Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202223343)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223343

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

28 February 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 handling of repairs to communal doors and lighting.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a one-bedroom, above ground floor, flat. The tenancy started on 2 September 2015. There are 2 young children in the household, one of which has additional needs. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
On 14 November 2022 the resident reported that the external lights in the car park were not working. The landlord raised a repairs job for a faulty communal light.
On 16 November 2022 the resident reported that the communal back door was insecure which was causing anti-social behaviour issues. The landlord graded this job as “priority”. The resident told the landlord that she did not feel safe and it advised her to call the police if intruders entered the block. The landlord told her that it had scheduled an appointment to repair the door on 1 December 2022.
The resident called the landlord again on 17 November 2022 about the lights because she was worried about the dark car park. The landlord changed the repairs appointment to 24 November 2022, which was the earliest one available.
On 25 November 2022 the resident called to tell the landlord that the car park lights were still not working. When the landlord chased this, the contractor told it that it had not been repaired because a different contractor was needed, and that the caretaker also needed to be present.
On 28 November 2022 the resident called the landlord for an update about the repairs to the communal lights and doors. She said that there had been a stabbing in the locality and she was concerned for her children’s safety. The landlord told her that it attended on 24 November 2022 but the repair could not be completed because the caretaker needed to be on site.
On 29 November 2022 the resident called again for an update. She raised a formal complaint on the same day and said that the communal door was taking too long to repair. She feared for the safety of her son, who has autism, and may run out of the insecure doors. She said that the doors had not locked for 3 months. She said that she was angry because when she explained that she had to leave her 6 month old baby at the top of the stairs in the buggy the landlord had told her that it was not its fault that she had no control over her child. She said she had asked to speak to a manager, but none were available, and she would like a manager to call her back.
A request was raised on the landlord’s system, for a manager to call the resident back about the complaint on 29 November 2022.
The resident called the landlord twice on 30 November 2022 to ask if a manager had been asked to call her back. The landlord noted that she was “upset and angry” about the conversation she had with a member of staff the day before. A further request for a manager to call her back was raised on the system.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint by email on 1 December 2022. It said that it would send a response within 10 working days and asked what her desired outcome was.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said that she wanted to complain about the advisor she spoke to and would like a phone call to discuss the situation. She emailed again that evening to say that she had not received a call back and that she had now been told that a manager would not call her because the complaints team were now dealing with it.
The resident called the landlord again on 6 and 8 December 2022 asking for a call back about the doors and lights which were still in need of repair.
The complaints team spoke to the resident on 9 December 2022 and discussed the issues raised in the complaint. An email was sent later in the day which said:
1. that the communal lights would be fixed on 12 December 2022,
2. it had chased the contractor regarding the doors, and a further update would be provided,
3. the telephone call had been listened to.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 13 December 2022. It said that a contractor had tried to locate the power source for the car park lights on 12 December 2022, but this had been unsuccessful. The contractor attended on 8 December 2022 to repair the door entry system, but the workman had been unable to access the electrical intake cupboard, so another appointment had been arranged for 14 December 2022. A manager had listened to the call in question but had been unable to evidence what the resident had said. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue and offered £25 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and £25 for repairs delays.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 20 December 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this on 21 December 2022.
On 28 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the repairs, both of which were still outstanding. She called the landlord on 3 January 2023 and a message was sent to a manager asking them to call the resident back.
The resident emailed and called the landlord again on 4 January 2023 and said that her toddler had run out of the communal doors that morning and she had had to leave her baby on the landing to run after him. She asked for someone to contact her as soon as possible. A request was sent for a manager to call the resident because she did not want to speak to an advisor.
The resident called again on 5 and 6 January 2023 and the landlord told her that a manager would call her back on 9 January 2023. Following this the landlord sent several emails to the contractors, chasing the repairs. The resident emailed the landlord again on 11 January 2023 and said that it had been a week since the incident with her son, but she had still not received an update. She explained that this was a distressing time and that she was scared to take the children out now in case her son ran out of the building again.
The resident called the landlord again on 12 January 2023 and said that she was upset that a manager would not speak to her. The call handler sent the manager a message. It said that a task to call the resident was still outstanding from 3 January 2023 and the resident was very upset. She really wanted to speak to someone senior.
The resident requested a copy of the recording of the telephone conversation on 18 January 2023. The landlord had sent her a transcript of the conversation following a subject access request, but it did not make sense to her and had many spelling errors. She asked again why a manager had not called her.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaints response on 26 January 2023. It confirmed that the communal door repair had been completed on 20 January 2023. It now said that the car park lighting was not it’s responsibility as the lamp posts belonged to the local authority. It had reported the defective lights to the local authority on 23 January 2023. The resident was given a number to contact the local authority in future about the car park lighting. The landlord said that it would contact the resident to arrange a meeting to listen to the phone call and discuss this. The landlord apologised for the delays and how this had impacted the resident and her son and also for the emails that had not been responded to. It offered £400 in compensation. £150 for time and trouble, £50 for missed appointments and delays in completing repairs and £200 for poor service for not responding to emails or returning calls.
Eventually it transpired that the landlord was responsible for the defective lighting in the car park. The landlord repaired the lighting in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to communal doors and lighting.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that general repairs should be completed within 10 working days. The communal doors took 45 working days to repair, and the lighting took 13 months to repair. The landlord therefore failed to complete the repairs in accordance with its own policy. It took considerably longer than the target repair time which was a severe failing on its part. This caused the resident considerable distress because she felt unsafe leaving the property. She had to leave one child unattended to run after the other when they were able to exit the building due to the faulty doors.
The landlord’s communication regarding the repairs was poor. The resident called and emailed for an update on numerous occasions. There is evidence to show that managers were asked to call the resident back. The resident contacted the landlord 14 times over a 2 month period requesting an update from a manager because she did not know when the repairs would be completed. This Service has seen no evidence that a manager contacted the resident to discuss the repairs. This was a communication failure by the landlord which added to the resident’s time and trouble chasing the repair and distress and inconvenience when she received no response.
This Service asked the landlord to provide details of its service standards for response times to emails and calls, but it did not provide this. This service has also been unable to locate this information on the landlord’s website. This should be easily accessible available to help manage residents’ expectations. The resident expected a call back within 5 days which seemed reasonable, but the landlord failed to respond to calls at all on numerous occasions even though the landlord noted that she was distressed on more than one occasion. This would make the resident feel unheard and frustrated which was a further failing by the landlord.
The long period of disrepair resulted in a loss of full enjoyment of the resident’s home. She told the landlord that she was afraid to leave the property due to her child being unsafe and that she felt unsafe due to the unlit carpark. The landlord did not address these issues in appropriate timescales and the landlord should have considered what impact that this had on the resident.
Taking all these failings into consideration there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the communal doors and lighting.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about staff conduct.

The resident complained that a member of staff told her that it was not its fault that she had no control over her child. This Service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions happened or were appropriate as there is insufficient evidence. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
This Service has seen no evidence to support that a full investigation into the allegation took place. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to give the resident any details relating to an individual’s employment. However, the landlord would be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
The resident asked to listen to the call between herself and the staff member, but the landlord did not arrange this. For transparency, it would have been reasonable for the resident to be allowed to listen to the recording or to be provided with a copy. The landlord said that it had listened to the call and found no evidence, but it should also have spoken to both the resident and staff member about the allegation and it should have taken notes regarding these conversations. This lack of evidence regarding the investigation was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered to meet the resident to discuss the call, but the resident informed this Service that this meeting did not happen. The recording of the call is no longer available because the landlord automatically deletes recordings after 3 months. However, as the call was part of an ongoing complaint investigation the landlord should have retained it. This was a further record keeping failure by the landlord.
Taking the above information into account, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report about staff conduct.

Complaints handling

The stage 1 complaint showed no empathy regarding the distress that the resident said she was experiencing. It had been told that the resident’s household had vulnerabilities and had evidence that the resident was distressed when she contacted it however it did not address this in its complaint’s response. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time stated that complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly, be trained to handle complaints and deal with distressed and upset residents. If this complaint had been handled more sensitively the resident would have felt listened to. Therefore, this was a complaint handling failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. It let the customer know that it would respond late but the response still left unanswered questions. The telephone call had taken place 2 months previously which gave adequate time to arrange an appointment for the resident to listen to it. However, this had still not happened at the time of the stage 2 response. In addition, the promised appointment did not take place. This lack of a complete investigation left the resident with unanswered questions and she felt that the complaint remained unresolved. This was a further complaint handling failure by the landlord.
Taking the above points into account there has been maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal doors and lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders.
To pay the resident directly a total of £900.00 compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £300.00 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
2. £300.00 for inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £300.00 for distress caused to the resident.
A senior manager must apologise in writing to the resident for the poor service she experienced regarding the length of time it took to complete the repairs, the phone calls and emails that were not responded to, and its complaint handling.
A review of the landlord’s procedure must be undertaken with regards to the repair of external lighting at the property. This is to make sure that the same delay does not happen again. The landlord must include in its procedure the testing of communal lighting during the summer period. This is to enable the timely repair of communal lighting before the elevated impact created in the darker months. This must be completed and evidence provided within 2 months of the date of this report.
The landlord must review and provide a copy of its procedure for the investigation of allegations about its staff. This is to make sure that allegations are adequately and impartially investigated. The procedure should include a clear method as to how any investigation is recorded. This must be completed and evidence provided to this Service within 3 months of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the vulnerability training in place for complaint handlers. It must also ensure that adequate oversight measures are put in place to make sure that any works or actions committed to in its complaint’s responses are monitored through to satisfactory conclusion. This must be completed, and evidence provided to this Service within 3 months of the date of this report.