From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202443255)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443255

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 July 2025

 

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 the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a terrace house. The resident lives with her partner and 2 children, who were aged 1 and 5 at the time of the complaint. The property has a front porch above the front door with a flat roof.
  2. On 8 October 2024 the resident reported a leak coming from the flat roofed porch into the property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 October 2024 and found that water was pooling on the flat roof and leaking through. The contractor unblocked the outlet and removed some water from the roof to slow the leak. The contractor noted that further repairs to the roof would be required to fix the leak including ‘renewing the soffit and boarding’. The contractor sent a quote for work and materials to the landlord which was approved on 25 October 2024.
  3. The resident called the landlord for an update on 29 October 2024 and was told a quote had been approved. On 18 November 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She was unhappy that she had not had an update about the roof repair and that the roof was still leaking. She said that water was running down the walls inside the property.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 20 November 2024. It inspected the leak and asked the landlord to erect a scaffold and carry out an asbestos survey in preparation for the roof repairs.
  5. The resident called the landlord for an update on 22 November 2024 and asked the landlord to raise a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 November 2024. The landlord received the outcome of the asbestos survey on the same day, finding no asbestos, allowing the works to go ahead. The roof was repaired on 2 December 2024.
  6. On 3 December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the works had been ineffective. The leak was ongoing, causing damage to the inside of the property and her belongings, and causing damp and mould. The contractor attended the same day and found the roof to be in ‘mint condition’. The contractor returned to the landlord with a recommendation to engage a plumber to investigate if a possible pipe leak was responsible for the water leak.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2024. It said that:
    1. following the repairs to the roof on 3 December 2024, it had failed to identify a second leak to a different part of the roof
    2. it was sorry and that its service should have been better
    3. offered £120 compensation, made up of £100 for the delay in resolving the leak and £20 for the resident’s time and trouble
    4. it would now complete further works to resolve the outstanding leak
  8. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. She emailed the landlord asking to escalate her complaint on 18 December 2024. She said that the leak had still not been resolved and that she had not had an update since the contractor attended on 3 December 2024.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 31 December 2024. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2025. It said that:
    1. once it had been advised a plumber was required by its contractors on 3 December 2024, it should have ensured that this was done, but this did not happen
    2. there had been significant delays in completing the repairs to the roof
    3. it offered £550 compensation, made up of:
      1. £250 for delays in resolving the leak and failing to follow up repairs
      2. £100 for poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble
      3. £200 for the impact the leak had on the resident, such as the water ingress and resulting damp and mould
    4. it would now take the following steps to put things right:
      1. a plumber would attend the next day to investigate the outstanding leak
      2. contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould survey
      3. arrange training for relevant staff and contractors on keeping residents informed with the progress of repairs and booking in follow on works
  10. The landlord’s plumber attended on 24 January 2025. The resident approached this Service on 27 January 2025. She remained unhappy because the roof repair remained outstanding. She was unhappy with the landlords handling of the repairs and her associated concerns. The resident asked us to investigate.
  11. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 5 March 2025. The landlord and resident said that work to resolve the leak was completed in May 2025, but at the time of this determination it has not been tested by heavy rain.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident also asked this service to investigate the landlord’s handling of repairs after its stage 2 complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. It is fair and reasonable therefore that the landlord has the opportunity to respond to these concerns before we investigate. We have only investigated matters up to the landlord’s final response on 23 January 2025. We have included the later repair completion date for context only.
  2. The resident reported throughout the period of assessment that the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak led to damp and mould forming. She said that this directly caused or contributed to illnesses or health conditions. We cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by appropriate medico-legal expert witnesses.
  3. The resident told this Service that as a resolution to this complaint, she seeks to be compensated for damage to the property that she reported were caused by damp and mould resulting from the roof leak. This was raised with the landlord after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. This means that it is important the landlord has had an opportunity to respond before we investigate. It is fair and reasonable therefore that we only investigate matters that were raised with the landlord up to the date of the landlord’s final response 23 January 2025.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete general repairs within 10 working days. It states that ‘larger jobs’, for example those ‘which may require surveys, planning, the ordering of materials, or scaffolding’, may fall outside of this timescale.
  2. The landlord attended within 10 working days of the resident’s initial report on 8 October 2024 and identified that larger works to renew or replace the flat roof above the porch were required. The evidence shows that the landlord had approved the quote and the contractor had taken steps to begin scheduling the works by 31 October 2024. However, no date was given and no further action was taken until the resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not progress this repair proactively. Although under its repairs policy it was allowed further time to complete the works, this delay was avoidable and represented a failing.
  3. This failing was exacerbated because it did not communicate with the resident, who was experiencing water ingress at her property during this time. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust, was published in May 2025. It states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents uninformed. In this case the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication failings caused unnecessary frustration, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the resident as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have avoided some of this impact. The landlord was right to identify and apologise for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The repair to the porch roof was completed on 2 December 2024. In total, it took the landlord 39 working days from the resident’s report on 8 October 2024 to 2 December 2024 to complete the repair. There were some delays outside the landlord’s control, for example, exploring whether an asbestos survey and the erection of scaffolding were required. However, given the ongoing water ingress at the property, the landlord was correct to state in its stage 2 complaint response that this timescale was unreasonable and represented a delay.
  5. The repairs to the roof unfortunately were ineffective in resolving all of the water ingress at the resident’s property. The resident reported this to the landlord the following day and also said that the leak had caused damage to some electrical items. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may compensate residents where its ‘failure to meet timescales for repairs results in damage to a resident’s belongings’. The landlord should have contacted the resident to ask for more information about this damage at the time, however there is no evidence that it did.
  6. The landlord put right this shortcoming however after its stage 1 complaint response, by engaging with the resident in detail about her unresolved issues on 31 December 2024 and in a telephone call on 20 January 2025. As there is no evidence that the resident raised this issue again at these points, it was reasonable that the landlord did not respond to it in its final complaint response.
  7. In response to the resident’s report that the leak had not been resolved on 3 December 2024, the landlord otherwise acted reasonably by attending to inspect on the same day. It confirmed that the roof repairs were completed adequately and suggested that a damaged outlet pipe could be responsible for the remaining leak. However, the landlord failed to act on the advice of its contractor to arrange for a plumber to attend and complete further investigations.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions such as 18 December 2024 and 5 January 2025, however a plumber did not attend until 24 January 2025. The evidence shows that the landlord took initial steps to arrange a plumber to attend on 20 December 2024 and 7 January 2025. However the evidence supports the landlords assessment in its stage 2 complaint response that it failed to follow up this appointment and monitor it to ensure it was completed. A plumber should have attended within 10 working days, in line with the landlord’s policies. However it took the landlord 35 working days to arrange for a plumber to attend, which was a failing.
  9. The evidence shows that the resident experienced avoidable and unnecessary adverse effect as a result of the landlord’s delays up until 24 January 2025. The evidence shows repeated instances of the resident going to the time and trouble of contacting the landlord for updates. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it will advise residents of any delays, such as ordering parts of arranging follow up appointments. The landlord however often failed to follow its policy and the resident in turn received inadequate updates and communication from the landlord. Perceived inaction by the landlord caused distress and inconvenience and undermined the landlord tenant relationship. The water ingress itself also caused distress and inconvenience, with the resident reporting that the landlord’s inaction likely caused damp and mould issues at the property.
  10. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration that has adversely affected the resident, compensation of up to £600 should usually be considered. The landlord offered £550 compensation in total, which was apportioned reasonably to reflect the adverse effect experienced by the resident. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2025, it made the appropriate commitments to send a plumber and to arrange for a damp and mould survey to take place. The evidence shows it met both of these commitments. The landlord therefore did what was necessary to put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
  11. The landlord also demonstrated its ability to identify appropriate points of learning from this complaint. It highlighted its first point of learning in an internal email on 22 November 2024 when it was investigating its initial failure to follow up on works arranged in October 2024 after the resident’s complaint. The email stated that it was concerning that a process had not been followed and suggested ‘checking in’ with the responsible parties to ‘avoid future similar complaints’. It is unclear if any further learning was completed at this point, but this email shows good practice and suggests a desire to learn from outcomes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord identified its failure to ‘keep customers updated’ and monitor repairs to ensure ‘that any follow on works are booked in’, promising to complete training for relevant staff and contractors. The evidence supports that these were the fundamental areas which led to the failings in this case. The landlord demonstrated its ability to accurately identify its failings and take appropriate steps to learn from outcomes. In conclusion, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
  13. A finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that the £550 compensation offered will be paid to the resident. The resident explained to this Service that she declined this offer of compensation at the time in case it would prejudice our investigation. We have recommended that the landlord now pay this compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and request for compensation for damaged items.

Recommendations

  1. A finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that the £550 compensation offered is paid to the resident.