Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202225742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225742

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

17 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plastering required in her home.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her front entrance door.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for the property since a mutual exchange on 6 December 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is the property’s freeholder. The landlord has said it does not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to undertake plastering at the resident’s home. An appointment was arranged for 3 January 2023, however, the landlord’s contractor was unable to undertake the work at this appointment.
On 9 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord by email to make a formal complaint. She said that an operative arriving to undertake plastering in her home told her the job was too big. She said she was due to have three rooms plastered but only one wall had been completed. She also outlined that the communication between the landlord and its contractors had been poor and she had not received an update regarding her front door replacement.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, at stage one of its complaints process, on 27 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in works to the resident’s home and offered £300 compensation.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint, to stage two, on 30 January 2023. The resident explained she had lost £1500 in missed work opportunities and as such was not satisfied with the level of compensation offered. The resident also outlined that the plastering and door replacement remained outstanding. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 27 February 2023. It outlined that plastering works were due to start on 6 March 2023 and its contractor will contact the resident to arrange a suitable time and date to replace the front entrance door. It also reiterated its offer of £300 compensation which it said was adequate.
In bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has said she was put into financial hardship as a result of the delays in repairs being undertaken. The resident has said she needed to take personal loans to cover her rent and this impacted her mental health causing depression.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines 4 target timescales for completing repairs. These are:
1. Emergency repairs – aim to attend within 3 hours with an objective of completing the job within 24 hours.
2. General repairs – aim to complete within 10 working days.
3. Emergency out of hours – aim to attend within 3 hours with an objective of completing the job the next working day.
4. Repairs exclusions – to be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states that “There are some jobs that our customers may contact us to repair that are not part of our repairs and maintenance service. These will be larger jobs that may require a survey to enable the ordering of materials and the works to be planned in for instance, window replacement; door replacement; kitchen unit replacements, replacement of floor coverings, rewiring, major structural works, works requiring scaffolding and the installation of disabled adaptations.”
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines target timescales for responding to complaints. These are:
1. Stage one – within 10 working days
2. Stage two – within 20 working days.

Scope

As part of her complaint to this service the resident has said that she was unable to work whilst the repairs were outstanding. The resident has said she runs a childcare business from her home and could not whilst the walls were flaking with plaster.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation this Service takes account of a range of factors. This includes any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around lost earnings are beyond the scope of this assessment. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice with regard this issue.

Plastering

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to plastering in her home. The question for the Ombudsman is whether the landlord unreasonably delayed the repair.
When a repair is reported to a landlord it must inspect and decide if it is responsible to repair. There is no dispute in this case that the landlord had agreed to undertake plastering within the resident’s home. It must therefore complete the repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time depends on all the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s policy states it must complete repairs within 20 working days.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord raised a repair for its contractor to investigate blown walls in the resident’s home, scrape back and replaster in the living room and bedroom. An appointment was booked for 3 January 2023 which was already over a month outside its target timescale for completing the repair. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies. At this appointment the landlord’s contractor was unable to undertake the repair. They reported back to the landlord that the works were more significant than what had been ordered. In response to the contractor’s report the landlord requested another contractor attend the resident’s home and quote for the works required.
On 9 January 2023 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord concerning its handling of the plastering. She followed this up with a phone call to the landlord on 13 January 2023. At this point the landlord was put on notice that the outstanding repair was affecting the resident financially. The resident informed the landlord that she was unable to do her work as a child minder due to the condition of the walls and this was costing her money. She further reiterated the financial hardships she was facing in an email to the landlord on 23 January 2023.
It is unclear when the landlord’s contractors inspected the resident’s home again but on 27 February 2023 the landlord received a quote from its contractors and raised for works to be completed. The contractors attended and completed the plastering on 6 March 2023. This was over three months outside the landlord’s target timescale for repairs and was unreasonable. The resident has said that during this period she lost her job as she was unable to provide a safe environment for child minding. She has said that this resulted in her falling behind on her rent and needing to take personal loans.
Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord unreasonably delayed in undertaking plastering works to the resident’s home. Further, once the landlord was made aware of the resident’s financial situation there is nothing to suggest it expedited the works at this point.
In its stage one response to the resident the landlord has acknowledged the repairs were delayed and apologised for this. In its stage two response the landlord has offered the resident £300 compensation for its handling of the repair. Whilst, this goes some way to putting right its failings, the offer does not go far enough in recognising the overall impact these delays had on the resident. The landlord has not set out its learning from the complaint or how it intends to prevent such delays in future. As such, this amounts to maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.

Front entrance door

The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to renew her front entrance door. Again the question for the Ombudsman is whether the landlord unreasonably delayed in undertaking the repair and the impact any delays had on the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that due to the nature of replacing a front door this is outside of the standard timescales set for repairs. This is due to the need to conduct a survey and order materials. This is a reasonable exception however there is still an onus on the landlord to complete the repair in a reasonable time, dependent on the availability of materials, and keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair.
As part of her stage one complaint on 9 January 2023 the resident mentioned she was still waiting to hear from the landlord regarding her front door. This had been inspected by the landlord’s contractor on 6 December 2022. In its stage one response to the resident the landlord accepted there had been a delay in the repairs being progressed. It said that its contractor had reported the door was old but did not require replacement. It concluded that this was an unsatisfactory report and it would organise its own surveyor to attend and inspect the door. As the landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised. This was a reasonable response given the circumstances.
The landlord’s contractor surveyed the resident’s door on 23 February 2023 and reported that it required renewal. Given, the delays already acknowledged by the landlord in its handling of this repair at stage one, it is a short coming that the survey was not arranged sooner. As part of its final response to the resident the landlord confirmed that its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment and the landlord would contact the resident the following week to confirm this had been done. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident to confirm an appointment had been made until 23 March 2023, nearly a month after the final response. This was unreasonable and not in line with the assurances given in the final response.
The resident’s front entrance door was replaced on 18 July 2023. Whilst excluded from the usually applicable repairs timescales within the landlord’s policy, there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated on the repair and the reasons for the delay. The resident has said that opening and closing the front door was difficult throughout this period.
Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord delayed in renewing the front door and did not do enough to keep the resident informed of the progress of the repair. While good the landlord offered an apology for delays in its stage one response it did not offer any redress to the resident for this issue. The Ombudsman complaint handling principles outline that landlords should look to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. As such the landlord should have considered whether appropriate to put right its failings through the form of financial compensation. As it did not this amounts to service failure and a series of orders are set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plastering required in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her front entrance door.

Orders

In the next four weeks the landlord should take the following action and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £600. Please note if the £300 previously offered has been paid this can be deducted from the total award. This consists of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the plastering.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of renewing the front entrance door.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and set out how they are going to prevent similar failings in future.

Recommendations

Write to the resident setting out its position on its liability insurance and whether this would be an appropriate avenue for the resident to pursue a claim for lost wages.