Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202329984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329984

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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of:
   1. Multiple outstanding repairs.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. A cannabis smell from a neighbouring property.
2. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat and the tenancy agreement commenced on 18 October 2023. However the resident did not move into the property until January 2024 because she felt the property was unsafe and she wanted the outstanding repairs completed.
4. During October 2023 the resident expressed upset with the condition of the property and raised reports for repairs. In particular the landlord recorded the following works were requested:
   1. Lock change on shed.
   2. Investigate damp above radiator in lounge.
   3. Rusty hinges on kitchen cabinet door.
   4. Ease and adjust kitchen cabinet door.
   5. Resident reported that there was no fire door.
   6. Lounge light not working.
5. During November 2023 the resident raised a complaint stating she was not able to live in the property due to health and safety concerns. She explained she and her son were basically homeless and her mental health was being impacted. She further explained she had lost money due to having to take time off for missed appointments. She was seeking for safety checks to be completed, for works to be completed and the landlord to put her rent on hold.
6. The resident also raised concerns about all the repairs required since moving in. Some had been rectified but she was still waiting for outstanding repairs to be completed. She said that these were for the following items:
   1. No electricity.
   2. Smashed tiles.
   3. No fire door.
   4. Unsecure front door, which could be easily broken into.
   5. Broken windows did not line up in the frame which made it unsecure and made the property cold. There were also no child restrictors on the windows.
   6. Broken sealed units in between windows causing moisture and misting.
   7. Damp and mould causing wallpaper to lift and crack in bedroom and living room.
   8. Rotting kitchen cupboards and worktops.
   9. No working communal lighting in stairwell.
   10. No carbon monoxide alarm.
   11. No lightbulbs.
   12. No smoke alarm.
   13. Defective electrical wiring.
7. The resident complained to the landlord that she could smell cannabis from the neighbour property below often and asked the landlord to investigate this.
8. The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 December 2023. It acknowledged that an appointment was missed on 4 December 2023 and offered the resident £20 compensation for this. The landlord confirmed the kitchen was due for a renewal in 2028 and the windows in 2026. Regarding Its operative’s visit on 11 December 2023, this had found:
   1. There was no damp within the property. Condensation was on the windows due to the property being vacant for a while and having no heating during winter.
   2. Window restrictors were in place on every window which were working.
   3. At the time of handover there was a monoxide and smoke alarm present.
   4. There were no blown double glazed window units. The windows only required a clean.
   5. The kitchen worktop was stained in one corner and slightly peeling. However this did not justify having the worktop replaced.
9. The landlord’s complaint response set out that the operative had agreed for the following works to be carried out on 15 December 2023:
   1. Overhaul upvc windows.
   2. Overhaul kitchen cupboard door, supply and fit new handle.
   3. Supply and fit hinge to kitchen cupboard doors.
   4. Supply and fix carbon monoxide alarm.
   5. Supply and fix new mastic seal to outer lounge upvc window.
   6. To clean all upvc windows.
10. The landlord offered the resident compensation of:
    1. £20 to recognise a lack of clear communication about the repairs and surveyor visit.
    2. £20 for a missed appointment.
    3. £15 for delays in completing repairs.
11. On 22 December 2023 the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord about the surveyor’s conduct, as she was unhappy with how they spoke to her. She reiterated there were no alarms when she moved into the property. The resident also expressed upset that she was previously told her windows would be replaced in 2024, but had now been told this would occur in 2028. She explained that water was cascading out of her ceiling and this ruined the decoration. The resident expressed concern about communication between the landlord’s repairs team and voids team as there was a dispute between who should be doing the repairs. To resolve the complaint she was seeking for her bathroom to be repaired, kitchen and windows to be replaced, investigations into the voids team for “negligence” and a repair to the cracking and stains following the leak. The resident was also seeking compensation.
12. Throughout January to April 2024 the resident chased repairs and for the landlord to provide a formal response to her stage two complaint.
13. A stage two response was issued on 15 April 2024. The landlord recognised two repairs agreed in the stage one response were outstanding and confirmed the works had been booked in for that day. These were to overhaul the kitchen window and clean all windows. In regards to the resident’s concerns about its surveyor and contractors, the landlord informed her it would be meeting with them to discuss how they dealt with her as a customer and to make clear its ongoing expectations. The landlord confirmed that all other repairs had been completed. It offered the resident further compensation of £50 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £50 for delay in completing repairs to her home and £175 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
14. An operative visited the resident’s property on 19 June 2024 to assess the windows. It was noted the windows were in a good condition. The resident disputed this as she was previously told they were in a bad state.
15. The resident raised a complaint regarding outstanding repairs on 31 July 2024. In response the landlord issued a stage one complaint dated 21 August 2024. It explained it was experiencing a shortage of operatives which had caused a delay to repairs and apologised for this. It confirmed the following repairs had been completed or booked:
    1. Shed roof repair – completed on 5 August 2024.
    2. Cracked plug sockets – completed 12 August 2024.
    3. Front door replacement – appointment on 28 August 2024.
    4. Kitchen unit door repair – appointment on 5 September 2024.
    5. Kitchen door and bedroom door did not close – appointment booked for 12 September 2024.
    6. Windows replaced – the landlord had received a quote from its contractors and this had been sent for approval. Once approved, works would commence.
16. The landlord acknowledged its service could have been better and offered compensation. This was £20 for the time taken to raise the complaint and £50 for the delays in work being carried out.
17. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s outcome and escalated the complaint on 27 September 2024. In response it issued a stage two response on 29 November 2024.
18. In its response the landlord explained it would not replace the windows entirely as its recent inspection had confirmed they were in a good condition. It would however follow the contractors’ recommendation and replace the glass and the space bar which form part of the window. It confirmed the works to reglaze and replace the space bar were completed on 11 November 2024.
19. With regard to the communication and delays in completing the work, the landlord acknowledged service failure. In recognition of this it offered £100 for poor communication, £100 for delays in completing the works and £100 for impact and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

20. We have addressed two separate complaints within this investigation report due to the interconnected nature of the issues. Some of the repairs were ongoing and linked across both complaints. Combining both complaints into a single report allows a more comprehensive investigation of the situation, ensuring that any overlapping or related factors are properly identified and addressed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs.

21. We understand the resident is seeking to be reimbursed for the 3 months during which she states she was not residing in the property. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if residents are unable to remain in their home because it is uninhabitable or unsafe it will find them alternative suitable accommodation. If however the home is deemed suitable for residents to stay, but they have lost the use of an essential room, it will compensate for that loss.
22. We understand that the resident was concerned for safety as there were no fire doors, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and multiple repair issues. However in this instance there is no evidence that the property was deemed unhabitable by the landlord or that it failed to meet its legal obligations regarding the property’s safety. Whilst we understand the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is of the view that the works needed did not require the resident to move out. On this basis, there was no obligation for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the months she did not stay at the property whilst awaiting repairs.
23. Prior to the resident moving in, the property was vacant and the landlord had instructed its voids team to carry out required work to bring it to a lettable standard.
24. We have reviewed the landlord’s voids standard policy. This sets out that during the void process, the landlord is expected to review the condition of the property to ensure that a resident may reasonably be expected to reside in it without extensive additional work. If a resident raises minor issues after the tenancy begins, the landlord is expected to address them according to the specified repair timeframes. The repairs timescales states for that emergency repairs the landlord will attend within 3 hours with an objective of completing the job within 24 hours. General repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
25. The repairs reported by the resident in October and November 2023 fell within the landlord’s repair responsibilities. Therefore it was required to investigate.
26. We understand the resident was upset with the landlord’s handling of her reports. We can see that during November she chased these repairs and told the landlord that no work had been carried out. She explained the repairs team were refusing to do any repairs as these should have been completed within the void period by its voids team. Therefore it was waiting for the voids contractor to come back and do the work which was paid for.
27. In circumstances where residents have made a request for repairs, regardless of what works were completed during the void period, it is expected that the landlord appropriately assesses the matter and makes a decision as to whether a repair is required. In this instance the landlord arranged for its operatives to attend on 11 December 2023 to conduct an inspection and it then carried out the majority of the recommended work within a reasonable period. The evidence shows two work orders remained outstanding and during its stage two response the landlord apologised and confirmed on 15 April 2024 that an appointment was booked to overhaul the windows and clean all the windows.
28. The evidence shows that, after the internal complaints procedure, the landlord was unable to repair the window on 15 April 2024. Although an engineer did attend it was concluded that, due to the type and amount of work required, it would need further inspection. The evidence shows a further visit took place during June 2024 and it was confirmed that only part of the window would be repaired.
29. We understand the resident was unhappy with the condition of the windows and kitchen and was seeking for them to be replaced. She believed that it had been more than 20 years since the kitchen and windows were renewed. The evidence shows a discussion was held between the resident and operative about works possibly taking place in 2024, however it was later confirmed renewal of windows would be in 2026, and kitchen renewal in 2028.
30. This service recognises the inconvenience caused by the landlord initially stating the works would be completed sooner and then later confirming they would take place in 2026 and 2028. However once it became aware of the correct date, the landlord was proactive in updating the resident about this.
31. Whilst this service understands the inconvenience and upset this would have caused the resident, there is no evidence to confirm the landlord was obligated to replace the window in its entirety. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the recommendations provided by its contractors. In this instance the repair was completed during November 2024. We understand the landlord’s repairs policy explained larger jobs such as window replacements may require a survey to enable the ordering of materials and works to be planned for, however it is clear this took the landlord a considerable length of time from when the resident first made a report in October 2023.
32. We have seen evidence to suggest the window restrictors were tested by two individuals and since we have not seen evidence of fault, we are satisfied no further action at the time was necessary.
33. There were discrepancies between the resident and the landlord’s accounts about whether or not a carbon monoxide and smoke alarm was present during the handover to the resident. We understand the voids contractor states it was present, however we have not seen evidence to confirm what actually happened to it. What we have considered is the landlord’s actions once it was notified the alarms were missing. The evidence shows it arranged for both alarms to be replaced within the expected timeframe. In the circumstances we are satisfied the landlord correctly rectified the issue.
34. With regard to the front door, we see the resident raised concerns that the front door was not a fire door and she felt this was a safety concern. We have reviewed the landlord’s policies and cannot see that it is obligated to make the resident’s door a fire door. The Fire Safety Act 2021  states that flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings above 11m require a fire door. This is in reference to communal doors and not the resident’s front door. Therefore we are satisfied the landlord complied with safety regulations. The landlord agreed to have the front door replaced, however this was not a fire door.  It could however have explained this to the resident to address her concerns.
35. With regard to the reports of damp, when the resident raised concerns the landlord’s operative viewed the property and determined the cause to be due to the property being empty for a while. Whilst we acknowledge these comments, we have not seen a thorough investigation was done by a damp specialist to confirm that being empty for a period was the cause of the damp. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do a comprehensive investigation or get a report from a specialist to determine the cause of the damp. We have not seen further evidence to suggest the damp is still an ongoing issue but, in the event it is, we recommend the landlord further investigates this.
36. Overall the evidence shows several repairs were required throughout 2024 and there were delays which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord. In its response, the landlord recognised its service failure and apologised for this. Given the circumstances it was therefore appropriate that the landlord considered its compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that,where there is service failure, it will award between £50 and £100. Whilst we recognise the resident would like the amount to be increased, we find the £105 offered in the first complaint and the additional £350 offered in the second complaint to be reasonable. This is because the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failures, apologised and compensated in line with its guidelines. The amount offered was appropriate to reflect the level of failings identified in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

37. During the period of repairs, the resident expressed upset over the contractor’s behaviour towards her. She said she felt “gaslit” and was unhappy about the way she was spoken to when contractors attended her property. She was also unhappy about their timeliness, stating that the contractors were late and kept disappearing, forcing her to be uncomfortable, and resulted in her having to leave them in the property to collect her son from school.
38. It is unclear what conversation took place between the resident and the contractors as there is no contemporaneous record. However we can see that, when she informed the landlord of her concerns on 22 December 2023, it proceeded to investigate the matter and speak with its contractors. The landlord contacted its contractors on 28 December 2023 and asked them to address the concerns. The landlord further followed up with the resident confirming that it had arranged to meet with its contractors to discuss concerns and to make clear its ongoing expectations of them.
39. It is important to note our role is not to penalise individuals but to look at how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports. Overall we find it appropriately addressed the concerns with its contractors and surveyors, and informed the resident of steps it would take going forward. We are satisfied the landlord appropriately addressed the matter.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a cannabis smell from neighbouring property.

40. The resident has expressed concern regarding the smell of cannabis entering her property, as a result of the neighbour smoking below. We have not seen evidence of when this was initially reported to the landlord, but in an email dated 26 November 2023 the resident complained about this. After this date we see the resident has contacted the landlord about this multiple times. This matter was not addressed in the landlord’s formal response and the resident recentlystated to us that the issue still remains.
41. As we have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord has appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns despite her repeated reports, we find there has been a service failure by the landlord.
42. In accordance with the landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy, drug use would be considered as ASB. We are therefore ordering the landlord to consider its ASB policy, investigate and assess the best method of intervention to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

43. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will investigate and respond to a stage two complaint within 10 working days, in the event it is unable to do, so it will extend by an additional 10 working days.
44. In this instance, the landlord issued its stage one response on 18 December 2023 and its stage two response on 15 April 2024. We can see it asked for a 10 day extension in January 2024, however it failed to provide the resident with a response. The evidence also shows the resident chased the landlord further during February and March 2024 for a response.
45. We recognise how frustrating this would have been for the resident. However the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and compensated her £175 for the delay in responding to the complaint and £50 for the time spent chasing a response to her complaint. Overall we find this amount to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the complaint about its handling of multiple repairs.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the operative and surveyor’s conduct.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cannabis smell from the neighbour property.
49. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

50. The landlord should compensate the resident £50 for the distress and uncertainty caused by its failure to address the residents reports of cannabis.
51. The landlord to address the resident’s concerns of cannabis entering her property. It should consider its ASB policy and let the resident know what steps it will take in order to resolve the issues. This should be done within four weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord should provide evidence to confirm it has done this.

Recommendation.

52. If not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident its offer of compensation. This should be completed within four weeks of the date of this determination.
53. In the event damp persists within the property, the landlord should ensure a thorough investigation is completed within four weeks of the date of this letter. It should then discuss next steps with the resident and seek a solution to resolve the issue.