Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202411245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411245

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

29 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of works to her home.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of contractors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is the tenant of a 3-bed house. Her tenancy started in 1992.
In August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the exterior of her property. She said that she believed the pebble-dash render was causing damp in the property. The landlord inspected the property on 10 August 2023 and raised works to hack off patches to the blown pebbledash and replace with smooth render. It also agreed to install an ACO drain to allow surface water to drain off and prevent pooling, and to install extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord discussed installing thermal boards in the bedroom, to address the damp, but reported that the resident declined these works.
During the rendering works, the landlord found that the external concrete required repair. It raised works on 9 November 2023 to install Heli bars to reinforce the masonry, and to repair external cracks and cavities around the windows. Contractors completed these works on 1 December 2023.
The resident made a complaint on 13 December 2023. She said that:
1. She was unhappy with the conduct of the contractors that had undertaken the works. She said that:
  1. They engaged in inappropriate conduct such as relieving themselves in her garden.
  2. They did not put items away at the end of the day, including building materials and ladders, which presented a hazard and security risk to the resident.
  3. They left food items such as banana and orange peel in her front garden.
  4. A subcontractor had left smeared bloodstains around an external door, after finishing a repair.
  5. They removed a large stone from her rockery to secure a tarpaulin, without her agreement and used her hosepipe without her permission.
2. She was unhappy with the standard of the works as she said:
  1. Contractors removed a windowsill and did not replace it.
  2. The windowsill in the back bedroom and bathroom was damaged but contractors did not fill in the cracks before they painted them.
  3. Contractors had applied the layers of render while it was raining and as a result the finish was rippled.
  4. She disagreed with how contractors had installed the Heli bars.
3. In a separate letter dated 17 December 2023 the resident added to her complaint. She said that she was unhappy with the standard of the paint finish to the exterior of the property which had left marks on the wall.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2023 and said that it hoped to respond by 29 December 2023. However, it changed the deadline twice as it said that it needed further time to investigate the complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024. It said that:
1. The marks on the walls were due to the rain splashing off the scaffolding. It would arrange for contractors to return during dry weather to investigate this and repaint sections where necessary.
2. The landlord and contractor had addressed other issues raised in the complaint while the works were ongoing, and they apologised to the resident and had regular site meetings in an attempt reach a resolution.
3. The landlord had arranged for a new contractor to undertake any identified further works to the property and they would be contacting the resident directly to schedule a date to undertake further paintwork.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 1 February 2024. She said that she disagreed with the landlord’s findings and was not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint. This was because it had not addressed two of the points she had raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the 23 February and said that it hoped to respond by 29 February 2024. However, it wrote to let her know that there would be a delay in it responding due to staff absence. It issued its response on 13 March 2024:
1. It said the ripples to the finished render were common on properties of that age and that re-rendering the whole building would not resolve this. The landlord would therefore not be completing further rendering works.
2. Contractors had decided on the location of the Heli bars following structural assessment and recommendations. They had fitted them to the manufacturer’s instruction; the property was structurally sound, and therefore it did not agree that it needed to undertake further works.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Since the complaint, the resident has said that there is damp and mould throughout her property. Although the damp and mould may be related to the issues raised in the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to the complaint itself. Therefore, this assessment can only consider the landlord’s response to issues included within the complaint and incidents up to the date of the final response. While this aspect is outside of the complaint the report includes a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident to investigate her reports of damp and mould.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint response, she mentioned several repairs that she had brought to the contractor’s attention while works were ongoing, and which she said in the complaint, they had rectified at the time she had raised them. For this reason, the investigation will not consider these repairs as the landlord had resolved these issues prior to the resident raising the complaint.
The resident has also complained that, when applying render to the property, contractors had gone beyond the boundary line of the adjoining property. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is because it relates to the impact on a neighbour, and not on the resident herself. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse effect to the resident.

The standard of works to the resident’s home

In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on disputed repair issues or reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord’s contractors completed works were to an acceptable standard. We do not have the technical knowledge to do so. What the investigation will instead do, is assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the standard of works, whether it followed its legal obligations, policies, and procedures and if its response was reasonable in all the circumstances.
After the resident reported concerns about the pebble-dash exterior to her property, the landlord arranged an inspection within 2 days and started works shortly thereafter. This was within timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy, which says that it will respond to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. When contractors found that structural repairs were necessary, on 9 November 2023, the landlord raised works within its target response timescales and completed them on 1 December 2023.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of paintwork to the exterior of her property, in its stage 1 response the landlord provided an explanation for this and agreed that new contractors would arrange an appointment with the resident to repaint the affected areas. However, the landlord reinspected the property and took photographs in March 2024 and was satisfied that the paintwork was of a good standard, it reported that there were no cracks and the marks the resident had complained of were barely visible. The landlord concluded that it would not be a good use of its resources to repaint the exterior of the property.
Although the resident was unhappy with this decision, it was a conclusion the landlord could reach based on its review of the works. It had compared the photos of the exterior of the property in December 2022 to photos taken in March 2023 and noted an improvement. Social landlords have limited resources and must manage these resources responsibly, for the benefit of all their residents. It would not be an effective use of its resources to undertake works that it considered unnecessary.
The landlord also provided an explanation to the resident as to why it would not be prepared to remove the existing render and apply a new layer of render to the exterior of the property, as it would not resolve the aesthetic issue the resident had complained about. Again, the landlord could reach this conclusion, considering the need to manage its resources responsibly.
The resident also said that she was unhappy with how the contractors had fitted the Heli bars. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to make a finding as to how contractors should fit Heli bars, and the landlord is entitled to rely on the knowledge and experience of its staff and contractors. Although the resident disagreed with the steps taken by contractors, the landlord’s response that, having made enquiries it was satisfied that contractors had fitted the bars appropriately and the property was structurally sound, was reasonable.
However, there are some issues that the resident had raised in her complaint that the landlord did not address in its complaint responses, and that the resident has told this Service remain outstanding. These include the replacement of her windowsill, the filling of cracks to an external windowsill damaged during the works, the replacement of extractor fans and the installation of an ACO drain.
While the landlord has recorded that the contractors had completed these works in December 2023, the resident has disputed this. It is unclear whether the resident had reported this to the landlord. Where there is a dispute between parties, in the absence of contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding. However, the report includes a recommendation that the landlord visits the property to complete an inspection and undertake remedial works should these items remain outstanding. Should she remain dissatisfied, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint in relation to this issue.
The resident has said that there are ongoing damp and mould issues in the property which do not form part of this complaint, however we have included a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident to arrange a new inspection of the property.
Overall, and from the evidence provided, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord followed its policies, procedures, and legal obligations in undertaking the works. It had also investigated the resident’s concerns about the standard of the works and provided an explanation for its decision in its complaint response. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration.

The conduct of contractors on site

The landlord’s repairs policy includes information about its customer care standards. These are that all staff and contractors will use dustsheets where needed and clean up at the end of each day and at the end of the job. The resident has provided this Service with photographs showing that the contractors did not always leave the area clean at the end of each day.
In contemporaneous correspondence, the landlord outlined the steps it had taken to address issues with sub-contracted staff. It said that it held regular site meetings with the resident, the landlord, and the contractor and it had apologised where it had found that conduct fell below the standards it expected. The contractors had also met with the landlord’s senior management to resolve any other issues. The landlord had arranged for another contractor to take on any follow-on works and the resident had reported that she was happy with the works undertaken to clean up after the contractors had finished the job.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, and address these with the contractors. It held regular meetings with the resident and the contractor to hear the resident’s concerns and work towards a solution. The landlord noted what the resident wanted as a resolution to her complaint and took steps to appoint a new contractor to complete any follow-on works.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and that they acted following both their policies and procedures when the resident raised her concerns with them. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of contractors.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its target timescales for stage 1 complaints are 10 working days from the date of receipt. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The policy also says that where it cannot provide a response within the target timescale, it will contact the resident to tell them about the delay and give a revised timescale. This will be no more than 10 working days beyond the date the response was due. If it needs to extend the deadline again, it will seek the consent of the complainant.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued outside of its timescales by 15 working days, although the landlord had asked to extend the date of response twice, it is unclear whether it acted following its policy by asking for the resident’s agreement to do so.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors and subcontractors in its complaint responses, although the resident had given a detailed account of the concerns she had raised during the works. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (“the Code”) says that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and orders the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £50 in compensation for her time, effort, and inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the standard of repair works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident the amount of £50 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failings. This amount must not be set off against any tenancy debt or arrears on a rent account and should be paid to the resident directly.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property:
1. for damp and mould, and
2. To investigate the resident’s report that contractors did not complete repairs to the windowsills or install extractor fans and drain. It should raise these works if they are still outstanding.