Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202302569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302569

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

12 March 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of:
1. Mould in the property.
2. Communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning.
3. The communal lighting repair.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured periodic tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fourth floor. The resident moved into the property in February 2008. The block of flats the resident lives in is served by 1 communal lift.
The resident has vulnerabilities and does not use the internet. The landlord is aware of the resident’s circumstances.
For the purposes of this investigation, this Service will refer to both the resident and her non-legal representative, as the resident.
On 1 May 2022, the landlord sent a newsletter to all residents, detailing the lift programme. This was to have commenced 23 May 2022. It intended to replace the existing lifts with modern lifts, because of ageing parts and maintenance costs. Each lift would take approximately 10 weeks to replace, and it would start with 2 blocks at a time.
The resident was experiencing issues as the lift was not functioning. On 20 October 2022 she complained to the landlord. She had referred to this as a supporting statement. She mentioned her tenure history and her physical wellbeing. She said the difficulty she faced climbing the stairs, given her disabilities and how it was affecting her. Additionally, the resident said that previously she complained of unrelated issues and the landlord had offered her alternative accommodation to resolve the issues reported. She wanted the following to resolve her complaint:
1. the lift to be replaced or fixed
2. a place to store her mobility scooter as she wanted to remain at the property
3. compensation as she felt the landlord had breached the tenancy agreement
On 31 October 2022 the resident sent multiple emails to the landlord. The resident had said the landlord should bypass its stage 1 complaints process and provide a stage 2 complaint response as previous verbal complaints were not responded to. The resident added to the complaint the following:
1. the landlord should not interfere with the resident’s right to peacefully live in the property as this was a tenancy breach
2. the landlord had not kept the lifts in good repair
3. requested the landlord repair the communal light outside her door at the rear of the flat, as the light had been out of action for at least 3 years
4. she was concerned the lift in her block of flats were not part of the next lift modernisation programme
The landlord issued stage 1 complaint responses twice. The first complaint response was sent on 17 November 2022 and acknowledged the resident’s statement of 20 October 2022. It stated that the best way to replace the lift in the resident’s block was still being discussed and an update would be sent to all residents. The landlord said it recognised the inconvenience to the resident, but it did not constitute a tenancy breach. Regarding a house move, it added that it was looking for a property which suited her preferences. The landlord had an agreement with the local authority, that some of its stock was allocated to the local authority. This meant there could be delays but the resident was in its highest priority band. In terms of space for the mobility scooter, the landlord suggested the resident obtained an Occupational Therapist referral first. Then, permission would be needed from it to consider the location and fire safety. The landlord also added the following:
1. despite searching its call records it found no previous complaints from the resident
2. the landlord had no record of repair requests for communal lighting, however its contractors would attend on 23 November 2022.
The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident over the phone on 29 November 2022. She reiterated her concerns and mentioned the lift had not been in service for 4 years. She added that the customer service she received on that day was poor. On 15 December 2022 she called and asked to have her complaint escalated.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord sent its second stage 1 complaint response. It did not refer the resident to the previous stage 1 complaint response. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the lift with the same comments as it had on 17 November 2022. The landlord further explained that its contractor was unable to fix the communal light. It depended on taking the lift to the top floor to fix the light. Within this response, the landlord addressed a new issue regarding customer service experienced by the resident. When the resident called the landlord on 29 November 2022, she asked about a repairs text message she received. She was told her bathroom ceiling would be repaired. It apologised for misinforming her and causing confusion.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaints responses and escalated her complaint in a phone call of 6 January 2023. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 6 February 2023 detailing the grounds she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaints responses. These were:
1. the landlord refused to pay the resident any compensation
2. it had not answered 6 of 7 freedom of information questions in the resident’s email of 31 October 2022
3. it had dismissed previous verbal complaints
4. communal light repair was still outstanding
5. the landlord failed to address sources of black mould
6. the landlord had not acted in accordance with the Equality Act 2010
7. the landlord failed to assess the resident’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 8 February 2023 to the resident. It reiterated that the number of available homes were limited. It advised the resident should get in touch with the local authority. The landlord had also discussed mutual exchanges with the resident and provided a link and a text message to her phone. It apologised for not informing her of the timescales to complete repairs to the communal lift when it had the opportunity to do so. The landlord explained the resident’s block was a priority and works would commence in 4 to 8 weeks. It also offered the services of its tenancy support team, so she had a named individual to speak to. It apologised for the time it had taken to get to that stage and said it recognised the impact it had on her. As the landlord felt its service could have been better, it offered £150 in compensation. This consisted of:
1. £50 – for the time and trouble the resident had experienced dealing with the complaint
2. £100 – for the inconvenience experienced while the landlord replaced the lift
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on the matter. She asked us to investigate her complaint on 14 March 2023. She has also told this Service that the lift has not been replaced.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as potentially there are reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless it is because of a complaint handling failure.
The first time the resident reported mould to the landlord was 6 February 2023. This was 2 days prior to the landlord issuing its final response. The resident had already received stage 1 complaint responses and there are no other records of a complaint being made about mould before February 2023. As the resident had not included it in her initial complaints prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response, she has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure regarding any mould issues she has experienced. Therefore, this Service will not comment on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of mould in the property.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42c of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising
Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues. This also means evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
There was no evidence that a complaint was made prior to 20 October 2022 regarding the communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning. As this was the case, this investigation will consider the period from when the landlord notified the resident that the planned lift programme was to commence from May 2022. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Scheme.
Prior to the resident’s email of 31 October 2022, there was no evidence of a complaint made regarding the communal light repair. The resident said that for 3 years before she complained, the communal light had not been working. This Service understands she was using a torch. No reports had previously been made to the landlord that the communal light was faulty. However, the issue was still ongoing and affecting the resident. Hence the scope of this investigation will start from when the landlord was first put on notice of her complaint on 31 October 2022.
The resident has since said that the landlord offered to pay for a hotel or would agree to pay towards a 6 months’ tenancy agreement for another property. The resident said this offer was then taken away by the landlord and instead it said it would provide a concierge to assist her, up and down the property. As these issues had been raised after the landlord’s final response of 8 February 2023, it has not had the opportunity to respond. This Service is unable to investigate these new issues. Although, we can comment on whether the landlord had followed through on any agreements it might have made during its complaint process.
It is noted the resident said that without a working lift, her physical and mental health were affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, the resident had raised these concerns directly with the landlord, so we can consider how it responded to these issues. We have also considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the lifts caused the resident.
Paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident raised issues about Freedom of Information requests. Matters regarding data and information transparency would fall properly under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident may seek independent advice about her options to progress her concerns with the ICO. As such, other matters that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process will be considered by this Service.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says the landlord must take reasonable care to keep any shared entrance halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other shared parts (including electric lighting) in good repair.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
Within the landlord’s allocations policy, an emergency move or permanent decant for repairs can be facilitated where it is deemed unsafe for residents to continue living in their home. As per its agreement with the local authority, this falls under the bracket of 25% eligible homes. Works that are classified as major repairs to the resident’s home would be treated as a management transfer. This means it is not limited to 25% of eligible homes.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If these timescales cannot be met, it would agree extensions.

Communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning.

In this case, it was not disputed that there had been delays in replacing the communal lift. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £100 for the inconvenience caused. The landlord had not disputed that the lift in the resident’s block was not functional from the start of planned works. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible to keep the lift in good repair.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. This says landlord’s should be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable. However, it may have not always been clear how the resident’s vulnerabilities influenced her gaining access to her home without a functioning lift. The landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010, to consider whether the resident’s circumstances placed her at a disadvantage awaiting planned works to replace the lift. Before the planned works started, this Service would have expected to see the landlord’s clear decision making regarding the risk to the resident. It should have assessed the risk of continuous living without a functional lift for any period of time. The ongoing risk assessment ought to have taken into account the known vulnerabilities and considered interim mitigations such as:
1. arranged an Occupational Therapist assessment
2. considered a temporary decant or permanent move
3. referral to adult social care
4. any other support the landlord could have provided – including mutual exchanges
The landlord was not proactive with the above. In its complaint response of 17 November 2022, it referenced that the resident should obtain an Occupational Therapist assessment, but this was regarding her mobility scooter. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered more assistance in arranging the assessment. Especially as it was put on notice of the heightened risk to the resident. As the resident was vulnerable and had difficulties climbing up and down the staircase, the landlord should have recognised the effect that the lift being out of use would have on her. It would also be appropriate for it to consider reasonable adjustments to support her. Although it did provide a text message regarding mutual exchanges, and provided a named staff member to contact, this was only in its final response. This was not fair in the circumstances as the resident faced difficulty by using the staircase. It failed to identify and manage the risk and identify appropriate interventions at the earliest opportunity.
During the landlord’s internal complaints process, no decant or home move for the resident had been assessed by the landlord. It confirmed to her that she was part of the highest priority banding, but its stock was limited. This banding is given when it was deemed unsafe for the resident to continue to live in the property. Although this was in line with its policy, as above it should have provided support earlier. The first mention to the resident that she should contact the local authority to help with a potential move was in a phone call on 10 January 2023.
The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have communicated clearly in order to provide a good service. From the information received, the landlord’s communication was limited. Its first correspondence relating to the planned lift programme was sent in May 2022. An update was sent in October 2022, a copy of which this Service has not received. The resident did not receive a lift replacement timeframe until the landlord’s final response of 8 February 2023. At that stage she had been waiting 181 working days since the programme of lift works commenced. The landlord should have engaged proactively in these circumstances. As it had not, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
It is understood that a large amount of investment had gone into the lift replacement programme. Given the severity of the situation it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review how it adjusts its service delivery. Outside its programmed works, there had been no other justification as to why the lift could not be repaired. In the resident’s last written communication received by this Service, she had said the replacement to the lift was still outstanding. This was despite the landlord saying her block of flats were a priority and works would commence in 4 to 8 weeks. This only extended the time the resident was without a functioning lift. In these circumstances, the landlord had failed to meet the targeted completion date, which was inappropriate. This would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In recognition of the failures in repairing or replacing the lift, lack of adequate consideration of risk, lack of communication and the detriment faced by the resident, this Service finds the landlord has not gone far enough to put things right. As such, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning. Orders have been made with regard to the cumulative effect on the resident.

The communal lighting repair

On 31 October 2022 the resident reported to landlord that a communal light was not working. She told it the area to repair could be accessed using her or her neighbours’ properties. There was no evidence the landlord had communicated to her that it was going to take any action regarding the communal light until its first stage 1 complaint response, which was 13 working days after. The tenancy agreement shows that it was responsible for repairs to the communal lighting. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it arranged for its contractors to inspect the communal lights on 23 November 2022 and it was aware of the routes of access she told it. This response was fair and reasonable as it had taken into account her concerns and arranged an inspection.
The landlord said in its second stage 1 complaint response that its contractors attended on 23 November 2022. It explained to the resident it was unable to repair the communal light and this was due to repairs needed to the lift. There was no power to the rear of the block. The only way it could access the electrical intake was by taking the lift to the top floor, as there was no staircase. It apologised for this. It also acknowledged the repair remained outstanding and the resident having to use a torch was unacceptable. As the landlord could not repair the communal light until the lift was fixed, the steps it had taken to identify this were reasonable.
There are no specific responsive repair times listed by the landlord in its policies. However, from the outset of the resident’s report to it having completed an initial inspection had taken 17 working days. This was not unreasonable given the nature of the repair.
It is unclear as to why the resident received a text message on 29 November 2022 if the landlord’s contractors had already inspected the property on 23 November 2022. Despite this, by its stage 1 complaint response of 16 December 2022, the landlord had not assessed whether any interim solutions such as temporary lighting or decant were appropriate. As such, it missed the opportunity to put things right. By it not doing so, the resident resorted to using a torch, which was inconvenient to her.
Ultimately, the landlord was unable to provide reassurances when it would fix the communal light. This left the resident in a period of uncertainty which would have added to the inconvenience she experienced. Therefore, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of the communal lighting repair. Orders to put things right, including additional compensation for inconvenience have been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is unclear when the resident’s initial complaint of 20 October 2022 was received by the landlord. No record has been provided. However, the first stage 1 response was triggered by the landlord receiving this complaint, as it referred to this in its response. The landlord had taken 20 working days to respond, which is outside its 10–day commitment at stage 1. There was no further evidence the landlord communicated with the resident prior to issuing its first stage 1 response. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have not done so.
The second stage 1 response referred to an email of 29 November 2022 from the resident. However, the resident had spoken to the landlord on the phone that day. Its records show that a complaint was logged following these calls. She had just raised issues with the customer service she received on that day. She also reiterated her original complaint points. In the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these are only to be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. As the stage 1 response had been issued, the new issue should have been logged separately.
As the landlord failed to do this, it provided a second complaint response at stage 1 about the issues with communal lifts. This was a service failure in its complaint handling. The resident wanted her complaint escalated on 15 December 2022 to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint, yet she received another stage 1 complaint response the day after. This led to the resident saying the landlord was inconsistent throughout the complaint journey. As much of the complaint had already been responded to on 17 November 2022, the landlord should have assessed whether the resident wanted her complaint escalated instead and communicated with her clearly.
In terms of timeliness, the second stage 1 response was acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to 8 working days after that. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
In a discussion over the phone between the resident and the landlord, it decided to escalate her complaint on 6 January 2023. It had spoken to her on the phone on 10 January 2023, but did not send a complaint acknowledgement until 12 January 2023. This was 1 working day over the Ombudsman’s expected timescales. It produced its stage 2 complaint response 19 working days after acknowledgment. On balance, the timeliness of its stage 2 complaint response was reasonable.
The landlord had offered £50 for time and trouble expended by the resident, regarding her complaint journey. However it had not acknowledged its repeated stage 1 responses or the time it had taken to respond to her complaint of 20 October 2022. No learnings had been identified. By providing 2 stage 1 complaint responses, the evidence shows the resident was delayed. It caused her time and trouble because the complaints procedure was protracted by the additional complaint response. Hence, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The orders include additional compensation in respect of the complaint handling failures and the landlord’s failure to address these in its final response.

Determinations

In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of mould in the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of the communal lighting repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to discuss the options for an Occupational Therapist assessment.
3. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, compensation totalling £850, comprised of the following:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in its response to the resident’s concerns of communal lift repairs and the length of time it had been non-functioning.
  2. £50 for the service failure identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of the communal light repair.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced in addition to the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified.

If any of the £150 previously offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response has been paid, it can be deducted from this total.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. If the lift has not yet been replaced, complete a report outlining the current condition of the existing lift in the resident’s block. The report is to explain why the lift replacement programme has not been undertaken within the resident’s block yet. It is to provide confirmation of when it will complete the replacement of the lift and a copy of this report to all residents in the block and this Service.
2. If it has not done so already, write to the resident explaining any temporary measures it could take regarding the communal lighting. If there are not any provisions, it is to explain why.
3. Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, released on 8 February 2024. The Code comes into effect from 1 April 2024.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.