Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202502697)

Decision
Case ID	202502697
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

The resident reported issues with repairs and the garden at letting, leaks and damp and mould, and the kitchen condition. She is unhappy that leak, damp and mould issues have not been resolved, and that a survey has not yet been done to assess the renewal of her kitchen.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports concerning repairs and the garden condition at letting.
2. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
3. Reports concerning the kitchen condition.
4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning repairs and the garden condition at letting.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning the kitchen condition.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The repairs and the garden condition at letting

The landlord’s actions and compensation reasonably resolved these issues.

Leaks, damp and mould

The landlord does not show that it effectively investigated the leak, damp and mould issues or has done all it can to help with them.

The kitchen condition

It is not evident that there has been a significant failing in the landlord’s obligations for the kitchen. It appropriately shows it is committed to surveying it when its upcoming stock condition programme launches.

Associated complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks, damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 18 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the leaks, damp and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs Considers moisture readings of the walls, ceilings and skirting Considers if there is a current leak Considers if further wallpaper removal is required to investigate Considers whether removal of plaster and re-plastering is required to resolve mould issues Considers whether a kitchen fan is required The survey report must set out its findings on the above, including: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of leaks, damp and mould, where applicable Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 18 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £400 it previously awarded, or any part of this it has not paid already.
The landlord is recommended to inspect the resident’s concerns about kitchen cupboard and flooring cracking, to review if any action is required about these before it does a stock survey.
The landlord is recommended to invite the resident to provide information about any costs she has incurred as a result of the issues, consider reimbursement of these in line with its policies, and set out its position to her.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 January 2025	The resident made a formal complaint. She said: The landlord told her that the property did not have a garden, but she later found out it did. This was in a poor condition and she was told works including a new fence were needed, but no one had contacted her about these. Staff told her when she moved in that they would report a leak, but she had to do this in the end. After a repair, a leak had happened again, and there was now a leak near the living room chimney breast. There were damp and mould issues that had been covered up during works before she moved in. These had affected lining paper, skirting and carpet, and led to her child being unwell. The kitchen was in poor condition and a surveyor had said this was due to be assessed for renewal in 2025.
19 February 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1: It said the resident was told when she viewed the property that there was a garden, and staff had requested for this to be cut back when letting the property. It said it had repaired a kitchen hole and raised a repair for a cupboard door. It said it would be doing surveys later in 2025 but invited her to supply photos of the kitchen to review. It said that a contractor had attended on 17 January 2025 to do a mould wash and survey. It said recommended repairs had been raised and completed. It acknowledged and apologised that repairs were needed when she viewed the property. It awarded £200 to recognise the impact of this.
21 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She did not feel staff had been honest. She referred to her offer letter which said the property had no garden. She had to report the garden and other issues as staff had not reported them. The landlord had not done what it said it would do in the garden, which had issues such as a broken fence. She raised concerns whether a recent contractor visit would resolve damp and mould issues. They had treated her child’s bedroom but would not treat other rooms due to lining paper. There were external issues which a kitchen extractor fan would not resolve. No one had contacted her about the kitchen.
24 March 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2: It apologised if it was not clear that a garden was included. It said that from speaking to the resident and staff, the viewing had confirmed one was included. It apologised that the garden was overgrown at handover. It noted it had arranged for this to be cleared in late July 2024. It said that after a visit in March 2025, it had arranged some further garden works as a gesture of goodwill, which were to be completed that day. It had also raised fence repairs which would be completed on 31 March 2025. The garden would be her responsibility after this. It said that staff did report issues when she signed the tenancy, but it apologised if she felt like she had to chase some of the works herself, and said it hoped its actions helped address this. It noted that a contractor was unable to remove lining paper to complete mould treatment at a recent visit. It apologised she had not been updated about further action to treat affected areas. It said it had asked its damp and mould specialist to contact her to arrange an appointment for necessary treatment. It said it would monitor this and asked her to let it know if she had not been contacted. It noted she had sent photos of her kitchen. It said it had shared these with the team responsible for replacements. It said the team were finalising processes for surveys and anticipated to do a survey in May 2025. It acknowledged that its service could have been better and awarded £200 for delays and distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She raised concerns that the damp and mould issue had not been properly looked into. She said that lining paper bubbled when she painted it and mould had also come through the lining paper. She said recommended works had not been done She also said that she had been impacted mentally and financially and her child had been sick. She raised concerns that her kitchen was over 20 years old and that cupboards and flooring were cracked. She said that she wanted the landlord to make her home liveable and to compensate her for the delays, her time and trouble, and the costs she had incurred.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The repairs and garden condition at letting
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident complained that staff said they would raise some repairs when her tenancy started in June 2024, but she had to raise them herself. She also complained about issues with the garden. She was told she had no garden, but she learned she did have one which was overgrown and full of rubbish. She was later told that works such as fencing would be done, which had not happened.
The landlord responded that staff had referred the repairs, but it apologised if the resident had to report them herself. It noted it had cleared the garden in 2024. It completed further garden works as a gesture of goodwill and completed some fence replacement works. It awarded compensation for issues that included the need for repairs when she moved in.
The evidence shows that staff referred 4 repairs to the voids and lettings teams when the tenancy started, but it is unclear these were raised. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge and apologise that the resident had to report and chase some repairs herself.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s offer letter said there was “no garden with this property.” The landlord would be expected to be clear about such aspects and parties’ responsibilities. Its failing to do this meant it failed to consider its obligation in its letting standard to ensure the garden was free of rubbish. However, it cleared the garden by early August 2024, within 7 weeks of when the tenancy started in June 2024, which was a reasonably timely resolution.
The evidence shows that around when the garden was cleared, a contractor supplied the landlord with a quote for some further works. These included works to repair or renew fences and to cut down some trees. The landlord approved the works in mid-September 2024 and asked the contractor to schedule them. It is unclear how these works were being progressed, and what their aimed completion timeframe was, until the landlord visited in mid-March 2025 after the resident had escalated her complaint.
The delays and lack of clarity and communication about the works from September 2024 to March 2025, a 6-month period, likely caused frustration to the resident. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately sought to take effective action and acknowledge and remedy its failings. It arranged further garden works that went beyond its obligations, ensured the fence repairs were completed by early April 2025, and awarded compensation to recognise any impact on the resident.
The £400 total compensation was in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there is maladministration and failings that have adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact. This reasonably reflects the issues and impact evident in this case. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the repairs and garden at letting.

Complaint	Leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The resident says the landlord repaired a previous leak she reported but records are unclear about this. She says that after this she reported another leak near a chimney breast. The landlord raised this in early December 2024 and referred it to a plumber to identify if there was a leak from a water tank or the roof.
The resident later reported mould in bedrooms in early January 2025. On 14 January 2025, she then complained that there was a leak near the living room chimney breast, and that damp and mould issues were hidden by works before she moved in.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 January 2025 for a mould survey and treatment. They noted minimal mould due to treatment by the resident, but said there was mould on lining paper which it was not possible to see the extent of without peeling this back. They identified cause of issues to be cold walls and poor ventilation and recommended replacement of a bathroom fan, installation of a kitchen fan, and investigation of a potential leak due to a stain on the lounge ceiling.
The landlord’s February stage 1 response said it had completed recommended repairs, after its contractor’s January 2025 mould survey and treatment. However, the landlord’s voids team inspected on 12 March 2025, mainly about the garden, and noted that damp and mould issues needed another look.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 March 2025 and treated and sealed mould on a bedroom wall after removing some wallpaper. The operative also referred to external repairs being required, said things “looks bad” and said the roof “is the course.”
The landlord’s March 2025 stage 2 response said it had asked its damp specialist to arrange an appointment, after the resident raised concerns that mould under lining paper had not been treated.
The evidence shows that the landlord has been responsive about leaks, damp and mould. This also suggests that the issues have not been significant in the complaint timeframe and restricted to a small number of areas. However, the evidence and the landlord’s complaint responses have been limited for what actions have been taken, recommended and completed at points.
The landlord’s responses also did not address some concerns the resident raised such as the lounge ceiling leak, mould under lining paper, wet walls and issues with skirting. This undermines whether it did all it could to investigate and help avoid the conditions leading to any damp and mould in the property.
The landlord’s actions for leaks are unclear. The resident says no external works have been done, including for the living room ceiling stain she says has got worse. The evidence shows a lack of clarity about outcomes to a December 2024 repair for a damp patch near a chimney breast, a leak investigation recommended in January 2025, and a March 2025 report from an operative who referred to external repairs being required and said the roof “is the course.” The landlord does not show it has reasonably considered these.
The landlord’s actions for damp and mould issues are also unclear. The resident says a kitchen fan was never installed as a contractor said this was not needed. This decision-making is unclear, given the January 2025 investigation said there was poor ventilation. This also contradicts its claim the January 2025 recommendations were completed.
The resident raised concerns about skirting, but the landlord did not address this, and it is evident that a separate floor repair was reportedly challenging due to rotten skirting. The landlord did not address wet walls, nor is it evident that it measured the moisture content of walls and ceilings, which would have been reasonable and in line with common practice.
The resident also says the 17 March 2025 operative said walls needed the plaster to be hacked off and replastered, but their manager overruled this. This recommendation is not evident, but the landlord could have more clearly shown that it considered whether there were any wider structural issues. This could have been reasonable given the leaks, evidence there were mould issues before the void works and before the resident moved in, the rotten skirting, and mould under lining paper being potentially more widespread than seen.
Overall, the landlord does not show that it effectively investigated the leak, damp and mould issues or done all it can to help with them. It also does not show that it had sufficient regard for the resident’s reports that mould returned after she treated it, affected her child’s health, and caused damage.
The landlord’s handling will have likely led to the issues being ongoing and caused the resident more time and trouble, worry and frustration than it has acknowledged. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about leaks, damp and mould.
The resident says she wants her home to be repaired or to be moved. We do not have the authority or expertise to decide whether she should be moved. However, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the leaks and damp and mould, and the property habitability, and set out the outcome to her. We have also ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance and recommended for the landlord to consider information from the resident about any costs she has incurred as a result of the issues.

Complaint	The kitchen condition
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained about her kitchen condition. She said it was over 20 years old and she was told it would be assessed for renewal in 2025. The landlord responded that the relevant team expected to do a survey in May 2025 after they finalised processes. The evidence shows the landlord has not started stock surveys, as it has taken longer than expected to finalise processes, but it has kept the resident updated about this.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction with the kitchen condition. It is not within our authority or expertise to decide when improvement works should be carried out. Our main consideration is whether this has been handled appropriately in the complaint timeframe.
The evidence does not show that the landlord has significantly failed in its obligations for the kitchen. The resident says the kitchen is over 20 years old but it is not clear it was in unreasonable repair before she moved in. The relevant guidance says kitchens are assumed to require replacement every 30 years. It is unclear if this applies, but the landlord acknowledges it should survey the kitchen when it starts stock surveys, and it has invited her to report repairs in the interim.
The resident will likely be frustrated at how long the landlord is taking to finalise its processes, but it is evident that it is committed to surveying the kitchen as soon as it is able, and is keeping her updated about this. The resident was also originally told that the kitchen would be surveyed in 2025 and it has not yet failed in this commitment. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration about the kitchen.
While the above is the case, the Ombudsman does recommend for the landlord to inspect concerns the resident has about cupboard and flooring cracking, to review if any action is required about these before it does its stock survey.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It may extend responses up to the same number of days at each stage if unable to meet these timeframes.
The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement appears to have been 1 day late, but it otherwise extended the stage 1 response deadline, and provided formal responses, in timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has noted that its records indicated the kitchen was renewed in 2014 but that it was clearly older than this. The landlord’s records would be expected to be accurate for such aspects. The landlord could reflect on how to try to ensure the accuracy of such data and that no other properties in its stock have had this error.

Communication

The resident seems to dispute a reference to her having told a contractor before the stage 2 response that all works had been completed. The landlord could reflect on how it can more effectively manage, communicate and respond about repairs, particularly ones that involve risk or are formal complaints. The landlord contacting the resident at the time and not relying on the contractor’s report may have helped avoid confusion here.