Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202306485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306485

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

10 September 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. Repairs following a leak from the flat above.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for water damaged possessions.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. Repairs to the kitchen sink pipework.
5. The formal complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident and her husband are joint tenants, and both will be referred to in this report as the resident for ease of reading.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, and the installations for the supply of services including water and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy it categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 3 hours, repair within 24 hours) or routine (repair within 10 working days). It will advise residents if there are any delays due to needing parts or a follow-on appointment. It will also patch-paint redecorate where a repair has caused damage to decoration under its policy.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould when caused by a repair issue or will give advice to the resident when caused by “use of the home”. When damp and mould is reported it will attend to diagnose and treat the problem. It will raise repairs if needed or will support the resident if caused by condensation. If there is reoccurring damp it will carry out a risk assessment. It will update residents on inspections, diagnosis, and any works needed.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations to this Service.
Under its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes it will contact the resident to request a further 10 working days extension, or longer by agreement in exceptional circumstances.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord has a compensation guidance document which sets out suggested amounts it can offer for service failure depending on severity.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
The resident has raised that she believes damp and mould in the property have caused her husband’s asthma to get worse and her son to become unwell. This Service is unable to determine complaints about personal injury. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 7 November 2022 to chase up a follow-on appointment for a repair for her blocked kitchen sink. The landlord has not provided evidence of the original report or repair appointment to this Service. It said it was waiting for a part and would call her once this was approved.
On 9 November 2022 the resident called the landlord to report a leak coming through her ceiling. Its records say it attended the same day, but it did not record what it did. The landlord’s records say a neighbour above (number 20) also reported the leak the next day as it had affected her kitchen but was caused by blocked pipework in the flat next door (number 22). The landlord called the leaseholder of flat 22, who said she sublet the flat to the council.
The resident called the landlord again on 15 November 2022 and said her kitchen was still flooded from the leak. It said it was trying to get access to both flats 20 and 22.
On 3 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about the leak. She said it had attended but had not got access to the flat above. She had to call the fire brigade who told her the leak was from pipework between the 2 flats above. She said she now had damp and mould, and her possessions and carpet had been water damaged. She said it had said it would send a contractor and she had been waiting for it to attend to inspect but it had not done so. In internal emails on 7 December 2022 it said it did not have anything recorded about inspecting the property and did not know about this.
The landlord and the leaseholder of flat 22 exchanged emails between 8 and 15 December 2022 in which the landlord asked for details of the leaseholder’s tenant, or for a contact at the council, as it wanted to check for a leak. The leaseholder said she had visited, and the tenant had told her the leak had been repaired.
On 26 January 2023 the resident reported that her kitchen sink was blocked, and the landlord attended the same day. It noted “the pipework is running majorly uphill which is causing the water flow to be restricted”. She reported a blockage again on 27 February 2023 and it attended the same day and cleared the blockage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 March 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint), which was about:
1. The leak from above which had caused mould. She had told it about this and sent photographs, but it had not done anything.
2. The problems with her kitchen sink pipe being the wrong way around.
3. Not receiving a response from it when she raised these issues.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 29 March 2023 in which it:
1. Said it had booked repairs for the kitchen sink pipe and for a damp and mould inspection for 24 April 2023.
2. Apologised for how long it took to book the repairs in and said its repairs team would manage them until completed.
3. Offered £100 compensation for the delays.
4. Said how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The same day the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint. She said the leak from above had caused damage to her carpet and possessions, for which she wanted to be compensated. She also said she had a lot of mould which was making her husband’s asthma worse and making her son ill. She had tried to clean it, but it kept coming back. The landlord called her and emailed her the same day to acknowledge escalation. It emailed her to acknowledge escalation again on 5 April 2023.
The landlord’s records say it attended on 5 April 2023 for a repair to the kitchen sink, which it raised on 29 March 2023. There are no repair notes and there is no record of a damp and mould repair having been raised on that date.
On 19 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she wanted all her repairs completed, including cracking to the ceiling from the leak, damp and mould resolved, and to her radiators which had become rusty. She also set out the possessions which were water damaged. She chased it for a response on 4 May 2023 and it said it had 20 working days from 5 April 2023 to reply. In an internal email on 5 May 2023 the landlord confirmed the resident had not mentioned her damaged carpet or possessions before it provided its stage 1 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 May 2023, in which it:
1. Regarding damp and mould, said its one surveyor was on annual leave and would contact her when he returned.
2. Regarding the sink, said it had recalled its contractor who would attend that day.
3. Regarding damaged possessions, said she should claim on her own contents insurance if she had this. It also said she could not claim against its insurance but offered £50 as a goodwill gesture.
4. Apologised for the delays and upheld the complaint. It offered further compensation totalling £150, including its goodwill gesture.
5. Said how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord attended on 9 May 2023 and said the kitchen sink waste pipework was incorrectly installed and running uphill. It needed to cut through walls to reinstall and needed an asbestos test. It also noted, on 4 August 2023, it still needed an asbestos report and a surveyor to confirm the works.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord raised a repair to treat damp and mould but then cancelled it without explanation. The resident emailed it to chase these works on 10 October 2023. In an internal email the landlord asked for an urgent “wash down”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 October 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint (the second complaint) which was about having waited over 3 weeks for damp and mould treatment. She said the mould was affecting her son’s health, as it was mostly in his bedroom. It acknowledged the complaint on 16 October 2023. It confirmed in an internal email that it had added her to a list for its contractor for the following week and confirmed on 25 October 2023 that it had completed a mould wash on 23 October 2023. It had also advised her to move furniture away from the walls.
On 25 October 2023 the landlord raised new repairs to repair the cracked ceiling and unblock the kitchen sink. In an internal email on 30 October 2023 it said it had closed the damp and mould case, as “the immediate health risk [was] removed and where there are no specific repairs identified that would contribute to the problem.” It said it would open a new case if the resident reported it again.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response (to the second complaint) the same day and said:
1. Regarding damp and mould, it had treated this and given advice.
2. It had booked repairs for 31 October 2023 for the cracks and kitchen sink.
3. It was sorry for its lack of communication regarding the repairs.
4. How the resident could escalate the complaint if she wished to.
On 1 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said it had missed the repair appointments. The landlord replied on 3 and 7 November 2023 and apologised. It offered £10 compensation for its poor communication. Its records say it completed the sink repair on 14 November 2023 and the ceiling cracking repair the following day. She emailed it again on 23 November 2023 and said it had filled the cracks but not painted, had cleaned the mould but it had come back, and had unblocked the sink but not fixed the pipework problem. It replied on 27 November 2023 and said it had unblocked the sink, did not paint as this was decoration, and would contact the damp and mould manager for her.
The resident resent her email of 23 November 2023 again to the landlord on 30 November 2023. It replied on 4 December 2023 and said it would arrange a surveyor to inspect. She emailed it again on 8 December 2023 to chase this up. It replied on 15 December 2023 and apologised for the delay. It said it had requested a surveyor and would contact her. It emailed her again on 28 December 2023 and booked an appointment for 25 January 2024. The resident emailed it on 1 February 2024 and asked for an update following the inspection.
On 19 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint (the third complaint) which was about:
1. The repairs she still needed for damp and mould and the kitchen sink pipework.
2. Being told it would install an extractor fan in the bedroom and paint with anti-mould paint, but this had not been done.
3. Not having heard back from it or its surveyor since the inspection.
4. Feeling that she was only taken seriously when she made a complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 February 2024. On 13 March 2024 it recorded the outcome of the inspection, with works needed to:
1. Rerun the sink waste pipe as it was running up hill.
2. Stain block repaint the ceiling following a leak above.
3. Mould wash the bedroom ceiling and walls and install a humidistat fan.
4. In the bathroom stain block the ceiling and wall and repaint in an anti mould paint.
On 22 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response (to the third complaint) in which it:
1. Said it raised the works from the inspection on 13 March 2024 to a contractor, who would contact the resident.
2. Apologised and said it was going to improve communication following inspections, but not how.
3. Offered £155 compensation for its poor communication, delays, and distress caused.
The resident told this Service, on 30 July 2024, that at that date the landlord had painted over the cracks, but they were opening again, and she had reported this. She said it had installed the extractor fan and painted anti-mould paint, which resolved the mould issue, but it did not decorate where it installed the fan. She said the problem with her kitchen sink pipe had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from the flat above

When the resident reported the leak from above on 9 November 2022 to the landlord it correctly attended as an emergency under its repairs policy. Although it could not access the private flat above it should have noted this in its records. It correctly contacted the leaseholder the following day to report the leak and ask for help with access. However, it failed to follow this up until after the resident chased it one month later, which was a failing.
The landlord would have been aware that the property would have had water damage due to the leak. The resident also told it on 3 December 2022, but it failed to arrange an inspection or any repairs. The resident was reporting a repair, and the landlord did not follow its repairs policy which was a failing. It said in its stage 1 response (to the first complaint) that it would inspect the property, but it failed to do this.
The resident raised the issue of repairs needed following the leak, specifically saying her ceiling was cracked following escalation of her complaint. The landlord failed to respond to this point within its stage 2 response. It did not raise a repair for the ceiling until 25 October 2023, almost a year after the leak, which was an unreasonable delay. It appears only to have done this as the resident had made the second complaint. It then failed to attend for the appointment, which further delayed the repairs.
After it repaired the cracks, the landlord failed to repaint over them. This was in breach of its repairs policy which says it will patch paint following repairs and was a further failing. It also incorrectly told the resident it would not paint.
There was maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its repairs policy. It did not respond to the resident’s requests for repairs or complete them within its policy timeframes. It gave incorrect information to her, and its handling led to her having to chase and make further complaints. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged possessions

On 3 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that her carpet and possessions had been damaged by the leak from above. Although she did not include this within her stage 1 complaint, she did include it as part of her escalation request and the landlord correctly responded to it at stage 2. It said she should claim on her own contents insurance but that she could not claim against its insurance.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of what caused the leak, and it is possible it does not have this as it occurred within a private leasehold flat. However, considering the sudden nature of the leak, it was reasonable for it to advise her to make a claim against her own contents insurance if she had this. However, it was not reasonable, or correct, to tell her that she could not make a claim against its insurance. There was no reason the resident could not make a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance. Whether that claim would be successful or not would then be a matter for the insurers and not the landlord to decide.
The landlord offered £50 as a ‘goodwill’ gesture, although it is not clear why. There was service failure. While the landlord’s advice about claiming on home contents insurance was reasonable, it was wrong to say the resident could not make a claim against its insurance. To reflect the distress caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 additional compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould in December 2022, which she said was caused by the leak from above. She said she had been waiting for it to inspect but it had no knowledge of this. There was either a miscommunication or the landlord had not updated its records, either of which was a failing. The landlord failed to act on her report of damp although it did check the leak had been resolved.
The landlord took no action until the first complaint and in its stage 1 response said it had booked an inspection, which was solution focused. However, it booked an appointment for nearly a month after its response, and nearly 4 months after she had raised the issue in December 2022, which was an unreasonable delay. By this point its damp and mould policy was in use but its policy failed to give any timeframe for its actions, which in itself is a failing. The resident told it the mould was affecting her husband’s asthma and her son’s health, but it did not prioritise the inspection. There is no evidence it booked an inspection at all, which was a significant failing. Its damp and mould policy says it will be responsible for diagnosing damp and mould which it was not actively trying to do.
After further chasing, and the complaint being escalated, the landlord said in its stage 2 response its surveyor was on annual leave. This was not an acceptable reason to have not booked, or missed as far as the resident was concerned, an inspection. Landlords should ensure they have sufficient staffing to be able to cover periods of expected annual leave. This was a further significant failing. At the least, it should have booked an appointment, and given a date, for when the surveyor was to return to work. Instead, it did nothing.
In September 2022 it raised a damp and mould treatment, but then cancelled this without explanation, which was a failing. The landlord was still failing to follow its damp and mould policy. When the resident chased it again, it did arrange for a treatment but failed to arrange for a surveyor to diagnose the problem which had been long running. It then said it had closed the damp and mould case as it had resolved the immediate health risk. This was not solution focused as it had not diagnosed the cause. It had not put things right. Although it said no repairs were needed, and it advised moving furniture away from walls, this was not sufficient to show it followed its policy. The mould came back as a result.
The resident had to chase the landlord twice before it said it would arrange a surveyor, which was one year since she first reported the problem. It then booked an appointment for over 7 weeks later, which was an unreasonable delay. During the inspection the landlord correctly diagnosed the cause, and recommended solutions to resolve it, which was positive. However, it failed to act on this or keep the resident updated, in breach of its policy. This led to the third complaint on 19 February 2024. Despite this the landlord delayed for a month to order the repairs.
There was severe maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its damp and mould policy and failed to take the matter seriously. It took the resident consistently chasing, and raising multiple complaints, for any progress to be made. She had explained she had damp and mould, had sent photographs, had explained the impact it was having on her household’s health, yet the landlord delayed, failed to take action and minimised the problem. This led to distress, frustration, time and trouble for the resident in trying to get the issue resolved. To reflect this impact, and order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 additional compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen sink pipework

It is not known when the resident first reported blockages to her kitchen sink, as the landlord has not provided full records. She did chase up a repair in November 2022 and the landlord told her it needed parts approved, but it failed to follow this up. She reported it again in January 2023 and the landlord attended promptly the same day, exceeding its routine repair timeframe, and diagnosed the problem that the wastewater pipework had been installed incorrectly. However, it failed to book a follow-on repair to correct this. She reported a blockage again a month later and again the landlord promptly attended to clear the blockage but failed to take any further action.
Within its stage 1 response (to the first complaint) it said it had booked a repair for the kitchen sink pipework, which was positive. It did attend but failed to record any notes from the repair, which did not resolve the problem. Within its stage 2 response it correctly said it had recalled the repair and it reattended promptly. It diagnosed the problem as it originally did on 26 January 2023. Over 3 months had passed by this time which was an unreasonable delay in resolving the issue. It said it needed an asbestos test and later a surveyor to approve but there is no evidence the landlord took these steps which was a further failing.
Following the second complaint the landlord raised a repair to unblock the sink, which it missed, but later completed. However, again, it failed to resolve the pipework issue. Following the third complaint the landlord said, in its response, that it had issued the repairs to its contractor. However, as on 30 July 2024 the pipe had still not been corrected.
There was maladministration. The landlord correctly diagnosed the problem in January 2023, but repeatedly failed to complete the works needed to correct it. This led to repeated blockages, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the issue. She felt like she was not being listened to which was frustrating. The resolution was simple, but the landlord failed to do it. It was not being fair, putting things right or learning from the outcomes of its many repairs appointments. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 additional compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaints

When the resident made the first complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day timeframe. It provided its response within its policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. Its response correctly said how she could escalate the complaint, although its wording was confusing on this point.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint twice within its policy timeframe. It responded one day over its policy timeframe, which was a minor failing, and responded to all elements of the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to complaints 2 and 3 within its policy timeframes and in compliance with the Code. It addressed all complaint elements.
Overall, there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs following a leak from the flat above.
2. Repairs to the kitchen sink pipework.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged possessions.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaints.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy. It failed to act upon reports of damp and mould, delayed in raising appointments and inappropriately closed the case. When it did finally inspect, it delayed in completing the actions needed to resolve the issue. It failed to keep the resident updated and failed to show it had taken her family’s medical conditions or health into account.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from above as it failed to raise or complete repairs within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. It also failed to redecorate or ‘make good’ and gave the resident incorrect information about this in breach of its policy.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen sink pipework as, despite identifying the issue causing the repeated blockages, it had failed to repair it. It attended multiple times to unblock the sink, but each time failed to raise and complete the necessary follow-on works to finally resolve the issue.
There was service failure as the landlord incorrectly said the resident could not make a claim against its public liability insurance.
There was no maladministration as the landlord followed its complaints policy and complied with the Code in its handling of the complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £2,050 made up of:
  1. £200 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs following the leak from above.
  2. £50 for the distress caused by its failings in handling the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions.
  3. £1,500 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling reports of damp and mould.
  4. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the kitchen sink pipework.
3. Redecorate where it installed the extractor fan to match existing decoration or provide evidence if it has already done so.
4. Repair and redecorate the cracked ceiling or provide evidence if it has already done so.
5. Rerun the kitchen sink wastewater pipework so that it runs downhill. The landlord is to provide a report of the works, with before and after photographs to this Service. If it has already done this work it is to provide proof of this.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered, under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, to review its damp and mould policy and whether it could include timeframes for inspections, mould treatments and related repairs into the policy.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord amend its template stage 1 response letter paragraph on escalation as the current wording is confusing. An alternative wording could be “If you are unhappy with our response and would like to escalate your complaint to stage 2, please let us know why within 6 months of the date of this letter”.

Wider Orders

The Ombudsman made a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme regarding the landlord in case 202218444 in relation to adhering to its damp and mould policy, its response to reports of damp and mould and staff training, on 31 July 2024. As that order was made after the events of the current complaint, no further orders have been made here.