Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202216893)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216893

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

17 April 2023


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:

a.     The resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould. 

b.     The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leak into her son’s bedroom on 16 October 2020.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 November 2021 as she said the leak had been ongoing for over 18 months, which she said had caused damp and mould in her son’s bedroom. She stated that the issues with damp and mould had impacted her son’s health and she had incurred costs of £1008.26 due to redecorating the bedroom.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one response, it apologised for the level of service received, the time taken to resolve the repair and the communication issues. It stated a roofing contractor would attend on 9 September 2022 to locate the leak, complete any required repairs and raise follow-on work if required. It offered £150 for the time taken to chase the repair and £100 for the delay in the repairs. In its final response, it said that further repairs had been identified, but not yet completed. It stated that “the construction of the building and the layout of the drying areas has meant that the source of the leak hasn’t always been immediately obvious”.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint as the landlord had not adhered to the actions outlined in the stage one response and she had not received the offered compensation.
  6. The landlord offered an additional £150 due to its delayed responses and poor communication, £150 for the additional inconvenience, stress and impact and £100 due to its failure to monitor the repairs to ensure they were completed and not keeping the resident updated.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as a surveyor had attended following the completion of the complaints process and advised there was no leak present, so no structural works had been completed and redecoration works could not commence. She said the landlord’s communication was poor, despite advising it would improve in its complaint responses. She wanted to be reimbursed £200 for the works she had completed to her son’s room on the recommendation of the surveyor. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident intermittently reported a leak between 16 October 2020 and 14 January 2021. However, there is no evidence that the resident reported a recurrence of the leak until 20 October 2021, meaning there was a period of over eight months in which the leak appeared to have been resolved. As a result, this investigation has focused on the events and the landlord’s actions from 20 October 2021. While it is noted that the historical leaks will likely have meant the recurrence was more frustrating to the resident, this Service is unable to determine whether the different instances of the leaks were caused by the same issue, or had a separate cause. In either case, the landlord has not included the earlier instances of the leak within its complaint response, so this issue has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Furthermore, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. For this reason the Ombudsman will generally limit our investigations to events which occurred within six months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord.
  2. Following the completion of the complaint procedure, the resident has stated she incurred costs of £200 due to acting upon the recommendations made to her by the surveyor. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. As the issue regarding the resident’s request for further compensation has not been subject to a formal complaint, it should be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damp and mould

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to complete general repairs within ten working days and it aims “to complete repairs promptly, to a good standard and right first time”. As a result, the landlord is obliged to investigate whether the leak has a structural cause and complete any required repairs within its repairs timeframe.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in resolving the leak. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £650 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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.
  3. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of leak at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This was particularly evident in this case as the nature of the leak was intermittent, as it generally only occurred following periods of rain. Multiple attempts to repair a leak would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord needs to demonstrate that it is taking appropriate steps to identify the cause of the leak and resolve the issue.
  4. Following the resident’s report that the leak into the bedroom had recurred on 20 October 2021, the landlord initially acted appropriately as a roofer attended to assess a possible leak from the ceiling. The resident subsequently requested a surveyor to re-inspect the issue due to the time taken to resolve the leak in full, and a surveyor attended on 3 November 2021. Although the landlord’s initial response was reasonable, following the appointments the landlord failed to update the resident on the required works to resolve the leak, which led the resident to raise a complaint on 17 November 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord explained it was experiencing issues accessing the contractor’s report, which had caused a delay in providing updates, in order to manage the resident’s expectations. However, it would have been appropriate for the resident to have been advised of this at an earlier date to prevent her from having to chase for updates. The resident also chased a further update on 2 December 2021.
  5. On 9 December 2021, the landlord advised the resident that an appointment would be attended on 20 December 2021 to assess the required follow-on works, and repair works to the roof would be completed on 22 December 2021. Further repairs were identified, and an appointment was scheduled for 11 January 2021 to install a vent. Although it is positive to note the works were progressing at this stage, it took over two months to action any works, which was an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, there is limited evidence to suggest the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding whether it expected the works to provide a full resolution to the leak.
  6. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident did not make any further repair reports until a storm damaged the roof on 21 February 2022, and the landlord responded promptly as a contractor made the roof safe on 23 February 2022. Following the appointment, further works were identified that required scaffolding to complete. The landlord’s repair records show that follow-on works to replace the external cladding on the roof took place on 14 April 2022 and 15 June 2022. Although the works took several months to complete once they had been identified, it is important to note that larger scale works, such as those that require scaffolding, can often exceed the landlord’s standard repair timeframe due to the additional time to arrange the required contractors and obtain the necessary materials. However, regardless of whether the reasons for the delays were appropriate, the landlord is expected to inform the resident and keep her updated on the progress of the work, which it failed to do in this case. Furthermore, on 5 September 2022, the resident disputed that repairs to the cladding at the rear of the property took place, and the landlord failed to take any steps to address her concerns. As a result, it is unclear whether the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations.
  7. The resident made no further reports of a leak until 18 August 2022, when she advised that due to rain the previous day the leak had reoccurred. It is recognised that the leak was not identified at an earlier date as there had been a period of good weather, so the landlord did not necessarily have the opportunity to take further actions at an earlier date. The landlord acted appropriately as an appointment was scheduled for 22 August 2022, and the contractor repaired the asphalt on the communal doorways to prevent water getting in. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it advised a roofing contractor would attend on 9 September 2022 to locate the leak and complete any necessary repairs.
  8. Following the appointment, on 13 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that the contractor had recommended follow-on works to “liquid coat all the cracks on the floor above”, which had previously been raised but not completed. There is no evidence of the works being raised within the landlord’s repair records or that the works were completed. The resident subsequently chased the works on 26 September 2022 and 6 October 2022, as she had not been provided with any updates or an expected timeframe. The landlord therefore failed to fulfil the actions promised in its stage one response, demonstrate that it had taken accountability for the required repairs, address the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of works completed, or manage her expectations regarding the remaining works to be completed. As a result, significant distress and inconvenience was likely caused to the resident, as the issues with damp and mould were ongoing. As the works remained outstanding, the resident escalated her complaint and in its final response the landlord advised it would arrange a surveyor to identify the source of the leak and proceed with a solution.
  9. When repairs cannot be completed within a reasonable timeframe, landlords should assess interim solutions to reduce the impact on the resident. It should also complete repairs if any further damage has been caused to the property due to the delay in completing the required repairs. In this case, it was appropriate that works to mould paint the walls in the affected bedroom had been raised, in order to reduce the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and her household. However, it is of concern that the contractor attended on 31 October 2022 to complete the works before the leak had been resolved, as this was likely to lead to requiring a further appointment, as the underlying cause of the damp and mould had not been addressed. This would have caused additional inconvenience to the resident, as multiple appointments would likely have been required due to the chance of the mould recurring, which would also have caused a financial impact as the resident as she was providing the mould paint. It was therefore appropriate that when the resident raised her concerns, the work was postponed until the repairs to resolve the leak were completed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered options such as a mould wash as an interim solution until the repairs were completed, to mitigate the impact on the resident.
  10. Following the completion of the complaints process, surveys were completed on 30 November 2022, 26 January 2023 and 23 February 2023. As the initial survey only noted low moisture levels and limited black mould spotting, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged a further survey, as it stated it wanted to “satisfy that there was no immediate cause”. However, as the resident had reported ongoing issues with damp and mould and the landlord had stated in its final response it would identify a solution to the issues, it was unreasonable that there was a two-month delay in arranging a further survey. The second survey noted high levels of atmospheric moisture and stated further investigation was required to structural elements of the building to establish whether water leaks were occurring due to faulty flashings and detailing. It also recommended installing de-humidistat mechanical ventilation units and completing repairs to the extractor fans. A third survey was completed at the request of the resident and found elevated levels of atmospheric moisture and noted that the trickle vents in the windows were closed.
  11. As there was conflicting information found by each of the inspections, and there is no evidence that any of the reports would be deemed more reliable than the others, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged a joint inspection with all of the surveyors to determine whether there are any building defects. The landlord also advised this Service that it has installed a condensation trap and a datalogger to assess whether the damp is caused by penetrating damp or condensation. As a result, since the completion of the complaint process, the landlord has demonstrated that it has taken sufficient actions to identify the cause of the damp and mould, which it stated would be completed by 4 April 2023.
  12. However, it would have been appropriate for the surveys to have been completed at an earlier date, given the ongoing impact of the damp and mould on the resident. As it failed to do so, there were delays in progressing the repairs and the landlord has not fulfilled the actions outlined in its final response within a reasonable timeframe, which is evidence of service failure. The landlord should ensure that it outlines any identified works to be completed, provides an expected timeframe for the works and regular updates to the resident until the repairs are completed. If there are further delays, the landlord should consider whether additional compensation is appropriate.
  13. Overall, there has been a lack of sufficient progress to resolve the leak and the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has taken accountability for the repairs to ensure a full resolution was reached. The landlord also failed to respond to all the resident’s concerns or keep her updated on the progress of the repairs, which led her to chase the works on numerous occasions. However, it is acknowledged that some delays were outside of the landlord’s control, such as the requirement for scaffolding, and that there were periods following repairs in which the resident did not make any further reports due to good weather, so it would not necessarily have been aware the leak was not resolved in full. The landlord has taken appropriate actions following the completion of the complaints process, but such investigations should have been completed at an earlier date so the landlord could have obtained a more holistic understanding of the required repairs to resolve the leak within a reasonable timeframe.
  14. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the required repairs and that its communication had been poor, and offered compensation of £650 in its final response. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £600-£1000 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident. As a result, the landlord has demonstrated it has provided reasonable redress for the complaint up until the final response. However, as further delays have occurred in arranging the required surveys following the completion of the complaints process, additional compensation is warranted. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. Furthermore, as referenced above, if further delays ensue, the landlord should consider whether additional compensation is appropriate in light of the ongoing impact on the resident.
  15. The resident also reported that she had been financially impacted due to the repair issues as she had to pay to redecorate her son’s room due to the damage caused by damp and mould. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, landlords should compensate for any quantifiable financial loss caused to a resident, where it has been caused by its maladministration. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord reimbursed the resident £900 on 16 December 2021 for the cost of the redecoration as the resident had provided receipts as evidence of the costs. As the damp and mould has not yet been resolved, if there are any additional costs incurred by the resident due to damage, the landlord should assess the financial impact to the resident and offer further compensation if appropriate. The resident would be expected to provide receipts as evidence of any costs incurred in relation to the leak and associated damp and mould.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The resident initially raised a complaint on 17 November 2021, but the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or issue a formal response. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 8 December 2021. As a result, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint handling policy. As the landlord failed to respond to the complaint when it was initially raised, there were significant delays in addressing the issue. The delayed complaint response will have caused significant inconvenience to the resident, as well as additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint. As the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings, this element of the complaint remains unresolved.
  2. The resident raised a further complaint on 18 August 2022, as there had been a recurrence of the leak and her initial complaint had not been responded to. The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 September 2022, which although it exceeded its response timeframe, the delay was not excessive. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2022 and the landlord responded on 7 November 2022, which again was not a substantial delay.
  3. The landlord also failed to promptly pay the resident the compensation offered in its stage one complaint response. The resident had to chase the payment several times. It was evident that the delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she raised security concerns that she provided her bank details on numerous occasions as the payment was not made. The landlord should assess its payment procedures and staff training requirements to ensure that compensation is promptly paid to residents when offered as part of a complaint resolution. However, it is positive to note that the landlord has confirmed to this Service on 8 February 2023 that the total compensation amount has since been paid to the resident, so there was no lasting detriment to her of the delayed payment.
  4. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely impacted the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempted to put things right. The landlord has not acknowledged that its failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint led to additional time and trouble to the resident and significantly delayed finding a resolution to the complaint. As a result, the landlord should award the resident £150 compensation in respect of these errors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £650 compensation offered in its final response, within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £100 compensation for the delays in completing repairs following the completion of the complaints process.
    2. £150 due to its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident, confirm the repairs identified within the joint survey and provide her with an expected timeframe for the works. The landlord should provide fortnightly updates to the resident until the repairs are completed. This should be completed within six weeks of the date of this report.
  3. On completion of the repairs, the landlord should assess whether further compensation is warranted in light of any additional delays.
  4. The landlord should provide proof to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its staff training requirements regarding handling complaints and compensation.