Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202344819)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202344819
Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
28 February 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 the landlord’s response to her damp and mould reports and associated repairs, including to an external French drain.
Background
- The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, described as a 2-bedroom house, since 2019.
- The landlord advised us there were “no known vulnerabilities” affecting the resident’s household. However, it also stated it was aware of her age and that there were “2 references to a vulnerability” within its records. These references contained no further details of what the vulnerability may be.
- Records show the resident called the landlord on 31 July 2023 to raise a complaint about its handling of repairs. She said she had a surveyor attend her home in December 2022. However, nothing had happened since then and she was unhappy with the time taken to complete repairs. Internal notes show a “new mould job” raised on 26 July 2023 had been passed to a contractor and, following the call, a new job was raised for “skirting (board) to be fixed”.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2023.
- On 21 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It understood the complaint was about the time it had taken to “arrange an appointment to treat the mould” in the resident’s home. To resolve the complaint, it noted she wanted damp and mould treatment to be carried out, for repairs to be completed to walls affected by damp, and for a drain in her garden to be repaired. The comments and findings it made included:
- A surveyor attended on 2 December 2022. They reported damp “had been…caused by the raised external ground level to the rear elevation”.
- On 7 March 2023, it had asked a contractor to inspect the damp and quote for relevant repair works. After this, it said “discussions took place internally” regarding what works should be done. It said that, “unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached”. It acknowledged the job “stalled”.
- The landlord took its repairs service back in house on 1 June 2023. It raised a new repair order “for the damp and mould” on 26 July 2023 and issued this to a contractor. However, the order was sent back to the landlord on 2 August 2023 as it was “awaiting a damp survey cost”.
- On the day the resident raised her complaint, an order was raised to repair her skirting boards next to the kitchen and downstairs bathroom. A plumber attended on 15 August 2023. However, it said the resident told the operative she wanted a leak repaired before any carpentry work began. The landlord concluded the repair “likely should not have been raised”.
- It was sorry for the “unacceptable wait” she “had to endure to get the damp problem” in her home treated. It said it needed to resolve any damp issues before it could complete other carpentry works. The service the resident received “should have been better”.
- To resolve the complaint, it would do the following:
- Arrange for another surveyor to “attend and assess the entire issue”. It said a reassessment was necessary due to its new repairs contract and that staff who were previously involved had left their roles. It had “underlined the urgency needed” as she had been waiting since the previous year for action.
- A survey had been booked for 27 September 2023. However, a new surveyor due to start shortly would be asked to attend sooner.
- It made a “discretionary offer” of £200. It offered £100 for her “time…taken to chase the issue”, stress and inconvenience and £100 for its “failure…to take conclusive action” and communicate appropriately.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2024 to escalate the complaint. She noted:
- She had been “trying to sort out” the damp issue in her home for almost 2 years. It was getting worse and now spreading to her living room.
- The landlord had sent 3 surveyors. However, they gave “excuse after excuse” and the problem remained.
- The installation of a French drain had made the problem worse, not better.
- One surveyor advised her walls needed taking “back to brick” to resolve the damp problem. However, the landlord had only carried out a mould spray on a small area. Kitchen cupboards needed removing to carry out a full treatment, but one operative had refused to do this.
- It had not called or visited her home when promised “numerous times”.
- On 11 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing it. It noted the resident had said the damp and mould was first reported in 2022 but remained unresolved despite 3 surveys being done. Comments and findings it made included:
- It provided a timeline of events from December 2022 to November 2023. This included the initial survey (December 2022), the installation of a French drain (October 2023) and a mould wash (November 2023).
- It acknowledged an “unacceptable delay” followed the initial survey. It also said it had made “every effort” to progress works after its stage 1 response.
- It noted she had advised the mould “returned to the affected areas of (her) kitchen”. It was now also spreading to the living room. She believed the situation had been made worse by the installation of the French drain. She also reported that her home was “unreasonably cold”. She suspected this was relating to the external wall to the kitchen.
- As a plan for her home, it had arranged an appointment for a plumber. They would ensure a leak she had reported was fully resolved. Once this was done, it would instruct its new contractor to “treat the mould and address any underlaying issues that remain”. It said this “may include further works to the external wall in the kitchen”.
- It apologised again for the “length of time…taken to address the issues at (her) home”. It acknowledged the issue had first been reported in 2022 and further apologised for “any inconvenience caused”.
- It would “continue to manage (her) repairs to completion”, even though the complaint procedure had ended. It would make “every effort” to update her as works progressed.
- It noted it had offered £200 at stage 1 for “poor communication and inconvenience”. Although “(it had) a plan to address the problems”, it acknowledged they remained outstanding. It therefore increased the compensation to £250.
- After the end of the complaint procedure, action taken by the landlord included:
- A contractor completed a mould wash on 22 April 2024. They recommended the installation of new fans, and the landlord should “place (an) order”.
- The damp and mould inspection referred to in the stage 2 response took place on 1 May 2024. This noted:
- Ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen needed improving.
- 2 internal doors did not have a recommended 10mm gap at the bottom.
- Loft insulation was poor.
- Evidence of a leak on the wall in the kitchen which had caused water staining. There were “elevated readings” on the damp meter.
- It recommended installing “continuously running” ventilation fans in the kitchen and bathroom; topping up the loft insulation; and trimming the 2 internal doors.
- Writing to the resident on 8 July 2024 to set out the findings of the damp and mould survey. It clarified the works that had been recommended (listed above). It raised a job to top up the roof insulation and said it would be in touch to arrange this. It also raised a Complex Repairs Case to investigate the leak. It again said it would “be in touch soon” regarding further steps.
- On 8 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the extra cost of running a dehumidifier. She said it had been running for 3 weeks while a wall was drying out.
- Contractors attended the property on 30 November to “quote for (a) soak away”. They noted the resident’s French drain had not “been installed properly” and she was “still getting very bad damp” in her home. It recommended a series of repairs and provided a quote.
- The landlord provided information to us for this investigation in January 2025. It said a quote for works to the drains was still awaiting approval. A further update on 17 February 2025 indicated repairs had been completed that day. The resident confirmed the French drain had been removed a few days earlier when we spoke to her on 21 February 2025.
Assessment and findings
- The landlord has a damp and mould policy. The latest version was updated in January 2024, after the resident’s complaint. Within the policy (although sections ‘d’ and ‘e’ below did not appear in the previous version), it says it will:
- Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way.
- Ensure the fabric of its homes is “protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp”.
- Communicate with residents clearly and regularly about planned actions.
- When reports of damp and mould are received, it will open a case on its Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. Once this is done, it will assign the case “an initial severity rating”, based on the information available. There are 5 ratings, from ‘extreme’ to ‘mild’ (plus ‘uncategorised’).
- It will “tackle immediate risks quickly”, treating mould growth and carrying out repairs. Repairs are processed in line with its Responsive Repairs policy.
- The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says it aims to complete “general repairs” within 10 working days. It also aims to carry out “repairs exclusions” within 20 working days. This category appears to relate to repairs which fall outside of its regular repairs and maintenance service. These are said to be “larger jobs” which may require a survey or further planning.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s damp and mould reports and its handling of associated repairs, including to an external French drain
- In cases where a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider if the apologies and/or compensation they offer “put things right” or resolve the complaint satisfactorily. We assess whether offers of redress were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted there had been an unacceptable delay in treating the damp and mould in the resident’s home. It acknowledged the service she received “should have been better”. It was positive it offered an apology and some “discretionary compensation”. However, of the £200 offered, only £100 appeared to relate to the repair delays themselves. This was not enough. It did not properly reflect the length of the delay or the effect this would have had on the resident.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued over 8 months after it inspected the resident’s home on 2 December 2022. However, the damp and mould issue had not been resolved.
- The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response in March 2024. It again accepted there had been an “unacceptable delay” in progressing works following the December 2022 inspection. While it said it had made efforts to progress repairs following its stage 1 response, and it outlined some of the actions it took, it is evident the damp issues remained unresolved.
- It was positive the landlord offered another apology for the delays and the inconvenience these would have caused. It also offered additional compensation for the further delays. However, an extra £50 did not provide a reasonable reflection of the additional 7 months that passed without the damp and mould issue being resolved. The landlord’s total compensation offer was £250 (£100 of which was for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs). This was significantly below what we would expect to see for delays which, at that time, had run to 15 months and its poor repair management.
- Regarding the repairs themselves, we note the landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it needed to carry out a further inspection. This was because its former surveyor and Head of Repairs had left the organisation. We accept it is important for landlords to reinspect properties when necessary to understand present conditions and see if any circumstances have changed. However, the reasons the landlord gave for carrying out another inspection point to poor record keeping.
- Landlords must ensure they have clear and robust case management systems to record the outcomes of inspections and repair recommendations. Staff turnover within an organisation is a regular and predictable event. The landlord should not lose important repairs knowledge because someone leaves their employ. Residents should not be inconvenienced by having to provide access for multiple visits because the landlord does not keep proper records. Aside from the inconvenience, they will form the impression the repairs process is not being properly managed and the landlord/tenant relationship will suffer.
- When a contractor did carry out a further inspection in March 2023, records show the landlord could not agree on what repairs it would carry out. In its complaint response, it acknowledged the job had “stalled”. This was not appropriate. It was evidence of further, avoidable delay. There is no indication the resident was kept informed or that the lack of progress after the inspection was explained. While it is important that landlords ensure they carry out the right repairs and only approve quotes which are value for money, residents should not be adversely affected. The landlord’s internal disagreements meant the resident experienced further months of inaction. This was unfair.
- There is evidence the landlord did take some action to try and remedy the mould in the resident’s home, including a mould wash and repairs to the internal doors in July 2024. But it did not resolve the cause, which meant the mould kept returning.
- The resident had raised concerns that the damp and mould in her home was made worse by the French drain as early as July 2023 (in her complaint). Landlord records show a surveyor noted in January 2023 that the landlord’s repairs contractor had “carried out…works which is causing damp/bridging of the (damp proof course – ‘DPC’)” while the property was void. They considered there had been “unprofessional works carried out” and the contractor needed to “return and remove the installation”. There is no evidence this suggestion was taken further or the contractor asked to return.
- The landlord’s delay in establishing who would initially carry out repairs to the drain was not acceptable. While it is understandable that some staff believed the voids contractor should return and treat the issue as a defect or failed repair, the internal confusion should not have caused delays for the resident. The landlord should have prioritised getting the work done. It could work out whether to recharge certain contractors after the repairs were complete. Its initial approach was not customer focussed and left the resident in limbo. In the event, further significant delays occurred which made the situation worse.
- Both the landlord and resident have confirmed repairs to the French drain (its removal and a replacement system installed) were completed in February 2025. This is over 2 years after the landlord was first aware of the potential issue with the drains. Within her complaint and general correspondence, the resident repeatedly said the drains were causing the damp in her home. She has told us she felt the landlord was not listening to her. However, as noted, the landlord had already identified this issue shortly after the December 2022 inspection. It was therefore unclear why it failed to appropriately address and respond to the concerns the resident raised. Its poor communication – and a lack of transparency – left the resident feeling unheard.
- Further, it is concerning the landlord advised us (and the resident in a further complaint response outside the scope of this investigation) it had “recently identified that the soakaway is too high” and this had breached the DPC. As above, it appeared to have identified this problem in or around January 2023, rather than November 2024. This points to inconsistent advice being provided to both the resident and Ombudsman. It also indicates poor record keeping.
- We do not consider that the landlord adhered to its damp and mould policy. This stated it would diagnose and resolve issues in a timely manner. The evidence shows it did not. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident during the period investigated, causing her to chase for updates on several occasions. It also failed to act in line with its repairs policy, with repairs significantly exceeding its maximum 20 working day target.
- We identified further issues with the landlord’s repair handling. In its complaint responses it accepted that a job to repair the resident’s skirting boards should not have been raised as the leak/damp problem was unresolved. This again indicated a poor overview of the repair process. It was understandable an attending operative did not want to carry out a carpentry repair. This was because it was likely to need redoing later as the underlying problem remained. However, this caused unnecessary confusion and frustration for the resident when the appointment was booked but the repair was not carried out.
- The landlord’s November 2024 update to us also said it had “urgently” requested a quote for replacement fans in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. It is unclear why this had not been done 6 months after the recommendation was made in the May 2024 inspection. After the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the landlord’s inspection had identified further steps that could have improved the damp and mould situation in the resident’s home. That it failed to progress the recommendations was in keeping with other repair delays and the poor oversight of repairs progress seen in this case. It had not provided any reason for the delay in raising these repairs.
- This is another failure to adhere to its damp and mould policy. It had identified a repair which would potentially improve the issue within the resident’s home. Half a year after receiving the recommendation from its contractor, it had failed to raise the relevant orders. This was not reasonable. It was a missed opportunity to progress the repair in a timely manner which may have helped the resident and the integrity of its property.
- Overall, its handling of repairs and its response to the damp and mould reports was poor and amounted to maladministration. The redress (the apologies and compensation) offered during the complaint procedure did not properly reflect the level of failings and effect on the resident. After the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the landlord failed to progress repairs as promised. It missed opportunities to review the redress it had offered when it became apparent that further delays had occurred.
- We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident an increased amount of compensation. This will better reflect the repair delays that occurred, the effect these had on the resident and the inconvenience she was caused. It has also been ordered to provide an update on the installation of the ventilation fans. We also recommend it arranges a further, post-repair inspection of the resident’s property to assess whether the works to the external drainage has improved the damp and mould situation as anticipated.
- Aside from the repair issues, we note there was a lack of clarity regarding whether the landlord considered the resident to be “vulnerable”. It advised us her household had “no known vulnerabilities” but its own records at times marked her as a “vulnerable resident”. It is of concern both that its records are inconsistent, and its marker did not appear to prompt more urgent actions and responses. We also recommend the landlord contacts the resident to clarify if there are any additional needs in her household. It should also ask whether she requires any reasonable adjustments and update its records accordingly.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to her damp and mould reports and associated repairs, including to an external French drain.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
- Pay the resident £750 compensation, made up of £500 to reflect the repair delays and £250 for her time, trouble and the inconvenience caused. This is in addition to, rather than instead of, the £250 offered by the landlord during its complaint procedure. It should also be paid to the resident directly, rather than into her rent account.
- Update us and the resident regarding the installation of ventilation fans in her kitchen and bathroom and give a timeframe for completion of the works.
- Contact the resident to arrange a post-completion inspection of the drainage system and assess whether this has improved the damp and mould situation in her home. It should share the results of this inspection with both us and the resident.
Recommendations
- It should also contact her to ensure it has up to date and accurate records regarding any vulnerabilities within her household. It should also ask if she requires any reasonable adjustments to be made.