Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202314592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314592

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

19 December 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 resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident occupied her home under an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy had begun in 2013. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident reported that she was over 70 years old and had osteoarthritis in her spine, hands and feet.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. However, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”), the landlord had an obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair including the roof.
Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property be fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to excess cold.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 which is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, including damp. While a resident has recourse under the Act if they wished to take legal action, the local authority is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the HHSRS standards.
The landlord operated a two stage complaints process, with a Stage 1 response due within 10 days and 20 days within Stage 2.
The complaint response would apply the guidance set out by the Housing Ombudsman Service when deciding on appropriate remedies which may include providing an explanation, assistance or reasons, taking action if there has been delay, reconsidering or changing a decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy stated that where had it “caused customers unnecessary distress” it would award £50-£100. Where it had failed a customer on multiple occasions around the same issue or to follow its policies and procedures which would lead to a “significant” impact on them, their home or their families, it would award £100-£250 plus.
Our remedies guidance in place in May 2023 suggested compensation of £50-£100 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, such as not returning phone calls, £250 to £700 where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration and £700 upwards for maladministration / severe maladministration that had had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.

Chronology

In August 2022, the resident reported issues with the roof. She said she had been advised that it required a replacement. She reported that it was “extremely cold” and when she has looked at the roofing, tiles appeared to be missing and a lot of the roofing was “opaque”. She was losing all her heating through the roof which she could not afford to do.
On 8 September 2022, a job was raised to inspect the roof for missing tiles. As far as can be understood from the records, the landlord’s contractors attended on 8 December 2022 and cleared the “rainwater goods” (guttering and downpipes). The contractor noted the roof was in “good shape” but the loft required insulation.
On 12 December 2022, the resident wrote that the roof looked in a poor state, so that the house did not hold its heat, and was “always very cold” unless the heating was on. On 13 September 2022, a roofing contractor had carried out “a cursory check” from the steps of the loft and said the roof was “ok” but the floor insulation needed replacing. This was done the previous week and had made “a slight difference” however the roof damage had not been addressed. She said the roof looked like “a starry night, there (were) so many tiny holes”. According to the landlord, the resident also provided it with an undated video of the roof. The video showed gaps in the roof.
On 4 January 2023, contractors attended and provided a report. The landlord has not provided a copy of that report for this investigation. The resident reported that they had told her the property needed a new roof. On 13 January 2023, the internal records noted that the member of staff who approved quotes was on sick leave.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord contacted contractors who had recommended that the roof be re–felted. According to the resident, an inspection was carried out on 3 March 2023 by another contractor who, according to the resident reached the same conclusion. The landlord has not provided a copy of that report. Internally the landlord noted it could not find a record of an attendance by contractors on 3 March 2023. According to the landlord’s records, the landlord left a voicemail on 17 March 2023 with the resident that “the repairs” had been approved. According to a note of 21 March 2023, the landlord was trying to process the funding for the job.
According to an email 23 March 2023 from the landlord to the resident, the landlord’s contractors provided an estimate for repairs of £10,000. The landlord was considering this and noted that the roof had been built without felt.
On 18 April 2023, the landlord informed the resident that there had been no progress. The complaints team had been in contact with three departments trying to get an update regarding these works. The landlord was questioning the costs of the works with contractors.
According to the landlord, the resident made a complaint over the telephone on 19 April 2023.
On 11 May 2023, a job was raised to fit insulation. A job card of the new contractors of the same date stated it had been unable to contact the resident.
On 11 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It referred to her phone call on 19 April 2023 making her complaint and a subsequent call on 26 April 2023.
2. It summarised the complaint to be about poor communication regarding the repairs to her roof.
3. She had reported that her house was “freezing” as a result of the roof having no felt and there being holes in “some” of the tiles. She also had concerns about structural issues. Contractors had attended multiple times to investigate the issues.
4. In late 2021, contractors roofing contractors had reported nothing was wrong, and all that was needed was some insulation in the loft and some replacement of tiles. In January 2022, another roofing contractor, attended and reported that there was no roof felt at all. She was told she would be contacted by a surveyor, however this never materialised. She then reported receiving confusing information as to what was needed, and what would be done.
5. The roof had been built without felt, and that this was not unusual for a roof of that age. The landlord was going to obtain a quote to fit more insulation, as a replacement roof was not deemed to be necessary. This, however, had not yet been actioned, as the person who would have been arranging this has been away from work long term.
6. It apologised for the delays and “any upset” caused. It accepted that its service should have been better. The repairs were moving in-house, in partnership with another contractor. The current contract was due to end at the end of the month.
7. It had raised a job with the new contractor who was to contact her within 2 working days to confirm next steps.
8. It offered £100 comprising of £50 for the “length of time the issue has persisted without a clear plan of action” and £50 for the time taken to chase the complaint, as well as the stress and inconvenience caused.
On 5 June 2023, the resident wrote with her comments on the Stage 1 response as follows:
1. There were holes in roof not just missing tiles and the roof sagged.
2. The contractor had told her that there was no roofing membrane which was needed to keep out wind and moisture.
3. All the tiles would have to be removed, broken ones discarded and replaced. Scaffolding would be required for re-roofing. Another contractor had stated the same on 3 March 2023.
4. She was concerned that the roof would collapse and the house was cold.
On 4 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s email of 5 June 2023. She was looking for the roof to be replaced with new felt lining. It apologised for the delay.
2. The contractor had tried to contact her and put the job “on hold” but had not updated the landlord. This should have been monitored to ensure the necessary works were being carried out.
3. It had raised a new order to repair the holes in the roof and for extra insulation to be laid. It would then arrange a surveyor visit, to assess whether the completed works were adequate, or if a review to the planned maintenance date for the roof replacement needs to be carried forward.
4. It offered her £200 consisting of £50 for the time and trouble, inconvenience and personal impact and £150 for the delay in completing the repairs. It would ensure all repairs were followed up, to make sure they were carried out in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman has considered events following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process as they were directly related to the resident’s complaint. While they postdate the closure of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have followed monitored its assurances to comply with its obligations and its own policies and effect repairs within a reasonable period. According to the landlord’s records, the landlord noted that its new contractors had closed the job as it “was unable to contact the resident”. The landlord “resurrected” the job and instructed yet another roofing contractor who inspected the roof on 18 July 2023. The roofing contractors noted as follows:
1. The roof needed to be stripped,
2. Scaffolding was required.
3. Task closed – no works were carried out.
On 15 July 2024, the roofing contractors re-inspected, accessed the loft and noted as follows:
1. No felt was installed when property was built and there was no insulation.
2. Roof needs to be stripped, a breathable felt membrane needed installing, “re-battened, re-use old times (sic), purchase any for breakages”.
The landlord informed us on 14 August 2024 that its view was as follows:
1. A membrane lining had little impact on heat loss or dampness of a property and served as a precautionary weather-proofing not insulation. The resident’s undated video demonstrated suitable lagging was in place although it acknowledged that it should check this.
2. A stock condition survey carried out August 2020 had not identified any issues with the roof. It could not share the report as it was a different system. The next survey is due to take place in 2025.
3. There was a provisional replacement date of 2030 as part of planned works.
4. It also noted there was no evidence of dampness (or mould) within in the property itself.
5. The landlord stated it had difficulties with its previous contractors which they replaced in May-June 2023 as well as in appointing specialist contractors.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident that it was replacing the roof from 20 January 2025. The letter set out its timescales and how it would carry out the works.
The landlord informed us on 13 December 2024 that following the roofing contractors’ inspection in July 2024, it had decided that any major works to install felt under the tiles would be carried out in-house as major works rather that the repairs team.
There was no Energy Performance Certificate for the property on the Gov.uk website.

Assessment and findings

It was reasonable that the landlord arranged an inspection on 8 September 2022 of the roof following the resident’s report. The contractor reported that the roof was in “good shape” despite the holes in the roof. Given the resident’s report of excessive cold, and the landlord duties to ensure the property was habitable as regards to excess cold, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not interrogate this conclusion closely or seek to assess the temperature of the property. While it was reasonable to raise a job to repair missing tiles, there was no evidence this was carried out.
There were three landlord and contractor case reports showing the same or similar narrative for 13 September 2022, 28 October 2022 and 8 December 2022. The landlord has explained to us its system, the various possibilities of what may have happened but not what actually occurred. This was not satisfactory and concerning that the landlord did not interpret its own records.
It was reasonable to replace or increase roof floor insulation on 8 December 2022 however it is not clear whether this was fully done. We note that in its Stage 2 response of May 2024 the landlord referred to increasing the insulation. We also note that the report of 15 July 2024 stated that there was “no insulation”. The position is not clear and we will make an order in this regard.
It was unreasonable that the resident was left to chase the landlord on a number of occasions. While the evidence showed that the landlord chased its contractors, including on 14, 25 and 31 October 2022, it was unreasonable there was no further appointment until 4 January 2023.
The landlord has been unable to locate the report of the January 2023 inspection or any report following an inspection on 3 March 2023. There was no evidence of the landlord pursuing this, despite the resident providing the name of the contractor and sub-contractor. Following the inspection of 4 January 2023, a similar pattern ensued, where the resident chased the landlord and the landlord chased the contractors. While the landlord reasonably updated the resident, there was no progress and she was still left with a cold property. It was unreasonable that the landlord left a voicemail message on 17 March that the works would go ahead (without specifying what repairs) and then contradict this a few days later.
There was a further delay while the landlord considered the quote. While the landlord is entitled, and indeed required, to carefully consider its expenditure and get value for money, this meant further delay with the landlord apparently having little control over the contractor–landlord relationship. At this stage, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not escalate the matter internally or with the contractors.
It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not provide the outcome of this deliberation about the quotation and instead raised a further inspection. The resident disputed that the contractor contacted the resident. There was one note on the new contractor’s “job card” of 11 May 2023 that it had been unable to contact the resident. While the contractor may have tried to contact the resident, it was unreasonable to close the job after one attempt at contact, and no evidence that the landlord monitored what the contractors were doing. This was not satisfactory.
The next step was that in July 2023 the landlord arranged an inspection with specialist roof contractors. It is noted that the same roofing contractors re-attended one year later, with similar and some further recommendations. In between times, the landlord’s new contractor had attended staying that the roof was “in good shape” but required was insulation to the roof. Again, it was concerning that the non-specialist contractors did not identify an issue when there were gaps in the tiles. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s reports made on a number of occasions dating from January 2023 that roofing contractors had told her that the roof needed replacing. The contractor’s reports reflected what the resident was reporting what they had told her. The landlord never explained or investigated the discrepancy between the roofing specialists recommendations and its own view that, as there was no membrane, none would be fitted. It then took a further 6 months following the second inspection in July 2024 before the landlord arranged the works.
While the landlord noted that was the way the roof was constructed, the gaps in the roof indicated disrepair and in addition, the landlord had a duty to consider the temperature of the property and works to improve it. While it is welcome the landlord eventually decided to carry out major works to the roof, this will have taken over 2 and a half years since the resident’s initial report to do so. As the works are yet to happen, the Ombudsman will make an order in relation to the works that they are carried out without further delay.
The landlord provided a number of reasons why matters did not progress including an absent member of staff, poor previous contractors and too many demands on its new contractors. It is for the landlord to make proper arrangements to deal with the volume of works and long-term sick leave. We understand that these factors can affect a one-off repair from time-to-time but this was a case where there were delays of over 2 ½ years which indicated these were systemic issues.
The resident’s complaint was that the property was very cold. She had reported this on a number of occasions to the landlord from August 2022 onwards. Her initial report was that “it is extremely cold, (roof) tiles appeared to be missing and a lot of the roofing (was) opaque”. She was “losing all her heating” and she could “not afford ..this”. There was no evidence that the landlord carried out an HHSRS assessment and measured the temperature of the property. There was no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s age and state of health.
The resident reported to us on 12 December 2024 that she, and her grandchildren, when they stayed with her overnight, wore additional clothing when going to bed. In the circumstances, we accept the resident’s lived experience. We also consider the resident’s age and health condition. She not only had the frustration and anxiety of chasing the landlord over a number of years but also endured cold temperatures, which also meant higher heating costs, as well as the related anxiety, and reality, that she was unlikely to afford them. There was both disrepair in the property (holes in the roof) and poor ambient temperature over a significant period. In the circumstances, we find severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her roof.
The compensation policy stated it would follow our Remedies Guidance. However, we find that the landlord’s awards are lower than what we would suggest. It was not clear whether the Stage 2 offer was in addition to or instead of the Stage 1 offer. We will assume the former. Either way, we do not find that the landlord recognised the extent of the delay or the impact of the condition of the roof on the resident. We will therefore make an award of additional compensation

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It was unreasonable of the landlord to describe the resident’s complaint to be about “poor communication”. The resident’s complaint was principally about that she was living in an excessively cold house and that there were gaps in the roof and it was also thinning. While it was reasonable to acknowledge there had been delays, the Ombudsman considers it was trivialising to apologise for “any upset”.
The Ombudsman has noted in other reports that the landlord concluded its Stage 2 response with a phrase inviting the resident to escalate their complaint. This is confusing as there is no further stage to escalate to. The Ombudsman has made an order in case reference 202319491 to amend its Stage 2 template, if it has not already done so. The landlord has since confirmed it has removed this phrase.
There was some evidence that the complaints team chased the repairs team. Despite this, there was little or no progress. There was no evidence that the landlord escalated the lack of progress internally which should be a feature in good complaint handling. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged this, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not monitor its actions following the Stage 1 response and, instead, left it to the contractor to follow up the matter. The contractor had closed the case which was not identified until the landlord responded at Stage 2 of the complaints process. The works order to replace the tiles or “mend the holes” raised in October 2022 had still not been carried out. The response did not address the resident’s concerns about the temperature of the property or the safety of the roof. It did not address the resident reporting that the contractor had told her that the roofing membrane would keep out the wind and the moisture.
Where the issues are ongoing and the complaining remains dissatisfied the landlord must ensure that it continues to monitor its own actions and takes appropriate action. This could include reviewing compensation. The landlord did not do so.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has made an order regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord record keeping

This investigation report has made a number of observations about the landlord’s record keeping. This investigation has been hampered by the quality of the records provided by the landlord. They have been difficult to interpret and indicated a lack of monitoring and proper review of the case. This investigation has highlighted a number of issues with the landlord’s record keeping. This was a missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding of service failure about the landlord’s record keeping in this case .

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and discuss what health conditions it should record for the resident in its central records.
2. Within 3 weeks of this report, the Chief Executive of the landlord should write to the resident with an apology including what lessons it has learnt and what improvements it will make to its service arising specifically from this investigation and send a copy to the Ombudsman.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,450 including the sum offered during its complaint process and consisting as follows:
  1. £300 already offered to the resident.
  2. £1,000 in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof.
  3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
4. The landlord should commence the works to the roof on 20 January 2025, in accordance with its letter to the resident dated 27 November 2024, including in relation to its timescales, to completed by 31 March 2025.
5. If the landlord does not adhere to this timescale and does not finish the works within the timescale stated of 31 March 2025, the landlord should pay to the resident the sum of £100 per month over the timescale, pro rata if necessary.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.
If the landlord does not complete the works by 31 March 2025, it should write to the Ombudsman accordingly and confirm its intentions regarding order in paragraph 52 (e).

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes a recommendation that the landlord review the learning from this investigation in relation to its complaint handling and consider any service improvements it will make as a result.