
The landlord told this Service that it completed the works on or around 4 December 2023.
During the period investigated it is evident that there were delays in completing all reported repairs. Most significantly it took the landlord approximately 3 years to address the issue regarding the bathroom flooring.
The landlord said that it had experienced issues with staff shortages and contractors. However, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the repairs and therefore must ensure that it complies with its service standards. Landlord’s must be in control of their repair’s service to avoid unnecessary delays and poor service delivery.
We accept that the landlord acknowledged the time and effort the resident spent seeking a resolution and that it apologised for the delays. Additionally, it offered the resident £500 compensation as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience she experienced. However, despite confirming that it expected to complete repairs by 10 August 2023 it failed to complete them until December 2023. The landlord did not learn from its failings. Delays were repeated over a period of 3 years and the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident. This caused the resident stress, frustration, and worry. We therefore find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress.
The landlord made some attempt to put things right. However, it did not learn from its mistakes and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to its continued failings. Additionally, the landlord failed to communicate effectively and failed to deal with the repairs “promptly” as promised in its complaint responses.
In considering the compensation offered we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s policy states that it will deliver a remedy which puts the resident back in the position they would have been in had the failure not occurred. Additionally, it states that if redress is not achievable by any other means it may award compensation. As part of its consideration for compensation the landlord states that any remedy offered will reflect the extent of the service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the inconvenience she experienced. However, the resident experienced failings over several years which caused her stress, worry and frustration. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a further £300 for the distress caused and for the continued delays following its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from the date of receipt, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of receipt. Additionally, it states that if it is unable to respond within the timescale it will inform the resident and give a revised date for a response, which will be no more than 10 working days beyond the date the response was due.
In its policy the landlord states that it will look beyond the circumstances of the complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of processes or systems to benefit all residents. It states that it will ‘learn from outcomes.’
The landlord responded within an appropriate timescale to the resident’s stage 1 response. It took the landlord 25 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. However, it appropriately informed the resident that there would be a delay.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay. Additionally, it made an offer of compensation of £50. However, failed to demonstrate how it had learned from its mistakes, or that it had looked beyond the circumstances of the complaint. The landlord failed to adhere to its own policy. This was not appropriate.
We therefore find a service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling and order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 for the inconvenience it caused the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find:
1. Maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress.
2. Service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £900 compensation. The landlord must not offset the compensation against any money owed. The compensation includes:
  1. £550 offered in its stage 2 response. If the landlord has already paid this amount to the resident, it should deduct this from the total and provide evidence of the payment.
  2. £300 for its continued delays dealing with repairs, and the distress this caused the resident.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
3. Carry out a full inspection of the property. The inspection must:
  1. Have regard to the repairs listed in the landlord’s final response.
  2. Investigate any areas of damp and mould.
4. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord must:
  1. Write to the resident and this Service detailing the findings of its inspection.
  2. Agree an action plan to carry out any necessary works. The action plan must give a clear timescale of when the repairs will start and the timescale for completion. The landlord must provide a copy of the action plan to the resident and this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must consider the failings identified in this report and highlight any learning points. The landlord must set out how it will prevent this from happening in future. A copy of the landlord’s findings must be provided to the resident and this service.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of its compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out for each order.