Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202324361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324361

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

28 February 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp and mould, windows and insulation.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, described as a 3-bedroom, end of terrace house, since 2019.
The landlord has advised it is unaware of any vulnerabilities affecting the household.
On 7 September 2023, the resident made a complaint. The landlord’s record of the call noted the following:
1. The resident was unhappy with how it had responded to his damp and mould reports.
2. A surveyor had attended and recommended repairs. However, the resident was “not satisfied with the works suggested”.
3. His 2 children both had asthma and 1 was on steroid medication.
4. He had done “all he can” to deal with the mould himself. However, it had “become too stressful”. He felt the landlord was looking for cheap solutions rather than properly resolving the problem.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 September 2023. It then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 September 2023. The landlord summarised the complaint and understood the resident wanted the following resolutions: for his front door, roof and windows to be replaced; and for external thermal boarding to be installed to the outside walls of his property. The landlord made the following comments and findings:
1. A surveyor had attended the property on 31 July 2023 and works they recommended had been issued to a contractor. As of 28 September 2023, it understood the resident had not had any further contact. It had therefore chased the contractor. An appointment had then been booked for 3 October 2023 when they would complete any repairs, they were “able to do on the day”. A plan would be “discussed” for any outstanding repairs.
2. The roof – the resident’s roof was not due to be surveyed “with consideration for possible renewal” until 2033. He could report any required repairs “in the meantime” and these would be raised.
3. The front door – its surveyor had recommended the front door be replaced. Its contractor would then “inspect the door…and…advise on the next steps”. It clarified this usually meant measurements would be taken and a new door ordered and installed later.
4. The windows – it noted the resident wanted the windows replaced because they were draughty and didn’t lock. However, it confirmed the windows were not due to be “surveyed with consideration for possible renewal” until 2030. In the meantime, its contractor would overhaul the windows “to ensure they are useable, locking and where possible draught free”. They would contact the resident to discuss what works could be carried out on 3 October 2023.
5. The external boarding installation – it confirmed it was unable to install external thermal boarding to the exterior of the property. A surveyor had instead recommended “applying water proof repellent…where needed to prevent water ingress” to ensure the walls were water tight.
6. It understood the resident did not agree with the surveyor’s recommendations and was “not in agreement to have some of the…works completed”.
7. It apologised for “the level of service in relation to delay in having these repairs completed” and accepted its service should have been better. It awarded £50 as a “discretionary payment” to reflect this, along with a further £30 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble chasing the complaint.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 1 October 2023. He did not believe the landlord was taking his concerns seriously. He also felt the “problems” in his home were getting worse. He agreed with the landlord’s plan to replace his front door. However, he felt the repairs planned for the windows, external boarding and roof were “not sufficient”. He said:
1. The windows had been overhauled less than 6 months earlier and were “beyond repair”.
2. He said it was “possible” to fit external thermal boarding to his home. It would “rectify” the mould issue and make his home more energy efficient. He believed that fitting thermal boarding internally would allow mould to grow behind the boards.
3. The roof needed replacing “now”, rather than in 10 years’ time. He said that photos sent to the surveyor “proved” this. A new roof would also improve the property’s energy efficiency.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 2 days later.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It indicated the resident asked his complaint to be escalated on 1 October 2023 but we have not seen evidence of this. It noted he remained unhappy with the repairs its surveyor had suggested. He still wanted the windows and roof replaced, as well as thermal boarding to be installed externally. To investigate the complaint, it said it had spoken to its surveyor and “discussed…how (his) recommendations compared with the work” the resident wanted. It made the following comments and findings:
1. The windows – the surveyor acknowledged they needed “some repair” and had raised orders for the windows to be overhauled. However, the surveyor did not believe it was necessary to replace the window “at this time”. It said that, if the ordered repairs were “not effective or…they fail”, the resident should report this to the landlord and it would “review”.
2. The thermal boarding – the surveyor offered to install thermal boarding to the inside of the property “to improve the insulation”. It had discussed whether the resident’s property could be included in a Planned Maintenance programme for thermal boarding to be fitted externally but it confirmed his property “(did) not meet the criteria”.
3. The roof – it acknowledged the resident’s request to replace the roof “due to the lack of roof felt” and the associated draughts. It said its surveyor had acknowledged there was no roof felt present but “this is the nature of the build to some roofs”. They also considered that the insulation that was present should be “sufficient to prevent any draughts from impacting” the property below. It would therefore not replace the roof “at this time”.
4. It acknowledged the resident would not be happy with the outcome of its investigation but confirmed that it did not uphold the complaint.
During the investigation of this complaint, we have spoken to the resident. He had advised that the replacement of the front door went ahead in 2024. However, no further repairs have taken place to the roof, windows and exterior of the property. There remains an impasse between the landlord and the resident regarding the nature of the repairs required. As a result, there has been no further progress since information was provided to this investigation in July 2024.
The resident maintains that the windows are “not fit for purpose”. A bedroom in one of his children’s bedroom will not close properly. He also said he is able to “see his neighbour’s property” through existing holes in his roof.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has a damp and mould policy. The latest version was updated in January 2024, after the resident’s complaint. Within the policy (although sections ‘d’ and ‘e’ below did not appear in the previous version), it says it will:
1. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way.
2. Ensure the fabric of its homes is “protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp”.
3. Communicate with residents clearly and regularly about planned actions.
4. When reports of damp and mould are received, it will open a case on its Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. Once this is done, it will assign the case “an initial severity rating”, based on the information available. There are 5 ratings, from ‘extreme’ to ‘mild’ (plus ‘uncategorised’).
5. It will “tackle immediate risks quickly”, treating mould growth and carrying out repairs. Repairs are processed in line with its Responsive Repairs policy.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says it aims to complete “general repairs” within 10 working days. It also aims to carry out “repairs exclusions” within 20 working days. This category appears to relate to repairs which fall outside of its regular repairs and maintenance service. These are said to be “larger jobs” which may require a survey or further planning.

The landlord’s handling of repairs relating to damp and mould, windows and insulation

At the crux of this complaint, there is a disagreement between the resident and landlord about the extent of repairs that are required in the property. It is not in dispute that the landlord has carried out surveys and inspections. What is in dispute is the repairs that were discussed and/or agreed during these surveys and whether the repairs raised will be sufficient to resolve the damp and mould issues the resident has reported.
The Ombudsman does not have the technical knowledge to say, for example, whether the resident’s roof does need replacing, or if the windows are beyond repair. However, what we can assess if whether the landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports reasonably. We can also determine on whether the landlord addressed the concerns he raised appropriately.
As with other cases of the landlord’s that we have investigated recently, there are concerns over the quality of its repair records. As above, it is not disputed surveyors attended the resident’s home and carried out inspections. However, the lack of evidence regarding the assessments and surveys carried out means it is unable to clearly demonstrate the findings it made. This is a knowledge gap. Without any contemporaneous notes or a copy of the inspection report on file, it cannot show whether its response was reasonable and/or whether the repairs it proposed were proportionate.
Given the reports and evidence, the resident provided, we would also have expected the landlord to have arrange a full damp and mould survey of the property. However, there is no evidence this was done. This is not appropriate and means the landlord cannot evidence that it responded to his reports regarding damp and mould reasonably. It did not appear to be acting in line with its policy by diagnosing and resolving the issue in a timely way. It is noted the landlord raised several orders to carry out mould washes in the property. However, repeat orders indicate the underlying issue was not being resolved.
As above, the landlord’s repair records do not contain details of surveys it carried out and this makes it harder for it justify the positions it has taken regarding the repairs required. The resident has said the landlord is not following up with repairs agreed during some of the inspections, particularly one carried out in July 2023. He says the surveyor agreed the roof needed replacing. The landlord denies this. We are unable to determine what was said or agreed as we were not present. However, the absence of clear evidence regarding the inspections means the landlord is unable to show how it concluded the roof did not need replacing before the scheduled date of 2033.
Similarly, records show the landlord responded to a query from the resident regarding the windows in 2021. It advised they would not be replaced until 2030. The repair records again lack detail regarding any inspection of the windows. While the landlord maintained the windows did not need to be replaced and, for the time being, only repairs were necessary, the lack of repair records means it is unclear how it reached this decision.
We note there was a lack of transparency regarding the inspections that took place. After it attended in July 2023, the resident asked for a copy of the inspection report. He chased this on several occasions. However, while the landlord did email him with details of the works it proposed – which prompted the complaint – there is no evidence it provided a copy of the inspection report. This is not appropriate and did not demonstrate openness. If the landlord was unable to share the report for any reason, it should have explained why.
Internal landlord records from March 2023 show it was due to carry out a stock condition survey “later” that year. This would have been helpful in assessing whether the replacements dates for the roof and windows should have been brought forward. However, there is no evidence this took place. While this is not necessarily a fault, the landlord missed an opportunity to better inform its position regarding whether the respective replacement dates could be changed.
There was also inconsistency within the information the landlord provided in its complaint responses. In its stage 1 response, it said it was “not possible” to affix thermal boarding to the outside of the property. In its stage 2 response, it said it had considered doing so under its Planned Maintenance programme, but the resident’s property did not meet the criteria. While it was positive that the landlord reviewed its position, it should have acknowledged this had changed or that its previous stance was incorrect.
It should also have provided an explanation about what the qualifying criteria were. The records do not contain any evidence of when, or how, the landlord established the boards could not be fitted under the Planned Maintenance programme. The lack of clarity would be frustrating for the resident. The absence of further details again means the landlord is unable to show it responded appropriately or fairly.
In correspondence we have seen, the resident says that fitting thermal boards inside his home will cause mould to form between the boards and the internal wall. We cannot see that the landlord has addressed this point within the complaint responses or general correspondence. This is not appropriate and fed into the resident’s feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
Overall, we consider the landlord’s handling of repairs was poor. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We recognised that it did carry out inspections. It is also entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors when it comes to proposing repairs. It did raise orders that it deemed would resolve, or improve, the damp and mould issue in the resident’s home. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding how it reached the positions it did and how it decided that those repairs would be sufficient.
There is no evidence it carried out any formal damp and mould survey at the property, or that it gave fair consideration to the resident’s requests to bring forward the renewal dates for roof and window replacements under the Planned Maintenance programme. There is no evidence it considered his concerns about installing thermal boarding inside the property, rather than outside. The information it provided in its complaint responses regarding the boarding was inconsistent and it did not explain why his home did not meet an unspecified “criteria” (sic). There was a lack of transparency when it failed to provide a copy of an inspection report, which may have reassured the resident regarding the repairs it proposed.
At this present time, there is an impasse between the resident and the landlord. Both parties accept repairs are necessary, but none are currently planned or booked in. In our opinion, while we acknowledge the resident has refused repairs offered from September/October 2023 onwards, the landlord should have done more to address the concerns he raised about the proposes works and find a resolution. Otherwise, issues with the resident’s windows and the reported damp and mould will remain unresolved. This is not a reasonable position to maintain.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs relating to damp and mould, windows and insulation.

Orders

The landlord is therefore ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation to reflect its poor response to his damp and mould reports and its handling of repairs.
2. Write to the resident to clarify the criteria under which it decided his property did not qualify for thermal boarding to be fitted externally. It will set out its position regarding whether it will reconsider this request and provide us with a copy of its letter.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord will:
1. Arrange a formal damp and mould survey of the whole property. It will share the report with us and the resident.
2. Arrange an independent stock condition survey of the property, paying particular attention to the property’s windows and roof. It will carry out a review of the findings made and assess whether the respective replacement dates need to be brought forward, providing an explanation for any position it takes. It will share a copy of the report with us and the resident.