Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202228470)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228470

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

28 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of leak reports and associated damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement. She lives alone in a first floor bedsit flat. The landlord said it had no recorded vulnerabilities and the resident had declined to provide some equalities information when prompted.
  2. The resident first reported a concern around damp and mould in the property on 14 March 2022. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property and this was completed on 30 May 2022. The landlord made recommendations following the inspection and raised the relevant works orders.
  3. The resident then reported a leak from the flat above (‘1FA’) on 7 June 2022 and the landlord raised a works order to trace and remedy the leak. The leaseholder from 1FA also raised a leak report on 10 June 2022, as he said there was a leak coming from the flat above his, two floors above (‘2FA’) the resident’s property. The landlord attended 1FA on 30 June 2022 and recommended the leaseholder reseal their shower tray and regrout the tiles to stop any leaks.
  4. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 9 August 2022, as the damp and mould works had not gone ahead due to the continued leaks. As a resolution, the resident requested the leaks be addressed and the required works be completed to treat the damp and mould.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 August 2022. The landlord said that damp and mould works it recommended in May 2022 had not gone ahead due to staff shortages. It referenced a leak from 2021 that had been repaired and said it had not found evidence of a leak from above but it would carry out a further inspection of her property and another property in the building. The landlord updated the resident on 7 September 2022 and said that an inspection of the suspected property would take place in late September 2022. During the landlord’s inspection of 2FA on 30 September 2022, it repaired a leaking toilet.
  6. A stage 2 complaint was raised on 9 October 2022 as the resident disputed the landlord’s position that the leak had been repaired. The landlord provided its response on 2 November 2022 and said it had repaired a leak at 2FA and it would attend 1FA and the resident’s property on 7 November 2022 to investigate further.
  7. The landlord updated the resident on 17 November 2022 and said that it had advised 1FA to carry out works to stop leaks. The resident confirmed that the leak had stopped on 17 December 2022 and the damp and mould works were undertaken on 22 December 2022 and 23 December 2022.
  8. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 February 2023 and it was recorded as ready for investigation by this Service on 7 June 2023. The resident asked that the landlord carry out lasting repairs to prevent water intrusion into her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks and the associated damp and mould

  1. This investigation is focused on the reports of leaks and associated damp and mould works from 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. This report focuses on the complaint raised in August 2022, with the final response being issued in November 2022. It is evident that the resident has experienced similar leaks into her property in 2023 but these were after the complaint process was exhausted in November 2022. Therefore, we cannot consider them as part of this review. The Ombudsman is aware that a further complaint was responded to in August 2023; should the resident be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of those matters, she should ask for this complaint to be escalated and, if she remains dissatisfied at the end of the complaints process, she can bring that complaint to this Service.
  3. When the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 14 March 2022, the landlord did not take any action until 7 April 2022. Following that initial report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend the property promptly to inspect the severity of the problem. Instead it took three and a half weeks before making its first contact with the resident. As it noted that the resident considered the mould to be ‘extreme’, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend within a few days. However, the first appointment it offered for an inspection was 13 days later. Although the inspection did not happen until 30 May 2022, this was partly due to the availability of the resident.
  4. Despite recommending works to treat the damp and mould in the resident’s property following its inspection, the landlord failed to identify that it was being caused by leaks from above. When considering any form of treatment for damp and mould, the landlord should look to identify and remedy the cause of it, alongside any works to treat it. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it made reference to historical leaks from above the resident’s property. This meant it had knowledge of similar issues at the property. The notes from the inspection on 30 May 2022 show no consideration of the cause of the damp and mould, only listing recommended works to treat it. Had the cause of the leaks been considered at the time, the landlord could have begun an investigation into the properties above sooner. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it did not carry out sufficient investigation of the problem.
  5. The landlord’s repair policy lists a ‘leaking roof’ as an urgent repair with a 5 working day timeframe. Although the leak was not from a roof, it was from the structure above the resident and is reasonable for it to be considered in the same way. In view of this, when the resident reported the leak from above on 7 June 2022, the landlord should have taken action to address it by 14 June 2022. However, the landlord did not attend the property 1FA until 30 June 2022, some 23 days later. This is another failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to meet the timeframe set out in its policy. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, as she continued to experience leaks into her property during that time.
  6. It is acknowledged that the repairs required to fix the leak at the property 1FA would be the responsibility of the leaseholder in that property. However, despite the landlord not being responsible for carrying out the repair itself, it should have monitored those works with the leaseholder to ensure these were completed in a reasonable timeframe. This would be particularly important given that the leak was potentially the cause of the damp and mould issues in the resident’s property below. Despite being identified on 30 June 2022, the required repairs were not completed until after a second visit by the landlord on 10 November 2022. Had the landlord taken sufficient ownership of this matter and maintained some form of contact with the leaseholder, it is highly likely that these repairs could have been completed sooner.
  7. During that period, the resident from 1FA reported a leak coming into his property from 2FA on 10 June 2022. The landlord did not carry out an inspection at this further property until 30 September 2022, a total of 16 weeks later. The landlord said that access issues contributed to the delay in accessing the property 2FA. However, it is clear that after an unsuccessful attempt to access 2FA on 30 June 2022, the landlord took no further action due to the work order being ‘archived’. This was not identified until after the resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 9 August 2022.
  8. Although there were difficulties in arranging a visit to 2FA, the landlord did not show any urgency in doing so. This is a further service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to manage the inspection that was key to it identifying the cause of the leak. This had a detrimental effect on the resident, as she continued to experience the same issues with the leaks and was unable to have the damp and mould works completed until those had been resolved.
  9. At the time of the complaint, the landlord did not have a specific policy for dealing with reports of damp and mould. It is clear that a dedicated framework to deal with damp and mould would have been beneficial in this case. The landlord has since completed the required self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021). Within its self-assessment from June 2023, it says that it had decided it would develop a specific policy for damp and mould. The Ombudsman considers this is a positive step, however, to date such a policy has not been published.
  10. Ultimately, the actions of the landlord following the two leak reports in June 2022 demonstrate both a lack of urgency to identify the leaks and a failure to provide adequate oversight of the associated works orders linked to those leaks. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the leaseholder of 1FA completed the repairs, which were found to be either be responsible for, or at least contributing to, the leak in the resident’s property. The lack of action by the landlord had a continued and detrimental effect on the resident as she continued to experience distress and inconvenience due to the leaks, damp and mould. Given these combined failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided within the timeframe set out in its policy. Although the landlord addressed the reasons for the resident’s complaint, the information provided around any required works was confusing. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns around leaks from the properties above and said that it would arrange an inspection but it also said that “the property directly above you had a fault which is being looked at”. This comes across contradictory and calls into question the landlord’s understanding of the situation. Based on its own records, the landlord was aware on 30 June 2022 that there was work required at 1FA and it had asked for the leaseholder to complete the work. In view of this, it was in a position to advise the resident within its response that it had potentially identified the source of a leak and it could have provided a clear indication of what would happen next. The failure to do so likely added to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty.
  2. The landlord acknowledged it should not have called the resident in August 2022 to “rate its service” for a repair that had not been completed. It said that those particular works, recommended on 30 May 2022, had not been completed due to staff shortages. However, this overlooks that it was unable to complete those works prior to the source of the leaks being identified. Further to this, the landlord also did not acknowledge other failings such as not ensuring completion of the works at 1FA, and not arranging an inspection for 2FA, as part of the investigation into leaks into her property.
  3. The landlord did provide an update to the stage 1 complaint on 7 September 2022. This advised the resident that a further inspection had been arranged for another property to try and identify any leaks. It said it would provide a further update following the inspection. Again, the landlord did provide that update on 6 October 2022, following the inspection and repair carried out on 30 September 2022.
  4. The escalation to stage 2 was due to the resident disputing that the leak had been fixed, as she said she was still experiencing it. When the landlord provided its stage 2 response, it again acknowledged the leaks but the proposed actions were to attend the resident’s property again and to inspect the property 1FA. The proposed actions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the history of the complaint, as it suggested actions that had already taken place. At this stage, the landlord was in a position to recognise that it had not taken sufficient ownership since 30 June 2022 to ensure that the previously identified works at 1FA were completed. This lack of acknowledgement of its own failings around the works indicates a lack of awareness of the situation, as it suggested beginning the investigation again. This is another failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to undertake a sufficient investigation into the stage 1 complaint. Although some of the information was accurate, the detail provided within its response was not clear and in some cases it was confusing. The records provided by the landlord allow a clear understanding of the history of the situation and this should have been provided to the resident in its response. It is clear that the lack of investigation at stage 1 had a detrimental effect on the time taken to resolve the leaks and the overall complaint. In view of these failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in this instance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and the associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the handling of leaks and the associated damp and mould. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £300 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of leaks and the associated damp and mould.
  3. The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £100 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.