Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202338024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338024

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

15 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Report of damp and mould.
2. Request to renew the windows.
3. Request to renew the insulation.
4. Request to renew the boiler.
5. Request to renew the hallway radiator.
6. Request to repair the roof soffits.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy started in August 2004.
The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house.
A retrofit survey will be referred to within the report. A retrofit survey is an inspection of a property to establish its condition and to help a landlord plan any works required.
On 21 December 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property. In summary the resident said:
1. The property had damp and mould.
2. The property’s windows were in “a very poor state”. The windows were last replaced “over 24 years ago”.
3. The landlord had completed a retrofit survey in the summer. The surveyor confirmed that the property’s windows needed to be replaced urgently as they did not meet health and safety regulations and did not have drip vents.
4. The retrofit survey also identified that the property needed a new boiler and insulation.
5. Despite the findings from the retrofit survey the landlord had taken no action. The landlord had informed her that the windows were not due to be replaced until 2027.
6. The condition of the property was impacting on her son who had asthma.
On 20 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the roof soffits on the property required repair. She stated that they were damp and had condensation on them.
On 24 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response following a call with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident had requested that it take the following action in response to her concerns about the condition of the property:
  1. Replacement of the windows.
  2. Replacement of the boiler.
  3. New insulation.
  4. Treat mould in the bedrooms.
  5. Replace hallway radiator.
  6. Repair the roof soffits.
2. In respect of the windows:
  1. It carried out retrofit surveys to establish the condition of its properties. This included the windows. Where windows were identified as requiring replacement this would be added to a programme of planned works.
  2. Its asset team had confirmed that the property’s windows were due to be considered for renewal in 2027. The resident would be contacted nearer the time about next steps.
  3. Should the windows require a repair before renewal its repair team would carry out the works. It had made an appointment for 16 February 2024 for its repair team to look at the windows.
3. In respect of the boiler:
  1. Its gas team had confirmed that the boiler was due to be considered for renewal in 2025.
  2. Should the property experience a loss of heating and hot water the resident should contact it for a repair appointment.
4. In respect of the insulation:
  1. Two appointments were arranged to assess the property’s insulation in November 2023. As it was unable to gain access to the property on either occasion the work order was closed.
  2. It had requested that its repair team contact the resident to arrange an appointment to assess the property’s insulation.
5. In respect of the hallway radiator:
  1. It would arrange an appointment to assess the condition of the radiator following the resident’s report that it was rusty. It would not replace the radiator if it was found to be working.
6. In response to damp and mould:
  1. It did not have a record of the resident raising concerns regarding damp and mould in the property previous to the complaint.
  2. It had asked its damp and mould team to contact the resident to investigate the issue.
7. In respect of the soffits:
  1. The resident raised concerns regarding the soffits on 20 January 2024.
  2. It would arrange an appointment to see if the soffits needed repair.
8. It would like to award the resident £25 compensation for the delay in acknowledging the complaint on receipt.
On 24 January 2024 the resident replied to the landlord setting out that she was unhappy with its response. In summary the resident said:
1. She did not believe that the landlord’s proposed actions would resolve all issues with the property. She reiterated that the condition of the property was affecting her son.
2. It was incorrect that she had not previously reported damp and mould in the property. She was able to provide evidence if required.
3. The property’s windows were not fit for purpose. They did not keep the heat in, were draughty and did not have drip vents.
On 3 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She had not been contacted to arrange an appointment for the insulation or roof soffits.
2. Despite using a dehumidifier and water hoover the damp and mould persisted. The damp and mould had been a problem for at least 2 years.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its stage 2 response would be delayed. It confirmed that a response would be provided by 10 April 2024.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response, following a call with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was partially upholding the complaint as the following actions had not been undertaken:
  1. Window repairs had not been completed.
  2. Damp survey had not been completed.
  3. Soffit repairs had not been completed.
2. An appointment for the window repairs had been booked for 20 April 2024.
3. It had rebooked the damp survey with its specialists (appointment date not given). On receipt of the report the recommendations would be actioned.
4. An appointment for the soffit repairs had been rebooked with the resident directly.
5. The window renewal programme for the property was not due for review until 2027.
6. The property was included in “an upcoming retrofit scheme” to improve overall thermal performance of the property. Residents included in the scheme would be updated as it progressed.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to us if she was not happy with its response.
Following the landlord’s final response the resident has continued to raise concerns regarding the condition of the property and its response to the repair issues.

Assessment and findings

In carrying out this assessment we have looked at and considered events after the landlord’s final complaint response in April 2024. We consider that this is fair and reasonable in order to establish whether the landlord’s actions did or did not resolve the matters subject of the complaint; and where any repair issues are outstanding to determine if they have or are being appropriately responded to.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould and;

Request to repair the roof soffits

On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to make sure that its properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. As the resident’s complaint concerned damp and mould the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
While the landlord set out in its complaint responses that it had no record of the resident reporting damp and mould in the property prior to the complaint, we can see that this is not the case. The evidence documents that the resident reported damp and mould in early 2023. This included on 27 January 2023 and 21 February 2023. From the evidence we cannot see that the landlord inspected the property in response to the resident’s reports. This is unsatisfactory. An inspection would have been appropriate in order to determine if there was an issue which required the landlord’s attention and to plan any works needed. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for its damp and mould team to investigate the issue. This was appropriate. The inspection took place on 7 June 2024. This was approximately 5 months after committing to arranging the inspection. This was a protracted period of time. We have not identified a reason for the delay. This demonstrates a lack of ownership and oversight by the landlord. While the inspection was outstanding the resident will have felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
While the damp inspection was outstanding the evidence shows that the landlord inspected the soffits in March 2024. The landlord identified that the property’s soffits had “severe damp and mould”. It set out that this could be causing “damp and mould inside the property”. In response the evidence shows that the landlord arranged for the soffits to be replaced. This was appropriate as they were in a poor condition. The works to replace soffits were completed in the middle of August 2024. While the time period for replacing the soffits was protracted we can see that the works were delayed as asbestos removal was required which requires specialist intervention.
The report following the damp inspection on 7 June 2024 confirmed that the landlord had instructed the surveyor to investigate and comment upon condensation and mould issues. The report made the following recommendations in response to “the mould issues on the external walls of the front 2 bedrooms and the condensation on all upstairs windows during colder months”:
1. Installation of positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the loft.
2. Removal of silver insulation membrane in loft or installation of 6 roof tile vents – prior to installation of PIV.
3. Replacement of the loft hatch with a thicker board and insulate.
4. Installation of radiator in bedroom 2.
The records do not clearly document the landlord’s response to the recommendations. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should keep sufficient records to demonstrate its decisions and how it is meeting its obligations. We do however note an internal record by the landlord dated 25 October 2024. It confirmed the ventilation works, including installation of the PIV unit, and new radiator would be undertaken as part of the future retrofit works planned for the property starting in early 2025. The landlord has confirmed that the retrofit works at the property are “estimated” to start towards the end of June 2025. By the time the retrofit works commence the recommendations will have been outstanding for a significantly protracted period of time. This is unsatisfactory.
Following the inspection we cannot see that the resident was appropriately updated by the landlord regarding its response to the recommendations. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord did not do so. The landlord should have provided a written update to the resident clearly setting out its position. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to request an outcome following the inspection. This included on 9 August 2024. No appropriate response has been identified.
The evidence shows that on 6 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report the property was still experiencing “condensation and damp issues”. We understand that the landlord has offered mould washes in response. While mould washes are reasonable to help remove mould it may not fix the cause of the mould and to stop it coming back.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord delayed in carrying out a damp survey to establish if there was an issue which required its intervention. Following the survey the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord has successfully addressed the damp and mould reported by the resident in the property. It is unsatisfactory that the recommendations following the survey are currently outstanding.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to repair the soffits. This is because the landlord carried out repairs to replace the soffits within a reasonable period of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew the windows

We have been provided with a copy of the retrofit survey dated August 2023. The report confirms that the windows in the living room, kitchen and 3 bedrooms did not have trickle vents. No further comments were made about the condition of the windows in the property.
Document F of the Building Regulations requires that the installation of any new window from 15 June 2022 must be fitted with trickle vents. The regulations do not require that existing windows are replaced where trickle vents were not present. The landlord was therefore not obliged to replace the windows in the property in response to the findings of the retrofit survey.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained that the property’s windows were due to be considered for renewal in 2027 in order to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord has confirmed that, in March 2025, 6 windows in the property were replaced.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the windows while the complaint was live, the evidence shows the landlord carried out an inspection on 16 February 2024. This was appropriate as the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of the property which includes the windows. The report confirmed that “all seals on windows need replacing”. An appointment was booked for 6 April 2024 however the contractor did not attend. This is unsatisfactory. However alone this omission does not amount to a service failure as a new appointment was promptly rescheduled for 20 April 2024. The evidence shows that the work order was completed on 26 June 2024 – the resident having rescheduled the earlier appointment.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to replace the windows. While the retrofit survey did identify that some of the property’s windows did not have trickle vents, trickle vents are only required where new windows are being installed in a property after June 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord inspected the windows and carried out repairs in response to the resident’s concerns regarding their condition.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew the insulation

The evidence shows that the landlord was due to attend the property in November 2023 in relation to insulation. The landlord was however unable to complete the appointment due to “no access”.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord raised a repair for “loft insulation” on 3 March 2024. While it was appropriate that the landlord raised a repair, in order for it to assess the issue, it is unsatisfactory that it delayed in doing so. The landlord should have raised the repair in January 2024 as part of its stage 1 complaint investigation. However alone this does not amount to a service failure as the delay was not so significant as to have adversely impacted upon the resident.
The landlord attended the property in late March 2024 to check the insulation. The record from the appointment documented that the resident had “insulated and boarded the loft” so no further work was required. As the landlord identified that the property had sufficient insulation it was reasonable for it to not take any further action at that time.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request to renew the insulation. This is because the landlord attended the property within a reasonable period of time to assess whether further insulation was required or not.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew the boiler

From the evidence we understand that the resident requested a new boiler as she had been informed by the surveyor who completed the retrofit survey in summer 2023 that a new one was required. Following a review of the retrofit survey we have not identified a recommendation to replace the property’s boiler.
A landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining a property’s boiler to ensure that it remains safe to use. A landlord must replace the boiler where a repair cannot be completed to allow it to operate safely.
The landlord has provided us with copies of the gas safety certificates for the property completed in 2022, 2023 and 2024. The certificates confirm that the boiler was inspected, no remedial actions were required and the appliance was passed as safe.
We have not identified any repairs raised by the resident concerning the boiler in the months prior to the complaint. Therefore, and taking into account the gas safety certificates, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was no issue with the boiler which caused it to require replacement at that time.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained that the property’s boiler was due to be considered for renewal in 2025 in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request to renew the boiler. There is no evidence which indicates that there was a problem with the boiler which required the landlord to replace it.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew the hallway radiator

The evidence shows that the landlord attended the property on 19 January 2024 in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the hallway radiator. This was appropriate to establish if there was a repair obligation it was required to fulfil. We consider that the repair appointment was completed within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the issue as part of the resident’s complaint.
The record of the appointment confirmed that it “repaired [a] leak on [the] air release”. The record also noted that the landlord explained that it would not replace the radiator as it was working. This was appropriate as a landlord is not required to replace a fixture or fitting where it can be fixed or is not faulty.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request to replace the radiator. The landlord inspected the radiator and left it in working order.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The chronology of the case shows the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory. This is because it provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses outside of its service standards and those prescribed by the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code; 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is unsatisfactory. We note that the landlord’s request to extend the deadline for its stage 2 response was made after the 20 working day period had elapsed.
In responding to the complaint the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its responses. The landlord should have apologised for the delay in both responses and the impact on the resident. While the responses were outstanding the resident will have felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously. We note that the landlord did offer £25 compensation as it had delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint on receipt at stage 1; this was appropriate.
As part of her complaint the resident set out that the damp and mould was impacting on the health of her son. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in this regard which is unsatisfactory. A landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint to determine if any further support or assistance should be offered. The landlord did not do in this case.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. The landlord did not acknowledge and therefore provide appropriate redress for the delays in the provision of its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s concerns regarding the health of her son in responding to the matters subject of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to renew the windows.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to renew the insulation.
4. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to renew the boiler.
5. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to renew the hallway radiator.
6. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to repair the roof soffits.
7. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £475 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £25 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £450 comprising:
1. £100 for the delay in arranging the damp survey and therefore the distress and inconvenience the resident will have experienced while it was outstanding.
2. £300 for not demonstrating that it has taken steps to resolve the damp and mould reported by the resident and therefore the impact upon her including anxiety, distress and inconvenience.
3. £50 for delays in complaint handling and therefore the distress and inconvenience the resident will have experienced while the complaint responses were outstanding.
We understand that retrofit works for the property are due to commence at the end of June 2025. This is still several months away and it is not clear whether the works will address the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould. The landlord should therefore arrange an inspection of the property within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The inspection should assess the overall condition of the property to identify if there is any damp and mould which require intervention. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome, providing a schedule for any works identified as necessary. A copy of the letter should be provided to us.