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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202311002)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311002

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

29 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a leak and the associated repairs to the kitchen.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. There are young children living at the property and the resident is vulnerable with mobility problems along with anxiety and depression, which is known to the landlord.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 27 April 2023 due to the outstanding repairs to the kitchen, caused by a leaking sink due to blocked drains. The resident said the damage occurred about eighteen months ago. They also said a contractor had already attended and confirmed the kitchen was beyond repair.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 May 2023, it said:
  1. it had authorised the replacement of a kitchen unit door, drawer, unit shelves and cupboards in March 2023.
  2. during an appointment on 5 April 2023, the contractor reported to the landlord the resident wanted a new kitchen instead of completing the repairs.
  3. a contractor assessed the kitchen on 18 May 2023 and raised a job to jet the manhole cover outside the property.
  4. the contractor also confirmed he would speak to the Planned Maintenance team about the kitchen, as it was not due for renewal until 2027.
  1. The resident escalated their complaint on 25 May 2023 and said they had waited years for a suitable repair. They also disputed the contents of the complaint response. The resident said a contractor had already confirmed the kitchen was beyond repair.
  2. In the landlord’s final response on 26 July 2023, it reiterated the same points as in the stage 1 response. It also:
  1. apologised for the level of service the resident had received.
  2. provided a plan to put things right by arranging an appointment to replace the kitchen unit door, drawer, unit shelves and cupboards.
  3. offered £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced in chasing the complaint and £50 for a delay in providing the stage two complaint response.
  1. The resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 June 2023 and said they wanted a new kitchen to be installed. The landlord provided an update to the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024 and confirmed a new kitchen was installed in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, it is noted the resident had first reported a leak and subsequent flooding of the kitchen in September 2020 but did not raise a complaint with the landlord until April 2023. Therefore, to ensure a fairness to both parties, this investigation will focus on matters which occurred on or after April 2022, but will consider the wider implication of historic repairs in the context of the landlord’s handling of more recent issues.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and the associated repairs to the kitchen

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the drains.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says its emergency repairs service covers blocked external drains. It also says its essential repairs covers kitchen units, worktops, kitchen taps, wall tiles and vinyl floor coverings, along with drainage systems and the clearance of blockages internal and external​.
  3. The repairs policy also says that the landlord would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, general repairs within 10 working days, and “repairs exclusions” within 20 working days. It says that larger jobs, such as replacement of kitchens, may fall outside of these timescales.
  4. The evidence shows the resident first reported problems with blocked drains in September 2020. In November 2021, the resident reported a recurrence of the problem resulting in damage to her kitchen. In January 2022, the landlord identified the communal stack of the drains needed clearing and descaling, which could only be accessed via a neighbour’s property.
  5. On 28 April 2022 the resident asked about the follow-on works for the drains. The landlord said it would provide the neighbour’s contact details to its contractor to arrange the repair. There is no evidence any action was taken by the landlord to progress the repairs at or around this time. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of the drain repairs was reasonable or appropriate in the first instance. This was a failure by the landlord.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 18 January 2023 the sink kept getting blocked and she was still waiting to hear back from a contractor to unblock the drains. She also said the kitchen was previously damaged by flooding, the washing machine broke, and the cupboards and floor were damaged, and she had first reported it in 2021 but had been unwell and had not been able to chase it up.
  7. On 3 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it had written to the contractor to make an appointment to access the neighbour’s garden and complete the work. The landlord also said it had made an appointment for 27 March 2023 to repair or replace the kitchen cupboard door, kitchen drawer and kitchen unit shelves. It said the date was in March to allow time to access the neighbour’s property and fix the drainage problem.
  8. On 28 February 2023, the landlord asked its repairs team if it could move the appointment forward, as the resident’s councillor had emailed asking it to be expedited. That was a further sign of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
  9. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 5 April 2023 and reported to the landlord the resident refused a repair as she wanted a new kitchen. The contractor said they also believed a new kitchen was needed and provided photos to show the condition of the kitchen to the landlord. The landlord recorded it would pass the issue to a surveyor to go and assess the kitchen.
  10. The resident telephoned the landlord 5 times between 12 and 25 April 2023 asking for an update on the kitchen survey and repair works. They said their toddler could access the cleaning cupboard below the sink as the cupboard was disintegrating and she could not add a safety catch to it. They also asked to speak with someone senior. On each occasion the landlord sent a task to a specific person to confirm when they would attend. It later transpired that person was off work sick, so no action had been taken.
  11. On 27 April 2023 the landlord telephoned the resident, and she asked to raise a complaint for the length of time taken to resolve the repair to the kitchen. The landlord booked an appointment with a surveyor to attend on 11 May 2023 to assess the kitchen. The landlord also noted a contractor had already attended to assess the damages and advised it was beyond repair.
  12. The resident’s local councillor also emailed the landlord on 11 May 2023 and asked why repairs had not happened and why a surveyor had not assessed the property. They also said an appointment was supposed to take place that same day (11 May 2023) but was cancelled the previous day and rescheduled for 18 May 2023. The landlord replied on 19 May 2023 and said a stage 1 complaint response would be sent by 22 May 2023.
  13. The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 May 2023. This confirmed the surveyor had attended and was going to speak to the Planned Maintenance team about the kitchen as it was due for renewal in 2027.
  14. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided a plan to put things right by arranging an appointment to replace the kitchen unit door, drawer, unit shelves and cupboards. It also offered £50 for the time and trouble and inconvenience experienced in chasing the complaint and a further £50 for the delay in providing the stage two complaint response.
  15. The landlord provided an update to the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024 and confirmed a new kitchen was installed in November 2023, with the handover of the completion of work in December 2023. During a telephone call with this Service on 11 November 2024, the resident also confirmed a new kitchen was installed. However, to her knowledge the root cause of the issues (blocked and damaged drains) has not been fixed.
  16. The landlord has an obligation to repair and keep the kitchen in fair condition so that it is usable for the resident up until the point it can no longer repair the issues. A full replacement only needs to be provided if it is the only way to affect a full and lasting repair.
  17. In this case the landlord was told by its contractor on 5 April 2023 that a new kitchen was required. It was appropriate for it to arrange a survey to assess this. However, this Service has not been provided with a copy of the report following the survey on 18 May 2023 to show that it refuted the contractors view that a new kitchen was required. We have also seen reference to a further survey being arranged in August 2023 but there is no evidence to show whether this took place or, if it did, what the outcome was.
  18. As the landlord has provided no evidence to suggest that repairs could instead be undertaken to overcome the need for a replacement kitchen, it is unclear why it continued to offer this to the resident and delayed up until November 2023 when it followed the contractor’s recommendation. Therefore, it appears to this Service that the landlord unnecessarily delayed here.
  19. The resident also told this Service she could hear gurgling noises from the sink, which was the precursor before the previous leak/flood and is concerned it will happen again. The landlord has not provided any records to show what steps it has taken to resolve the issue with the drains. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s response to this was either reasonable or appropriate in the first instance. 
  20. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The evidence provided to this Service highlighted the landlord did not accurately record its communications with the resident or its contractors, visits to the property, or what actions it had taken. There is evidence the landlord raised tasks which were not completed and there is evidence of it raising several requests to visit the neighbour’s property, with no records provided to show if the appointments took place or not.
  21. The landlord’s record keeping impacted on its ability to effectively review the case when responding to the resident’s reports of leaks and what repairs were required to the kitchen. It is the Ombudsman’s view this led to unreasonable delays in surveying and completing works to the drains, and surveying and completing repairs to the kitchen. It also restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right and to learn from this case.
  22. In summary, there were delays in investigating and carrying out repairs to resolve the blocked drains and damaged kitchen in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  23. It has not been possible to determine if the root cause of the drainage problem has been resolved, but the resident has confirmed the kitchen repairs were completed to her satisfaction in December 2023.
  24. The evidence shows the landlord provided minimal updates to the resident causing her to repeatedly chase matters. It is clear this caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to put things right in a reasonable time and the drainage issue appears to be still on-going at the time of this investigation.
  25. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated kitchen repairs. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  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. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) also sets out that it expects landlords to respond to complaints in the timescales set out above. The Code also sets out a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ Therefore, a resident does not have to use the word complaint for the landlord to treat it as such.
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord missed several opportunities to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity. For example, on 18 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said they were having to chase up repairs as they had been experiencing ongoing issues since 2021. This was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have acknowledged this as a complaint in line with the Code.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord delayed the resident in obtaining a final complaint response and her ability to seek redress through this service. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, of 27 April 2023, on 5 May 2023 and stated it would provide a complaint response within 10 working days.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2023, which was 10 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the code.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said the contractor reported the resident wanted a new kitchen instead of repairs. It is noted the landlord did not acknowledge the contractor also reported they agreed a new kitchen was needed. This gave the impression a new kitchen was a baseless demand of the resident.
  8. The Code makes it clear that in putting matters right for the resident, the landlord should clearly set out what will happen by when, and any remedy must be followed through to conclusion. In this case, it said a contractor had raised a job to jet the manhole cover outside the property. It also said it would speak to the Planned Maintenance team about the kitchen, as it was not due for renewal until 2027. However, it did not provide any dates for resolution, which was unreasonable, and the resident experienced further delays after she requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2.
  9. The Code makes it clear ‘if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure’.
  10. The evidence indicates that the landlord missed several opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 at an earlier opportunity. For example, the resident telephoned the landlord on 25 May 2023 and emailed it on 26 May 2023 and disputed the contents of the stage 1 response. The landlord should have taken the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint as a request for escalation to stage 2.
  11. It is the Ombudsman’s view this failure caused further unnecessary delay and was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
  12. The resident then asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 June 2023. The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 20 June 2023 (which was outside of the 5-day timescale) and said it would send a full response within 20 working days.
  13. The resident telephoned the landlord 6 times between 20 June and 24 July 2023 chasing an update on the repairs and the stage 2 response.
  14. The landlord’s final response on 26 July 2023 was an opportunity to put matters right for the resident. However, it was issued 6 working days outside of the agreed timescale following the acknowledgement letter, which is not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code. In addition, had they escalated the complaint on 25 May 2023 as they should have done, the final response should have been sent on 30 June 2023 at the latest.
  15. It also just reiterated the same points as in the stage 1 response, while apologising for the level of service the resident had received. The landlord provided a plan to repair part of the kitchen, but did not provide any detail of when or how the drainage issue would be completed. In addition, the landlord did not address the fact its contractor had reported they agreed a new kitchen was needed. The landlord also offered £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced in chasing the complaint and £50 for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
  16. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord recognising expressions of dissatisfaction. There were also delays escalating the complaint to stage 2, and delays in issuing the stage 2 response.
  17. That said, this Service considers the compensation offered, totalling £100, was reasonable redress to reflect the shortfalls in complaint handling. This is because the sum offered is appropriate for the detriment caused to the resident and is within the bracket this Service would award for failures of this nature.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs to the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
  1. pay the resident £500 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs to the kitchen.
  2. if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs to the drainage system are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out. This should be sent within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
  3. provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with this order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 compensation, already offered under its internal complaint procedure in recognition of the impact of its complaint handling service failure, if it has not already done so.