Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202302911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302911

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

27 June 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. the complaint and the level of redress offered.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bed flat under a shared-ownership lease which began on 1 March 2019.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for this resident and he has not declared any to this service as part of the investigation.
The resident’s complaint relates to water ingress into his property from around a sliding patio door and the damage this caused internally to skirting, carpets and personal items. This was originally reported in November 2020. The resident also felt that the landlord did not handle his complaint competently or offer sufficient redress to acknowledge the longstanding nature of the leaks.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 January 2023. He said that the leaks had been ongoing for over 2 years and that the longstanding issues and damage were causing him to become anxious and depressed. In particular, the resident noted that the leaks had damaged his carpet and skirting.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 February 2023. It said that it had previously arranged for a surveyor to attend the property, however this was delayed due to staff illness and it only received the findings on 5 February 2023. The landlord said that it had scoped the works to repair the leak but did not currently have a window contractor available but was trying to source one. The landlord offered £110 compensation to the resident in respect of these delays.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 27 February 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the timescales for the work to be completed, the lack of contractor availability, and the level of compensation offered.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2023. It said that it had identified the source of the leak and arranged for a contractor to attend to complete repairs. The landlord apologised for the delayed complaint response and for “poor” communication. It also offered a total of £350 compensation for these issues.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 December 2023. He is seeking a resolution to the leaks, repairs to the damage caused and additional compensation for the time and trouble spent pursuing the matter through to completion.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident said in his correspondence with the landlord and this Service that the leaks began shortly after he moved into the property in 2019 and the landlord’s records indicate that the leaks were first logged on 10 November 2020. The resident did not raise this matter as a formal complaint until 20 January 2023.
On this basis, this investigation has only considered matters in the months prior to the complaint being raised, from 20 June 2022 onwards.

Leaks in the property

While outside the scope of this investigation, the landlord’s repair records indicate that it was first notified of the leaks in the property on 10 November 2020. The resident raised his complaint regarding the delays to completing the repairs on 20 January 2023.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors, and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that larger works, such as those requiring surveys or jobs that require parts ordered in, will be completed within 20 working days.
Prior to the period that this investigation is considering, a surveyor attended the resident’s property to assess the leak. In January 2021 the resident’s windowsill and skirting was removed to effect a repair, however this was not completed.
Within the scope of this investigation, there is evidence that the landlord has taken the following actions:
1. Facilitated a meeting between the home ownership department and repairs team on 13 December 2022. This meeting identified a possible cause of the leak, but felt that a second surveyor’s visit was needed to clarify this.
2. Scheduled a surveyor to attend the resident’s property in December 2022, however this was delayed due to staff illness and rescheduled for January 2023. The landlord said that it was sent the findings of this survey on 5 February 2023.
3. Scoped the works required to removing the patio and window, installing a damp-proof membrane and then reinstating the patio, window and internal features, including the resident’s skirting and windowsill.
4. Arranged a third surveyor to attend the property on 29 March 2023. The findings of this survey were delayed until 26 April 2023 due to staff illness.
5. Raised a works order on 2 May 2023 to complete the repairs and make good the surrounding area.
6. Arranged for a contractor to attend the property to quote for works on 21 May 2023. This appointment was not kept due to contractor ill health.
7. Asked a surveyor to review a picture of the leaks and confirm what works were required on 22 December 2023.
8. Commissioned a further survey in January 2024, which identified 9 repairs required to address the leaks. This included installation of a drain, gulley and damp-proof membrane.
The evidence shows considerable delays in each stage of the repairs process. The landlord took:
1. Over 2 years to facilitate a meeting between the home ownership and repairs team.
2. Over 27 months to scope the works required.
3. Over 30 months to raise an initial works order to complete the repairs.
It is also unclear why the landlord commissioned at least four different surveys over the course of this repair. Notwithstanding any necessity for these surveys, the Ombudsman considers the repeated surveys, and the extended periods of time between them, delayed the progress of works. This caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
At the time of this investigation the landlord advised that the works to repair the leak and any internal damage remain outstanding and are due to take place in mid to late June 2024. It attributed this to the works being weather dependent and also that the resident is only available at weekends.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord was put on notice of the repairs in November 2020 and it had provided no justification that would explain why they remain outstanding at the time of investigation. Considering the scope of this investigation, this has been a period of over 22 months, which is significantly in excess of the landlord’s policy repairs timescales.
There is also considerable evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for updates and to progress the repairs by phone and email. It is noted that many of these contacts went unanswered for considerable periods of time and the Ombudsman considers that this was a failing.
Notably, in one instance on 11 August 2023 the landlord only noted that the contractor had not provided a quote for the proposed works when the lack of progress was queried by the resident. On another occasion on 1 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase progress on the repairs and an internal case note indicates that the landlord had no record of any repairs being outstanding, this is despite no repairs action having been taken.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were incomplete or delayed and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The two instances noted above indicate a poor record keeping culture which caused additional distress to the resident and exacerbated the ongoing delays in this case.
The combination of repeated inspections / surveys, poor communication, incomplete record keeping, and extensive delays show that the landlord handled this repair in an inept manner that actively frustrated progress of the works over an extended period.
The Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration because the landlord’s actions were considerably short of reasonable professional standards and expectations. This resulted in significant additional time and trouble for the resident and impacted on his enjoyment and use of his property.
It is concerning to note this is ongoing at the time of writing this report. The landlord’s existing remedy is insufficient to address this. The landlord is ordered to complete the works, issue a formal apology, and pay appropriate compensation to address these failings. It must also assess what learning it can take from this case to prevent a reoccurrence of this nature.

Complaint handling and redress

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It commits to issuing a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
The evidence shows that the landlord issued its complaint responses as follows:
1. stage 1 complaint response after 20 working days
2. stage 2 response after 44 working days
The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages of its complaint process were issued outside of timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code. This was inappropriate because it delayed the resident from progressing his complaint internally, and to this Service. This caused additional inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter to completion.
The landlord apologised for its delays and offered £30 compensation at stage 1 and £50 compensation at stage 2 in respect of this.
Throughout this complaint there is a pattern of unanswered communications from the landlord, despite numerous attempts to progress the issues by the resident. In 2023 alone, the evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint and the outstanding repairs on at least 11 occasions by email and at least 5 occasions by telephone.
Additionally, on several occasions there is evidence of the call handler making a commitment that members of staff would contact the resident within a specific timeframe, which was not then kept. This fractured the landlord -tenant relationship further because the resident felt he could not trust the landlord to do what it said it would do.
In order for a complaints process to be effective it must progress issues to completion, build trust, and operate in a transparent and competent manner. The landlord did not demonstrate that it acknowledged its delays, missed communications, and lack of progression with the substantive issue over a protracted period. This shows significant failings in the landlord’s complaint processes because it failed to recognise what it got wrong and set out any learning it had identified.
Taking these factors together there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and redress.

Level of redress

When considering what remedies are appropriate in a case, the Ombudsman has regard to the landlord’s compensation policy, our own remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, particularly the level of impact of any maladministration on a resident.
Throughout the course of the complaint the landlord apologised for the delays, missed communications and unkept appointments. It also offered a total of £110 compensation at stage 1 and a further £350 at stage 2.
In this case, the impact on the resident was moderate but spanned an extended period of time. The resolution process was also directly frustrated by the landlord’s actions, poor record keeping, ineffective communication and incompetent handling of the repairs.
Taking these factors together, the landlord’s existing remedy is not sufficient as it failed to account for the longstanding distress and inconvenience for the resident and his time and trouble spent progressing the repairs. The remedies offered also fail to consider that the repairs remained outstanding at the time of its final response. It is noted that the substantive matter has been outstanding for a period of over 13 months since the landlord last offered compensation in its stage 2 response.
On this basis, the landlord is ordered to provide a director-level apology and pay additional compensation to recognise the impact its failings have had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and redress offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer at Director-level to apologise to the resident in person for the longstanding leaks, delays to repairs and failures in communication and complaint handling outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,000 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £1,400 for the 22 months of delays in repairing the leak and water damage, which caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over a protracted period and to acknowledge the loss of enjoyment of the property.
  2. £600 for the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing the complaints and repairs to completion over a protracted period.

This compensation is in addition to any compensation already paid to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his accounts unless he requests this.

Assist the resident to make a claim to its insurer for any internal damage caused by the leaks which it does not intend to make good as part of the repairs process.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete the outstanding works identified to make a lasting and effective repair to the resident’s window. This is to prevent any further leaks or damage occurring.
2. Conduct a post completion survey for the works within 14 days of the repair being completed. A copy of the post-completion survey must be provided to the resident and this Service.
3. Undertake a case review to identify:
  1. The reasons the repairs were delayed since November 2020, when the landlord was put on notice.
  2. The reasons why multiple contacts from the resident during the course of this complaint went unanswered.
  3. The reasons why the landlord commissioned at least four separate surveyors to assess the leak during the course of the complaint.
  4. What learning can be taken from this case to apply to future such repairs cases to prevent a similar occurrence.
  5. The landlord must product a report with an action plan, showing how its findings will be implemented.
  6. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service a copy of its report within a period not exceeding 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should circulate the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report to its repairs and complaint handling staff for their awareness.