Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202305144)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305144

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

25 February 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it to:
1. Repair the front door.
2. Repair a leak in the kitchen.
3. Address drainage issues.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The resident became the tenant of the property on 27 April 2022.
The property is a 1 bedroom flat situated in a purpose built building (the block).
The resident contacted the Ombudsman about 2 complaints concerning the service provided by the landlord. These are summarised as follows.
Complaint A – The resident complained about the landlord’s response to repair the property’s front door, following a forced entry by the fire brigade to stop a suspected leak reported by a neighbour at the end of March 2023. He also complained about the time taken by the landlord to remedy a plumbing issue in the kitchen. He set out that while the repair was outstanding he had not been able to use the kitchen as he could not access water due to a leak on the sink’s pipework. The exact date that the resident made this complaint is not clear from the available evidence, however the Ombudsman can see that he began raising concerns with the landlord at end of the April 2023 about these matters.
Complaint B – The resident complained that the landlord had failed to address ongoing drainage issues in the block which were causing unpleasant smells. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident raised this concern with the landlord before contacting us on 15 May 2023. On receipt of the resident’s contact we shared the information with the landlord and requested that it respond under its complaint procedure.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge complaint A about “outstanding kitchen and front door repairs” – no further details given. Within its correspondence the landlord apologised for the “slight” delay in logging the complaint and therefore awarded £50 compensation.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint A. In summary it said:
1. Front door –
  1. The fire brigade completed a forced entry on 26 March 2023 as it received a report of a leak in the property.
  2. The repair to fix or replace the front door was outstanding following the forced entry.
  3. Its contractor would contact the resident before 26 May 2023 to arrange an inspection to repair or replace the front door.
2. Kitchen –
  1. As a result of the kitchen wastepipe needing to be replaced, the resident had been unable to use the kitchen for a period of 7 weeks as the leak was “affecting the downstairs property”.
  2. The repair to replace the wastepipe in the kitchen was completed on 19 May 2023 following a first attendance on 12 April 2023. It was unable to complete the repair during the first appointment as more time was needed.
  3. It had brought forward the date of a kitchen renewal, from 2024, as a gesture of goodwill for the time taken to replace the wastepipe. Its contractor had taken measurements for the new kitchen and it would be in touch with the resident shortly with an expected start date.
3. It would like to offer the resident £658.45 compensation as its “service could have been better”. The compensation comprised:
  1. £408.45 for the length of time the kitchen could not be used (27 March 2023 to 19 May 2023). The landlord did not provide details of its calculation for this amount.
  2. £150 for the delay in completing the repairs.
  3. £50 for time and trouble experienced in chasing the complaint in addition to the inconvenience, distress and “personal impact” caused.
  4. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint B. In summary it said:
1. It had changed its repair contractor on 1 June 2023 and expected its repair service to “be greatly improved” going forward.
2. It had raised a work order to address the drainage issue. Its repairs team would manage the work order to ensure that the works were completed and the issue addressed.
3. It was sorry for any upset caused by the ongoing drainage issue and it accepted that “on this occasion [its] service should have been better.”
4. It would like to offer the resident £150 compensation comprising:
  1. £50 time take to raise the complaint.
  2. £100 for the delay in resolving the drainage issue.
On 29 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on the repair to fix the front door. He advised that the door was “still unsafe” with no one having checked it yet. He also asked the landlord for an “update” on the compensation.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord responded. It apologised that the front door repair had not yet been undertaken, and noted that an appointment was scheduled for 27 July 2023. It confirmed that the compensation awarded in relation to complaint A would be processed on receipt of his bank details.
On 20 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord setting out that he was “disappointed” with the level of compensation awarded in respect of complaint A. He explained that the landlord’s offer was “a lot lower” than he was expecting. He confirmed that he had spent a lot of money while the kitchen was unusable, including on food, water and the laundrette.
On 11 January 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update on his request to review its offer of compensation.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord replied asking the resident to confirm what amount of compensation he believed would be proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint.
On 18 January 2024 the resident set out that the landlord could “work out the right figure” itself. Within his correspondence he noted that when he had experienced an electrical issue in the property the landlord had provided temporary accommodation in a hotel at “£50-£60 per day” in addition to “some money for inconvenience”.
On 2 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that, following an internal review, it was unable to increase its offer of compensation in respect of complaint A, no further details were given.
On 21 March 2024, following contact from the resident regarding complaint A and complaint B, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman informed that the landlord that the resident was concerned regarding the level of compensation offered and that he had not been offered a decant during the kitchen renewal works.
On 22 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final response, in relation to complaint A and complaint B. The landlord noted that it had attempted to call the resident prior to issuing its response, however had been unsuccessful. In summary the landlord said:
1. Complaint A –
  1. It was sorry that it did not escalate complaint A on receipt of the resident’s email dated 20 November 2023 where he requested a review of the amount of compensation.
  2. In consideration of complaint A it offered compensation in recognition that the resident did not have use of his kitchen while the repair to fix the leak was outstanding. The amount offered was £525.15 (£194.47 weekly rent at 30% for loss of kitchen for 9 weeks) increased to £600 for additional overrun time plus a further £50 for late completion. This was in line with its compensation guidance which was “fair and reasonable.” The Ombudsman notes that the amount differs to the offer made at stage one.
  3. The kitchen renewal took place between 6 and 27 July 2023. It confirmed that there was no requirement for the resident to be decanted during the works.
2. Complaint B –
  1. The resident reported drainage issues via the Ombudsman. It had no record of the resident contacting it directly regarding the matter prior to this.
  2. On 1 June 2023 the resident confirmed with it that he wanted to complain about the smell coming from the external drains to the block.
  3. A repair appointment was attended on 26 June 2023 where it was confirmed that the external storm drains were heavily blocked and required complete clearance.
  4. There was a delay in work to clear the drains due to the job being incorrectly closed. It apologised for its error and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. The “final attendance” to clear the drains took place on 27 March 2024 where a tanker attended and cleared the drainage system.
3. Its offer of compensation in relation to the kitchen repairs remained unchanged at £600.
4. It would like to offer an additional £350 compensation comprising:
  1. £200 for the delay in responding to, and for the length of time it took to review the resident’s request for additional compensation in relation to complaint A.
  2. £100 for the delay in completing the drain repair and inconvenience caused by the smell.
  3. £50 for poor communication and administration to ensure that the drainage work was completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to repair the front door

The landlord’s records show that on 26 March 2023 it raised an emergency work order to “trace and repair leak” following a report of a leak in the property. The records further show that, as the landlord was unable to contact the resident to gain access to the property, it contacted the fire brigade to complete a forced entry which damaged the front door. The resident informed us that he was asleep in the property at the time of the forced entry and the experience was very traumatic.
The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the resident believes that the forced entry was unnecessary as it was undertaken on false information from a neighbour. While the resident’s concerns are noted, this assessment will not consider this matter. This is because it did not form part of the complaint which the resident referred to this Service.
An entry in the landlord’s repair record, also dated 26 March 2023, confirmed that following the forced entry its contractor “repaired [the front door] frame” and noted that a new frame or composite fire door was required due to the damage caused. Despite the contractor’s record confirming that further works were required to the front door there is no evidence that the matter was progressed at that time. This is unsatisfactory. On receipt of the contractor’s report on the condition of the front door the landlord should have taken steps to raise a work order.
On 11 April 2023 the landlord wrote in its internal records that the property’s front door had been made safe following the forced entry however it still needed “making good”. Despite the landlord being aware of the outstanding repair there is no evidence that the matter was progressed at that time. This is also unsatisfactory.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint in spring 2023 the landlord committed to ensuring that the repair to the front door was undertaken. While it was appropriate that the landlord made this commitment, it is unsatisfactory that the resident was required to make a complaint in order for the landlord to carry out its repairing obligation. The evidence shows that the repair was completed on 27 July 2023. The repair to fix the front door took therefore took approximately 4 months to complete which is a protracted period of time. This will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it awarded £150 compensation for the delay in completing repairs in the property which included the front door and leak in the kitchen. Whilst this amount was not broken down, it equates to £75 compensation per repair.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a “customer has had a poor experience… [it] may offer them a good will gesture.” As the landlord identified that a service failure had occurred, it was appropriate that it engaged its policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident. This takes into account that, while the door repair was outstanding, the landlord has confirmed within its contemporaneous records that the property was secure.
While the time taken to repair the front door was protracted, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to repair a leak in the kitchen

The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate how it responded to the leak in the property’s kitchen. The Ombudsman notes the following relevant entries:
1. On 26 March 2023 the landlord attended the property as an emergency “to trace and repair a leak in the property. The entry confirmed that a “follow on from the emergency [was] required” – no further details given.
2. On 27 March 2023 the landlord recorded that an appointment was needed “to check for leak in [the property]” following the emergency appointment.
3. On 12 April 2023 the landlord attended the property where it identified that the “copper wastepipe [was] rotten behind kitchen units” and needed to be replaced.
4. On 2 May 2023 the landlord “carded” the property due to no access to complete the repair.
5. On 19 May 2023 the landlord completed the repair to replace the waste pipe and remedy the leak.
In the period between 26 March 2023 and 19 May 2023 and while the repair to remedy the leak was outstanding, the evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to report that he was unable to use the kitchen. This included on 17 April 2023 when he stated that he had “not [been] able to use kitchen sink for over two weeks” and 28 April 2023 when he said he was “angry” that he was still not able to use the kitchen. Despite the resident’s reporting that the kitchen was unusable, the chronology of the repair does not demonstrate urgency by the landlord in completing the work to remedy the leak. Specifically between 26 March 2023 and 2 May 2023, the date of the no access appointment, the time between appointments suggests that the work was not treated as a priority. This is unsatisfactory and suggests a lack of focus and oversight by the landlord in regards to the repair.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the service it provided to remedy the leak had not been satisfactory as it had delayed in carrying out the repair. The landlord therefore offered the following redress:
1. £75 compensation in recognition of the delay. This was within the landlord’s range of compensation where a resident has experienced unnecessary distress as a result of its actions where it has not met its service standards.
2. £600 compensation, as confirmed at stage 2, for the loss of the use of the kitchen while the repair was outstanding. (The Ombudsman will comment on the landlord’s difference in offers at stage 1 and stage 2 within the complaint handling section below.) The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a resident has “lost the use of an essential room [it] will compensate them for that loss” by awarding a “percentage of their weekly rent for each room they are unable to use.” For kitchens in a 1 bedroom property the percentage is 30%. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord used this formula as it recognised that the resident had been unable to use the kitchen while the repair was outstanding. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord rounded the figure up which was reasonable.
3. Early renewal of the kitchen as a good will gesture. This was reasonable as a good will gesture and as it had identified through its work to address the leak that the kitchen was not in a good condition. On 15 May 2023 the landlord wrote that the property’s kitchen was in a “bad condition”. The work to replace the kitchen took place between 6 and 27 July 2023, which was a period of 16 working days. The Ombudsman notes that it is normal practice for kitchen renewals to take place while a resident is in situ, and accepts that a resident will experience some disruption for a short duration of time. Following a review of the records the Ombudsman has not identified a request from the resident requesting a decant for the duration of the works to renew the kitchen.
As part of the resident’s complaint he requested additional compensation for food, water and use of the laundrette. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord did not make a separate award for these out-of-pocket expenses. As the landlord’s formula for loss of the use of kitchen uses a higher percentage of rent (30%), compared with other rooms such as a bedroom (20%), the Ombudsman considers that it provides for a resident experiencing a greater impact and potentially having to incur out of pocket expenses for things like food, water and the laundrette which they would otherwise not have to. Within its response dated 2 February 2024 the landlord should have explained why it was unable to increase its offer of compensation. This would have assisted the resident in understanding the landlord’s position and to understand the calculation used.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure it is for the Ombudsman to then determine whether the level of redress it has offered is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Overall the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s package of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of this part of the complaint to recognise the impact on the resident, including time, trouble, distress, inconvenience and uncertainty.
While the time taken to repair the leak in the kitchen was protracted, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation and a good will gesture in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to address drainage issues

Following a review of the available evidence, the first record of the landlord being made aware of the resident’s concerns regarding drainage issues was on receipt of the Ombudsman’s contact in May 2023. In responding to the complaint the landlord confirmed the resident had not contacted it directly regarding the matter. As the landlord had no record of a drainage issue requiring attention prior to May 2023 it was reasonable that no action was taken to address the problem at that time. On receipt of the Ombudsman’s contact detailing the resident’s drainage concerns the landlord was required to respond to the problem in accordance with its repair policy and service standards.
On receipt of the Ombudsman’s contact dated 15 May 2023, about drainage issues, the landlord should have promptly raised a work order to investigate and address the problem. Following a review of the landlord’s repair records there is no evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord had been given notice of a repair which required its attention. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s repair policy confirms that it will accept repair requests from “residents, members of their household and other individuals…”
The evidence shows that as part of its stage 1 investigation the landlord identified that an appointment to address the drains was outstanding. An appointment was therefore made for 16 June 2023 (not 26 June as reported in the landlord’s response). The appointment was therefore approximately 25 working days after the landlord was made aware of the issue which is unsatisfactory.
The report from the appointment on 16 June 2023 confirmed that drains were blocked and a further appointment was required for a combination tanker to carry out a pump and pressure wash to restore the flow. Despite the recommendation, there is no evidence that the landlord made a follow up appointment at that time. This is unsatisfactory and demonstrates a lack of attention to detail by the landlord in managing its repairs service.
The next appointment which the Ombudsman has identified in relation to the drains is dated 30 January 2024. This was approximately 6 months following the appointment in June 2023 which is unsatisfactory. The landlord’s records confirm that the appointment was made as it realised in December 2023 that the follow on works from June 2023 had not been undertaken. The report form the appointment confirmed that a tanker was used to “clear masses of mud and debris” from the drains and that a further appointment was required for a “large combination tanker to carry out a pump out.” The final appointment to clear the drains was on 27 March 2024. The repair to address the drainage issues therefore took approximately 10 months to complete. This is a significantly protracted period of time and is unsatisfactory.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the drainage issue was not satisfactory as it delayed in arranging and undertaking the necessary repairs. The landlord therefore apologised and offered a total of £250 compensation. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that it took these steps to recognise the impact on the resident and to put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation was within an appropriate range for cases where a service failure has impacted on the resident which is not permanent or lasting.
While the time taken to address the drainage issues at the block was protracted, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord awarded the resident a total of £350 for poor complaint handling in respect of complaint A and complaint B. The failings which the landlord identified were delays in logging complaint A, time and trouble in pursuing complaint A, delay in responding to complaint B and failing to escalate both complaints without the Ombudsman’s intervention.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure it is for the Ombudsman to then determine whether the level of redress it has offered is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Following a review of the chronology of both complaints, we agree with the landlord’s conclusions regarding its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers that the level of compensation offered is appropriate to recognise the impact on the resident and accurately reflects where the landlord’s service delivery did not meet its service standards.
In addition to the service failures identified by the landlord itself the Ombudsman has identified a couple of additional issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Firstly there is a discrepancy between the landlord’s stage 1 response for complaint A and its stage 2 response. At stage 1 the landlord confirmed that its offer of compensation for loss of kitchen was £408.45 and at stage 2 it confirmed that its offer was £600. Secondly the landlord incorrectly recorded the date of a repair appointment in relation to the drains. While these errors alone do not amount to a service failure, they suggest a lack of attention to detail by the landlord in its complaint handling which could undermine the resident’s confidence in the process and outcomes.
While the landlord’s complaint handling was not always satisfactory, and included delays and failure to escalate the complaints without Ombudsman intervention, it has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the following complaints:
1. The landlord’s response to repair the front door.
2. The landlord’s response to repair a leak in the kitchen.
3. The landlord’s response to address drainage issues.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already paid the resident the compensation which it awarded itself in consideration of the complaint it should do so within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.