Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202317207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317207

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

30 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows within the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor, within a block of 6 flats. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Evidence has been provided which shows the resident experienced multiple roof leaks at the property since 2015. The landlord has said it believed this to be the main underlying cause of the damp and mould.
The resident raised an issue with mould throughout the property and the double glazing on 14 November 2022. The landlord’s notes say the resident believed an extractor fan in the kitchen would help the issue. Further notes suggest the ceilings to be ‘bowing’ due a roof leak which was causing the mould. A surveyor inspected the property and requested several remedial actions be raised in an email on 27 March 2023. These works included to check the roof over the bathroom as “the walls are returning very high moisture readings”. An extractor fan was also requested to be fitted in the kitchen to reduce the “ambient atmospheric moisture levels present throughout the property”.
The resident raised a complaint via email on 17 July 2023. Within his complaint the resident said:
1. He had a contractor attend in December 2022 who said the double glazing could not be repaired and needed to be replaced.
2. A further contractor attended in February/March 2023 and had said the same.
3. The surveyor who attended to look at the damp and mould in March 2023 agreed but had said it was not down to him to make the decision to replace the windows.
4. A different contractor attended to look at the kitchen window and measured for a replacement as it could not be repaired. The resident expected this contractor to look at all the windows in the property, not just the kitchen.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 July 2023. The resident responded to this email to explain he would like an independent double glazing specialist to survey all of the windows and an independent damp and mould specialist carry out an inspection with any recommendations made to be carried out without delay.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 August 2023. Within this response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed the operative that attended in December 2022 to assess the condition of the double glazing attendance judged that it could not be repaired and would require replacement.
2. Confirmed the second operative who attended in early 2023 similarly reported that the double glazing needed replacement rather than repairing.
3. Said a temporary surveyor visited the property on the 22nd of March 2023 to look at the damp and mould, whilst there he had also commented he could not make a decision on the double glazing.
4. Advised it noted that its full-time surveyor did not believe the windows needed replacing, only required adjusting and a few changes of double glazing on 3 May 2023.
5. Said a job was raised to assess all windows, but only 1 window was measured.
6. Said the contractor had advised that the window seals were fine however they might need replacing in the future.
7. Advised that following contact from the resident on the 17 July 2023, a further job was raised on the 2 August 2023 and requested to be completed as soon as possible.
8. Apologised for any confusion that had arisen over the length of time it had taken.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 21 August 2023, he refuted the landlord’s comments within its stage 1 response and said it had done nothing to resolve the issues with the double glazing or the damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged this request on 30 August 2023 and advised a response could be expected within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023. Within its response the landlord:
1. Apologised for the level of service in relation to how long the repairs had taken and for any upset that may have been caused. It accepted the service should have been better.
2. Said it had asked a contractor to arrange an inspection to carry out a full survey of the property.
3. Clarified the state of repair to the windows would be assessed at the inspection and the contractor would also investigate the damp and mould to confirm any actions that needed to be taken.
4. Advised any recommendations would be actioned as soon as possible.
5. Offered compensation as the service experienced could have been better. The compensation offer included £50 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident having to chase the repairs, as well as the inconvenience and personal impact. It also offered £50 for the delay in completing the repairs.
The resident requested the Ombudsman formally investigate his complaint on 3 January 2024. The resident did not believe an independent surveyor had inspected the property and the landlord had still not done anything about the windows. The resident sought all repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted on the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the substantive issue, the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
The evidence provided for this investigation shows the landlord being made aware of a damp issue at the property on correspondence about other issues the resident was reporting since 2015. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from November 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows within the property.

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, its website and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, which includes windows. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 ensures that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. This means a property must be safe, healthy and free from hazards, including maintaining an adequate level of thermal comfort.
Evidence provided shows the landlord raised repairs on 14 November 2022, following the resident’s reports of issues with the double glazing in his property. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. Its repair policy says it will aim to complete general repairs within 10 working days. It is not clear from the evidence provided the exact date the landlord attended the property to assess the windows, however it detailed in its stage 1 response that a contractor attended in December 2023 and “early 2023”. The landlord commented that at each of these visits the double glazing was deemed unable to be repaired and therefore required replacement. It is not clear from the landlords records what action it took following this until May 2023, when its notes show a surveyor decided the double glazing did not require replacing but could be repaired.
Moreover, no evidence has been seen to demonstrate how the landlord came to this conclusion and that this change in decision was communicated to the resident. Throughout a period of 5 months, no repairs had taken place and the resident believed the double glazing needed to be replaced. It is acknowledged that the landlord has advised its repair contract was coming to an end at this time and it struggled to manage the contractors performance during this period, Although this is deemed somewhat out of the landlord’s control, the landlord still should ensure that it is able to meet its obligations as per the Landlord and Tenant Act and its tenancy agreement, ensuring repairs are carried out in a timely manner. In this case it failed to do so, this led to the resident being confused over its decision and making a complaint, causing time and trouble to seek a resolution.
The landlords repair records evidence that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 28 April 2023 and assessed the windows. It is not clear exactly what was assessed at this appointment as the notes from the landlord’s repair records suggest the job was for the “windows damaged in the kitchen” and further notes state that a “few units had blown”. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised a contractor attended on 29 June 2023 but only measured 1 window, when all windows should have been assessed.
Within its stage 1 response, dated 8 August 2023, the landlord committed to replacing the kitchen window and assessing all other windows. Following on from this, within its stage 2 response, dated 27 September 2023, the landlord advised it had asked a different contractor to attend again and carry out a full survey, including to assess the state of repair to the windows. This was nearly 10 months after the resident first reported his issues in November 2022 and no clear plan of action for repair was in place which was not appropriate. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it took appropriate or timely action to ensure the residents windows were in a good state of repair. It is evident that the landlord demonstrated a lack of oversight of its repairs responsibilities in this case, which was not reasonable
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge in its complaint responses there had been confusion over the replacement or repairs to the windows due to different contractors, it could have gone further to put the matter right for the resident. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account 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 Ombudsman will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
In summary, the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions between December 2022 and March 2023, which would have caused inconvenience to the resident. Each of these visits resulted in comments about the double glazing being beyond repair. The landlord failed to act on, not only the resident’s reports of disrepair, but from its own contractors, which was not reasonable. This caused avoidable delays, distress, time and trouble to the resident. The landlord failed to communicate effectively internally and with its contractors which resulted in the resident spending time chasing repairs and requesting call backs. Taking the above into consideration results in a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for 6 human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.
The resident reported mould “throughout his property” in November 2022, the landlord’s records show it attended on 1 December 2022 to assess the mould. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome of this inspection was, its notes at the time state the kitchen and hallway ceiling was “bowing due to a leaking flat roof” which was causing “bad mould”. In addition to this, the landlord’s system notes show the resident making contact on 21 December 2022 to chase up works following this inspection, the landlord’s notes say no works had been scheduled so it chased its contractor. In a case where the landlord describes a property suffering from “bad mould” the landlord should have made a timely and clear action plan to tackle the root cause. In cases such as this, it is good practise to share any plan to address the damp and mould with the resident. In doing so, the landlord is able to ensure the resident is aware of what action will be taken within a specified timescale. As there is no evidence to show that the landlord took action in a timely manner, this indicates a failure in its record keeping.
The landlords repair records show the roof being attended to on 15 February 2023, these notes suggest the roof repair was completed on this date also. Following this, the landlord fixed the ceiling and arranged to carry out a mould wash to the bathroom which is marked as complete on 2 March 2023. Although further notes state this did not go ahead as the resident was on holiday and a quote for a mould wash was dated 27 April 2023. An internal email dated 27 March 2023 from a surveyor requests multiple remedial repairs to be raised including to check the roof due to high moisture readings. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair logs if it took action following this email. Its records show the resident chasing up the works following the surveyor’s visit on 3 occasions in April 2023 before receiving a call back from the landlord.
The resident continued to chase the works throughout May and June 2023, with little communication back from the landlord, before making a complaint in July 2023. The landlord’s system notes show emails between different departments back and forth throughout this time with no evidence of communication back to the resident, which was not appropriate. The resident had reported mould in his property 8 months prior and no action to remedy the issue had taken place. Unfortunately, what was evident in these communications was a lack of collaboration between departments and a lack of accountability or ownership. A landlord is expected to work cohesively between departments to provide a good level of service to its customers, some of the internal correspondence seen was not cooperative and prolonged an avoidable delay for the resident.
The landlord, within its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023, advised it would arrange for a further contractor to inspect the property, which would include assessing the damp and mould. This was some 10 months after the resident initially reported the issue. This avoidable and unnecessary delay was evidently caused by the landlords lack of oversight of its repairs contractors and its lack of accountability of its repair obligations.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time said it would take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where they result from issues that require repair. This policy also stated it would communicate with its customers clearly and regularly regarding any actions it planned to take and any actions customers are advised to take. It is evident the landlord failed to follow its policy in this respect. The resident has stated in communications to the Ombudsman that works were carried out in July 2023 in an attempt to rectify the mould issue. The landlord’s records are not clear on what work took place and when, which is a record keeping failure.
Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
Given the level of failures identified in this report, and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of maladministration has been made. The landlord failed to follow its own policy, failed to clearly demonstrate that it met its repair obligations and failed to communicate effectively to the resident throughout causing a growth of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing a resolution.
Evidence has been seen following the resident’s complaint that the issues with the windows and damp and mould continued with the resident contacting the landlord in January 2024 about the outstanding repairs. It is noted in the landlord’s records that the resident said there was a draught coming through all of the windows and that the stain block and paint was coming off the walls and ceiling due to the mould growing again. The resident advised the landlord in this communication that there was mould all around the windows due to them not being repaired. The landlords case notes from March 2024 show it had an active damp and mould case running at the time.

Wider investigation

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice in relation to responding to damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202218444. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident, £1100 compensation which includes:
  1. £550 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows within the property.
  2. £550 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
This being equivalent to £100 per month for the 11 months between when the landlord was originally put on notice, on 14 November 2022 and the inspection it carried out in October 2023. This amount is in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord within this complaint. If these issues persisted beyond October 2023 the landlord should consider a further offer of compensation in line with the above.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the property was inspected and any recommended remedial works have been completed. If the landlord cannot confirm this, it should inspect the resident’s property and advise of a plan of action to complete any remedial works, including timescales.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord review its window related complaints in line with the recommendations made in the Ombudsmans open letter to landlords on 10 July 2024, ensuring appropriate actions are recognised, responded to, and documented.