Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202307853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307853

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 December 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the water tanks and water quality.
2. External redecoration of the block.
3. The communal garden.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 3 bedroom flat. The resident does not live in the property and rents it to a private tenant who is not part of this complaint. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on or before 14 September 2020 to report that another resident in the block had put a flower bed and small decorative structure in the communal garden. The resident was concerned that the garden was meant for all residents to use. The resident also raised concerns that the building’s exterior needed redecorating. The landlord wrote to the owner of the flower bed on 16 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 to ask for the structure to be removed, and advised the flower bed could remain as long as it did not get bigger. The landlord cleaned the building exterior on 22 September 2020.
On 24 August 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that the water tanks in the roof space were in poor condition. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when they were last inspected. Additionally the resident noted that the exterior of the building was discoloured again. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 September 2021 and advised that the property was served by its own water tank which falls under the responsibility of the resident as the homeowner.
The resident reiterated her concerns about the water tanks on 29 September 2021 and noted there was 3 tanks in the loft space rather than 1. The resident asked when the external redecoration would take place. The landlord accepted this as the resident’s first complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 October 2021. It stated:
1. The water tank was the responsibility of the resident, as per the lease.
2. Redecoration of the exterior is due in 2024.
The resident responded on 13 October 2021, she stated she was happy to replace her own water tank, but wanted the other 2 in the loft space removed or replaced by the landlord as they did not serve her property. The resident noted that the communal garden was being taken over by another resident and asked for the redecoration of the exterior to happen sooner than 2024.
The resident further complained to the landlord again on 25 January 2022. The resident stated:
1. The water tanks have not been replaced and there may be a leak. The resident’s own plumber had assessed them and deemed them unsafe.
2. Another resident has taken over the communal garden.
3. The exterior of the building is in disrepair and needs redecorating.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 March 2022. It noted:
1. It had phoned the resident to explain its responsibilities for leaseholders to the resident.
2. It attended on 31 January 2022 to remove 2 of the water tanks and clean the 3rd, but its contractors stated that all tanks were in an acceptable state and no leaks were noted, so they were not removed or cleaned.
3. There was no evidence of a leak.
4. It reimbursed the cost of the resident’s plumber invoice.
The resident made a 3rd stage 1 complaint on 29 July 2022. The resident raised that she did not feel that the loft insulation was sufficient and that the water tanks had not been repaired. The landlord responded on 19 August 2022. It stated its contractor had attended on 11 May 2022 and identified that the insulation was sufficient and the tanks did not require replacing.
The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout 2022:
1. She asked for the water in the tanks to be tested and for records of water inspections since she purchased the property.
2. The exterior of the block had not yet been redecorated.
3. A neighbour was taking over the communal garden and she wanted the garden to be divided into sections for each resident.
4. The resident attended the landlord’s offices on a Friday but staff were working from home so she could not speak with anyone.
5. The resident requested to be consulted when the landlord appointed its next repairs contractor.
6. She wanted a response from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the landlord, not a member of its staff.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 January 2023 to complain that she had not received satisfactory responses from the landlord regarding the issues she had raised. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaints to stage 2 and provided its response on 14 February 2023. It stated:
1. Its contractor had assessed the loft insulation and found it sufficient.
2. The water tanks did not require repairing or replacing, but were now scheduled to be replaced in the next financial year.
3. It would not look to individually assign areas of the communal garden and it would not ask the neighbour to remove the flower bed.
4. External redecoration was due in 2024.
5. The resident had raised different issues in each complaint which hindered its ability to respond.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues raised and escalated the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident has raised further matters with the landlord which have been considered by the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints process. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond.
Paragraph 42 .a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
If the resident wishes to escalate any further matters to this Service, she will need to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process on those matters first.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water tanks and water quality

The resident’s lease states that the leaseholder is responsible to keep the property in good and substantial repair. This includes all cisterns, tanks, sewers, drains, gutters, pipes, and any other thing installed for the purpose of supplying water or draining water solely for the property.
According to the resident’s lease, the resident is responsible for the maintenance of the water tank that supplies her property. When the resident first reported her concerns, the landlord advised her of this clearly. This was an appropriate response.
In her email to the landlord on 13 October 2021, the resident accepted her responsibility for the water tank that served her property. The resident stated that there were 2 other tanks in the loft space of the building for other properties and she wanted these to be removed or replaced. The landlord’s contractor inspected the tanks on 11 May 2022 and concluded they were in good condition with no leaks, and did not need removing or replacing. While it is noted that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s assertion that the tanks are safe, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
As a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of her own plumber who she had contacted to investigate a possible leak. There is no evidence provided of a leak with the water tanks. The landlord acted appropriately by offering the reimbursement.
The resident requested information from the landlord regarding when the water quality was last tested in the tank that serves the property. The landlord outlined that the tank was the responsibility of the resident which meant it did not have this information.
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that it had not always responded to the resident’s emails and she had needed to chase them. It also apologised for any confusion caused when confirming the responsibility for the water tanks. It offered the resident £50 compensation. It also outlined that it will be providing training to its teams to improve communication and the service it provides.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water tanks and water quality was appropriate and its offer of compensation and reimbursement of the resident’s plumber invoice was reasonable to redress the matter.
The landlord noted that the tanks in the block were earmarked for replacement in the next financial year. It is not clear from the evidence if this has taken place. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident confirm when this will take place, if it has not already.

The landlord’s handling of external redecoration of the block

The resident requested that the exterior of the block be redecorated because the paintwork had discoloured. The landlord attended to clean the exterior but the resident remained dissatisfied and request repainting instead. The landlord informed the resident that the cyclical redecoration of the block was last completed in 2018 and is next due in 2024.
It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. There is no evidence to suggest that the condition of exterior of the block was dangerous or a hazard to residents. The landlord’s cyclical redecoration procedure does not provide time frames for each redecoration but does note that it will decide what redecoration works it will complete each financial year based on its stock condition survey data.
At the time of the resident’s 1st complaint, the redecoration was not due for approximately 3 years. The landlord was clear with the resident about when this work could be expected and took steps to mitigate any impact on the resident by carrying out a cleaning. This was an appropriate response.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the external redecoration of the block.
At the time of this report, it is not clear whether the cyclical redecorations have now taken place. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to confirm when this will take place, if it has not already happened.

The landlord’s handling of the communal garden

The resident has repeatedly raised that she feels that a neighbour in the block is taking over the communal garden as their own. They installed a flower and vegetable patch and a decorative structure in the garden. The landlord wrote to the neighbour and asked them to remove the decorative structure, which they did. The landlord stated it would not ask the neighbour to remove the patch as long as it did not increase in size and was well maintained, this message was communicated to the resident and the neighbour.
The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to raise her concerns about the communal garden. The resident asked the landlord to apportion the garden to each resident to which the landlord advised it did not plan to do.
The landlord’s communal areas policy does not prohibit the creation of flower or vegetable patches. The resident does not live in the property and does not use the garden.
Evidence provided to this Service by the landlord includes notes from a consultation held with current residents about the garden. Other residents in the block like the flower bed and would welcome an additional vegetable patch in the garden. Current residents note that the garden is maintained to a high standard.
The landlord provided clear communication to the resident on its position regarding the communal garden. It continued to reiterate this whenever the resident contacted it.
This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal garden.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, where it cannot meet this time frame it will write to the resident to explain why and provide a new time frame. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where the landlord needs more time to respond, it will explain the reasons to the resident and provide a new time frame. The policy states that where a resident raises further matters after a stage 1 has been issued, these matters will be considered as a new complaint rather than being added to the stage 2 response.
The resident made 3 stage 1 complaints. The first complaint was made on 24 August 2021, the landlord responded on 5 October 2021 which is outside of the time frames provided for a stage 1 response and caused inconvenience to the resident who was waiting for a response.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure to comply with the Code. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response.
The resident made her second complaint on 25 January 2022. The landlord responded on 3 March 2022. This is also outside of the landlord’s timeframes for a stage 1 response. This caused inconvenience to the resident.
The third stage 1 complaint was made on 29 July 2022 and the landlord provided its response on 19 August 2022. While this time period is 15 working days and outside of the landlord’s time frames, it did write to the resident on 8 August 2022 to advise it needed more time and outlined its reasons. It provided the resident with a new time frame which it met.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 February 2023 which was 17 days after the resident made her stage 2 complaint and within the policy time frames.
The landlord’s complaint responses set out its understanding of the resident’s concerns and provided its response in a sympathetic and clear manner. While the resident experienced inconvenience as a result of the late responses, it acknowledged that its complaint responses had been delayed and offered the resident £50 in recognition of this. The complaint responses included details of improvements the landlord intended to make to its service and how it aimed to achieve this.
This Service considers that the landlord’s response reasonable to redress the failures identified, the landlord’s compensation offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the water tanks and water quality.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the external redecoration of the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the communal garden.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to confirm when the water tanks in the block will be replaced, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should reimburse the resident for the cost of her own plumber, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation offered in relation to the water tanks, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should write to the resident to confirm when the cyclical redecoration of the block will take place, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation if offered in relation to the complaint handling, if it has not already done so.