Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202405659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405659

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

30 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered 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 lives in the property with her son.
The property is a 2 bedroom mid-terraced house.
On 23 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite reporting “high levels of mould” in the property on 10 November 2023 the landlord had not responded.
2. Mould was previously identified in the property in February 2023 during a repair appointment in the kitchen. She confirmed that the repair operative believed that the mould was due to water damage. She reported that the repair operative informed her that the mould was “removed” during the appointment however the property had continued to experience mould.
3. She had commissioned an independent survey of the property which “indicated abnormal levels of mould”.
4. The mould was impacting on her health. She reported that since moving into the property she had developed “non-rheumatic arthritis”. She confirmed that private testing had also confirmed “abnormal levels of mycotoxins in [her] system”.
5. She was currently using an air purifier to mitigate the impact of the mould.
The resident concluded her complaint by requesting the following actions by the landlord:
1. To “inspect, remediate and decontaminate” the property so that it was “free from mould and other hazardous substances”. She stated that the “legal timeframe” for such action was “14 days”.
2. To provide adequate ventilation in the bathroom to prevent the build-up of “excess moisture”.
3. To provide an extra air purifier and pay for its running costs.
4. To provide temporary accommodation if the above actions could not be completed promptly.
5. To provide the property’s repair records prior to her tenancy so that she may identify any historical water damage before her tenancy in order to help find a solution to the mould.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint confirming that a response would be provided within 10 working days.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord’s internal record noted that there was no open damp and mould case for the property. It further noted that it was unclear how the resident had logged her report on 10 November 2023 as it could not find a record of it.
On 14 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In order to investigate the complaint it had spoken with its repairs team and its damp and mould surveyor (the surveyor). No further details given.
2. In June 2023 it changed its repair contractor. It explained that when the change happened “many of the outstanding repairs were lost”.
3. The surveyor would attend the property on 19 December 2023 to inspect the property in order to determine a way forward to remedy the mould.
4. It was sorry “for the level of service” the resident had received and for “any upset” caused.
The landlord concluded by awarding £80 compensation, comprising £30 “for the time taken to raise [the] complaint” and £50 “for the delay in treating [the] damp and mould”.
On 2 January 2024 the landlord raised the following repairs:
1. “Fix the leaking gutter at the back”.
2. “Relay the loft insulation back down”.
On 5 January 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint as “no resolution” had been achieved to address the mould. The resident also advised that she was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to her requested action points.
On 8 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation confirming that a response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response following a telephone call with the resident earlier that day. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in issuing the response.
2. It understood that the resident was unhappy that following the inspection the follow-up works to address the damp were not forthcoming. It noted that the resident was concerned that its “inaction” had jeopardised her health and her son’s.
3. The inspection made the following recommendations to address the mould:
  1. To rectify an issue with the loft insulation.
  2. To address a problem with the gutter.
  3. To install new fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. To treat the damp and mould growth.
4. 3 of the 4 recommendations remained outstanding which was unacceptable. It noted:
  1. That “thick insulation quilt” was laid in the loft area on 5 March 2024.
  2. Its contractor was “due to return” to attend to the gutter. It advised the resident to “expect contact over the coming weeks”.
  3. An appointment had been booked for 15 March 2024, with its new supplier (the supplier), to install “new ventilation” in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. The supplier would inspect the “mould growth and address the problem accordingly” during the appointment on 15 March 2024.
5. It should not have taken “this long to make the necessary arrangements” for the repairs”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the service it had provided had not “been up to standard”. It therefore increased its offer of compensation to £100. The landlord also noted that its response and offer of compensation was “not an indication of the matter being resolved [and it would] continue to manage [the] case until the repairs [were] fully addressed”.
On 3 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord setting out that she remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. In summary she said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the mould in the property had not been remedied.
2. The supplier did not inspect for mould growth during the appointment on 15 March 2024. She added that only a kitchen fan was installed during the appointment and therefore the bathroom fan was outstanding.
3. The gutter was still leaking.
4. It was unsatisfactory that despite requesting the property’s repair records they had not been provided.
5. The landlord should cover the cost of the air purifier that she had purchased and was running.
On 12 May 2024 the resident contacted this Service to request assistance as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. Within her contact the resident reiterated her complaint to the landlord and dissatisfaction that the mould had not been remedied. She also repeated that she was concerned regarding the impact the mould was having on her health and that of her son’s.
On 7 January 2025, in an update to this Service, the resident said that the landlord had taken no further action in respect of her concerns regarding mould in the property. The resident confirmed that mould was still present in the property.
In January 2025 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it understood that the complaint was resolved following a conversation with the resident in December 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould in the property

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 mould the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
While the landlord said that it had no record of the resident’s contact on 10 November 2023 reporting mould in the property, the resident has provided us with a copy of her email contact to the landlord. The Ombudsman confirms that the email address used was correct. Within her contact the resident set out that the condition of the property was poor due to high levels of mould. The resident stated that the mould was first discovered in February 2023 when an operative removed wallpaper in the kitchen. The resident said that despite requesting that the landlord investigate and resolve the issue it had not done so. It is unsatisfactory that the resident’s contact was not acknowledged or responded to by the landlord at the time it was sent.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord set out that many repair records had been lost in June 2023 following a change in its repair contractor, suggesting that this was the case for the property. The Ombudsman has not seen any repair records for the property prior to June 2023. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman considers that the resident did report mould prior to November 2023 which was not appropriately responded to by the landlord. The Ombudsman considers that this is a fair approach as the landlord has not been able to provide any evidence to the contrary. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord’s records do not document any steps in early 2023 to investigate the mould to determine what action, if any, was needed to resolve the problem. It also raises a record keeping concern by the landlord; that it did not have sufficient systems in place to ensure and safeguard its records in the event of a change in contractor.
The evidence shows that on receipt of the resident’s complaint the landlord arranged to inspect the property. This was an appropriate course of action to allow the landlord to assess the condition of the property to determine the extent of the mould, what works were necessary, and then to plan and scheduled any works identified. The inspection took place on 19 December 2023 which was approximately 18 working days after the complaint was made. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable timeframe.
The report following the inspection confirmed that mould was present in the property “on the wall in the hallway behind multiple layers of very old wallpaper”. The report set out that the property did “not meet building regulation part F for ventilation” as the kitchen extractor fan was “very poor” and there was no extractor fan in the bathroom. The report also noted that the “wooden front door [was] poorly insulated”, the loft insulation had “been disturbed – not flat” and there was a “leaking [gutter] at the back” of the property. The report made the following recommendations:
1. Replace the kitchen extractor fan and change the external vent.
2. Install a continuously running fan in the bathroom window.
3. Relay the loft insulation
4. Replace the front door.
The landlord’s repair log shows that following the inspection work orders were raised on 2 January 2024 to relay the loft insulation and repair guttering. While it was appropriate that work orders were raised to address the loft insulation and guttering, it is not clear why work orders were not also raised for the other items identified by the inspection as no explanation has been provided within the evidence for review. This is unsatisfactory as the recommendations were a proposal as to the best course of action to remedy the mould in the property.
Following the resident’s complaint escalation the evidence shows that work orders were raised for a new kitchen and bathroom fan. It is unsatisfactory that these repairs were only progressed as a result of the resident’s complaint escalation. This suggests a lack of oversight and poor management by the landlord.
Despite the inspection recommending replacement of the front door this was not acted upon by the landlord. From the evidence it is not clear why this was the case as no explanation has been provided. This is unsatisfactory. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have documented its decision and reason to not complete the recommendation within its records.
The landlord’s records confirm that the repair to relay the loft insulation was completed on 5 March 2024, the kitchen fan was installed on 15 March 2024, the bathroom fan was installed on 11 April 2024 and the repair to fix the guttering was completed on 5 November 2024 following several attendances. Overall the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the timeliness of the repairs by the landlord. This is because they were completed over a protracted period of time, most notably the guttering which took approximately 11 months from the date of the inspection. The evidence suggests that the protracted period of time was due to the landlord’s lack of oversight following the inspection.
Despite the landlord setting out that the supplier would “inspect for mould growth” during the appointment on 15 March 2024 there is no evidence that this happened. The documents provided by the supplier following the visit do not document any inspection or consideration of the mould issue within the property. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment which the landlord had made to the resident.
In response to the resident’s correspondence dated 3 April 2024 it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a further inspection of the property. This is because the resident reported that the property continued to experience mould despite the repairs completed by the landlord. An inspection would have enabled the landlord to assess the situation and the repairs undertaken in addition to determining if any further repairs were necessary. It would also have been reasonable given that the landlord acknowledged itself, within its final response, that its handling of the matter had not been satisfactory. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
In November 2024 the landlord completed a retrofit survey of the property. A retrofit assessment is an inspection of a property (internal and external) in order to establish its condition and energy performance. The retrofit assessment helps a landlord plan potential future improvements to its housing stock. The Ombudsman notes that the inspection identified no evidence of condensation, damp or mould within the property. However the Ombudsman also notes that the report detailing the inspection also confirmed that it was “not a structural survey and [was] compiled on the basis of a visual inspection only”.
As there is an absence of a post-inspection report following the repairs completed by the landlord and taking into account that the retrofit survey was a visual inspection only, the Ombudsman cannot say with reasonable confidence that the landlord’s actions in response to the complaint have remedied the mould in the property. Furthermore we note the resident’s account that the problem persists to date.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the inspection and the repairs was poor. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident following the inspection to provide the outcome or a schedule of works. Further, while the repairs were outstanding, the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the resident was provided with updates from the landlord regarding timescales for the works while they were outstanding. This would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep her informed. In not doing so the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress in addition to feeling that her situation was not being taken seriously.
In responding to the complaint the landlord apologised and awarded a total of £100 compensation. The Ombudsman understands that £70 of this was in recognition of the repairs service provided, as £30 was awarded for complaint handling at stage 1.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a “customer has had a poor experience…. [it] may offer them a good will gesture”. As the landlord identified that its repairs service had been unsatisfactory it was appropriate that it engaged its policy. While it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident. This includes uncertainty, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, in addition to not being able to demonstrate that the issue had been resolved.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of mould in the property. While it undertook some repairs, which were not timely, it has been unable to demonstrate that its actions have resolved the issue. Further the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the inspection and the repairs was poor.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint it recognised this within its response and awarded £30 compensation. As the delay in acknowledging the complaint was only 2 days outside of its 5 day service standard the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the service failure. The landlord provided its stage 1 response promptly thereafter and within its 10 day service standard.
The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and provided its final response approximately 3 months after she requested to escalate the complaint. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a complainant’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and potential issues are identified and addressed promptly.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. The landlord did not do this in the resident’s case which suggests that it was not fully focussed on resolving the complaint or providing a comprehensive response. In particular the landlord did not respond to the following key points raised by the resident:
1. That it did not action the resident’s repair request on 10 November 2023. The landlord should have explained that a repair request was not opened at that time as its records indicated no contact by the resident.
2. The findings of the resident’s independent mould survey. The landlord should have considered the findings and explained why or why not it would be taking it into account when responding to the mould.
3. The resident’s request for an air purifier. The landlord should have either agreed or denied the resident’s request providing reasons.
4. The resident’s request for a copy of historic repair records for the property. While the landlord is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and was therefore not required to provide the resident with a copy of the repairs history for the property, it would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed whether the property had suffered from water damage historically, and if so when, where and if the matter was resolved. The landlord could have used its discretion to provide the records. This may also have informed the landlord’s own response to address the mould in the property while the complaint was live.
5. The resident’s reported health concerns. While the court may be the appropriate forum to make a legally binding decision as to whether the resident’s, and her son’s, health was adversely impacted by the landlord’s actions or inactions, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s particular circumstances and the impact of the mould on them when responding to the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and did not provide a comprehensive response at either stage of the complaint process to address all issues raised by the resident.

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 mould in the property.
2. Maladministration 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. These included poor repairs service, poor communication and poor complaint handling.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £600 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £100 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £500 comprising:
1. £190 in recognition of the poor repairs service provided by the landlord, including protracted timescales and poor communication which will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as a result.
2. £190 in recognition that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it has resolved the mould in the property and therefore that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been impacted.
3. £120 in recognition of poor complaint handling and the time, trouble and uncertainty the resident will have experienced as a result.
The landlord should arrange an inspection of the property for damp and mould within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome, providing a schedule of works for any works identified as necessary.
The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this determination review the records it has available for the property in order to establish whether it has experienced any leaks or water damage which may have caused or contributed to the mould. The landlord should write to the resident setting out its finding from the exercise.
The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this determination review the resident’s requests for reimbursement of costs incurred relating to the use of air purifiers within the property. The landlord should write to the resident setting out its decision, providing clear reasons for either agreeing or declining the resident’s request.