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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202219979)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219979

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

11 July 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies the 2-bedroom house with her child.
  2. In August 2019, the resident reported a problem with her roof and enquired about when the roof was due to be renewed. The landlord advised that it was due to be replaced in 5 years and arranged for repairs. These were completed by the landlord’s contractor in September 2019, who reported that there were no current issues, but the roof was very near to the end of its lifespan.
  3. Between February and December 2022, the resident reported 5 times that her roof was leaking, and that rainwater was coming through the light fitting on her landing. Contractors attended each time and recorded that they had either carried out a repair or that the resident had declined work. During this time, the resident complained that the contractors had not completed any work because they said the roof was beyond repair. The landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns at the time informally and concluded that there was evidence that repairs had been completed. Subsequently it agreed to consider renewing the roof under its renewal scheme.
  4. The resident complained, via this Service, on 20 December 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the problem with her roof, having experienced 2 further leaks which shorted her landing lights. She asked the landlord to replace the roof, repair her hallway light, and pay compensation for the poor living conditions.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 10 January 2023, it said there was no indication that the resident was informed her roof was beyond repair. Rather, it said the contractor had carried out repairs where appropriate, and on other occasions the resident declined work. The landlord advised it was still considering bringing forward the roof renewal. It concluded though that there was service failure because there was evidence of mould and no action had been taken. In resolution, it said a surveyor would inspect the property and offered £100 compensation for not taking action on the visible mould sooner.
  6. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 25 April 2023 because she said nothing had happened since the stage 1 response. She reported that the mould was worsening, and it was making her child ill and damaging her belongings.
  7. On 24 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response advising that it was still considering if the renewal date for the resident’s roof could be brought forward, and someone would be in touch with her about it. It apologised that the damp and mould was unresolved and said it had assigned a contractor to address this. The landlord advised that a surveyor would inspect the damage to the resident’s belongings and committed to carrying out required repairs. In resolution, it offered an additional £300 for stress caused by the condition of the property.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor attended in early June and reported that the resident’s roof needed to be replaced urgently because it was causing “major damp” and damage to her belongings. The roof was replaced, according to the landlord, in early August 2023.
  9. The resident complained to this Service because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered. She is seeking more money for the stress caused of living with damp and mould, and for her damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that damp and mould had been a problem in the property for around 7 years, arising from the issue with the roof. However, prior to her report in early 2022 of the roof causing damp, the available evidence shows that the resident last contacted the landlord about a damp and mould problem in 2015. They also show that there were almost 2 years between the resident’s reports of problems with her roof in 2019 and 2022. Thus, there is no indication that the landlord was made aware of an ongoing problem with the roof, or damp and mould, and because of that, this investigation centres on the landlord’s actions from 2022.  There are also time limits on issues which the Ombudsman will investigate, and this means the historic issues are not within our remit to investigate now. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The resident expressed concerns regarding the impact damp and mould caused to her family’s health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination about any links between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health concerns. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident may want to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Roof repairs

  1. When the resident contacted this Service in late 2022, she reported that the landlord had not done anything to fix her roof. The landlord disagreed in its stage 1 response dated 10 January 2023, where it summarised each occasion she had contacted it about the leak and how it had responded. In short, it concluded that contractors attended on each occasion and either effected a repair or attempted to carry one out.
  2. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to maintain and repair the resident’s roof. According to the available records, the landlord’s contractors carried out repairs to the roof following her reports on 15 February 2022 and 23 March 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it aimed to complete routine repairs within 20-working days, and it is apparent that the landlord met this timescale. Records show that the resident declined repairs when the contractors attended appointments in May, June, and November 2022. As the resident has not disputed the landlord’s account, there is no basis for a contrary finding by this Service. In the circumstances, the landlord cannot be held accountable for repairs not being carried out. This Service is satisfied it met its obligations to consider if there were repairs it could complete, and within its required timescale.
  3. On 1 April 2022 the resident complained that the problem with her roof was unresolved because the contractor had not carried out any work. She said she was advised that this was because the roof was beyond repair and that they had instead taken photographs and measured up for it to be renewed. This investigation is not considering how the landlord handled this earlier complaint as the landlord’s complaints process was not completed at the time and she made a new complaint in 2023. However, it is noted that it failed to escalate the resident’s concerns under its formal complaints process. This was not in accordance with its policy, or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), both of which require any expression of dissatisfaction to be responded to formally. The landlord is advised to consider taking learning from this because, as a member of this Scheme, it is now mandated to follow the Code.
  4. The landlord clearly investigated the resident’s concerns which first involved viewing photographs its contractors had taken and from this it was satisfied there was evidence of the repairs. There is no evidence contradicting the landlord’s position that repairs were completed. It also appointed an operative to inspect the roof, together with the contractor, on 4 July 2022. According to the operative’s findings, no damage was found to the roof. However, they noted that there was no felt underneath the tiles and stated that this was how it was originally constructed. It is unclear if this was the likely reason the roof was intermittently leaking. It is also beyond the expertise of this Service to make the connection. Based on the available evidence, there is no indication that the landlord’s operative or contractor judged the roof to be in disrepair. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its contractors, but even so, it did take the resident’s concerns seriously in carrying out its own inspection, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. On 8 August 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was considering replacing the roof under its renewal scheme. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that larger works may require a survey and forward planning, and therefore fall outside of its routine repair works and timescales. This is consistent with other social housing providers approach to such works, and usually involves planning and budgeting well in advance. What the landlord should have been clear about was whether it was considering renewing the roof under a current or future scheme, which is not apparent from the available evidence. This lack of expectation setting continued through to its complaint responses because it advised that it was still considering renewing her roof but gave no indication of a timeframe. This was not reasonable as it left the matter open ended.
  6. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to take action after its operative provided photographs showing mould, likely taken on 5 December 2022. There is no evidence that mould had been reported to the landlord prior to this, either by the resident or its operatives.  Even so, it was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for the fact that it had not taken action to address the mould problem. Mould is potentially a hazard, as defined in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced under the Housing Act 2004. Under this legislation the landlord has an obligation to assess and mitigate the potential risk.
  7. The stage 1 response explained what the landlord had done, or would do, to put things right for the resident. This included that its contractors had laid a protective sheeting in the loft on 3 January 2023, which records confirm. It also said a surveyor would inspect the property for repairs. The landlord offered £100 compensation, which was in accordance with the amount its compensation policy recommends for cases where its service failings had caused a moderate impact, as was the case here. The actions the landlord took, up to this point, were in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
  8. A surveyor inspected the property on 2 February 2023, and as a result they recommended applying mould washes but did not record which rooms were affected. The landlord did not have a separate policy for dealing with damp and mould, as it does now, and it therefore would have been held to the standards of its repairs timescales. Based on the records, the work identified appeared to require input from a damp and mould specialist because the landlord was seeking quotes. In the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable that the landlord did not meet its 20-working day timescale. However, there is also no evidence that it was proactively progressing this matter, such as seeking quotes from a range of damp and mould specialists, until the resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2023. There was also no evidence that the resident was kept updated, even after she contacted the landlord on 3 March 2023 enquiring about the status of the mould washes. This was clearly inappropriate, both by the landlord’s repairs policy which committed to “advise residents of any delays” and by any basic standard of customer service.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 24 May 2023, it acknowledged and apologised that the damp and mould repairs which should have been completed were outstanding. When there are clear and undisputed failings by a landlord, as is the case here, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider if and what action it has taken to put things right. For its actions to be deemed appropriate, the landlord is expected to have followed its own policies and procedures and the Code.
  10. As well as apologising, the landlord committed to appointing a surveyor to assess the property and the damage to the resident’s belongings, following which it said its contractor would be in touch to carry out required works. The surveyor’s inspection occurred on 5 June 2023, and on the same day they recommended that the roof was to be replaced urgently because it was causing significant mould which was damaging the resident’s belongings. They also instructed mould treatment for the bedrooms. Evidently the mould problem had worsened in the 6 to 7 months in which the landlord had been aware of its presence.
  11. The landlord advised that the roof was replaced in early August 2023. While it did not confirm the date the mould treatment was applied, the available records suggest this would have been completed either before or around the same time as the roof renewal. In the circumstances, the landlord acted relatively promptly after its stage 2 response to carry out the outstanding works. It is not in dispute, however, that there were avoidable delays in addressing the mould problem in the property. The landlord offered £400 compensation for this, which was consistent with the amount its policy recommends it pays for serious failings, where it has failed more than once on the same issue and has caused distress. This amount is at the upper end of the scale that the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends where service failure has caused distress and inconvenience over a moderate period of time.
  12. The resident advised that she provided the surveyor who last inspected the property a list of items that had been damaged by mould. While this Service has seen nothing in the records relating to this, the landlord’s stage 2 response and an email sent after the complaints process ended suggested that one of the reasons for the inspection was to identify a resolution to the damage to the resident’s belongings. There is no evidence that the landlord proposed a resolution to this matter. This could be settled via the landlord’s compensation policy, which includes payments for personal belongings damaged because of delays in repairs. Alternatively, the resident could be directed to claim under her contents insurance policy.
  13. The landlord has taken some appropriate action to put things right with its apology, compensation, and completion of the outstanding works. However, it failed to take learning from its mistakes in the handling of this case. It is noted that it now has a damp and mould policy which has a defined process and timescales, based on the extent of the problem and risk to the resident. This will likely address some of the systemic issues that occurred in this case. The Ombudsman is not reassured that this is enough and orders the landlord to demonstrate learning around effective communication, as this was the crux of the issues that arose in this case. The landlord also failed to give a response to the resident’s complaint that her personal belongings have been damaged by mould. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to take further actions.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.

 

 

Orders

  1. The landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failure to resolve her complaint about her damaged belongings.
    2. Pay compensation of £450 to the resident comprising:
      1. £50 for the inconvenience caused by not providing a resolution to the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
      2. £400, as per its original offer, if this has not already been paid.
    3. Provide the resident with a solution to her complaint about her damaged belongings.
    4. Explain how any current process or policy would have avoided the failures that occurred in communication with the resident or, if appropriate, what changes it will make going forward.
  2. The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of this report.