Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202304450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304450

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

26 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. The requirement for internal fire doors at the property.
2. A wasp infestation.
3. Washing line repairs.
4. Tree/vegetation growth affecting the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat owned by the landlord. This is on a secure tenancy that began in 1989. The flat shares an external communal door with 1 other flat. The landlord recorded resident vulnerabilities of severe mobility issues and brain damage. Her home has minor adaptations such as handrails.
The resident told the landlord she is a heavy smoker and regularly smokes in bed. She asked the landlord to change the internal doors to fire doors throughout the property to give her extra protection should a fire break out. It is unclear of the exact date, however, this appeared to be around April 2023. She said her request was supported by the fire service. During the following months the landlord recorded various works orders for repairs to internal doors. In mid-June 2023 the landlord recognised the need to replace the internal doors with fire doors.
In mid-July 2023 the landlord visited the property about the removal of tree/ vegetation affecting the structure of the property. It noted the neighbour was responsible to cut back the vegetation and it said it would ask the neighbour to remove the growth that affected the property.
On 9 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It told her:
1. There had been a delay in fitting the fire doors.
2. It had contacted the neighbour about the tree/vegetation growth and requested it was cut back.
3. It had arranged to repair the washing line and would contact her with an appointment.
4. It had previously arranged a wasp treatment to the communal area. It had arranged another treatment at her home, and it would contact her with an appointment.
5. It recognised delays, apologised and offered her £50 compensation as follows:
  1. £20 delays relating to the fire doors.
  2. £15 lack of communication.
  3. £15 distress.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2023. She was unhappy with the level of compensation. The landlord agreed to increase this to £70.
On 1 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she would accept £100 compensation on the basis that work was completed quickly. The landlord agreed to increase the compensation to £100 which was broken down as £50 delays relating to fire doors, £25 lack of communication and £25 distress. On 14 January 2024 the resident had to contact the landlord again due to outstanding work. She requested the landlord progress the complaint. The resident had to chase up a response to her complaint and on 8 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had given incorrect information about replacement of internal doors with fire doors. It said that there was no legal obligation to do the work, however, it agreed to replace the kitchen door with a fire door. It had repaired the washing line, it had attended wasps in a communal area, and it recognised it had not updated her. It confirmed its offer of £100 compensation.
In March 2024 the resident contacted us to progress her complaint. In April 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £400. It appears the resident was not aware of its increased offer. The compensation was broken down as:
1. £100 delays in completing fire doors.
2. £100 frustration caused to the resident.
3. £100 distress in relation to safety concerns.
4. £100 poor communications.
There was a gap until February 2025 when the landlord carried out further work on the washing line and replaced 3 internal doors with fire doors. During March 2025 it arranged work to stain block a wall affected by damp from the tree/vegetation growth. In April 2025 it arranged to attend to wasps at the property. During the same month (April 2025) the resident expressed concerns over a small gap at the bottom of each of the newly installed fire doors. The landlord reassured her this was normal practice, however, it arranged an inspection in mid-May 2025. We do not have the records to confirm the outcome of the inspection. The resident contacted us in June 2025 to inform us that the landlord had carried out painting work to the fire doors in which she said damage had been caused to the walls and an “irreplaceable wedding gift” that cost around £100. It is unclear if the landlord has dealt with these recent events.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us the issues in the complaint had been ongoing for many years. In the interest of fairness our investigation starts from April 2023 and continues beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because there is evidence the landlord’s commitment to resolve issues within the complaints process were not resolved. This timeframe aligns to the complaint timeline.
The landlord has offered the resident £100 compensation during the complaints process. It later increased its compensation offer to £400 after the complaint had ended and once the case was with the Ombudsman. The £400 was apportioned to factors such as delays, distress, and inconvenience, however, we do not know the sum it apportioned to each complaint category. Based on the evidence, for the purposes of the investigation, our assessment will reflect the following compensation figures:
1. £200 delays in fitting fire doors, distress, and inconvenience.
2. £50 communication issues relating to the wasp infestation.
3. £100 delays, distress, and inconvenience in completing washing line repairs.
4. £50 Delays in resolving tree/vegetation growth and associated work.

Fire doors

The resident recognised fire safety issues at the property in relation to her restricted mobility and the risks associated with smoking in bed. We do not know the date the resident contacted the landlord about her concerns, however, its records suggest this was around April 2023. We understand she had been in contact with the fire service who had conducted a risk assessment at her home. We have not seen the fire service risk assessment however, the records suggest the fire service had provided her with a number of measures such as fire-retardant bedding and a smoke alarm specific to her needs. The evidence suggests the landlord offered to fit a sprinkler system at the property, but it appears the resident refused this offer.
The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 state that fire doors should be fitted in residential properties where there are 2 or more separate dwellings sharing a common escape route. These regulations apply to the 2 external doors at the resident’s home; 1 leading into the flat and the other communal entrance door that serves the 2 properties. These 2 external doors are not in dispute here, however, we have not seen the evidence to assure us these 2 external doors meet the required standards.
The landlord’s legal obligation did not extend to internal fire doors in individual properties. However, it does have an obligation to consider the individual needs of the residents and a duty of care for all residents in the building. This involves working with partners such as the fire service to mitigate risks. Where there is a higher risk of fire at a property, (for example, residents with disabilities, those with hearing impairment, those who hoard items and heavy smokers), a person-centred fire risk assessment (PCFRA) should be conducted. It is good practice for landlord’s to work in partnership with the fire service to offer a PCFRA, however, as in this case, the PCFRA is often led by the fire service. The landlord’s fire policy supports its commitment to fire safety:
1. “It is committed to reducing the risk to life, property, business continuity, and the environment from the threat of fire. In doing so, it seeks to comply with applicable legislative requirements. More than this it is committed to the maintenance and continual improvement of its fire risk management system.”
2. “It will work in partnership with representatives from the Fire Brigade, Health and Safety Executive and Building Safety Regulator to create a safer place to live and work”.

It was positive that in mid-June 2023, despite having no legal requirement to do so, the landlord recognised the benefits in replacing the internal doors with fire doors. This demonstrated it recognised the resident’s individual needs and considered the risks associated with fire safety.
There were delays in the landlord fitting the fire doors for which it acknowledged this in its stage 1 response towards the end of November 2023. It compensated her £20 in recognition of this delay. At this point the delay was around 7 months. The resident progressed her complaint and the landlord increased its compensation offer to £50. Work remained incomplete resulting in resident chase ups in mid-January 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint in early March 2024 when it told her the information it had provided in its stage 1 complaint response was wrong; it said it would fit 1 fire door to the kitchen rather than fire doors throughout the property. The landlord had already committed to fitting fire doors at the property and offered compensation for its delays, raising the resident’s expectations. Therefore, the landlord’s decision making and confusing stance in its withdrawal of fire doors 4 months later was unreasonable, causing unnecessary confusion, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident contacted us in March 2024 to progress her complaint. The following month in April 2024 the landlord reviewed its level of compensation and increased this from £50 to £200 to reflect the delays, distress and inconvenience caused to her. We expect landlord’s to offer reasonable resolution to the complaint during its complaints process and not when the complaint has reached this Service. We will expand more on this during the complaint handling section.
The landlord later recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and the additional reassurance fire doors would give her. It fitted internal fire doors around February 2025. The resident had concerns about gaps in the doors and the landlord returned to inspect these in mid-May 2025, however, we do not have evidence of its findings or whether any remedial work was required.
In conclusion, the landlord was not obliged to fit internal fire doors at the property. However, its position on this issue was confusing and contradictory during its complaint responses, raising the resident’s expectations unnecessarily. Initially it appeared to be confident in its position to replace the internal doors with fire doors which showed a human centric approach to resolving the resident concerns. However, it later withdrew from its position in its stage 2 complaint response causing the resident unnecessary confusion and distress. While it was positive that it later reviewed its position and renewed the internal doors with fire doors around February 2025, the landlord delayed significantly by nearly 2 years in its decision making. This was inappropriate causing the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord recognised its delays during the complaint process and offered her compensation of £50. It was only after the complaint had reached our Service that it increased its compensation offer. We are therefore not satisfied the landlord fully recognised the extent of its failures during its complaints process. Its delayed and inconsistent decision making had a significant impact on the resident and led to distress and inconvenience.
For these reasons we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for internal fire doors. However, we consider the amount offered by the landlord following the completion of the complaints process (£200) is sufficient redress in all the circumstances. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance where there has been adverse impact on the resident of distress and inconvenience. In reaching this conclusion we have also factored in that the landlord eventually provided the resident the internal fire doors she desired, despite there being no evidence that it was obliged to do so. The landlord should share the inspection report (May 2025) with the resident and our Service to satisfy us it has met its fire safety obligations.

Wasp infestation

The landlord arranged to treat wasps in a communal area in November 2023. However, during its complaint response it recognised it had not communicated with her about the outcome of the treatment. It apologised for its failure and offered her £25 compensation during its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response. It then increased the compensation to £50 after the complaint process had ended. The landlord attended the property again around April 2025 to treat wasps.
The landlord’s pest control policy states that it is responsible for the treatment of wasps in a communal area. This does not extend to an individual property.
The landlord had demonstrated it had attended to treat wasps on 2 occasions, and it left its offer open to reattend again should the need arise. It recognised its lack of communication with the resident and compensated her for its failure. We consider the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s reports of wasps, predominately in communal areas. It recognised its communication failure and put things right for her through its complaint response. Given there was no significant impact caused by the landlord’s communication failure, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the wasp infestation.

Washing line repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete general repairs within 10 working days to 20 working days. It says it will make every effort to offer a suitable appointment for the repair within timescale.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in November 2023 it told her it had arranged repairs to the washing line, and it would contact her with an appointment. Various work was completed to rebed the washing post and tighten the washing line which appears to have been unsuccessful. The work appears to have been fully completed sometime before March 2024, however, it had to carry out further work in February 2025.
While there appears to have been various work carried out to the washing line, the resident had reported her dissatisfaction with the work and therefore the records suggest the issues were not fully resolved for around 15 months. It is unclear if the resident could use the washing line during this time, however, while there is no evidence the landlord did not attempt repairs in accordance with its repairs policy timeframe, it delayed in completing lasting repairs which was unreasonable.
The landlord recognised the delays and offered her compensation during the complaint process of around £25 and later increased this to £100. Given the landlord had recognised its failures during the complaint process, had attempted to put things right and there was no evidence of a significant impact on the resident, we are satisfied with the landlord’s action. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of washing line repairs.

Tree/vegetation growth

In mid-July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of tree/ vegetation growth affecting the structure of the property. It noted the need to follow up with a neighbour to request its removal. At the end of November 2023 as part of the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had contacted the neighbour and requested the vegetation growth was cut back. It is unclear when or if the vegetation was removed from the structure of the property, however, part of the landlord’s evidence suggested the tree/vegetation growth was resolved in July 2024. The tree/vegetation growth appears to be an issue again. The landlord has confirmed it has contacted the neighbour to deal with the recent issue.
The landlord has a tree maintenance program in place to manage trees in communal areas. However, trees in individual gardens (as in this case) are the tenant’s responsibility in accordance with the tenancy/lease agreement. The landlord’s actions to contact a neighbour about tree/vegetation growth affecting the building was therefore appropriate. However, as there were indications the tree/vegetation growth was affecting the building and an internal wall at the property, the landlord was obligated to resolve the situation as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to maintaining the structure of the property.
While the landlord’s initial actions were reasonable, it delayed in resolving the issue for around 1 year. Given there was an indication that the tree/vegetation was affecting the structure of the property we consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored other proportionate options with the affected neighbour. This could have included carrying out the work itself to reach a quicker resolution and considering whether it would apply its recharge policy in this situation. As this is a recurring issue, the landlord should make sure it has an action plan in place going forward to resolve the recurring tree/vegetation growth.
There were further delays of around 8 months (July 2024 to March 2025) in the landlord arranging work to stain block an affected wall and treat mould on the ceiling/wall. This delay was inappropriate.
The landlord recognised its delays within its complaint responses, offered the resident compensation of £25 and later increased this to £100 after the complaint process had ended. We are not satisfied the landlord did enough to manage the situation and bring a speedier resolution to the tree/vegetation issues and associated work. For these reasons we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of tree/vegetation growth affecting the property. The landlord should compensate the resident the £100 (offered to her after the complaint had ended) in recognition of its full failures to resolve the tree/vegetation growth and affected areas of the damp on the internal wall/ceiling. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 November 2023. The landlord responded within 10 working days in compliance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code – April 2022).
Shortly afterwards on 28 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she remained unhappy with the level of compensation. The landlord agreed with the resident to increase this to £70 and then £100 in December 2023 subject to work being completed quickly. Work remained outstanding resulting in the resident progressing her complaint in January 2024. The landlord registered a stage 2 complaint and responded on 8 March 2024. The month after the resident escalated her complaint to us in April 2024, the landlord reviewed its compensation offer and increased this from £100 to £400.
Our Code states landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord responded over 2 months later. There is no evidence it agreed an extension with the resident resulting in avoidable resident chase ups. The landlord’s actions were therefore inappropriate causing additional delays, time, and trouble to the resident.
While it is positive that the landlord reviewed the level of compensation this was after its final complaint response once the case was escalated to our Service. Given it substantially increased its offer of compensation from £100 to £400 we are not satisfied it did this in the true spirit of complaint handling good practice. Neither was there any reflection on its complaint handling failures. For these reasons we have found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should compensate the resident £50 compensation to recognise its delays and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for internal fire doors.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of washing line repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of tree/vegetation growth affecting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the report the landlord should:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for failures identified within the report.
2. Pay the resident £350 (including £250 already offered) in relation to:
  1. £200 fire doors.
  2. £100 tree/vegetation growth.
  3. £50 complaint handling.
3. Provide us with its fire risk assessment on the building.
4. Provide the resident and us with its inspection report from May 2025 of how it intends to resolve fire door issues and the resident’s reports of damage caused when they were painted.
Within 6 weeks of the report the landlord should review the complaint and share its learning with us in relation to delays in its repairs service, its decision making on the internal fire doors and its complaint handling.

Recommendations

If not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £150 in recognition of its failures in handling the wasp infestation and washing line repairs.
The landlord should consider its fire safety policy to make sure it reflects its position on Person Centered Fire Risk Assessments (PCFRAs) involving individual households.
The landlord should confirm its position on the recommendations.