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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202300248)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300248

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

30 April 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 handling of repairs and remedial works, including communication, and missed appointments.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. On 8 or 9 November 2022 the resident called the landlord. Her boiler had been replaced earlier in the year and now, upon trying to turn her heating on, she found that she could not operate the thermostat.
  2. On 10 November 2022 the resident complained that the landlord’s contractor had missed a number of appointments where it been due to complete remedial works after the boiler replacement. The resident gave 3 dates, 2 in April 2022 and 1 in October 2022. She was particularly unhappy that the contractor had claimed to attend, which she disputed. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported a further missed appointment.
  3. On 25 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It declined to compensate the resident for missed appointments because:
    1. The appointment on 11 April 2022 had been rearranged by the contractor to 6 July 2022, therefore it was not “missed”.
    2. It had no record of an appointment on 28 April 2022.
    3. The contractor had informed the landlord that it attended on both 18 October 2022 and 16 November 2022, but the resident was not available.
  4. The resident called to escalate her complaint on 29 November 2022. The resident provided more information by email on 30 November 2022, disputing the landlord’s account of events. She added that the works undertaken on 6 July 2022 remained incomplete and offered to provide CCTV footage to support her account of events on the dates the contractor claimed to attend. The resident chased on 1, 2, 6 and 13 December 2022.
  5. On 14 December 2022 the contractor was due to attend, but the resident reported it had not arrived. The resident chased the landlord on 16 December 2022 and complained anew on 19 December 2022. She reiterated that her house was cold because she could not operate the heating. She reminded the landlord of several health conditions she had and of a doctor’s letter previously provided which had outlined the need to keep her home warm. The landlord provided the resident with temporary heaters on 22 December 2022, in addition to one she was already using which she owned.
  6. The resident chased throughout January 2023. On 24 January 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that there had been missed appointments by its contractors, including appointments where the resident was given little or no notice prior to the appointment. It apologised for the service provided, including a delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It offered £30 compensation for missed appointments and callbacks, as well as £80 for complaint handling delays. It offered £15 per week towards the running of the resident’s own portable heater (from 16 November 2022) and £45 per week for 3 heaters provided by the landlord (from 21 December 2022).
  7. On 24 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord. She remained unhappy because she felt that the landlord had failed to acknowledge that repairs were still outstanding from April 2022, that she had requested reasonable adjustments which the landlord had not provided and that the landlord left her for an unreasonable amount of time without heating. The landlord attended and showed the resident how to operate the thermostat on 27 January 2023. It also removed the heaters.
  8. On 8 February 2023 the resident chased. The landlord promised to respond within 5 working days on 10 February 2023. The resident complained on 22 February 2023 and again on 7 March 2023, that she had not received the money promised at stage 2 which was causing financial hardship. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 April 2023.
  9. On 12 April 2023, the landlord called the resident and offered £925 compensation. This included £30 per missed appointment for 9 missed appointments, totalling £270 and revised the £80 provided at stage 2 to £250. It also offered further reimbursement of heater costs because the resident had explained she had been using a portable heater from an earlier date than the landlord had initially paid from.
  10. During internal email conversations regarding the complaint in October 2023, the landlord realised that despite the resolution offered, it had still not completed remedial “boxing in” works. These had been part of the resident’s original complaint and the landlord made arrangements to attend. In conversation with the Ombudsman on 11 April 2024, the resident described how she had “abandoned” chasing the remedial works due to ill health and the stress of the situation. She advised that despite promising improvement, she continued to experience issues with the landlord’s contractors such as not giving proper notice, resulting in missed appointments which the resident is “blamed” for. The resident wanted the landlord to learn from what had gone wrong.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs and remedial works, including communication, and missed appointments.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs) are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. There is no dispute that there were failings in the handling of the repairs and remedial works and in communication, although these were not fully acknowledged by the landlord until after its stage 2 response.
  3. The main reason that the landlord did not ‘get things right first time’ in respect of the stage 1 complaint, is that it had relied on inaccurate information supplied by its contractors. The contractor claimed to have attended on each occasion. The evidence however shows that there were varying instances where this was not strictly true, because for example the contractor knocked on the wrong door. On other occasions, it appears the contractor did not give the resident enough time to get to the door. The resident had frequently advised the landlord and contractor that she was disabled and is regularly attended by carers. She had asked for shorter time windows to work around her carers, as well as more time to answer the door when contractors arrived, as a reasonable adjustment, which often appears not to have been accounted for. On other occasions, the evidence shows that the contractor gave either no notice before the visit, or very little notice. For example on 9 November 2022 the resident received a text message from the contractor confirming that an appointment had been booked. The resident replied “when is this and what is this for please?”, but the contractor did not respond. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported being notified that she had failed to give access for an appointment. The resident disputed this, adding that her CCTV footage had shown that nobody appeared at the door that morning, and that the contractor’s notes that “the resident’s daughter had answered the door and advised she was not available” could not be accurate, because the resident does not have a daughter.
  4. The landlord’s missed appointments policy also states that it will “send an SMS reminder 24 hours before the appointment and [another] before the operative arrives”, however there is no evidence that either of these messages were sent. The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) requires the landlord or its agents to give the resident a minimum of 24 hours notice before attending the property. The Ombudsman has seen repeated occurrences where the tenant appears to have been given less notice. While it is not a failing for the contractor to request access with less notice than this (the resident may always decline in such an instance), it is a failing that the contractor then appeared to mark the visit as “no access”, implying blame against the resident. This meant that she was not appropriately compensated in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures. It also contributed to large and unnecessary delays.
  5. For example on 11 April 2022 the contractor was due to attend, but rearranged the visit for 5 April 2022. The landlord did not give adequate notice of this rearranged visit and the resident was unable to accommodate it. For reasons which remain unclear, the contractor then rearranged the works for 6 July 2022, over 3 months after the original appointment date. The landlord’s repairs policy states does not outline specific timescales in which it would be expected to complete such repairs, however without good reason for such a delay, 3 months is excessive.
  6. The landlord was right to contact the resident on 12 April 2023 to make a renewed offer of compensation, after the January 2023 stage 2 response. This is because the evidence shows that at stage 2, the landlord had not:
    1. Accounted for the correct amount of missed appointments experienced. It’s policies state that £30 should be paid per missed appointment.
    2. Correctly identified the dates in which the resident’s heater was in use, meaning she was not compensated appropriately. The renewed offer corrected this, offering £15 per week, per heater, in line with its policy.
    3. Adequately accounted for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble gone to by the resident, as a result of the failings. This was put right.
  7. The compensation offered in April 2023 was enough to ‘put right’ the failings it had identified, however it should have done this sooner as part of the 2-stage complaint process, rather than some months after it had ended. The landlord had been aware from early in the complaints process that there was dispute over the missed appointments, but chose to accept the contractor’s account without challenge. The resident offered various forms of evidence including CCTV footage, which the landlord declined to accept during the complaints process. The evidence shows that while investigating the complaint in advance of its stage 2 response on 12 January 2023, the landlord began to question the contractor’s account of events. In explaining the delay, which it blamed on a no access appointment on 14 December 2022, the contractor stated it had “called the resident before attending and that on arrival, she said her carers were in and she could not come to the door”. The landlord replied that it “does not agree. [Contractor] has been aware of the resident’s request for a new thermostat [for a significant period of time]”. It added that “[the contractor has] also given a timeframe from 8-6pm however due to her disability and the support she receives from carers, a small timeframe window is required”, which it said the contractor had previously been informed about. It also reprimanded the contractor because it had been aware the resident had no heating from November through to January, but the necessary actions (replacing the thermostat and instructing the resident to use it) remained outstanding. The landlord later, in claiming against the contractor for costs incurred, concluded that the contractor had “lied about service appointments [and] the delays in responding [to the resident]”, which the contractor did not dispute.
  8. This signalled a positive change in approach from the landlord in how it managed its contractors. Unfortunately the landlord’s investigations did not adequately identify all missed appointments, resulting in things not being adequately put right during the complaints process. However, it did show that the landlord had begun to learn from outcomes. The evidence shows that the landlord began meeting with the contractor on a weekly basis around this point, before later opting to switch to a different contractor. The resident later reported however that similar themes began to recur with the new contractor. Although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, it has noted concerns about the way in which the contractor was managed in this case. The landlord appears to have identified similar concerns, as in June 2023, the landlord began a review of its practices with the intention of making changes in how it handles repairs, including how it manages repairs involving vulnerable residents. The Ombudsman’s view based on the evidence seen is that this is appropriate. Orders to update this service about this work are made below.
  9. Although the compensation offered and actions taken by the landlord put things right up until approximately April 2023, it did not identify that there remained an outstanding repair to “box in” the boiler unit. The resident had chased this frequently from October 2022 onwards, though records show it was originally supposed to be completed in April 2022, during the appointment which was later moved to 6 July 2022. Although no repair records are available, the landlord later accepted that the resident’s report that the works done during this visit remained incomplete was accurate. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord fitted a new thermostat, removed the heaters and showed the resident how to use to heating controls, which she had been requesting since November 2022. This was the priority for all parties and was the issue which dominated most correspondence, which appears to be why the boxing in was forgotten about at the time. A staff member at the landlord later took responsibility for this, explaining how the oversight had occurred and apologising directly to the resident. This was an appropriate and important step, as the evidence shows that the relationship between the resident and the landlord had deteriorated significantly over the course of these outstanding repairs. The landlord however now should put things right.
  10. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of handling of repairs and remedial works, including communication, and missed appointments. However, the landlord’s efforts to put things right after the internal complaints process, and the non-critical nature of the repair which remained outstanding, means that the Ombudsman has reduced the finding to that of service failure in this instance. The finding is also mitigated by the fact that the landlord did not confirm its suspicion until April 2023 that the contractor had “lied about service appointments”, though it did miss opportunities to assess the resident’s evidence, which would have confirmed this.
  11. The evidence shows that the resident experienced frustration, went to unnecessary time and trouble to chase the repair and had a loss of faith in the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that in such circumstances, compensation of over £100 is due. The nominal amount awarded below is in respect of delays and chasers sent by the resident up until October 2023, when the resident was next offered an appointment to complete the boxing in.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), sets out the expectations of the landlord when handling complaints. This includes the timescales by which it should respond (10 days at stage 1 and 20 days at stage 2). It also states that the landlord should respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.” Therefore, there were two prominent failings which the landlord acknowledged, in that:
    1. There was a delay in responding to the resident at stage 2, after she escalated on 29 November 2022, for which the landlord later apologised and paid £80 compensation. This was an appropriate amount to remedy the frustration and inconvenience caused.
    2. The landlord did not respond to the outstanding “boxing in” job at stage 2. The landlord later apologised for not including this in the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s acknowledgement of these failings was a positive step. It adequately put right the first, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The second is accounted for in the further compensation awarded by this service above. Therefore, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling failures. However, as assessed above, the landlord failed to identify and put right all of the issues during the 2-stage complaints process, because it did not adequately investigate the resident’s allegation that the contractor’s account of events was untrue, or take up her offer of viewing the evidence available. Therefore, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman has noted that this case is the third complaint between this landlord and resident that has been determined by this service. In all cases, there was a level of service failure found in the landlord’s complaint handling. In speaking with this service, the resident expressed her desire for the landlord to enact effective learning and to improve its service. There is evidence that despite these determinations, the landlord has not learned from outcomes. The resident made a number of further expressions of dissatisfaction following the stage 2 complaint, which were not raised formally. This included a promise by the landlord to respond within 5 working days on 10 February 2022, which was not forthcoming despite the resident’s subsequent chasers on 11 February 2022, 22 February 2022 and 13 March 2023. When it did respond on 15 March 2023, a number of issues raised were not acknowledged. Orders are made below to put things right and ensure the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’.

Record Keeping

  1. The records seen by this service, submitted by the landlord, appear to omit large amounts of correspondence, which the resident has provided evidence of. Equally, repair records are missing from the evidence provided and referenced only in minute detail. The landlord provided no phone records for this investigation, though there is evidence of large numbers of calls made both to and from the resident and landlord, during the period assessed. The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records and to provide any evidence requested to the Ombudsman, in line with its responsibilities under paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
  2. As a result, this service has been hampered in its investigation of this case, in that it has been:
    1. Unable to accurately assess the number of missed appointments.
    2. Unclear on various details regarding repairs done, repairs which were outstanding, and the dates of those repairs.
    3. Unable to corroborate some of the resident’s accounts of things she claims to have been told by the landlord.
    4. Unable to confirm the dates in which the resident’s first heater was in use from.
  3. For the Ombudsman to make a finding of maladministration there must be evidence of an adverse effect following on from a failing. There was no adverse effect in this case, because the above details were not subject to dispute by the resident, following the landlord’s April 2023 intervention after the conclusion of the internal complaints process. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping is made.
  4. It is unclear what the reason for these shortcomings in record keeping were, however it appears likely that much of the evidence referenced (though not all) may have been in the possession of the contractor. The landlord appears to have identified this and begun to learn from it, as part of its review into how it handled repairs in June 2023. As a result, it has “reminded all in-house departments” of the need for accurate record keeping, and implemented spot checks and monitoring to enforce this. While this work is appropriate, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below to extend this to its contractors. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs and remedial works, including communication, and missed appointments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a further £350, made up of:
      1. £200 for the delays in actioning the outstanding remedial works.
      2. £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with a written account of the progress/outcome of its changes to its approach to repairs.
  2. Review its handling of the complaint to determine why it was unable to adequately investigate, identify, and put right the complaint via the 2-stage complaint process, and the reason for the poor response to the resident’s February 2023 contacts. The landlord should share its finding with the Ombudsman. It should clearly outline any action it has already taken or any further actions (such as changes to policy and procedure or additional staff training), which it may deem appropriate to undertake to prevent a recurrence of these failings. It should complete these actions in a further 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the compensation offered in April 2023, if it has not done so already.
  2. That in addition to the learning it has undertaken regarding its record keeping practices, it take any steps necessary which it may deem appropriate to ensure this learning is also inclusive of the contractors it chooses to employ.