Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202329895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329895

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s offer of compensation following damp and mould repairs.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for a 2 bedroom house, which began in 2011. She lives there with her 4 children, one of whom has asthma, and one of whom has autism.
The resident said she first reported problems with mould to the landlord in 2021. She arranged for a contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey in March 2021, and the landlord subsequently agreed to reimburse her for this.
The contractor observed mould and condensation in the property, and reported “high” relative damp readings in the bathroom. It made several recommendations in its report, which included:
1. Work should be done to remedy defective mortar joints to the roof ridge tiles and the gap under the vent ridge tile should be sealed;
2. Defective guttering should be repaired, and then the guttering cleared of silt and debris;
3. “Powerful” extractor fans should be installed in the kitchen and bathroom;
4. Clothes should not be dried indoors, and the bathroom and kitchen doors should be closed after bathing/ cooking, to allow moisture to be extracted;
5. The loft insulation should be increased, to evenly cover all areas in the ceiling;
6. The radiators in both bedrooms should be moved to be under the windows;
7. Structural dehumidification should be undertaken once the above works were completed, to “accelerate” the drying process of the structure.
The resident shared the report with the landlord, and it advised her it would would organise repairs “as needed”. It said it did not provide insulation, but would ensure that the insulation in place was evenly distributed and would fill any gaps.
The landlord’s records show it was in correspondence with the resident’s member of parliament (MP) about the damp and mould. The landlord reiterated its commitment to fill any gaps in the insulation, and encouraged the resident to liaise with a manager she was in contact with, in relation to claiming compensation for damaged belongings.
In April 2021 the landlord’s roofing contractor carried out an inspection. At the end of the month, the landlord provided an update to the resident:
1. The mortar and repointing work had been completed;
2. It had carried out a water test to the front of the property, and found no blockages or leaks from the guttering. It had asked its contractor to confirm whether this was the same for the rear of the property;
3. It had asked its contractor to confirm whether work had been done to the mortar around the ground floor window;
4. It had decided to fit a vent to the front room;
5. Its contractor had increased the loft insulation;
6. It was waiting for confirmation of a date for the radiator works to be carried out.
During May 2021 the resident provided estimated costs to the landlord:
1. £120 for the bedroom curtains and £95 for the living room curtains;
2. £168 for replacement wallpaper in the living room;
3. An estimate of £250 for a decorator to remove and replace the wallpaper.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord advised the resident it was willing to pay for the curtains and redecoration as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord’s records show that the position regarding repairs was the same at the end of July 2021. One appointment had been cancelled by the contractor due to staff sickness. The landlord’s records from August 2021 show that it had chased its contractor, and had challenged the contractor’s cancellation of several works orders.
The landlord’s records from September 2021 show it had asked its contractor for appointments to be scheduled to install French drains at the front and rear of the property, install the new extractor fans and repair a ‘motorised window’, and for some additional work to the brickwork on the flank wall. Its contractor had scheduled an appointment for the insulation work and repairs to the skylight for 4 October 2021.
The landlord’s records indicate that these works remained outstanding into November 2021.
On 7 January 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that mould had appeared again in both bedrooms, and highlighted her concern that this was a health hazard for her family. She asked the landlord to arrange for a specialist contractor to attend, and queried whether the work carried out by the landlord’s roofing contractor was to standard.
The resident chased the landlord regarding the wallpaper removal and redecoration in February and March 2022. On 15 March 2022 the landlord confirmed it had asked its contractor to arrange this with the resident.
In April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to log a complaint about the mould in the house, and she chased this in May 2023. On 22 May 2023 the resident reported a leak from the roof into her son’s bedroom.
During June 2023 the resident reported damage to laminate flooring following a leak, and on 12 June 2023 the landlord’s records show it had decided it would not reimburse her for this damage.
During September and October 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update regarding repairs to the kitchen units and sink, which had been damaged by moisture. The landlord’s contractor rejected the job raised for the sink repair. On 25 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that a repair appointment had been missed, and mentioned her hope that the landlord would resolve her ‘complaint’.
On 12 January 2024 the resident reported a leak from a new sink that the landlord had fitted, and chased the outstanding repairs to the bathroom. The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor attended to carry out some works in February 2024, and that the resident told the landlord it had left a “mess”.
On 8 February 2024 the Housing Ombudsman Service asked the landlord to log and respond to a stage 1 complaint. The landlord logged the complaint on 20 March 2024.
During March 2024 the resident was in contact with the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs in the property, and reiterated her concern that her children were sleeping in a room with mould. She told the landlord one of her children had asthma and was “coughing every night”.
On 26 March 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Acknowledged that it should have raised a complaint on 11 May 2023 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction and apologised for failing to do this;
2. Acknowledged that it understood her complaint to be about outstanding repairs, and damp and mould “throughout” the property;
3. Advised that a repair to fix a leak through one of the ceilings was carried out on 8 March 2024;
4. Confirmed that an appointment to measure the kitchen flooring for repair had been booked for 5 April 2024, along with repairs to the kitchen units;
5. Confirmed that an appointment for the bedroom flooring repair was booked for 19 April 2024;
6. Confirmed that its damp and mould contractor would arrange an appointment with the resident;
7. Apologised to the resident for the avoidable delays to the kitchen repairs, the level of service it had delivered, the distress and inconvenience the resident “may” have been caused;
8. Advised that it had carried out training for its staff so they could recognise complaints in future;
9. Offered the resident £250 compensation (made up of £100 for its delayed responses, £50 for the failure to handle the complaint correctly, £50 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £50 for the missed appointments).
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 26 March 2024, and told it she was “livid” with the amount offered as compensation. The resident reiterated the list of repairs outstanding at the property.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 10 April 2024, and it issued its response on 9 May 2024. It:
1. Apologised that the resident had had to chase the repairs and it had not been able to resolve the complaint at stage 1;
2. Apologised that further appointments were missed on 8 and 19 April 2024;
3. Apologised for its “poor” communication;
4. Advised that its damp and mould specialist contractor had attended, but had not been able to treat mould behind the washing machine because it required disconnection and this was not something the contractor would normally do. It had arranged a further visit for 3 May 2024 and once the landlord had received its report, the landlord would confirm to the resident the details of any further work to be done;
5. Confirmed that a surveyor would attend on 21 May 2024 to assess the damage from the most recent leak, and the landlord would instruct all required works including decoration to resolve the mould staining;
6. Advised that as a result of the resident’s complaint, it would change the way the repairs teams were organised, and had introduced new roles to improve its repairs delivery;
7. Gave the resident the details of a point of contact until the repairs were resolved;
8. Offered the resident £200 compensation (made up of £100 for the further delay in completing the repairs and £100 for the missed appointments and poor communication).
The landlord’s records show that the resident queried the compensation on 10 May 2024, and asked the landlord how it was “possible” that it had offered her less at stage 2 than its original offer of £250 at stage 1. She later told us that she felt insulted by the amount offered.
In June 2024 the landlord asked its contractor to quote for the associated repairs and mould treatment.
On 7 September 2024 the landlord’s roofing contractor told the landlord it had completed repairs to the roof.
The landlord has advised us that it raised the works for mould treatment on 28 October 2024, and that the resident refused these after telling it she wanted new fans to be installed. Its management reviewed the case and agreed to install two new extractor fans, and a new positive input ventilation system in the loft. It raised these works to its contractor on 4 December 2024.
The landlord has advised us that the new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were fitted on 7 January 2025, and it has booked an appointment to lay the loft insulation for 4 February 2025.
The landlord has advised us that during our investigation of the resident’s complaint, it had spoken to the resident during January 2025 and had offered her £850 compensation, a figure it called more “appropriate” to recognise the impact the matters had had on her family, the length of time it had taken to resolve them, and the frustration the resident had been caused in having to chase it.
The landlord additionally advised us that it had committed to the resident that it would review how effective the repairs were in eliminating the damp and mould, and that it would instruct further damp and mould surveys if necessary.
The resident has advised us that the landlord is looking into the possibility of extending her house using the disabled facilities grant (DFG), to further improve her family’s living situation.

Assessment and findings

We acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding the health of her children. Medical matters fall outside the scope of this report, but we do note that these were specific concerns that the resident drew to the landlord’s attention and would understandably have been likely to cause additional distress while left unresolved.
The resident has explained to us that she did not feel the landlord had treated her well, and it was important to her that this was acknowledged by it.
Both the resident and landlord agreed that she had experienced unreasonable delays to remedy the mould in the property. The outstanding matter in dispute was the amount of compensation the landlord had offered by way of remedy for its acknowledged failures. Our assessment will therefore focus on this element of her complaint.
Following the start of our investigation, the landlord revised its offer of compensation to £850 in total. We accept that this compensation represented an attempt to put things right, and it is reasonably proportionate in our opinion. However, it offered this amount a considerable time after the internal complaints process had been completed, and it appeared to be prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process, and it was a failure in the landlord’s overall complaint handling that it was not.
We welcome the fact that most of the repairs have now been completed, and the landlord has given the resident a commitment to review their effectiveness and to take further steps to ensure the property is free of damp and mould if needed.
It was also positive to see that the landlord took steps to train its staff after it recognised, through its internal complaint process, that the resident’s complaint should have been logged in 2023.
There is, however, further learning to be taken from the landlord’s response to the resident. There were several gaps in progress that were unreasonably long.
The landlord’s records appear to show its customer service team contacted the resident and its repairs team when the resident asked for updates, but the resident did not then receive timely action or responses.
The landlord’s internal communications show it was aware during 2021 that the work it had asked the contractor to complete was dragging on beyond reasonable timeframes. We acknowledge that the landlord has changed its repairs contractor since then, but encourage it to consider whether there are any further steps it could take to ensure timely tracking of incomplete and recurring repairs and requests for contact.
A significant missed opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier was the landlord’s failure to clarify its offer of compensation after the resident queried this in May 2024. It is our understanding that it likely meant to offer a total of £450, however its stage 2 complaint response letter did not make this clear, and we have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident to explain this once she questioned it. While we have set out above that we consider its revised offer to the resident to be more appropriate, it may have come this decision earlier had it engaged with the resident’s question.
We also noted that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint letter contained information that appeared to be for internal reference during the drafting stage, which had the potential to further confuse matters, and did not demonstrate appropriate care and attention to detail on the landlord’s part.
We have highlighted the landlord’s standard of communication in its complaint letters in other recent cases. The landlord is urged to act on this feedback and take steps to ensure that its complaint letters contain clear, accurate, and case-specific information.
In summary, there was service failure in the landlord’s failure to put matters right by identifying and communicating an appropriate remedy, which needed to include an appropriately high amount of compensation, in a timely manner and at the conclusion of its internal complaints process or within a reasonable period of time after this.
We consider it important that the landlord apologises for this failure to the resident, in the spirit of rebuilding a trust-based relationship between them. We will not order additional compensation, on the basis that we have been assured that the £850 will be promptly paid directly to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the offer of compensation to the resident following damp and mould repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, an appropriately senior manager should write to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience she has experienced while waiting for the resolution of her complaint, and the associated repairs. It must provide us with a copy once complete.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to us that it has directly paid the resident £850 compensation.