Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202226529)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226529

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

16 April 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed location of refuse ramps.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of a flat in a block, of which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident purchased the lease to the property in October 2018, and sold the lease to the property in December 2023. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 26 July 2021 and said that it had identified a “health and safety risk” related to moving the bins on collection day. It planned to construct small ramps to allow refuse operatives to move the bins safely without having to “drop or lift the bins over a large step”. It asked residents to provide any comments, or feedback, about its plan by 9 August 2021 for it to consider.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2021 and expressed a concern about the proposed location of the ramps, and said:
1. In the “30 years” she had lived in the block refuse operatives had never moved, or returned, the bins for collection.
2. The proposed location of the ramps would mean that residents in the flats would be disturbed early in the morning on bin collection day.
3. She suggested an alternative location for the ramps.
4. She asked the landlord to consider using removable ramps.
5. She asked how much the works would cost her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2021 with a response to her queries, and said:
1. It was installing ramps so the refuse operatives could remove and return the bins on bin day. They did not currently do it because of the health and safety concern.
2. It had inspected the bin stores, with a representative from the local authority, and it could not install the ramps in the resident’s proposed location. If it did so the ramps would “intervene with the public highway”.
3. A removable ramp was not a “long term or practical solution”. A permanent ramp would mean the refuse operatives would be able to remove and return the bins to the store themselves.
4. No charge for the works would be passed on to leaseholders.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 September 2021 and asked it to reconsider the proposed location of the ramps. She said that it had completely ignored her concerns about possible noise disturbance, and asked it to meet with her at the block so they could discuss the plans.
The landlord attended the block on 16 November 2021 to discuss the plans and consider the resident’s proposals. It followed up with an email to the resident on 17 November 2021, and said it had produced an “alternative solution” meaning the ramp would be situated at the front of the bin store. It asked the resident her view on its new proposal. The resident responded on the same day and said she was happy with the new proposal.
The landlord installed the ramps around September 2022, the exact date is unclear.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2022 to make a complaint, and said:
1. It had installed the ramps in a different place to the proposed location in its email of 17 November 2021.
2. It had “ignore[d]” the previous agreement/compromise.
3. Its explanation about the location of the ramp was not satisfactory.
4. She wanted it to come up with proposals of how it would correct the issue.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2022, and said:
1. There were “limited options” of where it could install the ramps, and the “most appropriate solution” was reached.
2. It was not aware of “other decisions” made about the location, and it could “not comment” as the officer in question was a “former” employee.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2022 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. She said that she had spent a lot of time discussing the matter with it, and was unhappy the location she agreed with it was not used. She asked the landlord to explain why it had not communicated its change of plan to her, and said she wanted it to move the ramp to the previously agreed location.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 16 December 2022, and said:
1. The ramp was placed in the “most efficient location”, and there were limited options so as not to “impact the public highway”.
2. It “always” took on board the views of residents, and had met with her to discuss her concerns. But, it was “not feasible” to locate the ramp in the area she had requested without “extensive works” which would have been costly, and impacted on the building’s foundations.
3. It understood she was “given assurances” by the employees that had left about the location. But. it had taken the decision not to put the ramps in the suggested location, for the above reasons.
4. It was not prepared to move the ramps, and apologised that it was not the outcome the resident sought.
5. It acknowledged its decision could have been communicated to her sooner, and offered £50 in compensation for its handling of the issue.
6. It said it would ensure there was an “improvement” in relation to such matters “going forward”.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 January 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint as the landlord had “reneged” on the agreement it made with her.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord’s maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy states that it will provide residents with the opportunity to influence and be involved in how its neighbourhood services are delivered. The policy states that it regularly inspects its communal areas to identify any issues that could cause harm or injury, and makes recommendations for improvements.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed location of refuse ramps

The local authority raised concerns about the safety of collecting the bins from the store due to steps and a curb, in March 2022. The landlord therefore decided it needed to install ramps for the bins. Given the concerns raised, this was an appropriate approach in the circumstances.
That the landlord sought resident’s views on its proposal, in July 2021, was appropriate and in line with the approach set out in its maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy. It is noted that, as it was not planning to pass on costs to leaseholders, it did not need to conduct a ‘Section 20’ consultation process. That it sought the views of all residents was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence it wanted to ensure it was aware of any concerns.
When the resident raised concerns about its plans, in August 2021, the evidence shows that landlord them the appropriate level of consideration. Initially, it provided a detailed explanation of its position in relation to the issues she had raised, and responded to each point raised in her email. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence the landlord acted with clarity. This Service appreciates its initial decision about the location of the ramp was disappointing for the resident. However, the evidence shows the landlord sought to manage her expectations, and its approach was pragmatic and proportionate in the circumstances.
Following further concerns raised by the resident, in September 2021, the landlord agreed to meet with her at the property to discuss them. The evidence indicates that following the meeting, in November 2021, the landlord agreed to change the proposed location of the ramp. This is evidence it had listened to the resident’s concerns, and sought to adapt its approach to accommodate them.
The landlord installed the ramps in a different location to where it had said it planned to in its email of November 2021. Evidence seen for this investigation shows that it decided to change the location due potential issues with the foundations of the building, and the cost implications of the alternative location. The landlord was entitled to change its plan, and it has a responsibility to ensure value for money. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it communicated its change of plan with the resident. Given her involvement in the process up to that point, that it did not communicate the change of plan was inappropriate. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter that caused the resident a disappointment, and she was inconvenienced by lack of communication on the issue.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate in its explanation about the issue. It is noted that the landlord’s decision to change the location of the ramp was reasonable, and that it explained this in its complaint response was appropriate. However, it suggestion that it could not “comment” on what its officers had agreed in relation to the ramp was inappropriate. It is noted that the officer in question no longer worked for it. However, given the resident had explained the agreement was made in writing, not to investigate further, and give an explanation, was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sought to put right the above shortcoming. The landlord addressed the discrepancy in what was agreed in November 2021, and what it actually did. The landlord explained its reasons for doing this and appropriately apologised that the change of plan was not communicated earlier to the resident. The landlord accepted its communication about the matter was poor and offered compensation to put right its admitted failing. This was reasonable in the circumstances and the compensation it offered was appropriate, given the inconvenience its handling of the matter had caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about the proposed location of refuse ramps.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately consulted the resident about the proposed location of the ramps. When she raised concerns it took them seriously, and provided a detailed response outlining its position. It met with her when she raised further concerns, which was supportive. Despite agreeing an alternative location with the resident, it changed its plan due to cost and other issues. It was entitled to do so, but its communication about the change in plan was poor which caused the resident an inconvenience. It accepted its communication failings, apologised, and offered an appropriate level of redress to put right the inconvenienced caused.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £50 it offered for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the proposed location of refuse ramps if it has not already done so.