Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202219068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219068

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

29 May 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The flat is within a block that includes tenanted and leasehold properties. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 14 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to advise they had a damp issue in their bathroom. The resident said water may be entering their property through a hole in the exterior brickwork.
4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 November 2022, stating their bathroom was “disintegrating”. They said they were unhappy that they had made several requests to the landlord to repair the building since February 2022, but it had not taken any action.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2022. It said:
   1. It believed the reason it had not followed up on the resident’s report in February 2022 was that they were a leaseholder and the issue appeared to be internal to their property. It acknowledged that it should have made this clear to the resident at the time and that it could have investigated the external brickwork.
   2. It had attended the building on 22 November 2022. It confirmed there was damp on the outside brickwork caused by a leak, but it had not yet found the source.
   3. It was contacting other flats in the building to arrange visits to check for leaks. It would also arrange access to the roof to check the guttering and overflows.
   4. It had identified a leak from one of its water tanks on the roof and would be replacing this on 9 January 2023.
6. On 25 November 2022 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process. They asked that the landlord confirm when it expected to repair the leak. They also said they believed the landlord was legally responsible for fixing the damage to their bathroom as it had been caused by the landlord’s neglect.
7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response is dated 21 January 2023. However, it has been unable to confirm whether it issued the response to the resident on or around that date. It did send the response to the resident on 24 March 2023.
8. The stage 2 response said the landlord had agreed with the resident that it would visit them to decide what repairs were required and who was responsible for completing them. It offered £100 for the resident’s time in going through the complaints process, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure.

9. The landlord has told this service that the leak was coming from the roof through the flat above the resident’s property. It repaired the leak on 8 March 2023.
10. The landlord and resident have confirmed the landlord provided the resident with details of the building’s insurance. The landlord states it emailed the details to the resident on 13 March 2023. The resident has confirmed a claim was made through the insurers which contributed towards the bathroom repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

11. The landlord’s ‘Homeowner Handbook’ states leaseholders are responsible for everything within their property, including any pipework that services only their property. It further states the landlord is responsible for estate and block repairs. This is also confirmed by the resident’s lease.
12. The landlord’s repair policy states they aim to attend emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. For general repairs, the landlord aims to complete the repair within 10 working days.
13. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
14. The landlord has supplied this service with repair records relating to the block. While the records are dated it is unclear if this is the date the repair was raised, the date the landlord attended, or the date the repair was completed. This is evidence of a failure in record keeping by the landlord.
15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response includes a date when it attended the block and a future date when it intended to attend again. These dates match with the date of 2 of the supplied repair records. The Ombudsman therefore considers it reasonable to conclude the dates given in the repair records are attendance dates.
16. There is only one entry in the repair records before November 2022. The entry is dated 7 April 2022 and states the resident had reported water ingress that had knocked out their electrics. It records that the landlord inspected the external brickwork and sealant above the resident’s window but was unable to identify any problems that could lead to water entering the property. The Ombudsman considers it likely that this repair was a response to the resident’s report of 14 February 2022. On this basis, it took the landlord 39 working days to complete the repair. This is outside its stated timescales for repairs and was therefore a failure by the landlord.
17. The repair record additionally states there may be a leak from the flat above, but it would need to gain access to confirm this. There are no records to show that the landlord followed up on this until after the resident made their complaint on 4 November 2022. As such there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman can conclude the landlord took reasonable steps to promptly meet its repair obligations.
18. There is a repair record dated 22 November 2022 which shows the landlord intended to check the roof of the block for potential leaks. The record notes the roof is only accessible through three flats and the landlord would need to contact one of them to gain access. There is no record of when the landlord inspected the roof or what it found. However, its stage 1 complaint response states it had identified a leak from a roof tank and had ordered a replacement. It would therefore appear the inspection took place before 23 November 2022, but there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman can confirm when the inspection took place or assess if the landlord had acted reasonably. This is further evidence of a failure in record keeping by the landlord.
19. When escalating their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, the resident stated they had emailed and called the landlord on multiple occasions since February 2022. They stated their bathroom windows, lights, wall, and ceiling had been damaged by water that had soaked in from outside the building. They further stated their bathroom ceiling was collapsing, the lights were not working, and there was constant dripping water. They referred the landlord to photographs and videos they had previously sent.
20. The landlord has not provided any records of contact with the resident between 14 February 2022 and 4 November 2022, nor has it indicated it disagrees with the resident’s claim they contacted it on multiple occasions. The Ombudsman considers it fair to conclude the lack of records is further evidence of a failure in record keeping.
21. On 9 December 2022 the landlord internally raised that there were “urgent matters raised about a leak and collapsed ceiling to be actioned urgently”. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then took any steps to prioritise any repairs to the building. Given the length of time this matter had been ongoing, the clear statements from the resident that the leak was coming from outside their property, and the landlord’s previous acknowledgement it could have done more, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated the repair as a priority.
22. The landlord’s contractor said, in an internal email to the landlord, it would be replacing a leaking roof tank on 4 January 2023 and that the resident would need to find someone to make the ceiling safe, if required, in the meantime. There is no evidence that the landlord passed this on to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord.
23. The available records indicate that on or around 20 December 2022 the landlord was aware the leak into the resident’s property was coming from the flat above. This flat was a tenanted property of the landlord and it therefore had responsibility for repairs within that flat. The evidence indicates the tenant of that flat cancelled a repair job on 20 December 2022 but does not record why. Another job was cancelled the following day as the landlord had attended too late in the day to search for a leak. These were failings by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured it had a clear record of why repair jobs had been cancelled and to have arranged to attend properties at a suitable time to allow the required work to take place.
24. Following a request by this service for confirmation that the landlord had repaired the leak, the landlord provided some additional records relating to the repair in the flat above the resident’s property. These records show it raised the repair job on 16 February 2023. It has not explained why there was a period of approximately 2 months between its initial attempts to rectify the leak in the flat above and raising this repair job.
25. The landlord had marked the repair as routine and to be completed within 10 calendar days. However, it did not complete the job until 8 March 2023 which was 21 calendar days after it had been raised. This period was also outside the landlord’s stated repair timescale for routine repairs. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this failure to meet its own timescales.
26. There is therefore no evidence on which the Ombudsman can conclude that the landlord, having identified the leak was coming from the flat above the resident’s property, acted reasonably in completing the repair or did not cause any additional undue delay.
27. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reported repairs.
28. While the landlord did provide the resident with details about how to make a claim against the building insurance, it did not do this until it had repaired the leak. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have provided this information at an earlier point, such as when responding to the stage 1 complaint.
29. The resident states they have suffered financial loss because the landlord failed to repair the leak. They have stated they were unable to sell their home in 2022 and the value of their property has now substantially decreased. They are seeking compensation to rectify this loss. In situations such as this, the courts would rely on expert evidence and valuations. There is no documentary evidence from an independent expert which demonstrates what the property was or may have been worth and what it is worth now, together with the reasons for the reduction in value. If there were such evidence, the Ombudsman would expect this to be shared with the landlord and its insurer in the first instance for its response.
30. It is unclear if the landlord’s offered compensation included any element specific to its handling of the reported repairs. This was not appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

31. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It states it will:
    1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
    2. Resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. Resolve stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

If it cannot meet the stated timeframe at either stage, it will let the resident know and extend the timeframe by 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it states it may extend by a further 10 working days, providing it gives a detailed reason to the resident and an agreement is reached.

32. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was in line with its complaints policy and the provisions of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
33. The landlord took 11 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation. There is no evidence the landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response until 24 March 2023. This was 73 working days after the acknowledgement. Both timeframes were outside its own policy and the provisions of the Code. This was a failure by the landlord.
34. Even if the landlord had issued its stage 2 response on 21 January 2023 this would have been 28 working days after the acknowledgement. This would still therefore have been outside the landlord’s policy and the Code.
35. The landlord’s stage 2 response states the resident had agreed to the landlord taking additional time to look into the raised matters. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of this agreement. This is a failure in record-keeping by the landlord. Where such an agreement has been reached it would be reasonable for the landlord to keep a written record and to share that with the resident.
36. The landlord did not explain the delays in responding to the stage 2 complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this, both within its dated response letter and when it issued the letter to the resident.
37. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses set out a clear outcome explaining what actions the landlord would be taking to resolve the complaint or how long it expected it would take to complete those actions. It would have been appropriate for the landlord, at both complaint stages, to have provided a time-specific action plan explaining what steps it intended to take to:
    1. Identify the source of the leak.
    2. Repair the leak, if the source was in an area of the building it was responsible for repairing.

It should then have monitored the completion of those actions and provided regular updates to the resident. This would have been in line with the Code which states any offered remedy must clearly set out what will happen and by when, and must be followed through to completion.

38. While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did acknowledge it had failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s repair request of 14 February 2022, it would have been appropriate for it to have advised that it had attended in April 2022 to review the external brickwork. It also should have explained why it had then not taken any further action until the resident made their stage 1 complaint. If it did not have sufficient records to provide this explanation it should have acknowledged this and indicated what steps it would be taking to improve its record keeping processes.
39. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
40. The landlord has offered £100 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman does not consider this is appropriate to address the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in complaint handling.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,200 compensation. This consists of:
    1. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs.
    2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in complaint handling.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident.

Recommendations

44. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertakes a review of this case to identify lessons learnt. This should include whether its record keeping systems and processes, particularly in relation to repairs, are adequate.
45. The landlord should consider any evidence provided by the resident about the reduction in the flat’s value.