Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202307290)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307290

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

29 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of tree roots causing damage to the resident’s front path.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident became the tenant of the property, by way of mutual exchange in July 2022. The property is a two-bedroom mid-terrace house. The tenancy sign up details confirm that the resident has a mobility and mental health vulnerabilities. This was also confirmed by the landlord in its evidence submission to this Service.
On 22 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding a tree to the front of her property. The resident explained that not only was the tree obstructing her window, but the roots were also causing damage to her front path which she said was a health and safety issue and had become a trip hazard for her. The resident went on to explain that she had a mobility disability which required the use of crutches and a wheelchair, and that she was due to get a wheelchair ramp, but the tree roots could be an issue.
Following a visit to the property by its tree surgeon on 8 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that the tree needed to be completely removed, otherwise it would continue to cause problems with the path. The landlord also noted that the resident used crutches, so the path was a danger for her.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was arranging a quote for the removal of the tree so that works could then be carried out to ‘‘make the path safe’’ for her. The resident responded the same day to thank the landlord and to advise that she had tripped and fallen, injuring herself, a few days previously when trying to get past where the path had lifted. The resident said that this had meant she had ‘‘been stuck in bed‘’. The landlord replied the same day to say that it sorry to hear that the resident had hurt herself and that it was aware of the health and safety issue which was why it was obtaining a quote to remove the tree.
The resident chased the landlord for the works to be completed throughout October, November, and December 2022 and then from January to April 2023.
On 2 May 2023 she raised a formal complaint with the landlord stating that it was not acceptable for it to take so long to address the repairs to her path, given that it was a health and safety issue, with both her and her mother having had falls. The resident said that it had been over 2 weeks since the landlord had last communicated with her and that, if she did not chase the landlord, she did not hear anything from it. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 May 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 May 2023 in which it said:
1. It had spoken to its tree contractor, who visited the property, and they had advised that the tree did not need to be removed, as removing the tree would not resolve the issue with the unlevel pathway.
2. That its (the landlord’s) surveyor would visit the resident’s property on 6 June 2023 and that, once this had been done, the surveyor would raise the repairs for the path.
3. That it was sorry for the level of service it had provided in relation to the tree and for any upset this may have caused. The landlord accepted that on this occasion, its service should have been better, for which it offered the resident a total of £150, made up of £50 for the time taken to raise the complaint and £100 for the delay to the repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 May 2023, stating that the offer £150 ‘‘after 10 months of chasing’’ and still having this ‘‘traumatizing hazardous path, was really a slap in the face’’. The resident said that she did not feel that the landlord had listened to her as 10 months later they were still talking about same issue with no end in sight. The resident said that she was becoming isolated and severely anxious because of the health and safety risk she faced each time she left or returned to her home, due to the ‘‘hazardous’’ path.
On 7 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had written to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 30 May 2023, but her email was not replied to. The resident also said that she had been promised that the landlord’s surveyor would attend the previous day, but they did not do so. The resident said that she was ‘‘fed up with the unserious manner’’ with which the landlord was taking an issue which was ‘unsafe’ for her.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 June 2023, saying that she would receive a full response within 20 working days. In response the resident added that the surveyors visit, initially arranged for 6 June 2023, was rebooked for 12 June 2023 but again no one attended, nor did she receive a call informing her of this. The resident said that she had been having this same conversation with the landlord for over 10 months ‘‘with zero progress’, which she described as ‘‘shocking’’.
The landlord issued its final response on 3 July 2023. The landlord offered no further redress, saying that:
1. Following the surveying appointment on the 12 June 2023, the following repairs had been raised with its contractor:
  1. To dig up the pathway.
  2. Remove all tree roots.
  3. Replace the pathway to match the existing.
2. Its contractor would be in touch to book in the works in due course.
3. It was sorry if the resident felt that the works had not progressed quickly enough and for any upset this may have caused.
4. It went on to say that it could appreciate why the resident felt the appointment was missed. However, its records showed that its surveyor had attended, suggesting that it was possible its surveyor did not knock loud enough, or did not see a bell that he could have pressed. The landlord apologised for this ‘possible’ oversight.
On 11 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a new complaint. The resident said that that nobody had bothered to get back to her, that this was ‘‘really affecting’’ her mentally and physically and it appeared that the landlord ‘‘really didn’t care.’’ The resident said that the landlord’s lack of responsive action was causing her serious distress and making it difficult for her to move into and out of her house, which as a disabled person was ‘‘shocking.’’ The resident said the £150 compensation offered in response to her previous complaint did not reflect the level of inconvenience caused and ‘‘totally undervalued the person living daily with this massive inconvenience’’.
On 20 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was sorry for the delay in the works being carried out. It went on to explain that it had cancelled the order with the previous contractor and had passed the works on to another contactor. The landlord said that the new contractor would attend the resident’s property to scope the works and would then be in contact to arrange an appointment for the works to take place.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s new complaint on 13 November 2023. In its response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that some time passed from when the resident first reported the repair to the pathway and that she had not been kept updated.
2. Said that because of this it had instructed another contractor to take over the repair just after the 20 October 2023. The new contractor visited the resident’s home on 7 November 2023, assessed the work required and submitted a quote.
3. Made reference to the resident’s previous complaint, noting that it had issued its stage 1 response within the 10 working day timescale, that there was a slight delay in it acknowledging the resident’s escalation request at stage 2, for which it offered its apology, however its stage 2 response was issued within the 20 working day deadline.
4. Said that it appreciated that during the complaints process the resident had to chase on various issues and that it should have kept her updated on progress and any delays. The landlord said that this was unacceptable and that it was sorry for the level of service the resident had received in relation to its communication and the delay in the repairs, and for any upset this may have caused.
5. Offered the resident a further £50 compensation. This was made up of £30 for the time she had taken to chase the complaint, the stress and inconvenience caused and the lack of communication she had received, and £20 for the delay in having the repair completed.
6. Confirmed that the quote submitted by its contractor had been approved and that they would be in contact with her within the next 5 -10 working days to arrange an appointment for the works to commence. The landlord said that its repairs team would manage these outstanding repairs to make sure they were completed.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 29 January 2024. The resident said that ‘‘after all the backs and forth and finally reaching a resolution last year, we are back to the confusion yet again.’’ The resident said that she had been told that a surveyor had visited her property and confirmed that the tree and roots needed to be removed and the path redone. However, she had that afternoon received a call from a contractor saying that they were not told to remove the tree, only to redo the path. The resident said that the path was a major health and safety risk for her, and her mother, as they had both fallen and been injured, evidence of which she said had been given to the landlord.
On 31 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the tree had been removed and that they were due to cut out the stump in the next couple of days. On 13 February 2024, the landlord noted that the tree had been completely removed and the pathway works were to be programmed in. On 15 March 2024, the contractor emailed the landlord to confirm that the path works were completed and included photos of the completed works.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s second complaint on 22 March 2024 in which it:
1. Apologised for delay in its response.
2. Acknowledged that:
  1. The resident had initially reported the issue with her front path in September 2022 and that, despite contacting the landlord on several occasions, the issue was not resolved until March 2024. The landlord also acknowledged that this was a ‘particular concern due to documented mobility issues within (the resident’s) household.’
  2. The resident had raised 2 formal complaints, sent numerous emails, many of which went unanswered and that she was ‘forced’ to visit its offices on 2 occasions due to its ‘persistent inaction’.
  3. The delay meant an Occupational Health recommended wheelchair ramp could not be installed and the resident had reported an injury caused by the worsening trip hazard.
3. Explained that throughout 2023, its repairs service had undergone a significant period of change, including to its subcontractors, staffing structures, and its internal processes. The landlord said that unfortunately there were teething problems which negatively impacted its service standards, for which it apologised. The landlord confirmed that the delays in the resident’s case were caused by:
  1. Poor internal communication.
  2. Office based staff overriding the recommendations of site attendees.
  3. Lack of coordination between tree maintenance and groundwork contractors.
  4. Issues with the quote procedure.
  5. Various administrative oversights.
4. Said that it was happy to hear the tree was removed and the path re-laid and that, whilst it was reasonable to expect delays to occur from time to time, the length of time it had taken to resolve the resident’s repair was completely unacceptable. The landlord went on to say that the resident should not ‘have been required to put in as much effort’ as she did to resolve the matter and that it ‘fully acknowledged the stress, anxiety and inconvenience caused.’
5. Said that, considering the above, in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1 it would like to offer the resident a further compensation award of £150.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. ‘Be fair’ – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In her correspondence with the landlord the resident explained how its actions had been detrimental to her physical and mental health and reported injuries to both her and her mother. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination as to whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and the resident’s health or that of other family members. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of tree roots causing damage to the resident’s front path.

Once a landlord is informed of damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to conduct a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
In this case, the resident reported on 22 August 2022 that the roots of a tree to the front of her property was causing damage to her front path. The resident explained, and the landlord clearly accepted, that this was a health and safety issue as she had a mobility disability which required the use of crutches and a wheelchair, and that the damage had become a trip hazard for her. The resident also explained, and the landlord accepted, that the delays in the repairs to the front path meant that an Occupational Health recommended wheelchair ramp could not be installed.
Despite the landlord being aware of these significant issues, there was an excessive delay in the repairs being carried out, with these not being completed until March 2024, some 19 months after the issue was initially reported.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, in-line with general customer service standards the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
In this case in addition to failing to complete the repairs within a reasonable period of time, it is evident that the landlord also failed to proactively manage the repairs or to keep the resident informed of what was happening. The poor communication by the landlord in this case meant that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates which understandably would have caused her significant inconvenience and distress.
In its final response to the resident’s second formal complaint about this matter, the landlord acknowledged its extensive errors regarding the repair to the resident’s front path and provided the resident with a detailed explanation for its failures. Whilst it is evident that the landlord carried out a thorough investigation into what had happened in this case and was candid about its errors and its failure to progress the repairs, that it was necessary for the resident to have to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaint process on 2 occasions for it to do so was a further failure on its part.
When things have gone wrong, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take steps to make things right for the resident. In this case, over the course of the 2 complaints raised by the resident, the landlord offered the resident a total of £320 compensation:
1. £150 offered in its stage 1 response of 19 May 2023, made up of £50 for the time taken to raise the complaint and £100 for the delay to the repairs.
2. A further £20 compensation in its second stage 1 response of 13 November 2023 for the delay in having the repair completed.
3. A further compensation award of £150 in its stage 2 response of 22 March 2024.
This Service’s Complaint Handling code states that factors to consider when formulating a remedy can include, but are not limited to:
1. The length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. The frequency with which something has occurred.
3. The severity of any service failure or omission.
4. The number of different failures.
5. The cumulative impact on the resident and the resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
Given that the resident had to wait 19 months for the works to be completed, that there were repeated and significant failures by the landlord, that there was an acknowledged health and safety risk and that the resident had known vulnerabilities, it is this Service’s view that £320 compensation falls a long way short of a proportionate level of compensation in this case.
It should be noted that had it not been for the landlord’s full acknowledgement of its failings and that it had gone some way to offer redress to the resident for those failings, this case would have been determined as severe maladministration by this Service.
As such, the level of compensation offered should also be in line with that recommended in Service’s remedies guidance for where there has been there have been serious failings by the landlord, over a significant period of time, and where the landlord’s repeated failure to provide a service had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. In such cases, the guidance suggests compensation in excess of £1,000.
With that in mind, and to put things right, the landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident and additional £1,000, bringing the total payable to her for its failures with regards to the repairs to her front path to £1,320.
The landlord has also been ordered to review its approach to the compensation offered in this case, in light of the guidance given in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and our Spotlight on Attitudes, respect and rights report. The landlord is then to confirm the outcome of its review to this Service, including how it intends to ensure that, going forward, staff are aware of the need to appropriately consider the individual circumstances of each complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy which states that:
1. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within a further 10 working days.
2. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days, and then provide its response within a further 20 working days.
3. At both stages, if it is unable to provide its response within the above timescales it can extend by an additional 10 working days and that if it needs to do so it will let the resident know and explaining the reasons for the delay.
Whilst there were short delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint, and her escalation request, it ultimately issued its responses in line with the timescales set out in its complaints process.
The resident raised her initial complaint on 2 May 2023. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days, by 9 May 2023, and then issued its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. There was a delay of 1 day in the landlord acknowledging the complaint, it not doing so until 10 May 2023. However, the stage 1 was issued by the landlord within the required timescales, it doing so on 19 May 2023.
The resident escalated her initial complaint on 30 May 2023. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days, by 7 June 2023, and then issued its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. There was a delay of 7 working days in the landlord acknowledging the escalation request, this not being sent until 16 June 2023. However, the stage 2 was issued by the landlord within the required timescales, it doing so on 14 July 2023 and within the 20 working days from acknowledgement timescale.
There were however failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s second complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord to raise a new complaint on 11 October 2023, as the repairs were still outstanding. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged her complaint within 5 working days, by 16 October 2023, and then issued its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
This Service has not had sight of the landlord acknowledgement of the resident’s new complaint. However, based the timescales set out in its complaints policy the landlord would have been expected to provide its response by 1 November 2023, taking into account the 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and the 10 working days from that point to provide its response. In this instance the landlord failed to provide its response within the required timescale, not doing so until 13 November 2023.
The resident then escalated her new complaint on 29 January 2024. Again, this Service has not had sight of the landlord acknowledgement of the resident’s request. However, again based the timescales set out in its complaints policy the landlord would have been expected to provide its response by 4 March 2024, 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and then a further 20 working days to provide its response. The landlord again failed to provide its response within the required timescale, not doing to until 22 March 2024.
The landlord would be expected to acknowledged these delays in its responses and to have provide the resident with an appropriate level of compensation for the distress, time, trouble, and inconvenience this would have caused her.
In its second stage 1 response of 13 November 2023 the landlord did apologise for delay in its response and offered the resident £30 for the time she had taken to chase the complaint. However, in its stage 2 response it did not acknowledge the further delays, nor was any further compensation offered with regards to its complaint handing.
As a result, a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident. Whilst there were repeated failures by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s second complaint, as these were of a relatively short duration, it is therefore this Service’s position that the landlord should pay the resident a further £120. This brings the total payable by the landlord for its complaint handling failures to £150.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of tree roots causing damage to the resident’s front path.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Despite the landlord being aware that the resident had a mobility vulnerability, that an Occupational Health recommended wheelchair ramp could not be installed due to the issues with her front path, and the resident had reported an injury caused by the worsening trip hazard, the landlord took an excessive amount of time to complete the works required to rectify this. This total 19 months. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its extensive failures in this case, the level of compensation offered was not proportionate either to the level of failure nor that impact on the resident given her known vulnerabilities.
Whilst the landlord went some way to offer redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures, the level of compensation was not sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for those failures.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,470 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,320 for its failings with regards to its response to reports of tree roots causing damage to the resident’s front path. This is inclusive of the £320 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the £30 already offered if this has not already been paid.
3. To review its approach to the compensation offered in this case, in light of the guidance given in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and our Spotlight on Attitudes, respect and rights report. The landlord is then to confirm the outcome of its review to this Service, including how it intends to ensure that, going forward, staff are aware of the need to appropriately consider the individual circumstances when deciding on the level of compensation offered.
4. Confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.