Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202311681)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311681

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition when let and multiple outstanding repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since December 2022. The property is a house. The resident states she has mental health vulnerabilities, that she is a single mother to 5 disabled children, and that 2 household members have asthma.
  2. The resident raised some repairs queries before she moved into the property, and then reported a number of repairs issues in December 2022 shortly after she moved in. These included a nicotine liquid leaking from walls and other surfaces, busted window seals, previous tenant belongings in the loft, an undersized radiator, concerns about water ingress including from guttering, and a broken kitchen cupboard door. The landlord raised a repair for the leaking liquid, after which it is understood that a contractor compiled a schedule of works in January 2023 that included works to repair or replace the front gate, repair gutters, water test, clear a roof valley, clean nicotine from windows, replace 2 windows, repair a kitchen worktop and door, and fit a larger radiator in a bedroom. However, it is not evident that any action was taken for these.
  3. The resident then complained about issues related to these from March 2023 and raised additional issues. She said that when she viewed the property she was told a kitchen cupboard, guttering and a gate would be fixed. She said nothing had been done about reported issues, and raised concerns about the property being let to her in its condition. She raised concerns about the health impact of the leaking nicotine issue. She raised concern that the front gate did not shut despite the landlord being aware that her son (then around 6 years old) was a “flight risk.” She said that she was really struggling at the property.
  4. The landlord’s original March 2023 stage 1 and June 2023 stage 2 complaint responses made commitments to arrange surveyor visits and raise identified repairs, however an April 2023 surveyor visit did not happen, and issues noted by a June 2023 surveyor were not actioned.
  5. The landlord completed some repairs over time, but it took 3 further complaints, 4 further complaints responses, and a second stage 2, for it to arrange a further surveyor inspection in May 2024 and complete outstanding repairs in July 2024. This included works for plastering of 4 rooms, wallpaper removal, decorating, loft clearing, bath and toilet replacement, 2 extractor fans, sockets and trunking, and exterior pointing and “dpm.” The landlord provides photos that indicate the kitchen and flooring have also been replaced.
  6. The resident recently says that the landlord has still not repaired the windows. She says external rendering was never done. She says a professional mould survey was cancelled, mould was not treated, and she was having to clean black mould off the windows every week. She also noted that she had been told a gutter issue was resolved, but since the walls were plastered in Summer 2024 water had come in from outside.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The landlord’s responded to the resident’s original complaint in March 2023 and June 2023, and it then provided a further 4 complaint responses between November 2023 and April 2024. The Ombudsman has considered relevant events up until the present, as most of the issues the resident continued to  raise relate directly to her original reports and complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition when let and multiple outstanding repairs

  1. The landlord has apologised and awarded compensation in 6 complaint responses, and in its April 2024 second stage 2 response it acknowledged that repairs should have been managed in a different way when the resident moved in, confirmed changes have been made to its repairs service, and took effective steps to visit and complete works. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint, and this further assessment considers if the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The resident complained about the property condition when she moved in, and said she was told that some issues would be fixed before she moved in. In June 2022, a void inspection was done and a number of works were identified. This shows that some appropriate steps were taken before letting, and it is not clear that it was to a fundamentally unreasonable standard, particularly given it was accepted.
  3. However, there were previous tenant belongings in the loft, which go against expectations in the voids inspection report that lofts are cleared. The empty homes team were also sent photos that showed yellow stains, limescale, and dirt in a toilet, and asked to feedback about a peeling kitchen unit, a gate, drains, gutters, fence, uneven back garden, and a washing machine in the bathroom, which it is not evident were addressed. The photos suggest aspects of the voids process such as the property cleaning was inadequate and potentially led to issues such as the resident having to replace taps that seized due to limescale, which is not reasonable.
  4. The landlord says it does not have a voids policy and procedure on file, and its handling of the repairs queries and the items left in the loft indicate issues with the void checks at the property and its wider voids processes and handling. It is not satisfactory that it does not demonstrate that it considered potential learning for these, as the landlord is obligated to ensure that properties and external areas are free from potential hazards and meet lettable standards. It is also not satisfactory that it took around 16 months for the landlord to remove items in the loft, as items in lofts can potentially contribute to condensation issues that affect rooms below, and it will have been frustrating for the resident to chase this.
  5. The resident made reports from December 2022 and March 2023, after she moved in, about additional issues that included a nicotine liquid leaking from walls and surfaces, windows, gutters and internal water staining, non-functional and undersized radiators, deteriorating walls and ceilings, a broken kitchen cupboard and worktop, a broken entrance door, toilets leaking and not working, electrics tripping and exposed wires, and gates not shutting.
  6. The landlord raised a repair in December 2022 for the leaking liquid, then said it would raise another repair after it attended without access. It is not evident that repairs were raised for other issues, which is not satisfactory, but the resident’s account indicates that in January 2023, a contractor compiled a schedule of works that included gate repairs, gutter works, water testing, replacement of 3 windows, nicotine cleaning, fitting of a larger bedroom radiator, and resecuring of a stair rail which fell due to the crumbling walls. The attendance for toilets was reasonably timely, however the landlord’s internal circulation of the works schedule in March 2023 was unreasonably delayed if compiled in January 2023.
  7. The landlord’s arrangement of a surveyor inspection for late April 2023 was a reasonable action in response to the resident’s complaint, but this may have been appropriate earlier given she raised many issues in December 2022. The April 2023 surveyor inspection then did not happen, and the landlord arranged another surveyor inspection for late June 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to rearrange the survey, it is not satisfactory that the April 2023 survey did not happen, and that it took 2 months and repeated chasing by the resident for it to rearrange the survey for June 2023.
  8. The June 2023 survey noted multiple issues. The surveyor noted that nicotine stains were coming through walls, ceilings and windows, and should have been sugar soaped and stain blocked. They noted some issues with an extractor, sockets and live wires in the kitchen. They noted walls in 3 bedrooms had blown plaster and required re-skimming. They noted a bathroom cistern needed a slimline ball valve. They noted the loft had not been cleared of previous tenant belongings. They noted the front and rear gates did not close properly. They noted the front door had split and needed repair or replacement. They noted ants were behind a doorframe and in the kitchen. They noted an outside light switch did not work correctly.
  9. The landlord’s June 2023 stage 2 response said that any identified repairs would be raised and monitored, but this did not happen and there was further chasing by the resident for updates about the outcome. This is not satisfactory, as the landlord should meet commitments it makes. The continued lack of action and clarity for the repairs will have caused significant time and trouble and distress to the resident. This is underlined by the landlord’s internal report of an October 2023 call to her, which was reported to be “the saddest call to a tenant I have made,” where she was reported to be feeling let down and crying at not being contacted about the repairs.
  10. The evidence advises that the landlord raised further repairs from around late October 2023 for nicotine-blocked window vents, broken kitchen worktop and sink, internal and external electrical issues, cracking to bedroom wall plaster, the front gate, guttering, entrance doors, and issues with toilets. Following this, the evidence advises that repairs for the front gate, gutters, toilets and front door were completed, while there was limited progress for other repairs without clear evidence for the reasons.
  11. The front gate was reportedly repaired on 7 November 2023, 7 months after being reported by March 2023. This is not satisfactory, as this well exceeds the 28 working day timeframe for routine repairs that confirms the repair should have been done by late April 2023. The resident also raised concerns that insecure gates posed risks to her 6 year old child as they have autism and a history of running away. This is supported by an occupational therapist report, that the landlord should reasonably have had, or requested on the basis of the concerns the resident was raising. The landlord fails to show it did all it could to avoid an incident where her child absconded from the property in June 2023 and was brought home by police, and avoid the additional distress this will have caused her.
  12. The gutters were reportedly replaced on 21 November 2023. This was a year after the resident originally raised them at her viewing, 10 months after it is understood they were included in a January 2023 schedule of works, and 8 months after she complained in March 2023. The completion timeframe for gutters is unclear and the landlord’s policy says planned repairs may take longer, so the time it took to replace gutters may not in itself be unreasonable. However, the landlord fails to show it had a clear approach and timeframe for the gutters that was communicated to the resident and informed by concerns she raised such as water staining. It also failed to address her claim that gutters should have been repaired before she moved in.
  13. The landlord attended in March 2024 for the toilets, which the resident had reported did not flush properly and leaked, where it renewed a siphon and confirmed neither leaked. This was 9 months after the June 2023 surveyor noted that a cistern required repair, and 5 months after the resident told the landlord that previous operatives who attended were going to book follow on works. This well exceeds the landlord’s 28 working day timeframe for routine repairs.
  14. The resident noted in March 2024 that the front door had been replaced, after the landlord said in November 2023 that this was now with a contractor. It is unclear when this was completed, however from when the June 2023 surveyor identified that it needed to be repaired or replaced, to November 2023, there appears a 5 month delay in the landlord taking action and effectively communicating about the issue.
  15. The landlord later arranged for a joint surveyor and contractor visit on 6 May 2024, as part of its response to a further complaint from the resident about the ongoing delays. The landlord confirms that works compiled at the 6 May 2024 visit were completed in June and July 2024, and included wallpaper removal, replastering, decoration, loft clearing, toilet replacement and electrics works. The photos of works indicate that the kitchen was also replaced.
  16. The June and July 2024 works appear to have generally fulfilled the landlord’s repairs obligations and addressed many of the resident’s original concerns. However, it is not satisfactory that it took 4 months and multiple operative recommendations for the landlord to arrange a surveyor visit, after this was recommended at January and March 2024 visits about issues at the property including the kitchen. It is also not satisfactory that it took around 16 months after they were reported to resolve issues, and around 12 months after issues were noted by the June 2023 surveyor. The resident was clearly caused much inconvenience by the delays, as she reported that issues such as crumbling walls affected her use of rooms and ability to decorate. There are also some repairs which it is not evident the landlord has satisfactorily addressed.
  17. The resident made reports about the windows, including busted seals, from December 2022. The contractor visit around January 2023 identified works to clean windows of nicotine and to replace 2 windows, which it is not evident happened. Between November 2023 and January 2024, various contractors attended including a glazier who reported that windows needed replacement, and a surveyor was requested to assess works. It is not evident this happened or that the May 2024 survey which led to the July 2024 works considered this, despite the April 2024 stage 2 saying that the May 2024 survey would agree a way forward for the windows. The ongoing lack of action and clarity about the windows is not satisfactory given contractors identified that windows need replacement multiple times since early 2023.
  18. The resident reported small and non-functional radiators in December 2022, and the contractor visit around January 2023 identified works for a larger radiator in a bedroom. It is not evident this happened, and the resident said in March 2024 that an undersized bedroom radiator meant a room never reached 18 degrees. The ongoing lack of action and clarity about the radiator is not satisfactory, given the landlord’s obligation to ensure there is adequate heating.
  19. The resident reported damp and mould affecting bedrooms in March 2023, after which the landlord said the June 2023 surveyor would inspect this. This is not evident. The resident then continued to raise the issue, and the landlord said in March 2024 that its damp and mould specialist would contact her. However, the resident says a survey was cancelled, mould was not treated, and she was having to clean black mould off the windows every week. The July 2024 repairs such as replastering, fan installation, pointing and “dpm” works appear damp related, but these seem unreasonably delayed given their completion 15 months after the resident raised the issue. The lack of clear evidence about the landlord’s response to the issue, and the resident’s report of the pointing not being done, mould on the windows and a cancelled specialist survey, undermines if the landlord appropriately responded about damp and mould.
  20. The delayed resolution to the repairs reports will have caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, and led her to feel lacking in support and empathy from the landlord. The delayed response to the leaking liquid nicotine issue will have caused her additional distress, given her reports of mental health issues, children with respiratory issues, and concerns about being affected by third hand smoke and food contaminated by nicotine.
  21. The Ombudsman is not an expert on health matters, however information seen says that third hand smoke can build up on surfaces such as walls, and that chemicals from it can pose potential health risks, especially to young children. The resident’s children are understood to have included 1 child aged 5 and 2 children aged 2 when she first reported the issue. It is not satisfactory that the landlord does not show it handled the resident’s reports about these issues and others more attentively, as this lacked sufficient consideration for the vulnerabilities involved, its health and safety obligations, and potentially obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equalities Act 2010.
  22. The landlord acknowledged, in its April 2024 stage 2 response to the fourth complaint it raised, that repairs should have been managed in a different way when the resident moved in. It confirmed that it had changed aspects of its repairs service delivery in response to the complaint. It also took effective steps to inspect and then complete outstanding works, and awarded £150 for delays and communication, bringing the incremental total compensation award in its 6 complaint responses to £740. This demonstrates that the landlord sought to acknowledge failings, learn lessons, effect practical change, and sought to put things right, which is positive.
  23. However, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord did not go far enough to sufficiently acknowledge the length of time repairs took, the repeated repairs delays and chasing by the resident, the additional distress that she was caused by the lack of urgency for the insecure gate and the leaking liquid nicotine issue, and the general insufficient consideration of the resident’s circumstances as a single mother with mental health vulnerabilities and 5 young children, including ones with disabilities and health issues. In addition, the landlord does not demonstrate that it satisfactorily responded to some repairs, or that it considered learning for its empty homes team for aspects such as the letting condition, items left in the loft and repairs queries from the resident. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about the property condition when let and the repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s March and June 2023 stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were provided in a generally timely manner. However, these did not investigate the issues in any substantive way apart from arranging surveyor inspections. The landlord then did not monitor the April and June 2023 surveyor inspections, to ensure they happened or that outcomes were followed up and actioned.
  2. The above was an approach the landlord had generally, which meant its investigations were inappropriately limited, its actions were ineffective, and it failed to take the opportunities presented by the complaints process to resolve matters on multiple occasions.
  3. The landlord’s December 2023 third stage 1 response, which acknowledged the June 2023 survey was not followed up, was an opportunity to arrange another surveyor visit or take meaningful action to progress matters. This did not happen, and it was not until after another complaint and arrangement of a third surveyor visit 5 months later, that truly effective action was taken to complete repairs in July 2024. This was over a year after the first stage 2 response and second arranged surveyor visit, which is not appropriate.
  4. The landlord was positive to acknowledge delays and award compensation in its 6 complaint responses for 4 complaints it raised, and to take effective action after its sixth complaint response. However, none of these demonstrate that it considered the resident’s repairs and complaints history and customer journey in a sufficiently detailed and holistic way. This would have been beneficial to demonstrate that it was considering the full impact on the resident in its compensation awards and also taking learning in respect to its complaint handling.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord does not demonstrate it sufficiently acknowledged that its complaint handling led to significant time and trouble to the resident, to her making repeated complaints, and to her ultimately receiving 6 complaint responses about essentially the same issues. It also does not demonstrate that it took appropriate learning for its complaint handling, to ensure that complaints are adequately investigated and commitments are effectively monitored, to avoid the repeated complaints the resident had to make to resolve issues she raised in her first complaint. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition when let and multiple outstanding repairs.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a director for the issues identified and the impact on her.
  2. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £700 compensation. This comprises £500 for the issues identified with its repairs handling, and £200 for its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £740 it previously awarded in its 6 complaint responses, which it should pay if it has not already.
  3. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. review previous contractor and surveyor findings about the windows, and arrange for a surveyor to jointly inspect the windows with a specialist.
    2. write to the resident within 4 weeks of the inspection, with explanation about the outcome. If it confirms that the windows require replacement, it should confirm a reasonable timeframe and an action plan to monitor the works and keep the resident updated until the windows are replaced. If it finds that the windows do not require immediate replacement, it should explain why, confirm when they are due for replacement, confirm any identified responsive repairs and timeframes, and confirm an action plan to monitor the repairs and keep the resident updated until any repairs are complete.
  4. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, carry out a heat survey of the property. It should then write to the resident within 4 weeks of the survey with the outcome. If it identifies any works such as replacement of undersized radiators, it should confirm a reasonable timeframe and an action plan to monitor the works and keep the resident updated until works are complete.
  5. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, arrange for a surveyor to inspect the external pointing to confirm these are complete. It should write to the resident within 4 weeks of the inspection with the outcome, any further action it is taking if applicable, and an action plan to monitor any further action and keep the resident updated until any further actions are complete.
  6. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, arrange for its damp contractor to inspect current damp and mould issues such as mouldy windows and damp walls. It should then write to the resident within 4 weeks of the inspection with the outcome, any further action it is taking if applicable, and an action plan to monitor any repairs and keep the resident updated until repairs are complete.
  7. The landlord is ordered to, within 8 weeks, review its practices in relation to empty homes, to ensure that adequate voids policies or procedures are in place for applicant repairs queries, applicable repairs reports, and ensuring properties meet lettable standards. It should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome.
  8. The landlord is ordered to, within 8 weeks, review its complaint handling to consider any updates to its complaint practices, including service improvements and staff training needs, to ensure that issues are adequately investigated, complex and repeat complaints are identified earlier and managed effectively, and commitments are monitored. It should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome.
  9. The landlord is recommended to consider any additional improvements to its repairs practices, such as ensuring effective processes are in place to monitor and consider recommendations from surveyors and contractors.
  10. The landlord is recommended to review its record-keeping and our spotlight report on knowledge and information management and consider improvements to its record-keeping, particularly repairs records, so that these are clearer, for its own purposes as well as the Ombudsman, in respect to actions and recommendations that have occurred.