Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202336264)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336264

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks in the walls of her property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied her home, a flat/maisonette located on the ground and first floor in a four-storey complex. She was a leaseholder. The resident was an older person and was represented in her complaint by her daughter-in-law. This report will refer to communications from her, her son and daughter-in-law as if made by the resident.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to keep the main structure in good and substantial repair and condition including all foundations. This would be at the resident’s expense.
The landlord’s complaint process had 2 stages. The landlord was to reply to the resident’s complaint within 10 days at Stage 1 and within 20 days at Stage 2.

Chronology

On 20 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord cracks in parts of her property. She provided photos. According to the landlord’s complaint response, this was the first report. Sometime in 2021 (no date was provided), the landlord visited the property and explained that due to subsidence which caused the cracks, they would put up an ‘Acrow’ prop (temporary support) to support the kitchen window/wall. The resident reported that by that stage, the crack was wider and she could see through to the outside and cold air was getting in.
On 18 August 2022 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She referred to her report of April 2021.
2. She was concerned about her heating bills, given the “huge gap” in her kitchen outside wall.
On 22 August 2022, Consulting Engineers produced a report.
1. It had instructed contractors to install an acrow prop to a window and to replace a defective drain cover and undertake a CCTV survey that revealed defects.
2. The movement monitoring was within normal ranges and did not appear to be active.
3. There were no major defects but it recommended further investigations, as well as repair/rectification of the drainage system as well as structural repair to the property.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord replied with its stage 1 response as follows:
1. It set out a chronology. It referred to its chasing internally and the contractors.
2. In or by August 2022, a structural engineer had carried out monitoring, a CCTV survey of the drainage, a geotechnical investigation of the ground condition and trial pits to determine the foundation system. It had received the full report, with their recommendations and quote for further works. Due to the size of the works and quote, it had referred this to its insurance company. The repairs team had contacted the resident to arrange a temporary repair on 31 August 2022.
3. It apologised for its level of service and the length of time the work had been outstanding.
4. It should have communicated better and taken further action to prevent this delay. It apologised for “any upset”.
5. It offered £200 compensation consisting of £100 for its communication and £100 for the time taken to chase the complaint, as well as the inconvenience caused.
6. It would be working with the team in order to improve its level of communication and to look at its processes for cases to make it quicker in the aim of reaching a swifter resolution.
On 20 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to escalate the complaint as follows:
1. She requested an explanation for the continuing delays in seeking agreement from insurers and properly considering the request made for compensation, together with interest.
2. The landlord had suggested that the resident make a claim from their insurer.
3. The landlord had also suggested she sell the house back to it. However, she did not intend selling.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord wrote with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. The resident wanted the damage to the kitchen plasterwork and finishes to be reinstated, the temporary support removed from the kitchen window opening and to address the settlement/movement to the building.
2. It noted that updates had not been “as frequent as they could have been” and (its) communication should have been better.
3. Subsidence issues often took time to resolve due to the need to monitor the movement over a period of time. She should have been updated with any progress.
4. The resident’s primary concern was to have the repairs completed to the inside of her home,
5. A surveyor had visited the property to assess what preliminary repairs could be undertaken.
6. It “sincerely” apologised for the impact. It would “personally” discuss the outcome with the team.
7. It was awaiting a further update from its insurers and once received, it would discuss with her the relevant timescales and provide regular updates.
8. It offered £450 compensation due to the level of communication, the impact this caused and the delay in providing the stage two response.
On 5 September 2023 the resident made a further complaint about the delay to the snagging work.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord wrote that it had instructed its contractor to carry out the snagging works but there would be a further delay.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and increased the compensation to £550.
On 15 January 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint:
1. She did not receive a response to her second complaint of 5 September 2023 until 20 October 2023.
2. The landlord had not explained why the final works required approval.
By 7 February 2024 the landlord had carried out snagging works.
On 27 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays, poor communication, inconvenience, distress and poor service she had experienced. It had shared her case with senior managers to ensure these failings do not happen again.
2. It would handle queries in more specialised roles who can access all relevant information. While the resident was not seeking more compensation, it offered an additional £150 for the delays to the final snagging.
On 14 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident stating there has been no more movement. It explained it could not remove the yellow markers without the insurers’ agreement.
The landlord informed us on 24 January 2025 that:
1. It had carried out external works to address the subsidence “some time ago”.
2. It had carried out the internal works but did not provide a date.
3. It had not been able to remove small monitoring flags and make good the exterior surface. It was awaiting its insurers’ agreement to do so.

Assessment and findings

Structural movement can take time to investigate and diagnose. Cracks take time to settle and need to be monitored over a period. The landlord provided us with a contractor’s statement and quote dated 22 July 2022 which showed that monitoring, investigations and works to the drains that had taken place as well as further monitoring and assessments and remedial works were to take place, at a significant cost. This illustrated the complexity of the issues. The landlord was also required to make a claim to insurers which would protect the resident as well as the landlord, as the resident could be liable for the costs of those repairs through her service charges. It made a referral to its insurers on 24 August 2022. An insurance claim can take time as the insurers would wish to satisfy itself of the validity of the claim and costs, and have the claim assessed by loss adjusters. The landlord would need to wait for the insurers’ approval before taking steps, otherwise it would risk invalidating the claim.
However, we would expect the landlord to undertake any temporary repairs to reduce the impact of the cracks, to explain the processes to residents and to keep residents reasonably updated.
The evidence confirmed that the resident chased the landlord on a number of occasions and over long periods including:
1. According to her complaint of 5 September 2023, she reported that she made several attempts to chase the landlord.
2. The evidence showed her chasing following her April 2021 report.
3. On 9 November 2021 the resident chased again. She reported that the bedroom door frame had sunk “slightly” so that the door was catching on the carpet. She reported a crack in the kitchen wall so that the outside was visible. The landlord had not installed the Acro or provided any timescales.
4. On 10 January 2022 the resident chased again stating that a draught was “clearly noticeable inside the room” and the dust and open plasterwork and brickwork was causing her distress.
5. The resident chased again on 26 June 2022 and 18 July 2022.
6. The resident continued to chase the “snagging “repairs after March 2023 and continued to chase them in June, July and October 2023.
There was little or no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident proactively or agreeing updates. There was no evidence that the landlord ever explained its intentions or provided any timescales. Aside from the stage 2 response of 16 December 2022, there was no evidence that the landlord explained the processes about structural defects.
The evidence also showed that the landlord carried out investigations and works in addition to the July 2022 statement including:
1. A repair was booked for 4 May 2021. While that did not happen, on 14 June 2021, contractors on behalf of the landlord carried out an inspection and suggested an investigation.
2. According to the landlord’s records, its contractor reinspected on 24 August 2021 and 3 November 2021 which involved digging an inspection pit.
3. On 1 December 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property in order to identify what works would be required.
4. The landlord’s insurers attended on 1 February 2023. According to the resident, works began on 13 February 2023. As at 17 March 2023, most of the work had finished. The landlord has told us that this included works to address the subsidence.
However, while investigations and works took place, and some works were dependent on investigations and the insurers, there were unexplained delays to the temporary repairs. On 30 August 2022 an appointment was due to take place to carry out a temporary repair to try and prevent water ingress to the property through the fractures, while the subsidence was being investigated. Given the reference to removing the windows support in December 2022, we have assumed the temporary repairs took place. While it was positive they were carried out, this was an unreasonable delay, given the resident had reported the cracks in April 2021. Aside from this, the resident lived with the deterioration of the interior of her flat from April 2021 to March 2023, when works were completed.
There was then a further delay to the “snagging works” from March 2023 to February 2024. As at 17 March 2023 cracks in the lounge and kitchen window were yet to be filled and floorboards under the washing machine fixed. According to the landlord’s records, on 29 March 2023 the landlord instructed contractors to repoint cracks, redecorate and carry out outstanding “snagging” works. While it was not clear when the repointing and redecorating works took place, there was still a delay. Other snagging works, referred to as minor (including securing a cupboard and floor) were still outstanding as at 20 October 2023 and were not completed until sometime between 15 January 2024 and 7 February 2024.
The landlord told us the remaining work was offered as “good will”. While the works may have been minor, this was frustrating for the resident to wait 18 months without an explanation. It was reasonable however that the landlord should wait for its insurers’ agreement before removing the monitoring flags.
The landlord acknowledged that there was poor communication and delays and offered compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman has considered the impact on the resident and taken into account that she is an older person which could, in itself, exacerbate any impact. The resident reported that the condition of the property caused her worry and impacted on the temperature of the property. She was also concerned about her heating bills.
The Ombudsman has also considered that the cracks were not in themselves the fault of the landlord and that there can be inevitable delays to structural investigation and works, due to the nature of the defects. The evidence showed that the landlord took steps and was proactively investigating the issues. The landlord acknowledged its delays and its poor communication.
The landlord did not break down its offer of compensation therefore we have taken a view on the final amount. The landlord offered £200 on 31 August 2022, including £100 for “chasing the complaint” and inconvenience. As the stage 1 response was not delayed, we were unclear whether the landlord meant chasing the complaint or the repair. It offered £450 on 16 December 2022 including an unspecified amount for complaints handling. There was a delay to the stage 2 response. It increased the December offer to £550. In the circumstances, we attribute £100 to its complaint handling and will address the complaint handling separately. We allocate £650 to the substantive issues. The landlord offered a further £150 for the delays to the “snagging” works.
In all of the above circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that by offering £650 for the delays and poor communication and a further £150 for the delay in the snagging works, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failings in its responses to the resident’s report of cracks in her property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord acknowledged its delays and poor communication in its complaint responses. However, there was a pattern of the landlord apologising, making assurances to keep the resident updated but not making those improvements in practice. It was noted that there was some internal chasing, which is part of effective complaint handling. However, this did not translate into results, thought those would ultimately have been the responsibility of the repairs team.
The complaint responses did not provide proper resolution. If a landlord is unable to provide timescales, it should update the resident or agree on timescales for regular updates. The Stage 2 response stated that it upheld its stage one response as it “outlined the previous activity and identified the next steps to be taken, which was appropriate at the time”. Not only was this statement unclear, but it was not sufficient. Our dispute resolution principles include “put things right” and “learn from outcomes”. It was reasonable to set out what steps it had taken and immediate next steps. It was reasonable to offer compensation and an apology and review the compensation at intervals. However, the responses in themselves did not provide a resolution for the resident or any timescales in order to manage her expectations, and she was left with the need to continue to chase.
While it can be reasonable for the landlord to refer a resident to its insurers in order to make a claim, it was not clear what it was referring to. If this was a reference for a claim for the resident’s contents, given the structure was covered by the landlord’s building insurance, that would be reasonable. If this was a response to the resident’s request for compensation under the landlord’s complaint processes, the response did not address the request. In any event, the landlord offered compensation.
We found that the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to its complaint handling was unclear. The landlord’s stage 1 offer of £100 was made for the “time taken to chase the complaint”, yet it had replied within its policy timescales. It did not set out how much it offered for its delay to its stage 2 response of December 2022.
Finally, its stage 2 response did not refer the resident to our Service. We will not make an order about this as we are aware the landlord’s practice has been rectified since, but we will make a recommendation.
The resident raised a second complaint. The landlord did not address this formally. While it made the process difficult to follow, it did respond, albeit again, with a delay.
The resident’s complaint was resolved in that the works were carried out and, in the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord offered reasonable redress, including by offering additional works. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord did not abide by its assurances or set out a resolution by providing timescales or a plan even if that plan would require updating, and there was a lack of clarity in its processes. Given the number of failings, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks in the walls of her property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 in addition to the £100 already offered for its complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should update the resident in relation as to whether there will be further investigations in accordance with the report of 22 August 2022 or the issues have been resolved.
2. The landlord should proactively update the resident regarding the removal of the monitoring yellow flags.
3. The landlord should ensure that it explains its offers of compensation and offers and provides a breakdown.
4. The landlord should ensure that it follows its formal complaint processes and if it does not do so, to explain why not and ensure it refers the resident to our Service.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.