Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202436772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436772

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

26 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Reports of damp and mould.
Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has held a secured tenancy agreement with the landlord since 21 February 2022, for a ground floor, 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her 2 young children. The landlord is aware that both children have asthma. The resident has OCD, anxiety, and depression, which she made the landlord aware of during the complaints process.

3. Between 5 December 2022 and 28 June 2023, the resident raised several service requests in relation to damp and mould. In response to these requests the landlord had conducted 2 mould washes, changed extractor fans, and offered the resident advice on storage, provided de-humidifiers and inspected the vacant area below the property. The outcome of the inspections were:

The property was inspected with a moisture meter and a hygrometer, but no moisture had been detected on walls and no mould has been observed.
Moisture levels were in line with external moisture.
No leaks and floods were found in basement under the flat.
There might be residual moisture in wall fabrics following previous main water burst.
The resident advised to monitor damp and call the landlord in two months’ time if problem still appearing.”

4. On 5 September 2024 the resident complained that:

there was recurring damp, mould and condensation in her property.
numerous repairs had been carried out, such as four mould washes and anti–mould paint, as well as an extractor fan and dehumidifiers.
she had been told that she would be reimbursed for electric but had not been.
the repairs manager had not called her back in four weeks.
she had 2 young children, both had asthma, and letters from a health visitor and GP saying she needed to be rehoused as her son had weak lungs due to the living conditions. She had also now developed health conditions because of the issue.
she had been given different reasons for the mould reoccurring and had been promised insulation under her property which had not been done.

5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 September 2024. It said:

in December 2023, a property service officer (PSO) inspected her property, and a mould wash was completed in January 2023, and a low-level passive vent was fitted in the living room external wall in February 2023.
in January 2024, it had completed a mould wash and sealed the living room, bedroom, bathroom, and the hallway.
on 10 September 2024, the resident reported mould again, and a mould wash was scheduled for 12 September. However, the resident called on 11 September and cancelled the appointment after cleaning the mould herself.
the damp, mould, and condensation team raised an order on 10 September for a post-inspection of the previous work, scheduled for 14 October 2024. It strongly advised the resident to keep the appointment so the root cause of the mould could be identified.
she should contact the allocations team for further assistance regarding her rehousing request.
it apologised that the repair manager had not contacted her but explained she had been on long term sickness absence and had recently left the role.
offered a goodwill gesture of £100, made up of:
1. £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing this matter.
2. £50 for the inconveniences caused.

6. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day, she said the PSO scheduled to attend that day had not turned up, she had been dealing with these conditions since December 2022, she was at breaking point and her 2 young children had both been in and out of hospital due to breathing related issues and doctors had told her she needed rehousing because of the effect of their living conditions.

7. The landlord escalated her complaint and responded at stage 2 on 8 November 2024. It said:

since the initial assessment in December 2022, it had completed a number of interventions including mould washes and ventilation upgrades, to address the problem.
it had arranged a mould wash for 12 September 2024 which she cancelled.
the PSO had attended on 14 October 2024, but because it had not passed on her message that her intercom was broken, they had left. It apologised for how this was managed and said it had made her a new appointment for 22 October 2024.
the resident would need to contact the allocations team regarding her rehousing request.
it partially upheld her complaint.

8. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. She told us she was looking for the landlord to offer her a permeant move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident’s request to move home is based on medical reasons. She told us the property is affecting her and her family’s health. We were set up to investigate complaints about councils acting as social landlords. We have no power to investigate complaints about rehousing an applicant has a ‘reasonable preference’ to move due to medical reasons or suitability of the current property. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is the correct Ombudsman for those complaints. We can, however, consider if a landlord considered offering suitable temporary accommodation based on the condition of the property.

10. The resident told us about respiratory illnesses experienced by her and her family. She told us her son has a number of respiratory related issues and both her children are asthmatic. The resident has also explained the toll on her mental health. We are sorry to hear about this and acknowledge the difficulties faced by the resident. The courts are the most effective place to deal with claims about personal injury. This is because an independent medical expert is usually appointed to give information on the cause and effect of any illnesses. We would not be able to draw conclusions on how any illness and injury was caused from a review of the complaint file. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim.

11. We are aware that the resident has been reporting issues with damp and mould since 2022 but did not submit a formal complaint until September 2024. This investigation will focus on the events from 28 November 2023, when the resident reported puddles of water forming on the floors of her property, to 8 November 2024 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. Any mention of matters prior to this is only for context within this report.

12. We are also aware that the resident has made 2 further reports of water leaks to her property in 2025, from the flat above, and from an internal pipe in her boiler cupboard and has raised a new complaint about the landlord’s response to these issues. Since this new complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, these events will not be included in this investigation. Should the resident remain unsatisfied after the landlord has issued its stage 2 response she may be able to refer that complaint to us.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould

13. The landlord did not have a dedicated damp and mould policy, at the time of the complaint, however, in its repairs policy it sets out that it would have appropriate measures in place to reduce the impact of damp and mould in residential properties. This included the following steps:

removing the hazard within 7 working days by carrying out a fungal mould wash in affected properties
investigating potential property defects that may have caused damp, mould, and condensation.
where the cause of damp and mould is not attributed to defects, investigating for potential thermal or other improvements by responsive works or future capital programmes.
where necessary, providing dehumidifiers to deal with condensation and excess water due to leaks.
providing resident with information to help prevent damp, mould, and condensation
if the hazard cannot be removed and the property is deemed unfit for habitation, where appropriate the housing & safer communities team (HSC) may consider a temporary alternative accommodation while remedial works are carried out. In some circumstances a permanent move may require consideration. Each case will be reviewed and assessed on a case-by-case basis.

14. The resident reported on 28 November 2023 that puddles of water had started appearing again on her floors which was spreading onto her walls. She also advised she was concerned about her children’s health and their risk of slipping on the floors with the puddles appearing.

15. The landlord sent a PSO on 20 December 2023 and found condensation forming on the floor, which in turn had caused puddling. Whilst there are no timescales in its repairs policy for PSO attendance we would expect the landlord to have considered the fact there had been previous issues with damp and mould at the property and there were vulnerabilities in the household. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show they did this or explained the timescale of this appointment date. The resident having to wait for this appointment without any other intervention was not appropriate. A mould wash and sealant were completed on 19 January 2024. This was significantly outside the landlord’s commitment to conduct a mould wash within 7 working days.

16. The landlord’s records show that following the visit the PSO raised orders for vents to be fitted at low level in the living room and the installation of an electrical heater to blow across the concrete floor in the living room. However, whilst the internal repair records show an appointment was made on 9 February 2024 for both contractors, it was only the contractor who fitted the vent who attended on that date.

17. The landlord has not provided evidence to show how it categorised these repair requests, however in its repair policy it commits to completing routine repairs within 20 working days and urgent repairs within 1 to 5 working days. The fitting of the vent was 34 working days after the PSO’s assessment so was not in line with timescales for either an urgent repair or routine repair.

18. It is unclear how the landlord became aware that the electrician had not attended to assess the viability of fitting an electrical heater, but the evidence shows that on 9 May 2024 it booked a new appointment for 29 May 2024. However, when the electrician attended there was no reply and the landlord closed the request, pending the resident raising it again. The internal records show that the resident had called on 23 May 2024 to advise she was unavailable on 29 May 2024. The landlord had rescheduled another unrelated contractor appointment for that date but missed the opportunity to reschedule this appointment also. The fact that this request was never completed was a failing.

19. In addition to the orders raised by the PSO on 20 December 2023, the landlord’s internal notes show that because fans and passive vents were already present at the property, it may need to insulate under the floor or install a positive input ventilation system to resolve the issue. This entry supports the resident’s complaint that she was waiting for the floors to be insulated. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that any further action or consideration was given to these options or that there was further communication with the resident. The resident chased for an update in August and September 2024, stating she had not heard from the PSO since April 2024, before raising her complaint on 5 September 2024.

20. We recognise that there will always be some damp and mould cases that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, take longer to rectify. However, it is important that these types of cases are handled with particular care to ensure they are resolved effectively to maintain the relationship between the resident and the landlord. Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing. The evidence suggests there was a period of 4 months when there was no communication with the resident and this was not appropriate.

21. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord’s complaints team contacted the damp, mould, and condensation (DMC) team on 10 September 2024. DMC arranged a mould wash, for 2 days later but this was cancelled by the resident as she had cleaned this herself. It also arranged for the same PSO to reattend for a post inspection of previous works on 14 October 2024. This was appropriate given they would have had previous knowledge of the issues.

22. The stage 1 response letter was issued on 19 September 2024, and it recommended the resident kept the appointment scheduled for 14 October 2024 with the PSO. It apologised that the repair manager had not been in contact but explained that they had left the organisation. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord apologised, it only referred to the one period of poor communication with the repair manager but failed to recognise its other extended period of no communication.

23. On 14 October 2024 the PSO attended but had not been told that the resident had reported her intercom had broken and so required a call when they attended. They did not gain access, and a new appointment was arranged for 22 October 2024. This was a failing by the landlord to rely on the records it had about the property which resulted in a missed appointment.

24. After this visit the PSO ordered that renewal of the extractor was required, and this was completed on 30 October 2024. It was appropriate that this was completed in line with its timescales for an urgent repair.

25. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to such reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould has been conflicting. It did not respond in accordance with its repair policy or complete mould washes within its timescales when the resident reported the issues in November 2023 yet ordered a mould wash promptly once the resident had raised a complaint.

26. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, we would expect a landlord to conduct a property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and potential risk posed to the residents and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required. Whilst we are aware that the landlord has completed interventions such as the installation of vents and an upgraded the ventilation system, it has not evidenced that it fully assessed the extent and cause of the damp and mould, assessed the risk posed to the resident and her family or that it had a plan of action in place.

27. The evidence shows that the landlord committed to assessing the viability of installing an electric heater to dry out the floor and had considered other interventions, such as insulating the floor or installing a positive input ventilation system but has not evidenced why these works were not carried out or any reason these options had been excluded. This would likely have caused confusion to the resident and further strained the landlord tenant relationship. As the landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the damp and mould issue, aside from one period of poor communication, and one missed PSO appointment, it did not consider any redress to put things right and this was a failing.

28. Where a property poses a risk to the health and safety of its residents, landlords must consider temporary alternative accommodation. We have seen photographs of soft and hard furnishings being affected by mould and moisture in the property. We have also seen medical evidence from the resident’s GP which demonstrate the difficulties faced by the household. The letter dated 21 October 2022, stated the resident’s son had bronchitis 6 times previously and the GP was concerned this was being caused by the condition of the property. They explained ‘damp and mould can cause airway inflammation due to breathing mould spores’. A letter from a health visitor dated 12 December 2022, clearly explained the condition of the property was ‘impacting on the children’s safety in the home environment’ and the resident’s mental state. The health visitor explained they visit the property and that their conclusion was the home was not suitable or conducive to the children’s health and development.

29. The landlord was at fault as there is no clear reasoning on why it did not consider temporary alternative or other accommodation or referring the resident to housing options in light of the evidence provided. Whilst this was a failure, it is not clear that the outcome would have been materially different for the resident and her family. There is a chronic shortage of social housing and when homes do become available there is fierce competition for them from many people in the same situation as the resident, as well as people who are homeless, fleeing domestic and gang-related violence. Based on this, we cannot say the resident will have been in a different situation had the landlord fairly considered the available evidence. Nevertheless, given the comments from the GP and health visitor the landlord should have considered whether the living conditions were impacting on the household’s life and ability to enjoy their home and provided an answer to referring to home options or considering temporary alternative accommodation.

30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould amounts to maladministration and an order of compensation has been awarded to reflect the significant emotional impact this has had on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days from the date of receipt. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it sent either acknowledgment in line with its complaint policy and this is a failing. The policy also states it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of receipt and at stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident’s original complaint and escalation request in line with these timescales.

32. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it failed to address the resident’s complaint point that she said that she had been told she would be reimbursed for increased energy costs. This failing suggests the landlord did not conduct a full and thorough investigation.

33. Throughout the complaints process the resident made it clear that, as a resolution, she was seeking a move based on medical grounds, because of the damp and mould issues. In both its complaint responses, whilst the landlord acknowledged this part of her complaint it repeatedly directed her to the allocations regarding this request. Although it is correct that the allocations team are responsible for rehousing requests, the landlord’s failure to provide any additional advice or consider any alternative options such as a temporary or permanent move for the resident in line with its repairs policy, likely left her feeling that her reports and concerns for her and her children’s health were not taken seriously, as evidenced in her complaints and escalation to us. The resident has explained that she ‘feels like she is being passed around different departments with the same complaint and getting nowhere’.

34. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will include its decision along with reasons for any decisions made. In its stage 1 response it stated it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint in both its damp and mould response and its rehousing response, but it did not explain why or acknowledge any failings in relation to those complaint points. In its stage 2 response it also stated it was partially upholding the complaint, but again it did not explain why this was its overall conclusion. These responses would likely have caused confusion to the resident.

35. Overall, the landlord’s response to the residents associated complaint amounts to maladministration.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:

Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,000. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist. This is made up as follows:
1. £850 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This includes the £100 offer already made by the landlord.
2. £150 for the failures identified in landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
Consider the residents request for compensation for increased energy costs for any periods she had to use a dehumidifier. After its consideration, it should write to the resident to set out the outcome and the reason for its decision.
Arrange an inspection of the property to establish whether the damp and mould issues are ongoing. See further below for details on this order.

The inspection order

39. The landlord must take the following steps in paragraphs 40-42 below and ensure all is completed no later than 8 weeks of the date of this determination.

40. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

Appoint a surveyor or damp and mould expert to inspect the property. It is for the landlord to decide if this will be one of its own surveyors or an external independent expert.
Contact the resident to arrange an inspection and take reasonable steps to ensure the inspection goes ahead within 4 weeks.

41. The inspection must assess, and the report must comment on:

The current damp and mould in the property, including:
1. What is causing the damp and mould – whether it is condensation related or rising damp or other reason(s)
2. Whether the mould is a category 1 or 2 hazard
3. Whether the mould renders the property prejudicial to health
4. Whether the property is fit for human habitation for the current residents by reason of the damp and mould
The cause of the damp and mould or any other exploratory investigations to determine the cause of the damp and mould.
What works are required and what works are recommended and the likely cost and timescales for them to be completed. It must also indicate if the household can remain in the property during the works – taking into account the works proposed and the needs of the household.

42. The landlord must take all steps to ensure it receives the survey report within 5 working days of the date of inspection. Once it receives the report, it must take the following steps within 10 working days of receiving the report:

Provide a copy to the resident and us.
If it is to complete works or further exploratory investigations when these will start and the likely timescales for completion.
Whether the resident will be offered suitable temporary alternative accommodation based on the works. If so, it must provide that temporary accommodation at no cost to the resident.
The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works start in line with its plan.
Consider whether the resident meets any threshold for referral to the ‘Repairs Centre Manager’ under clause 6.4 of the Allocations Policy for a permanent move. If she does, the landlord must refer this for a decision under clause 6.4 of the allocations policy within 10 working days of the date of receiving the report. The landlord must provide an outcome to this within 28 days of the referral to the ‘Repairs Centre Manager’ – together with any appeal rights. The landlord must provide the medical evidence from the GP and health visitor to the Repairs Centre Manager as part of the referral to consider.