Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202316842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316842

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

01 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports about insecure communal doors.
2. Request for the landlord to reimburse him for goods stolen from his internal shed.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block of 7 flats. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems.
The resident’s wife communicated with the landlord and the Ombudsman on his behalf in relation to the complaint. In the interests of clarity, all such communications are referred to in this report as being from or to the resident.
An internal shed is demised to the resident within the lease. The shed is within an internal storeroom on the ground floor of the block. Access is gained through an internal communal door and each resident’s shed within the storeroom has its own door.
Within this report the following will be referred to as:
1. The resident’s shed will be referred to as the internal shed.
2. The resident’s shed door will be referred to as the shed door.
3. The communal door to the storeroom that houses the sheds will be called the internal storeroom door.
4. The locked external communal door to the storeroom will be called the external storeroom door.
5. The main entrance communal door will be called the main entrance door.
In April 2022 the resident reported that his internal shed had been broken into. He made a claim on his own insurance. In July of the same year the resident queried why the internal storeroom door, that housed the internal sheds, did not have a handle on the inside. People had been locked in the storeroom. The landlord said that the door was not supposed to have a handle on the inside, and it was designed that people re-enter the building with a key. The resident felt that the landlord misunderstood how the internal storeroom door worked and asked the landlord to come and look at it.
The resident told the landlord that because the main entrance door was insecure, people were entering when it was open or using the trades button. The resident reported feeling very unsafe. In August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident that it would not reduce the hours on the trades button.
In November 2022 a repair was raised to fix the main entrance door. There were several visits to inspect and fix the door. It was not completed by March 2023 and the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He was unhappy that the main entrance door was still not fixed, and that the internal storeroom door was not secure. As a result of these failures to repair the door, the resident reported there was more anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block and that his goods had been stolen again. As a resolution the resident wanted some of his service charges refunded and reimbursement for his stolen goods.
In its 26 April 2023 response, the landlord accepted its service should have been better and said it would assess the fault with the main entrance door and the internal storeroom door. It offered £150 compensation for the delays, time and trouble, inconvenience and distress. The resident was not happy with the offer of compensation and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. The resident said living there was getting scarier by the day, and he would not pay any maintenance charges until the repairs were completed and his safety ensured.
From April 2023 to September 2023 the resident asked the landlord several times for the outcome to his query about the level of compensation. At some point in August 2023 the main entrance door was fixed. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 until September 2023. In October 2023 the landlord raised an emergency repair to the internal and external storeroom doors. Handles were fitted to the internal storeroom door. The lock was changed on the external storeroom door and keys were given to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was completed on 12 October 2023. It summarised that the outstanding issue the resident wished to be reviewed was the compensation figure. It offered £300 compensation in addition to the £150 offered at stage 1. The resident remained dissatisfied as the response had not considered compensation for his stolen goods that he believed was a result of the landlord’s negligence. He contacted the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint.

Post internal complaint procedure

At some point after 16 October 2023 a keypad lock was added to the internal storeroom door.
The landlord advised the resident he would need to claim for his stolen goods under his own insurance.
In February 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman with the issue of ASB in the carpark to add to this complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any issues the resident raised with the Ombudsman that have not been subject to a formal complaint or exhausted the process, should be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Within the resident’s complaint he disputed the level of the service charges, the service he was receiving, and asked for charges to be refunded. He also told the landlord he was not going to pay them. On 20 June 2023 the landlord explained to the resident how he can dispute charges. On speaking to the resident, he understands this aspect of his complaint will not be investigated here and he is aware of what he needs to do to dispute the charges and / or actuals. This is in line with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion concern the level of rent or service charge. Also, in relation to this issue, paragraph 42(f) sets out that this Service may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

Insecure communal doors

The ninth schedule of the resident’s lease explains what the landlord is obliged to carry out, at the resident’s expense. It includes to keep in good and substantial repair and condition (and whenever necessary rebuild and reinstate and renew and replace all worn or damaged parts) the following:
1. The main structure of the property.
2. All lifts, electrical and other fittings (but excluding those inside the individual flat).
3. All doors except those that give access to individual flats.

Main entrance door

On 21 November 2022 a repair for the main entrance door was raised. The landlord classified the repair as a general routine repair to be completed within 10 working days. The landlord’s initial response was correct. As the resident has the security of their own front door, communal door repairs of this nature would not be raised as an emergency. The landlord accepted its responsibility to fix the door and raised an appropriately prioritised repair.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 November 2022 and reported back to the landlord that they needed a key to remove the lock to test the power. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging its contractor to attend within 3 working days. However, there is no evidence that the contractor’s notes were actioned by the landlord. The landlord acted unreasonably by not progressing the repair.
By 17 January 2023 the resident had to contact the landlord to find out what was happening. The landlord responded quickly to the resident and apologised. It said it had asked the repairs team to find out what was happening and update the resident directly. The landlord arranged for its contractor to meet the caretaker on site to provide a key. This did not happen as the caretaker was on a training course on the day the contractor attended. It was not until 3 February 2023 that the landlord’s contractor attended and advised a replacement door release system and lock was required. It was reasonable of the landlord to apologise and arrange a new appointment. However, the evidence received as part of this investigation does not conclude that the landlord kept the resident updated as it said it would. The evidence does show the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord to ask what was happening. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not update the resident which may have resulted in the resident feeling that the landlord did not care. The landlord was not empathetic to the resident’s increasing reports of feeling unsafe in their property. Landlords must communicate with residents to deliver a good service. The resident has told the Ombudsman that while the main entrance door was broken, they kept a table against the door inside their property as an extra security measure.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor cancelled the main entrance door repair as the contract with the landlord was ending. On 23 May 2023 a contractor sent the landlord a quote to replace the door release system and provide a new lock. On 9 June 2023 the repair was raised again under a new repairs contract. On 21 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended and found the system was offline waiting to be upgraded. To lock the door a new lock would need to be fitted. At some point in August 2023 the main entrance door was repaired. The resident has told the Ombudsman that in the end it was an easy fix.
The dates above illustrate the gaps in the landlord’s actions from 21 November 2022 to August 2023. The mitigating factor of the landlord’s contractor changing does not account for the full delay period. The repair was completed 174 days after the repair was logged. There is no evidence that the landlord considered interim measures to make the door more secure. The landlord did not adhere to its repair timescales. The landlord acted inappropriately.
The landlord did not keep the resident informed. While the landlord’s repair policy states it will strive to undertake communal repairs within its priority timescale, it is good practice to keep residents updated if the timescales cannot be met. This is especially important when it involves security and when a resident has directly told the landlord he is scared for the safety of everyone living in the block. The repair was not given any additional priority despite the resident conveying a real fear for their safety. The landlord acted unreasonably.

Internal storeroom door

On 4 July and 31 August 2022, the resident requested that the landlord fit a handle on the inside of the internal storeroom door. If people forgot to prop it open, they got locked inside. On 31 August 2022 the landlord placed an internal note on the system that said the door was fit for purpose as it is designed that people re-enter with a key. This message was not passed to the resident until 17 October 2022, 74 working days after the 4 July 2022 communication from the resident. The landlord could have provided its response sooner. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused and further delayed the eventual action it took.
The resident responded on 17 October 2022 and asked for a surveyor to visit to look at the setup of the storeroom and access, as he thought there was a misunderstanding as to how the doors worked. It is not clear from the evidence if this visit happened, and no changes were made to the internal storeroom door. The landlord should have visited the block to understand the setup. On the repair logs and emails there are 4 different doors mentioned and at times called slightly different names, leading to some confusion. A visit could have provided clarity and a plan for each door. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was an easy solution that the landlord did not act upon.
On 3 March 2023 the resident reported that people were locked in the storeroom again. The landlord replied with the same response from 17 October 2022 that it was fit for purpose. The resident asked for a surveyor to visit so he or another resident could show the landlord what happens with the doors. There is no evidence that any visit took place. The landlord should have been professionally curious, taken the previous reports and surveyor request into account and booked an appointment. The landlord acted unreasonably. When the resident’s shed got broken into on 19 March 2023, he made a formal complaint about the lack of landlord action to his reports.
On 9 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the internal storeroom door was not secure and was a serious health and safety concern. The landlord considered the circumstances and made an emergency make safe appointment to attend within 4 hours. This priority appointment timescale is not documented within the landlord’s repairs policy. However, it was a reasonable and fair response. The landlord had listened to the resident. The landlord attended and added new handles to both sides of the internal storeroom door.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord asked one of its surveyors to assess the storeroom doors. The resident has told the Ombudsman that two visits were carried out, with conflicting outcomes. However, the end decision was that in October 2023 a keypad lock was put on the internal storeroom door. From the report on 9 October 2023 the landlord acted reasonably. It assessed the situation by visiting the block and quickly made long lasting, customer focused changes. However had the landlord responded this way a year earlier, the residents would have had a quicker resolution.

External storeroom door

The resident has told the Ombudsman that the external storeroom door was not used by anyone, and he did not have a key when he moved in. The resident wanted a landlord’s surveyor to see this. The landlord acted unreasonably in not sending a surveyor to see the resident and the storeroom set-up. It relied on an internal message saying the set up was fit for purpose. This may have contributed to the resident feeling like the landlord was not listening to him.
On 9 October 2023 the resident reported that the external storeroom door was not secure. The landlord attended within 4 hours and fitted a new lock to the external storeroom door and glued and screwed the frame securely. The landlord provided the resident with a key. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s 9 October 2023 report. However, these concerns had been reported consistently since November 2022 and no repairs had previously taken place.

Internal shed door

On 20 March 2023 the resident reported that his shed had been broken into. The landlord responded to this correctly. It raised a same day emergency repair and attended within the 3-hour timescale to assess and make safe. The landlord acted appropriately.
The next day the landlord raised follow on works for the shed door. These were correctly raised as a routine general repair to complete within 10 calendar days. It completed the work on 23 March 2023, 2 days after the follow-on works were raised. The landlord acted appropriately.
When there are admitted failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It will consider if the failing led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 26 April 2023 confirmed the following remedies:
1. The landlord acknowledged its failings in the delays to the main entrance door and apologised. It explained why there had been delays.
2. The landlord arranged an assessment of both the main entrance door and the internal storeroom door.
3. It offered £50 for time, trouble, inconvenience, personal impact and distress.
4. It offered £100 for the delay in completing the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 12 October 2023 confirmed the following remedies:
1. The landlord acknowledged its failings in the delays and apologised for the poor service.
2. It offered £300 in compensation:
  1. £100 for poor service.
  2. £100 time and trouble to chase repairs, as well as inconvenience and personal impact.
  3. £100 delay in completing the repair.
  4. This was in addition to the £150 offered at stage 1.
The Ombudsman does not consider £50 for time, trouble, inconvenience, personal impact and distress a fair remedy. At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the main entrance door had been insecure since 21 November 2022. Although the Ombudsman recognises that residents have their front doors as their security, the resident had reported criminal activities happening which he felt were a result of the insecure main entrance door. The resident had consistently reported issues in the block to the landlord and kept on top of them, chasing when necessary. The landlord’s goodwill gesture guidance suggests £100 to £250+ for issues where its failures have had a significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests £100-£600 were there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. Considering this, £50 was not enough recognition for the time and trouble the resident went to.
The remedies at stage 1 did not go far enough. There is no evidence at this point that the landlord contacted its ASB team to make them aware of the ASB associated issues at the block. The landlord did not offer a confirmed appointment for the assessment of the doors. The resident may not have felt confident the landlord was going to complete its remedies. This was later confirmed when the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 15 September 2023 the internal storeroom door issue remained unresolved.
After the stage 2 landlord response the landlord asked the resident to record ASB incidents for a couple of weeks and complete an ASB initial report from. It also asked the resident to call the ASB team to discuss the issues. This was a positive step, and the resident has reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord has engaged with them around the ASB at the block.
The discretionary offer of £450 compensation was a fairer remedy but did not quite go far enough. The landlord’s policy and Ombudsman’s remedies guidance allows for a higher award for delays, than the landlord gave (£200). The landlord’s guidelines for compensation and goodwill payments suggests £100 to £250+ for serious service failures where the landlord acknowledges it has failed the resident on multiple occasions.
The main entrance door was fixed but the internal storeroom door issue was not completed until late October 2023. In recognition of the delay to the internal storeroom door resolution and the cumulative adverse effect the situation had on the resident an order of £550 would be a fairer remedy.
The landlord’s failures amounted to maladministration, but its apology and offer of redress means that the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of insecure communal doors. The redress was not reasonable, and an order is made below.

The resident’s request for the landlord to reimburse him for goods stolen from his shed.

In the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2023 he told the landlord he expected it to compensate him for the goods that had been stolen from his internal shed on 19 March 2023. He said it was due to the landlord’s negligence that the burglary had happened. The landlord did not set out its response to this point in its stage 1 complaint response. It should have provided a response to enable the resident to decide what action to take next. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process because he did not agree that the compensation offered was a fair remedy. On 22 May 2023 the landlord asked the resident for confirmation of the date of the burglary and said it would pass the information to its insurers. The evidence provided as part of the investigation was not clear as to whether the landlord put in a claim against the building insurance or its public liability insurance, or whether it was seeking advice from its insurers. The landlord should have been clear with the resident and kept a log of actions and correspondence on its systems. The landlord acted unreasonably.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed to the resident that the compensation it had offered was a discretionary offer for delays and inconvenience. It said it did not offer values towards items as these should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. It then offered a further discretionary amount. The landlord should have offered a more detailed response. It did not mention the landlord’s correspondence from May 2023 about passing information to the insurers and the outcome of that. It did not offer advice to the resident about what he could do to try and recoup their losses. The landlord acted unreasonably.
In summary there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request. While it was reasonable of the landlord to make the decision it did, to not pay for the stolen goods, it should have communicated more clearly and quickly with the resident. The time it took to provide a definitive answer to the resident was time the resident could have been investigating other options. An order in relation to this is made below and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an order for compensation is also made.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can resolve issues quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. It is also an opportunity to clarify its position and reasonings for this. In this case the landlord did not adequately address all the resident’s concerns and delayed the complaint process.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice when appropriate. The stage 1 landlord response did not mention the resident’s request for reimbursement of his stolen goods. The stage 2 landlord response said it would not reimburse the resident but did not provide clear reasoning. The landlord acted inappropriately.
On its website the landlord sets out it will respond quickly and effectively to put things right. Paragraph 5.9 of the Code states if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 unless an exclusion ground now applies. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 27 April 2023 and this was not acknowledged as a stage 2 complaint until 15 September 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately and unreasonably. It should have escalated the complaint earlier and spoke to the resident to set out his reasons for the escalation. Instead, it delayed the next step in the complaints process which meant the resident waited longer for his final answer to his reimbursement request. This may have had financial implications for the resident due to the time lost to either seek legal advice on his losses or make an insurance claim. The landlord did not offer any remedy to the resident for its complaint handling failings.
In summary there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It delayed its stage 2 response which prevented the resident from accessing the Ombudsman’s investigation service sooner or making important decisions about their stolen goods. The landlord’s actions adversely affected the resident. An order of compensation, in line with the landlord and Ombudsman’s remedies guidance is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of insecure communal doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to reimburse him for goods stolen from his internal shed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This must be a written apology.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £900 made up of:
1. £450 offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, if not already paid.
2. £100 for the delays, time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of insecure communal doors.
3. £100 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request for the landlord to reimburse him for goods stolen from his shed.
4. £250 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its associated complaint handling.
5. These must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to write to the resident outlining:
1. Its final decision on the resident’s request for reimbursement of his stolen goods.
2. The reasons behind this decision and the actions it took to reach this decision (to include an explanation of the landlord’s email from 22 May 2023).
3. Provide the resident with details of any options he now has and relevant signposting if necessary.

Recommendation

The landlord to consider meeting or speaking with the resident to understand any outstanding issues at the block and clarify any actions the landlord can or cannot take.