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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202306902)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306902

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

16 January 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacement items provided after damage during a decant.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, described as a 3-bedroom terraced house, since 2022.
  2. On 27 and 28 July 2022, the resident was temporarily decanted into alternative accommodation as part of a regeneration project which covered his and other properties. Landlord records indicate the resident contacted it on 29 July 2022 to report his sofa and the door of his fridge freezer had been damaged during the moving process. The landlord relayed the resident’s concerns to the removal company on 1 August 2022.
  3. Records show the landlord subsequently contacted the removal company on several occasions to chase a response, before it agreed to pay any costs relating to repairing or replacing the items itself, and later claiming the costs back. A replacement fridge door was ordered, and this was installed in January 2023. After initially speaking to an upholsterer to arrange a repair of the sofa, after the resident stated he was unhappy with the proposed repair, the landlord later decided to replace the sofa completely. This was ordered in January 2023 and delivered in March 2023. 
  4. On 31 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint. He said that while he had been temporarily moved out of his property, his sofa and the door to his fridge had been damaged. He acknowledged the landlord had replaced the items, but he said both replacements were the wrong colour, and the sofa had the wrong cushions. He noted the landlord had advised it was satisfied with the replacements provided but made clear that he was not. 
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 July 2023 and addressed the “unsatisfactory replacement of (the resident’s) fridge and sofa following damage…caused during a decant”. It noted the resident’s desired outcome to the complaint was for the landlord to replace the sofa cushion fillings, for the fridge door to be replaced with a “brushed steel finish to match the freezer door” (or for a replacement freezer to be provided that matched the new fridge) and compensation to reflect his “time, stress and inconvenience”. To investigate the complaint it advised it had consulted with its Regeneration Advisor (RA) and went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. The day after the resident moved back into his property, he reported his sofa and fridge door had been damaged in the move. The landlord passed on his concerns to the moving company on 1 August 2022.
    2. The RA had agreed to “make arrangements for an upholstery company to repair the sofa” and they advised the resident of this on 29 August 2022. It had also committed to making a similar arrangement regarding the fridge. It outlined that, due to a slow response from the moving company, it agreed to pay for the costs and claim them back “once a resolution was reached”.
    3. A quote to repair the sofa was requested on 29 September 2022 and received on 10 October 2022. On 31 October 2022, having accepted the quote, it contacted the resident and confirmed an appointment for the upholsters to attend on 2 November 2022.
    4. Records showed the resident attended the landlord’s offices the day after the appointment to advise he had cancelled it after being told “the stitching would still be visible” and he therefore wanted a different solution.
    5. The landlord noted that, at that stage, it was yet to be confirmed that the moving company had caused the damage, but it had agreed to rectify the damage regardless of this to avoid delays.
    6. The resident had spoken to a different team on 11 November 2022 and confirmed he was “happy for the damaged section of the sofa to be reupholstered”. The RA contacted the manufacturer to ascertain how much it would cost to source the relevant fabric and asked the upholsterer to provide a quote, which was received on 24 November 2022.
    7. Regarding the fridge door, the RA had contacted the resident on 23 December 2022 to advise the replacement had arrived and he would be contacted regarding an appointment for it to be fitted.
    8. Due to the overall cost of repairing the sofa going over £500, the landlord then decided it would be better to provide a new sofa. It placed an order for this on 24 January 2023 and, on 8 February 2023, the RA contacted the resident again to advise it was due to be delivered on or around 5 March 2023 and provided a further update before it was delivered on 7 March.
    9. On 8 March 2023, the resident emailed to say the cushions on the new sofa looked terrible as they contained a standard filling rather than memory foam. He advised the landlord he would seek legal advice.
    10. It noted the RA had emailed the resident on 8 February to advise him the sofa had been ordered with standard filling and they therefore suggested he keep the cushions from his old sofa, which were undamaged, and swapped them when the new sofa arrived. It had also offered to help dispose of the old sofa. It said the RA had spoken with the resident the previous day (7 March 2023) when this had again been outlined, although it noted the resident advised he had now “given away” the old sofa.
    11. The RA then spoke to the resident in person on 6 April 2023, when he raised a concern about the fridge door. The resident provided photos of the new door on 17 and 18 April 2023.
    12. On 25 April 2023 the landlord advised that, as the fridge door had been fitted in January, but the resident had not reported any issue with this until earlier that month, it would not be in a position to request another replacement. It also reiterated its advice to try and get back the old sofa cushions and swap them.
    13. While the resident had stated he believed the sofa colour provided was “Oyster” rather than “Ash”, it confirmed the sofa had been ordered in “Ash” and it was therefore satisfied the replacement was reasonable.
    14. In conclusion, it agreed with the actions carried out by its RA and said it felt it had gone “above and beyond” to put things right after the resident’s property had been damaged. It confirmed it would not source alternative sofa cushions as the originals had not been damaged and it was “unnecessary” to offer a further replacement fridge door.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023 to ask that his complaint be escalated as he remained unhappy that his “property ha(d) been damaged and replaced with different coloured items”. He said the RA “got the colours wrong” and the “fridge door is a joke”. 
  7. On 6 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing its response, blaming this on an “oversight”. It advised it had reviewed the complaint and the information it had previously provided and went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It had checked the website of the sofa manufacturer and confirmed it did not believe it had made a mistake when ordering the new sofa. It clarified it had given the resident a copy of the order form and confirmed the sofa provided had been in “Ash”.
    2. It had reviewed photographs provided by the resident and examined the timeline of reports received regarding the fridge door. It reiterated its previous explanation that it would not be in a position to order a further replacement as there had been a gap of 3 months between the new door being provided and the resident contacting it to report any problems.
    3. It was satisfied there was “nothing further (it could) add to the thorough response” provided in its stage 1 response. It felt the resident had been “kept fully informed” and that it had gone above and beyond to “ensure that the damage caused to (his) belongings was put right, within a reasonable timescale”.
    4. However, it again acknowledged the stage 2 response had been provided outside of its target timeframe and it offered £50 in recognition of this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that when a customer “has experienced an actual loss or expense as a result of the services we provide”, it will compensate them for that loss. Examples of circumstances in which this policy would apply include when there has been “damage to customers’ belongings due to…negligence from (the landlord) or from those who work for (it)”.
  2. In this case, the resident raised concerns about damage to his fridge door and his sofa a day after he had moved back into his property following a temporary move. Records show the landlord responded quickly once it had received his report and contacted the removal company to make it aware of his concerns. It acted reasonably by acting promptly on the resident’s reports.
  3. Following this, records show the landlord continued to take the issue seriously and sought to provide a resolution for the resident. Although it noted that it had not been proven categorically that the items were damaged by the removal company, it accepted responsibility for either repairing or replacing them. When the removal company failed to provide a timely – or helpful – response, it proactively agreed to pay for any repairs/replacements itself and determined that it would try and recover the cost later. This was positive and meant there would have been less delay and disruption for the resident.
  4. When the resident advised he was unhappy with the proposed sofa repair – as stitching would have been visible – the landlord determined it would replace the sofa entirely and purchase a new one. This was positive and showed the landlord was trying to be flexible when finding a resolution the resident would be happy with. Although it ordered a sofa which had different (i.e. non memory foam) cushions and it was therefore not entirely like-for-like, records show it reasonably advised the resident to retain the old cushions, which were not damaged, and swap them over when the new sofa arrived. This was a reasonable solution for the landlord to propose, which aimed to keep costs down while ensuring the resident was not left worse off.
  5. Records show the landlord kept the resident updated throughout the process, initially regarding the proposed repair with the upholsterers and then regarding the new order it placed with the sofa manufacturers. It was transparent with the resident, providing the order reference both at the time and during the complaint response when he contacted it to query whether the right colour had been ordered. This was positive and evidence of good customer service. 
  6. Although the resident advised he was unhappy with the new cushions and told the landlord he had already thrown or given away his old sofa (and cushions) by the time the new one arrived in March 2023, the Ombudsman has noted the advice the landlord gave about keeping the undamaged memory foam cushions and simply swapping them over. It had also advised the resident it was willing to assist with disposal of the old sofa. The resident made the choice to make his own arrangements regarding disposing of the old sofa and memory foam cushions, despite having been advised the new sofa would arrive with cushions that had a standard filling. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s continuing dissatisfaction regarding the replacement sofa, we have not identified any failing by the landlord in this regard. Its response to the resident, the solutions it offered and provided, and the advice it gave, were reasonable and appropriately communicated.
  7. Regarding the replacement fridge door, we acknowledge that the resident remains unhappy with the solution the landlord came up with, stating that the replacement is a different colour to the rest of the fridge-freezer. Records show that, as with the sofa, the landlord responded promptly and appropriately once the resident reported the door had been damaged. It agreed to take responsibility for ordering a replacement once it became evident the removal company were not responding to it in a timely manner, and it kept the resident updated once this was done.
  8. It is not disputed that the replacement was provided in January 2023. However, there is no evidence the resident raised any concerns with the colour of the new door before April 2023, some 3 months later. While the Ombudsman has not seen the specific terms and conditions relating to the order of the replacement door, it is usually necessary to report any concerns about a delivery as soon as possible. It is unclear why the resident waited 3 months to raise his concerns with the landlord.
  9. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was entitled to advise the resident that as 3 months had passed since the replacement door was delivered, it was not reasonable to ask it to order a further replacement. While the resident’s disappointment with the replacement is acknowledged, the evidence available shows the landlord took reasonable steps to replace the damaged door and, although he may be unhappy with the colour of the door, it is not disputed that he has been left with a functional fridge-freezer and is therefore not any worse off than he was prior to the incident. If the resident had concerns about the replacement the landlord had provided, he was able to raise these at the time it was delivered and installed but there is no evidence he did so.
  10. Regarding its handling of the complaint, the landlord also reasonably identified that its stage 2 complaint response was provided outside its stated target timeframe. It was positive that it recognised this failing and it went on to award proportionate redress (an apology and £50 compensation).
  11. Overall, the landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised about the replacement items which it provided after damage during a decant was reasonable and proactive. It took reasonable steps to resolve the issue and acted proportionately when trying to put things right for the resident. Accordingly, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacement items provided after damage during a decant.