Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202312125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312125

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

23 May 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak and the associated damp and mould.
2. Pests.
3. Repairs to the front door and kitchen.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 2–bedroomed house. The tenancy began on 20 May 2014. The resident lives there with her two children.
The landlord is a housing association. The landlord is aware of the resident’s disabilities and the vulnerabilities within the household.
The resident reported to the landlord that she had damp and mould, pests and that her front door and kitchen were in disrepair several times in the years prior to her formal complaint.
On 6 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had a leak from the roof into her bedroom.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord about these issues on 14 November 2022. She said:
1. She contacted the landlord about the leak in her bedroom and chased a response several times, but the landlord has not attended the property.
2. She was concerned about the damp and mould as her baby was suffering from beathing issues and chest infections.
3. Despite the landlord filling in 2 holes she had mice again. Since reporting this to the landlord it had not taken any action.
4. Her newly replaced front door was getting stuck and could not be opened or closed properly.
5. She had told the landlord several times that the kitchen tiles and a cupboard were broken but it had not responded to her.
6. Her son’s radiator was broken; however, someone was attending that day to fix it.
In the landlord stage 1 complaint response, on 30 November 2022, it said it:
1. Had repaired the roof, the front door, replaced the kitchen tiles and fixed the bedroom radiator. These issues had been resolved.
2. Had arranged a damp and mould assessment for 13 December 2022 and its contractor would check the functionality of the bathroom extractor fan on 16 December 2022.
3. Had arranged an appointment on 4 January 2023 to block access points to stop pests entering.
4. Would replace the kitchen cupboard door on 8 December 2022.
5. Acknowledged there was a failure in its service and poor communication on its part. It offered £100 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble chasing her complaint and for the delays in completing the repairs.
The resident and her representative continued to request updates on the damp and mould and pests. She raised concerns with the impact the damp and mould was having on her and her children’s health.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 March 2023, it said it had arranged for the mould to be treated on 23 March 2023 and the kitchen cupboards that had been damaged by pest control would be repaired on 4 April 2023. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays and offered the resident a further £100 in compensation, a total of £200.
The landlord could not complete a mould wash in the bedroom on 23 March 2023 as wallpaper needed to be removed from the walls first. The landlord’s records show it tried to arrange another appointment with the resident several times between June and October 2023. The mould wash was completed on 20 November 2023.
In referring these matters to this Service, the resident stated that she still had issues with pests and damp and mould in her property.
On 29 April 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. The survey said the property was suffering from moisture migration issues due to poor ventilation and the lack of heating. It recommended to replace the two existing extractor fans, trim the doors and install a positive input ventilation unit in the attic. The landlord told the Ombudsman that these works were due to be included in its planned maintenance work later this year.
The surveyor also mentioned in the report that the roofing felt was damaged, which they felt could cause further leaks. They also said they would not carry out any works to the attic until the pest issue was resolved.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident reported damp and mould, pests and repair issues for years prior to her complaint, however, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of these issues from 1 October 2022 until the final complaint response on 16 March 2023. This is because there was a 6 month gap in the communication between the resident and the landlord prior to October 2022, and as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the residents health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the damp and mould had a negative impact on her and her household’s health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.

The landlord’s obligations

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.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy stated it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and general repairs within 10 days. The policy does not give examples of what it classifies to be an emergency repair, however, it outlines on its website that an emergency repair is a repair to make a situation safe where there is imminent threat to life, danger of serious injury, or major damage to the property.
The landlord’s pest control leaflet it issues to residents states that residents who live in individual houses are responsible to deal with mice issues themselves.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £50-£100 for service failures, and £100-£250 where there are serious or multiple service failures.

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

The resident reported a leak coming through her bedroom ceiling on 6 November 2022. The landlord’s records do not show it recorded any communication from the resident about the leak until she made a formal complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord attended the property to investigate the leak on 18 November 2022. This was 13 days after the initial report, which was outside its target timescale for both emergency and general repairs. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to adhere to its repairs policy and ensure the property was safe.
The landlord fixed the leak on 18 November 2022. However, the leak had caused damp and mould and damaged the internal decoration of the property. There was a pattern of poor communication from the landlord about the steps it was taking to resolve these issues. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated which led to the resident regularly chasing updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2022, the landlord said it would arrange a damp and mould survey and check the ventilation in the bathroom. No evidence was provided to this Service that a damp and mould survey was completed at this time. A damp and mould survey was carried out by the landlord on 29 April 2024, this was 17 months later. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to carry out the actions it promised. It failed to be proactive in determining the cause of the damp and mould, which resulted in the resident and her family living with damp and mould for a prolonged period of time. This was a significant failing.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 16 March 2023 the landlord said it would wash and treat the mould in the property on 23 March 2023, this was 4 months after the resident reported it. The mould in the bathroom was washed and treated, however, it could not treat the mould in the bedroom because wallpaper needed to be removed. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not checked this with the resident before arranging the treatment. The mould in the bedroom was washed and treated in November 2023, this was a year after her initial reports of damp and mould. This was a significant delay. Although it is recognised that the landlord and its contractor attempted to arrange an appointment with the resident between September and October 2023, multiple opportunities were missed to reduce the continued impact on the resident and her household by resolving the damp and mould issues as quickly as possible.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord the damp and mould was causing her and her children health issues. The landlord told this Service that it would have assessed the risk at the time of the leak. However, there is no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks, recorded its assessment, or reassessed the risk at points of escalations. In December and February 2023 the resident provided the landlord with letters from her GP. The GP raised concerns about the damp and mould on the resident’s asthma and said the resident’s daughter had developed respiratory problems. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, showing a lack of empathy. This Service would have expected to see the landlord assess the level of risk at these clear escalations and evidence it had considered all options available to it to support the resident and her children. The landlord failed to record the vulnerabilities in the household, it was not proactive, and it did not make any attempt to mitigate the worry the resident had. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident. This left the resident feeing unsupported by the landlord.
If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with a repair it must look at what impact the delay will have on the household and consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include a decant, dehumidifiers, or support from local services. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures are not being put in place. There is no evidence the landlord investigated or communicated with the resident about whether interim measures could have prevented the damp and mould from getting worse. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident living with the damp and mould with no consideration of any interim measures or support.
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 landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records. The evidence provided to this Service highlighted it did not accurately record its communication with the resident or its contractors, visits to the property, or what action it had taken. The landlord’s record keeping impacted on its ability to effectively review the case when responding to the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould. This restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right and to learn from this case.
The resident raised concerns about damage to her belongings on 25 November 2022, which she said was a result of the leak in the property. In accordance with section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord has a duty to make sure residents are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect. The landlord acted unreasonably by not referring the resident to its insurers for them to investigate whether the landlord would be liable for the damage caused by the leak.
In summary, there were delays in investigating and carrying out repairs to resolve the roof repairs and damp and mould. The landlord failed to consider if any interim measures were required to manage any risks to the resident and her household. It showed no empathy towards the resident’s situation and offered her no support, despite her raising concerns that her baby’s breathing difficulties were caused by the damp and mould. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord acknowledged some of these failings in its complaint responses. However, it failed to put things right and it has not shown any learning from this case. The resident told this Service that the damp and mould issue was still on-going at the time of this investigation. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its handling of the repairs, however, this did not reflect the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her household.
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 damp and mould.
The landlord completed a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report published in October 2021 and implemented a damp and mould policy in January 2024. This a positive step to the landlord improving its response to reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests

In the residents complaint to the landlord on 14 November 2022 she said although the landlord filled in two holes on 3 November 2022, the mice had returned. She said she had reported this to the landlord but it had not taken any action. She said she was staying with friends and relatives as she had no money to pay for pest control.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 30 November 2022, it said it had arranged an appointment on 4 January to block access points and to treat the mice in the property. Pest control attended this appointment, however, the resident told the landlord that they said the landlord needed to block up the entry points. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about these works. This resulted in the resident and her representative chasing a response from the landlord several times between February and March 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to carry out the actions it promised and keep the resident updated.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would fix the kitchen cupboard that pest control damaged when they attended the property. However, it failed to acknowledge or respond to resident’s concerns that the pest issue was on-going. This left the resident in a position where she did not know whether the landlord was going to take any action to resolve the issue. This was a significant failing that caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s internal records showed conflicting information recorded on whether the landlord would make further arrangements for pest control to attend the resident’s property. Because the landlord failed to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records, this impacted the landlords’ ability to identify and respond to the resident’s reports of pests.
In summary the landlord failed to carry out the actions it promised in its stage 1 response. At the date of this report the resident still had pests in her property. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to put things right and has not showed any learning from this case. The resident and her young family were left living in a home with pests, with no means to treat them or fill in holes that allowed easy access.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door and kitchen.

Although it is recognised that the resident had reported repairs to her front door and kitchen in the years prior to her complaint, as stated above this investigation will only look at the landlord’s actions from October 2022.
The resident reported to the landlord that her front door would not open or close correctly and she had to climb out of the window to open it from the outside. She said she felt unsafe as she had a violent ex-partner. The landlord attended the property on 15 November 2022, 12 working days later.
The landlord treated the repair to the front door as a general repair. The resident told the landlord she felt unsafe due to a violent ex-partner, there was no evidence provided to this Service that the landlord contacted the resident about her concerns. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to investigate whether there was an imminent threat to life or danger of serious injury, which would have made the repair an emergency. It also failed to consider if there was any interim measures or support it could put in place to ensure the resident felt safe whilst she waited for the repairs to be completed.
In the resident’s complaint she said the landlord had failed to respond to her contact about the repairs needed to her kitchen, which included broken floor tiles and a broken cupboard door. The landlord’s records do not show when the resident reported these issues, so this Service has been unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of these repairs. The kitchen tiles were replaced on 23 November 2022 and the kitchen cupboard door was repaired on 8 December 2022. Both of these repairs were carried out within a reasonable time from the date of the resident’s complaint.
In summary there were delays in the landlord carrying out the repairs to the resident’s front door, it failed to show it had investigated what priority it should give the repair, and there was evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord put things right by carrying out the repairs, and it acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its stage 1 complaint response. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays in carrying out the repairs. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door and kitchen.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident made a complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within its 5 working day timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2022, this was outside its 10 working day response timescale. The landlord investigated and responded to all the repair issues the resident raised. However, it failed to address and investigate the concerns the resident raised about impact of the damp and mould on her and her children’s health. The landlord also failed to show it considered this when it offered compensation. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 and said she was unhappy the landlord had not carried out the actions it had promised in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident’s representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 February 2023. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until 9 March 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to escalate the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. This left the resident in a position where she did not know what was happening with her complaint and caused her and her representative time and trouble chasing updates.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023, this was within its 20 working day response timescale. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay and its lack of communication around the outstanding repairs. However, it failed to address and investigate issues the resident and her representative had raised. This included the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her children’s health, the delay in it escalating the complaint to stage 2, and compensation for the damage caused to the resident’s belongings. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to fully investigate the resident’s complaint.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. When she raised her complaint the resident asked the landlord to contact her via email due to her mental health, however, there was no evidence the landlord recorded this reasonable adjustment. The landlord contacted her by phone to discuss her complaint at stage 1 and 2, and despite the resident telling the landlord it must only contact her via email, it continued to ignore her request after the internal complaints procedure. This was a significant failing that caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their 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 issuing its stage 1 complaint response and escalating the complaint to stage 2. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to fully investigate all the complaint issues and failed to consider the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her children’s health. The landlord failed to put things right as it did not carry out the actions it promised in its complaint responses and it showed no learning from the complaint. The £50 compensation offered did not reflect the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

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 damp and mould.
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 pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door and kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident. A senior member of staff must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. In addition to the £200 compensation already awarded by the landlord, the landlord must pay the resident a further £1250 compensation. This is broken down as:
  1. £800 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 damp and mould.
  2. £400 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 pests.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her associated complaint.
3. If it has not already done so the landlord should support the resident to make an application to the landlord’s insurers for them to investigate whether it would be liable for the damage to the resident’s personal belongs caused by the leak and damp and mould.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Investigate the surveyors comments on the damp and mould survey dated 29 April 2024 that the roof felt was damaged and their concerns that this could cause further leaks. The landlord must provide its findings to the resident and this Service.
2. Go back to the surveyor and discuss if the works it recommended in the damp and mould survey dated 29 April 2024 could wait to be completed in its planned programme of works, or whether they recommend the works are completed sooner than this. The landlord must provide its findings to the resident and this Service. If the works are to be completed within its planned programme of works, the landlord must consider what interim support measures can be put in place and discuss these with the resident.
3. Write to this Service setting out the issues with pests in the property. The landlord should either confirm that it has affected a lasting resolution to these issues, specifying what that resolution was and when it was affected, or set out how and when it will diagnose the issues and affect a solution.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progress works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Code.