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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202303446)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303446

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

12 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a two bedroom, top floor flat. She resides in the property with her husband and son. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household, but the resident has multiple sclerosis (MS) and her son suffers from asthma. 
  2. The resident first reported a leak appearing from the roof when it rained on 8 February 2021. On 22 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that a multi-trade contractor had attended and “found no problem”. She responded the same day and informed the landlord that its records were “incorrect and out of date”. She explained she had recently been visited by the landlord and advised that a specialist roofing contractor was required. She asked it to follow up on the next steps as soon as possible.
  3. The resident continued to chase the landlord throughout 2021 for an update. On 23 January 2022, she told the landlord that she had reported the leaking roof over 15 times but it had not contacted her or sent a surveyor to investigate. The landlord did not respond to the resident and she continued to pursue the matter throughout 2022. On 10 January 2023 the resident said the issue had been going on for 2 years but was unresolved. It was at this point that the landlord logged a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 26 January 2023. It acknowledged that it had been aware of issues with the roof in 2021, but after it incorrectly cancelled the job, all that had happened was a “series of appointments that seemingly achieved nothing”. It said it had contacted a surveyor to assess the situation further, but could not provide a date the visit would take place. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak and respond to her complaint. It offered the resident £250 in compensation.
  5. The resident continued to chase the landlord between February and April 2023. On 27 April 2023, she requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to the next stage. She explained that despite promises of contact, nothing had happened and she felt “disappointed, let down and ignored”. She explained the situation was having a detrimental impact on both her and her son’s health, and the delays were preventing her selling the property.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 final response on 13 June 2023. It acknowledged that it had failed to keep her updated or resolve the issue in a timely manner. It said it should have organised for a specialist contractor or senior to inspect the roof at an earlier opportunity. It offered her £3,750 in compensation, which included recognition of further delays in responding to her complaint. It said it would remain in contact until the repair was complete and the property was watertight.
  7. The resident continued to chase the landlord throughout 2023. On 17 November 2023 the landlord visited and noted that there had been “incorrect workmanship” from the previous contractor in the summer months. Further repairs were raised to replace the entire roof valley coating. A main roof survey report was completed on 24 January 2024 and noted “all works successfully completed”. However following a period of rain, water ingress continued and the resident reported that the situation was “worse than ever”.
  8. The landlord visited the resident on 22 March 2024. It followed up the visit in writing, stating that it was “not proud” of its poor level of service and assured her it would maintain weekly contact until the matter was resolved. Around the same time, the landlord informed the Ombudsman it was “confident” it had recently fixed the leaks, and had arranged to make good the internal damage by mid-April 2024. It advised it wanted to await the outcome of the determination before awarding the resident further compensation. The resident has advised whilst she is happy with the landlord’s recent communication, she wants the compensation reviewed to reflect the impact the situation has had on her over the last 3 years.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structural parts of the property, including the roof. The resident first reported the a leak from the roof affecting the brickwork on 8 February 2021 and informed the landlord that it was causing damp around the windows. During that time, England was in a national lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, the landlord was prioritising emergency repairs, which was reasonable. It informed the resident that due to the government restrictions, the earliest it could attend the property was on 15 March 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate the reasons for the delay in service.
  2. Despite arranging the repair with the resident for March, its records show that the job was marked as “complete” on 16 February 2021 with no further commentary. As a result, the resident waited in for a missed appointment, causing her inconvenience and frustration. The contractor attended 2 days later without notice, and it was unclear to both the resident and the landlord what the outcome of the initial visit to the roof was. This confusion is highlighted in the email correspondence between the landlord and the resident on 22 March 2021. 
  3. The resident made it clear during this communication that she had verbally been informed that a roofing contactor was required to investigate the matter further, and asked the landlord to provide details of what would happen next. There is no evidence that it responded to her concerns, and she continued to chase the landlord on several occasions, impacting her time and causing her inconvenience.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to instruct a surveyor or roofing specialist at an earlier opportunity and its records continued to be insufficient throughout 2021. This is evidenced in a repairs entry on 21 December 2021 which noted “work carried out”, but with no level of detail of what repairs had taken place. The situation caused the resident evident frustration and on 31 May 2022 she reported that it had been the 20th time she had reported the leak. The delay in communicating a plan of action with the resident was unreasonable and caused her significant distress. Furthermore, the landlord’s lack of notes about the repair caused its own staff evident confusion when they tried to provide the resident with an update on 29 September 2022, resulting in a total recall of the job.
  5. The landlord failed to recognise that it kept sending operatives to complete the same actions on a number of occasions. For example, there were 5 attempts to trace the leak and clear the hopper between February 2022 and January 2023. The landlord had no oversight of the repair jobs and failed to recognise that its contractors were repeatedly attending to carry out the same action, to no avail. The landlord acknowledged this very point within its stage 1 response on 26 January 2023, stating that it had only completed “temporary, surface-level fixes”. It further accepted that it had failed to instruct a surveyor or specialist at an earlier opportunity to establish the root cause of the problem.
  6. The landlord was right to acknowledge the failure in service and apologise to the resident for the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak. However, given that it had been approximately 2 years since it first became aware of the issue, its offer of £150 in compensation for its repair delays was insufficient. Furthermore it failed to reassure the resident of a date she could expect a surveyor to attend to investigate the matter further.
  7. The landlord failed to take any learning from the resident’s complaint at stage 1, to ensure that it did not make the same mistakes. As a result, the resident experienced considerable further inconvenience and had to chase the landlord on several occasions throughout February and April 2023. On 25 April 2023, internal correspondence from the landlord’s customer service team noted “I don’t know who is dealing with this – if anyone. Works do not appear to have been dealt with in a coordinated and effective way, by us or by [the roofing contractor]. This seems to be dealt with very superficially”. Despite this concern, there was no evidence that the landlord took ownership of the repair, and the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated 2 days later. 
  8. On 11 May 2023 the landlord assured the resident that it wanted to bring the repairs to an “urgent conclusion” and would be in contact early the following week. However there is no evidence that it did so, and on 18 May 2023 the resident reported she felt “furious” no one had called her back. She made it clear that the situation was causing her significant distress and was affecting her wellbeing. She said she had concerns about the impact the resulting damp from the leak had on her son’s asthma and felt “absolutely terrified” he might end up in hospital again, to the extent it was keeping her awake at night. The landlord failed to acknowledge her specific concerns and consider the vulnerabilities within the household in a timely manner. It is clear that its failure to act on its promises and take ownership of the repair caused the resident significant distress.
  9. The landlord’s final response on 13 June 2023 was its opportunity to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed in its obligation to manage the repair in a timely manner or keep her updated. It advised that there had been a “misunderstanding of repair obligations” and highlighted areas for improvement in its service, which was appropriate. The tone of the response appeared genuine and was empathetic to the impact the situation had on the resident.
  10. Aspects of the resident’s complaint related to her dissatisfaction that she felt unable to sell her property by the end of May 2023, and the delays lead to an increase in mortgage costs. She also alleged that there was devaluation of her flat and she missed out on putting an offer on her “dream home” as a result of the landlord’s failings. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award damages in the way a court might, but we can consider whether the landlord appropriately applied its compensation policy. In this case, the landlord’s policy does not include payment for costs incurred to leaseholders related to the sale or potential sale of the property.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy does however say that it will consider refunding service charges due to continued failure to deliver a promised service. The landlord appropriately addressed these concerns within its stage 2 response and explained it could not refund the resident her service charge because other repairs had taken place in the block, for example to the communal lighting. The service charge would not have been attributed to the roof repairs alone and therefore the landlord’s response on this point was fair and reasonable.
  12. The landlord’s overall offer of £3,750 in compensation did however include appropriate recognition of the repair delays and the impact the situation had on the resident and her family. It also offered to redecorate the kitchen and bathroom, and replace the kitchen flooring which demonstrated a willingness to put matters right for the resident. This offer was better reflective of her experience, and would have been reasonable had it concluded matters at that point. However it failed to do so, and despite saying that it had taken sufficient learning from her case there is no evidence that it updated its systems for complex repairs, or remained in close contact with the resident.
  13. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord on approximately 5 further occasions between June and October 2023 causing her inconvenience and distress. During this time the landlord completed some remedial work to the roof verge, although the exact dates the repairs took place are unclear from the landlord’s records. However following a period of rain, the landlord noted on 17 November 2023 that there had been “incorrect workmanship done in summer 2023”. This demonstrates that despite the outcome of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to quality check the workmanship of its contractors and as a result, the leak continued intermittently.
  14. Part of the resident’s repair request relate to reports of damp and mould. She first reported that the leak was causing damp in the property on 8 February 2021. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. In this case, the landlord did not arrange for a damp and mould surveyor to attend the property until 10 December 2023, 34 months later and 6 months after its final complaint response. The delay was inappropriate and further evidence that the landlord was slow to send a specialist to the property at the earliest opportunity. It is however noted that the landlord has since adopted a new damp and mould policy and self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould in January 2024 to improve its future service delivery, which is appropriate.
  15. It is recognised that the situation has caused the resident considerable distress as she has experienced leaks in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her son. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident reported a worsening of her mental health during the timeline of the complaint, and that her son was diagnosed with asthma. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  16. In addition, it is evident that the landlord failed to attend appointments with the resident on at least 4 occasions, causing her frustration and inconvenience. The landlord’s compensation guidelines state that it will reimburse the resident £30 if the landlord or a contractor working on its behalf fails to attend an appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord applied its compensation policy with reference to missed appointments noted on 15 March 2021, 22 February 2023, 28 April 2023 and 5 May 2023. An order has been made that the landlord compensates the resident for these missed appointments.
  17. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Despite identifying within its complaint responses that there had been significant failures to rectify the leak and communicate with the resident, it continued to make the same mistakes. After concluding the resident’s complaint in June 2023, it has taken approximately a further 9 months to resolve the repair. The additional delay the resident experienced was unreasonable and caused prolonged distress. Furthermore, despite its improved communication with the resident, it has not taken steps to revisit what compensation it could offer her to put matters right.


The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord]”. It is clear that the landlord missed several opportunities to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity. For example on 23 January 2022 it was aware that the resident was unhappy that it had been the “15th time” she had reported issues with the roof and she had to “continually chase” the landlord. However it was not until 10 January 2023 that the landlord opened a formal complaint. The delay was unreasonable and the resident experienced significant time and trouble chasing it for a response.
  2. The landlord did not respond to the resident at stage 1 of its process until 26 January 2023. Although it apologised for the delay which was reasonable, the £50 in compensation it offered her was not reflective of the year it had taken for it to formally respond to her complaint. Furthermore it took no learning in relation to its complaint handling which was a missed opportunity for it to ensure that it did not make the same mistakes again.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that in putting matters right for the resident, it should clearly set out what will happen by when, and any remedy must be followed through to conclusion. In this case, whilst it acknowledged that a surveyor was required, it did not provide any dates or plan of action, only that the visit would take place “as soon as possible”. This was unreasonable, and when the visit did not materialise, the resident experienced further delays after she requested her complaint be escalated to the next stage.
  4. The landlord’s final response on 13 June 2022 was an opportunity to put matters right for the resident. Prior to responding to the complaint, the landlord arranged to visit her to discuss her concerns in person which was appropriate and demonstrated that it wanted to understand all concerns fully. The landlord’s response was empathetic to the resident’s concerns and addressed each point in sufficient detail. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced a service failure in the overall management of her case, and made an offer of £250 in compensation, inclusive of the delays she had experienced in bringing her complaint.  The amount offered the resident would have been appropriate, had it identified learning and concluded her complaint at that point.
  5. However it is clear that following the conclusion of the complaint, the resident continued to report a poor level of service and the landlord failed to see through commitments it made within its complaint responses. Rather than revisit the issue and put in place a plan of action for the resident, the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint in January 2024. This caused frustration and prolonged a solution for the resident.
  6. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The final response in June 2023 would have been sufficient to put matters right for the resident had it concluded matters and learnt from the outcome of her complaint. However, it is only after the Ombudsman advised the landlord of the start of this investigation, that it sent a senior member of staff to visit the resident to discuss her complaint. This demonstrates a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is positive that it has taken recent steps to improve communication with the resident, it did not have to await the outcome of this investigation to revisit the compensation element of her complaint or identify learning to improve its future complaint service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £5,720 in compensation, within 4 weeks. The amount is comprised of:
    1. £3,750 it offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 13 June 2023, if not already paid.
    2. £1,000 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    3. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    4. £120 in recognition of the four missed appointments referenced in paragraph 25 of this report.
    5. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing her complaint.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with confirmation of what recent steps it has taken to resolve the leak, within 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord is ordered to, in consultation with the resident, update its vulnerability records for the household as appropriate, within 4 weeks.
  5. The landlord is ordered to carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review to be shared with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review must include, but is not limited to:
    1. an explanation of how the landlord intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
    2. confirming what actions the landlord will take to quality check the works of its contractors
    3. a review of its record keeping practice for repairs, with due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
    4. a review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
    5. confirmation of what steps it will take to actively track complaints and ensure that actions promised within its responses are seen through to conclusion.
    6. confirmation of its training schedule for staff following the introduction of the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
    7. an explanation how it will improve its staff guidance on compensation, to ensure that all available options of discretionary compensation are considered before providing a final complaint response.
  6. The landlord is ordered to have completed and post-inspected all outstanding works it referenced within its email dated 27 March 2024. An update should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks.
  7. The landlord is ordered to confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation below, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to monitor the remedial works for a further 3 months from the date of this report to ensure its most recent interventions were successful.