Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202403942)

Decision
Case ID	202403942
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. The resident has held the tenancy since 2000. Vulnerabilities are reported including mental and physical health conditions and a neurodevelopmental disorder. On 11 March 2024, the resident reported her fire door was broken. Shortly after, she reported cracks in the living room ceiling. She believed the ceiling contained asbestos.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:

1. Fire door repairs.
2. Ceiling repairs.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fire door repairs.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

5. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of ceiling repairs.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s request for fire door repairs. However, it took too long to remedy the issue.
7. The landlord has acknowledged ceiling repair delays and damage to the property. It has provided appropriate remedy for its failings.
8. The landlord put right its stage 2 complaint handling delays. However, it has not acknowledged that it did not address all of the resident’s complaint issues.

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. It must ensure the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £250 compensation as follows: £150 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already awarded) for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures handling fire door repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures, if it has not paid this already.	No later than 10 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £8,844.79 compensation, if it has not done so already, for its failures handling ceiling repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 April 2024	The resident complained that: The landlord had cancelled work to replace the fire door and did not inspect it on 24 April 2024 as promised. The landlord had not updated her about ceiling repairs. The unresolved issues were affecting her physical and mental health.
4 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It: Apologised, and explained the reasons, for delays repairing the fire door and ceiling. Detailed the outcome of ceiling inspections. Agreed to contact the resident with appointments and ensure repairs were progressed. Offered £100 for the impact of repair delays.
4 June to 7 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: Unresolved repairs were affecting her mental health. She said this resulted in her partner taking time off work and losing earnings. The landlord’s compensation offer was inadequate.   The resident then raised a new complaint about damage caused during ceiling repairs. The landlord agreed to address this as part of the stage 2 complaint.
10 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It: Acknowledged ceiling repair delays and that it fell when a contractor accessed the loft space. It detailed the impact of this. Apologised for its contractor’s performance. Said it had completed all outstanding work, other than the work the resident wanted to complete herself. Offered a total of £8,955 compensation   The landlord later revised its compensation offer to £8,944.79 due to a calculation error.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us: She lived in a bed and breakfast for one month and incurred food expenses. She still receives treatment because of the effects of the ceiling damage. The fire door had not been repaired as of November 2024.

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 landlord’s handling of fire door repairs
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord’s repair policy, as of March 2024, said it aimed to respond to door repairs within 20 working days. It is positive the landlord inspected the fire door within this time. It found it was badly hung and not fire compliant.
10. The landlord cancelled a planned replacement of 22 April 2024 on 19 April 2024 as the operative had left. It told the resident it would update her. Records show it was proactive in trying to source another contractor. They also document the landlord was aware of the urgency of the situation and that it was a health and safety issue.
11. While it is clear the landlord faced difficulties outsourcing the work, it remained responsible for the repair. It should have completed it within its repair policy timeframe. It is positive the landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 1 response. It provided a detailed explanation which is supported by the evidence.
12. The landlord’s problems distributing work continued after the stage 1 response. Several contractors declined work saying that they only fitted external fire doors. It took until November 2025 to replace the fire door. However, records show it still did not close properly, was the wrong thickness and did not fit in the frame. It was not until 13 January 2025 that the landlord fitted the fire door to an acceptable standard and to the resident’s satisfaction. This was nearly a year since she reported the repair, and significantly outside the landlord’s repair policy timeframe.
13. The landlord acknowledged delays at the point of the stage 1 response. It offered £100 compensation for this and another unrelated repair issue. For the purposes of this investigation, we have allocated £50 to the fire door repair. It is unclear if the landlord paid this, as the issue was not addressed in the stage 2 response.
14. The landlord has not acknowledged the delay after its stage 1 response. Therefore, it has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for the delay repairing the fire door. We also order it to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already awarded) for the distress and inconvenience caused. In deciding this amount, we consider that she spent significant time and trouble progressing repairs and facilitating appointments that did not resolve the issue.
15. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when landlords acknowledge failures adversely affecting a resident but their compensation is not proportionate to the failings found by our investigation. We have also considered that the resident’s vulnerabilities were an aggravating factor.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of ceiling repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s repair policy at the time the ceiling repair said it aimed to complete work requiring a survey and the ordering of materials within 20 working days. It is positive the landlord inspected the ceiling within this time, on 2 April 2024. A record of this noted the living room and bedroom ceilings needed to be re-boarded and skimmed when it had ruled out the presence of asbestos. We have not seen the resident requested the outcome of this survey at that time, but the landlord communicated it in its stage 1 complaint response.
17. A later survey of 16 April 2024 found no asbestos in the ceilings. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response saidit could not continue with work as its operative broke his arm. While we have not seen supporting records, we do know the landlord passed the work to a sub-contractor on 25 April 2024. The landlord chased a quote on 3 May 2024 and noted the resident was frustrated by the delay. It did not approve work until 3 June 2024.
18. While the landlord planned to complete the repair on 26 June 2024 it was rearranged to 10 July 2024 as the resident was on holiday. However, the sub-contractor declined the work on the day it was due to take place.
19. It is clear some repair delays were outside the landlord’s control. However, as we have explained, the landlord remained responsible for completing repairs within its policy timeframe, in addition to the performance of any contractor or sub-contractor. It is positive the landlord acknowledged this and agreed to review the performance of contractors to improve its repair service.
20. The resident experienced significant distress due to the repair delay. Supporting letters from healthcare professionals reported concerns for the resident’s physical and mental health. They asked the landlord to address housing issues as a matter of urgency. It is unclear if the landlord received the letters at that time. However, the resident’s partner alerted it to the resident’s distress and the effects of this.
21. The landlord planned to complete the ceiling work on 3 August 2024 but rearranged it to 6 August 2024 at the resident’s request. It arranged temporary accommodation for the duration of the work that was initially expected to take 2 days. This was because the resident could not use her bedroom as it was needed for storage during the works, as well as health and safety reasons. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy, which says it will find suitable accommodation for residents who are unable to remain in their home during work as it is unsafe.
22. Although the work went ahead as planned, the ceiling collapsed after the contractor accessed the loft space. Photographs show this resulted in significant debris and rubble falling on the resident’s unprotected furniture. The landlord surveyed the situation on 7 August 2024. It noted that:

1. Carpets and furniture were damaged, some beyond repair.

1. Walls were damaged and needed repainting.
2. The ceiling light was unsafe.
3. Materials and sharp tools were unsafely positioned throughout the property.

23. While it is positive the landlord removed the contractor that day and extended the temporary accommodation, this resulted in further repair delays. Shortly after it shared details of its planned work to remedy the damage with the resident. The work was ultimately completed on 29 August 2024, 5 months after the resident reported the repair, and significantly outside the target 20 working day timescale.
24. The landlord extended the temporary accommodation until 4 September 2024. This was to allow the resident’s new bed to be delivered as her original was damaged by the ceiling collapse. However, the extended stay caused the resident further inconvenience.
25. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has addressed and remedied any shortcomings are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
26. The landlord has acknowledged that the ceiling repair delays and work resulted in the ceiling collapsing. Therefore, the question before us is whether it has provided appropriate remedy for the impact of these failings.
27. The landlord awarded £5,124.79 for damaged belongings, furniture and carpets. This was in line with its compensation policy which says it will consider compensation if a resident experiences financial loss due to its action or inaction. It also awarded £870 for food and drink for the resident and her partner while they were in temporary accommodation. While the resident said she spent more than this, £15 a day for food and non-alcoholic drinks for one person, was a reasonable amount.
28. The landlord also awarded £2,850 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and the collapsed ceiling. It said this was for multiple factors including the resident’s vulnerabilities, the inconvenience of staying in temporary accommodation and poor communication.
29. The resident says the issues affected her health. We do not dispute the significant health effects described by theresident. However, we are not medical experts and cannot determine whether something affected health or not. Shecould get independent advice about this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.
30. The resident also said her partner had to take time off work because of the issues and the impact on her. Our compensation guidance says we will not generally order a landlord to reimburse for a resident’s time off work because of the impact a complaint is having on them. Further, given that her partner was not a tenant of the landlord, we would not expect the landlord to cover his costs in this way.
31. We can consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and any time and trouble. She has described the inconvenience of living in temporary accommodation and said this included a lack of cooking and laundry facilities. She also said some appliances were faulty and that breakfasts were unsuitable and not gluten free.
32. Further, the repair delays and damage resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She spent a considerable amount of time and trouble progressing repairs and facilitating appointments. Evidence shows her distress resulted in emergency services attending due to concerns for her safety.
33. It is positive the landlord has properly considered the impacts of its failures and the effect on the vulnerable resident. Its compensation was in line with its compensation policy to recognise substantial failures with a significant impact over a long-term period. It is above the amount we would generally order for failures that have a significant impact on the resident when substantial redress is needed.
34. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its failures handling ceiling repairs. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the compensation it previously offered, if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of it being paid.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
36. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the time set out in its complaint policy and the Code. This included the provision of a 10-working day extension that it communicated to the resident at an appropriate time.
37. The Code says that if landlords cannot resolve complaints to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must progress them to stage 2. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service, actions or lack of action.
38. The resident did not mention the fire door specifically when she escalated her complaint. However, she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation award. Shortly after, she said the fire door repair was unresolved. Therefore, the landlord should have escalated this issue and addressed it in the stage 2 response. It did not do this meaning it missed an opportunity to put this right.
39. The landlord was unable to respond within its first time limit of 5 July 2024. On 8 July 2024 it told the resident it hoped to reply by 5 August 2024. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s complaint handling policy, which allows for extensions of 20 working days at stage 2.
40. Records show the landlord hoped to complete outstanding work before issuing the stage 2 response. We understand this was in good faith. However, the Code says landlords must provide complaint responses when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it completes outstanding actions to address the issue. While the delay did not delay the resolution of the substantive issue, it prevented the resident escalating her complaint.
41. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 27 working days late. We acknowledge the landlord needed to investigate the new issue of the collapsed ceiling. It is positive it met with the resident to discuss compensation and addressed it in its stage 2 response. However, it should not have delayed the initial complaint, while it investigated this matter.
42. The landlord has acknowledged delays responding to the stage 2 complaint. Its offer of £100 was in line with our compensation guidance for when complaint handling failures have a significant impact on the resident and are delayed by weeks.
43. However, the landlord has not acknowledged its failure to address the fire door repair in its stage 2 response. We order it to apologise for this. We do not order it to pay any more compensation than it has already offered. This is because its compensation award was sufficient to recognise the impact of all its complaint handling failures. The failure did not prevent the resident bringing the complaint to us.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord provided comprehensive and detailed records, as well as a helpful chronology of events with supporting records.

Communication

45. Records show the landlord was responsive to the resident’s contacts. However, it was not always proactive in communicating its progress or plans to complete repairs. Our spotlight report on ‘repairs and maintenance’ explains landlords can avoid failures when they let residents know what to expect about repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
46. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlords create stronger, more positive relationships and a safer, more supportive housing experience for everyone.