Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202203469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203469

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

10 October 2022

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of recurrent leaks affecting her property.
   2. The formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building.
3. The resident initially reported water leaking from the guttering into her flat when it rained on 9 May 2019. On 19 October 2020, the contractor identified that additional water downpipes were required in order to stop the leak.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 23 February 2021 due to the ongoing issues with the leak and the required water downpipes. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken ownership and completed the repairs. In her complaint escalation, the resident said she was dissatisfied that the landlord said it was not responsible for installing additional downpipes or resolving issues with the guttering. 
5. In the landlord’s final response on 8 September 2021, it stated the guttering was the responsibility of the managing agent of the building. It said it had contacted the managing agent and logged the repair, but acknowledged that it should have contacted them to ensure the repair was completed earlier. It offered £100 compensation for the distress caused and time taken to resolve the issue.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied that there was an ongoing leak in her flat every time it rained, which she thought was a result of insufficient downpipes. She wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for ensuring the works were completed. She said that there had been damage to her flat and furniture as a result, which had a financial impact on her due to replacing items and that the ongoing issue had impacted her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of her reports of the leak into her property has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leaks and problems with the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
8. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that she only considers the issue defined above to be outstanding and that the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the one issue that remains outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks

9. The landlord has provided the leaseholder agreement for the property, which states that the freeholder is responsible for maintenance of the retained parts of the building, which includes the structure of the building. The freeholder employs the managing agent to complete the required work on the freeholder’s behalf. The tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord states that the landlord “must keep the structure and exterior of your home in good repair”, which includes the drains and gutters. As such, although the freeholder of the building is ultimately responsible for completing the repairs, the landlord has a role to ensure that such repairs are completed. The landlord should demonstrate that it is regularly communicating with the freeholder to ensure the repairs progress and provide the resident with any updates.
10. In this case it is not disputed that there was a delay in completing the works to resolve the leak. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged that it should have contacted the managing agent sooner, to ensure that the repair was completed at an earlier date. While it was appropriate that it acknowledged its failings, additional failings have been identified, and as such, the compensation of £100 offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the level of failing.
11. There was a significant delay in identifying the cause of the leak, which the resident initially reported on 9 May 2019. The landlord is responsible for investigating the cause of the leak and ensuring any required repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe. The communication records sent by the landlord show the resident chased the leak on four occasions before the contractor established on 8 September 2020 that additional water downpipes were required in order to resolve the leak. While it can take multiple attempts to identify and resolve a leak, there is limited evidence to suggest that the landlord took the appropriate steps to ensure the cause of the leak was identified in a reasonable timeframe. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided the resident with updates on the progress of the works, or managed her expectations, which meant additional time, effort and distress was caused to the resident.
12. Once the leak had been identified as a structural issue, the landlord should have notified the freeholder of the required works, however there is no evidence to suggest that it did at the time. In an internal email on 30 October 2020, the landlord stated that it would request authorisation from its repair team to complete the work, which was the incorrect action to take. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had identified that the work was the freeholder’s responsibility (to be completed by the managing agent on the freeholder’s behalf) until 4 March 2021. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord instructed its own contractors to complete the work during this period. As a result of the landlord’s lack of action there was an additional five-month delay in proceeding with the works. The landlord should ensure that it reviews its staff training requirements to ensure such omissions are identified at an earlier date and repairs are correctly allocated in order to avoid similar delays.
13. This Service’s spotlight report on “landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” identified the landlord is responsible for liaising with the freeholder or managing agent as required, and ensuring it holds them accountable for fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities. In this case, when the work was identified as the freeholder’s responsibility, the landlord should have promptly contacted the managing agent to complete the work on the freeholder’s behalf. On 3 September 2021, the landlord noted that it had advised the resident to raise a complaint with the managing agent as it said they were responsible for the issue. This was unreasonable, as residents do not have a contractual agreement with the managing agent, so it is the landlord’s responsibility to contact them. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed the required repairs with the managing agent until 9 September 2021, following its final response to the resident the day before. This was a significant delay from when it identified the works were the responsibility of the freeholder. Considering the clear impact on the resident, the landlord should have acted to pursue the repairs at an earlier date and again should not have imposed it on the resident to pursue communication with the managing agent in order to have the matter resolved.
14. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £600-£1000 should be awarded in cases where there was a significant impact on the resident. In this case, there was a delay in recognising that the repair was the freeholder’s responsibility and contacting the managing agent to complete the repair. As a result, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the tenancy agreement and take accountability for the repair, which meant the leak kept recurring over a significant amount of time. The landlord’s failings caused the resident significant distress, inconvenience, time and effort in pursuing the issue. However, as the leak was intermittent and there is no evidence to suggest that it was uncontainable, this will have limited the overall impact on the resident, but the landlord’s offer of £100 for the 28 months it had taken for it to appropriately assist with the resolution of the matter was wholly insufficient and not proportional to the impact on the resident. Taking the mitigating circumstances like the intermittent occurrences and the covid-19 pandemic which would also have delayed matters, an award of £600 is reasonable.
15. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions post the final complaint response, given that the issue has been ongoing with very little change. The Ombudsman does accept that once the repair was referred to the managing agent, it was somewhat out of the landlord’s control, however, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was pursuing the repair with the managing agent to ensure that the issue was resolved. There is limited evidence to suggest that it did, so this is evidence of a further failing.
16. The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident on 21 December 2021 that it would pursue the repairs with the new managing agent when its contract started, as the former managing agent had resigned on 31 December 2021. This is reasonable as although the delay was outside of its control, the landlord is expected to provide the resident with any relevant updates on the progress of the works. The landlord advised the managing agent on 8 March 2022 that if the outstanding work was not completed within 30 days, it would complete the work and send an invoice. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider pursuing this action at an earlier date, given the lack of progress on the works much earlier. However, whilst it was not strictly obliged to do so, as ultimately, the repair was the freeholder’s responsibility, there is not enough evidence that it did enough to attempt to resolve the matter.
17. On 5 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the freeholder had instructed a contractor to complete the repairs, and was awaiting scaffolding to commence the work. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service to confirm that the work has since been completed or that the resident has been provided with any updates.
18. The resident’s support worker contacted this Service on 28 September 2022 and advised that the works were still outstanding. As a result, the landlord has further failed to fulfil its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement. If there were appropriate reasons why the repair work had been delayed, the resident should have been advised, however there is no evidence that the landlord advised as such. And if there were not reasonable reason’s then the landlord should have completed the repair and invoiced the managing agent as previously advised. The continuation of the matter would have caused additional distress to the resident due to the uncertainty of the progress of the works.
19. In view of this failing and that the issue is still outstanding, the landlord should therefore award the resident a further £400. If the repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should take the necessary steps to ensure the manging agent completes the required work to stop the leak. The landlord should ensure that it provides the resident with weekly updates on the progress of the works until it is completed. If the managing agent determines that additional downpipes are not necessary and proceeds with an alternative repair, the landlord should provide an explanation to the resident of how it resolved the leak. It is also ordered that the landlord offer additional compensation if there is a further delay.

Complaint handling

20. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it aims to resolve stage one complaints within five working days and stage two complaints within seven working days. It states if it is unable to meet its response timeframes, it will contact the resident to provide reasons for the delay and a revised timeframe.
21. The resident initially raised a complaint on 23 February 2021. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not provide a formal stage one response to the resident. In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, landlords should have a two-stage complaint procedure. As the landlord failed to issue a stage one response, the resident did not have the opportunity to dispute any of the landlord’s findings, or raise any additional concerns following the landlord’s response. This would particularly be an issue if the landlord had provided additional new information in its response, or if the resident felt an issue had been overlooked, as the resident would not have been given sufficient opportunity to respond. Having a further complaint stage also allows for a review at a more senior level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint, and may ensure full consideration of both sides of a complaint. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements, to ensure that complaints are properly reviewed and responded to at both stages.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 May 2021 and the landlord did not issue its response until 8 September 2021. As a result, it took the landlord over four months to respond, which significantly exceeded its response timeframe. The resident had to chase the complaint and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged the delay or provided any reasons for it.
23. This Service’s complaint handling code states that landlords should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. While it is not evidence of service failure if the landlord’s complaint response timeframes are shorter than those recommended by this Service, the landlord should ensure that it is able to adhere to its timeframes so that it reasonably manages residents’ expectations. As the landlord has failed to in this case, it is recommended that it reviews the practicality of its response timeframes and considers bringing them in line with this Service’s complaint handling code.
24. The landlord failed to address the complaint in full as it did not acknowledge the resident’s report of damage to her belongings and the financial impact on her. In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should ensure that it addresses the resident’s complaint in full. The landlord should address the resident’s concerns and it is recommended that the landlord refers the resident to its liability insurer to make a claim.
25. As the landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures of exceeding its timeframes, not issuing a stage one response and not responding to the complaint in full, this element of the complaint remains unresolved. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £100-600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledged its failings or put things right. As it failed to acknowledge the outlined issues or offer an appropriate level of redress, it would be appropriate for the landlord to award the resident £250 compensation.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of recurrent leaks affecting her property.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the formal complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £1000 in light of its failings to resolve the leak in the resident’s property, inclusive of the £100 as offered in its stage two response.
    2. £250 due to its complaint handling failings.
    3. The landlord should provide proof of this payment to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
29. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a clear timeframe of works and weekly updates until the work is completed. This should be done within four weeks. If not, it is ordered to consider additional compensation for additional delays.
30. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the financial impact of replacing damaged items and consider offering additional compensation or signpost her to its liability insurer.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord provides additional staff training regarding the responsibilities of the landlord and the freeholder, to ensure that repairs are allocated correctly to avoid future delays.
32. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint handling policy and its staff training requirements, in view of the failings highlighted in this report.