Royal Borough Of Greenwich — case 202404776

Decision Case ID 202404776 Decision type Investigation Landlord Royal Borough Of Greenwich Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 1 June 2026 Background The resident reported repairs to her bathroom in March 2023. She complained in February 2024 as the repairs were delayed and she felt the communication from the landlord was poor. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of reports of repairs. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Handling of reports of repairs The landlord contributed to prolonged and repeated delays, failed to manage and coordinate repairs effectively and placed responsibility on the resident. It did not provide proportionate redress for the resulting inconvenience, time and trouble.

Complaint handling The landlord did not follow its complaint handling policy or the Code and failed to acknowledge the complaint at both stages. It did not address the full background of the issues. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 29 June 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £760 made up as follows: £710 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of failures with the handling of reports of repairs.

£50 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 29 June 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 26 February 2024 The resident complained as a surveyor inspected her bathroom in November 2023 and identified multiple repairs which were still outstanding.

The landlord completed some work, but this had resulted in a damaged basin. She reported missed appointments and poor communication. She wanted the outstanding work to be completed. 11 March 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had booked appointments for the outstanding works. It had replaced the bath panel on 28 February 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience and delays. 14 March 2024 The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 because the response did not resolve the issues.

She wanted the outstanding work completed and sought compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and time she had taken off work for appointments. 15 April 2024 The landlord stage 2 response said it had arranged dates for all outstanding repairs. It accepted there had been delays but said it was not entirely at fault. It confirmed the flooring and basin were still outstanding but had been scheduled. The landlord upheld the complaint about the window and door, as operatives had not reported follow–on works, so it needed to reinspect.

It said it would not compensate the resident for time off work, as she is responsible for providing access for repairs. It apologised for wrongly recording a missed appointment as no access and offered £30 compensation. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate as the compensation offered did not reflect the time she took off work. She also said the landlord did not address all the points she raised. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Reports of repairs Finding Maladministration The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. It does not set timescales for complex works but if an inspection is needed it will confirm timescales at the appointment. The resident reported the bathroom issues on 20 March 2023 and chased on 30 September 2023.

The landlord inspected on 8 November 2023. While it was reasonable to inspect before raising repairs, it took 163 working days to do so, and the landlord only contacted the resident one week before the appointment. This was an unreasonable delay and fell short of the landlord’s obligations. The resident had stated that when she moved into the property in 2021, the landlord told her the bathroom was due for replacement, so the landlord sent a surveyor on 8 November 2023 to assess whether the bathroom needed replacing.

While he did not find the need to replace the bathroom, he did identify multiple repair issues during the visit. Despite this, he told the resident to report the repairs through its contact centre. The landlord has not provided an inspection report, and it is unclear why the surveyor did not raise the repairs directly. It also limited the resident to reporting 3 issues at a time. While it was appropriate for the surveyor to assess long-term replacement needs, the landlord should have raised any repair issues identified at the inspection.

In the absence of evidence to explain this approach, the landlord placed an unreasonable burden on the resident and showed poor record‑keeping and coordination. The resident repeatedly chased the repairs and raised a stage 1 complaint on 26 February 2024. She reported multiple outstanding repairs following the inspection. These were damage to flooring, tiles, the bath panel and the sink in the bathroom, and sealant around a door and windows. Tiling On 8 November 2023, the resident reported a tiling issue.

The landlord arranged an appointment for 24 January 2024, 52 working days later.It recorded no access and tried to contact the resident during the visit. It completed the repair on 21 February 2024, 73 working days after the report. Even allowing for access issues, this exceeded the landlord’s 20workingday target. Flooring On 8 November 2023, the resident reported a damaged bathroom floor. The landlord booked an inspection for 20 December 2023. The resident had to cancel the appointment because she was working.

The landlord rebooked for 24 January 2024 but recorded no access. At a rescheduled appointment on 21 February 2024, it confirmed the floor required replacement. This had already been identified in November 2023. The landlord offered a 2-day appointment on 30 April 2024 and 1 May 2024, but the resident could not take the time off work.After further contact it completed the repair on9 and 10 May 2024, 128 working days after the initial report. While access issues contributed, the landlord caused delay by unnecessarily repeating an inspectionand failing to progress known works promptly.

Bath panel On 8 November 2023, the resident reported a cracked bath panel. The landlord scheduled a repair for 8 December 2023, 22 working days after the report, exceeding its 20-working-day timescale. The operative did not attend, and the landlord later cancelled and asked the resident to rebook. The resident asked to align it with the flooring repair to minimise time off work. The landlord said it should wait until the flooring was complete, although it had initially scheduled this repair first.

It rebooked for 23 February 2024 but reported no access. The resident disputed this, saying the operative left a card without knocking. The landlord attended on 28 February 2024 and completed the work despite the flooring not being finished. This was 78 working days after the report. The landlord’s actions caused delay and confusion. Sink After the landlord carried out works on 21 February 2024, the resident found that the sink had been damaged. The landlord relied on the resident to report it on 6 March 2024.

The landlord inspected it on 3 April 2024 and replaced the sink on 9 May 2024, 54 working days after it had knowledge of the issue. This was beyond the 20-working-day timescale. The landlord failed to take ownership of damage caused by its operatives, had the operative reported it there would have been no need for an inspection. Window and door On 30 January 2024, the resident reported sealant issues with 2 windows and a door.The landlord inspected on 27 March 2024, 41 working days later but failed to log follow-on works.

It completed the repairs on 19 April 2024, 57 working days after the report. This shows a failure to progress identified repairs. Summary The landlord failed to manage repairs in line with its obligations. It delayed the initial inspection, exceeded repair timescales across multiple jobs, failed to raise and coordinate repairs it identified, duplicated work through unnecessary inspections, and failed to log follow-on actions. It also relied on the resident to manage and chase repairs.

The lack of inspection records and explanations highlights poor record-keeping. These failures caused inconvenience, repeated chasing, and avoidable time off work for the resident. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles. These are, be fair (treat people fairly and follow fair processes), put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and, did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.

If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’ When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. At stage 1 the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for the inconvenience and delays and listed appointments. However, it did not explain the delay in inspection or fully acknowledge its mishandling of the repair requests.

The landlord did not offer any compensation. At stage 2, the landlord upheld limited issues. Its compensation policy does not mention payments for missed appointments, however it offered compensation of £30 and apologised for the wrongful reporting of no access on 23 February 2024. It did not address the missed appointment on 8 December 2023. The landlord’s refusal to compensate for time off work was reasonable as the tenancy agreement requires the resident to provide access for repairs, we also would not generally order this in line with our compensation guidance.

However, the landlord did not adequately recognise the delays and overall impact on the resident. Given the repeated failures across multiple repairs and the time and trouble caused, this amounts to maladministration. We therefore order £650 compensation to reflect the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced, in line with our compensation guidance. We have also ordered an additional £30 for the missed appointment on 8 December 2023. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. It can extend either stage by 10 working days for complex cases. This is in line with the Code, except the Code permits a 20-working day extension at stage 2. The landlord did not evidence that it acknowledged the complaint at either stage.

It met the stage 1 deadline but issued the stage 2 response one day late. The Code requires landlords to address all issues and give clear reasons for decisions. The landlord did not address the background to the issues from the time the resident first reported them or provide appropriate redress. The failure to acknowledge the complaint, the delay at stage 2 and the failure to fully address the issues amounts to service failure. The resident did not receive confirmation that the landlord had received her complaint or information on next steps, which caused inconvenience.

The landlord did not recognize these failings. We therefore order £50 compensation in line with our compensation guidance. Learning The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at either stage. This shows a need to consistently follow its complaints policy and the Code so residents receive prompt confirmation and understand the process from the outset. The landlord did not act promptly on the resident’s initial report. It took 163 working days to arrange an inspection, which was significantly longer than would be reasonable and delayed the start of repairs.

The landlord did not take ownership of repairs once identified. It required the resident to log and manage multiple repair requests, which shows poor coordination and placed an unnecessary burden on her. The landlord did complete the repairs and eventually resolved the issues, which shows it progressed the works, but did not do so within a reasonable timeframe. It may wish to review our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance to improve service going forward. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate.

It did not provide an inspection report or clear records explaining decisions and follow-on actions, which prolonged completion times. Communication The landlord’s communication and appointment handling were poor. The missed appointments, conflicting information, and disputed no-access records caused inconvenience and undermined the repair process.