Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202342621)

Background

1. The resident has lived in her property with her children since her tenancy commenced in November 2022. Her son is vulnerable due to his condition. The property is a flat within a new-build end of terrace building. Due to the risk of flooding, the building has steps to the resident’s front door. The path consists of paving slabs that sit on pedestals. A parking area is adjacent to the bottom of the steps. In May 2023, the resident reported loose paving slabs outside the building and her front door. She subsequently made several further reports of loose paving slabs and injuries suffered from falls.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about: 
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the paving outside the resident’s property, and related safety concerns.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord:
   1. Responsible for maladministration in its handling of repairs to the paving outside the resident’s property, and related safety concerns.
   2. Offered reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There were repeated delays by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of unstable  paving slabs and in carrying out repairs. The failings were exacerbated by the injuries that the resident reported and the fact she had a vulnerable child. The landlord also missed an opportunity to take proactive steps to minimise the ongoing risk from loose paving slabs.
5. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint. However, it offered compensation to the resident and confirmed it was taking steps to ensure that would send complaint responses in within the timeframe of its policy. This constituted reasonable redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident raised a further complaint after suffering a further fall in January 2025 near the parking area. This complaint concerned separate repairs to slabs near the parking area and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 June 2025. The landlord initially referred the repairs to a subcontractor, then to its inhouse repairs team which completed repairs between 9 and 14 June 2025. We have not assessed this complaint as this investigation concerns the complaint that the resident originally referred to us and which we asked the landlord to provide information for. This is the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 17 October 2024. However, the new complaint which completed the complaints procedure on 14 June 2025 provides context to the complaint we have investigated and has informed the orders.

Handling of repairs to the paving outside the resident’s property, and related safety concerns

7. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must keep in good repair the “Structure and exterior of your home includes (but is not limited to): …, front paths, steps or other access routes…”  The landlord’s Repairs Policy states “Repairs are the remedy or renewal of broken or defective elements of the exterior and structure of the building and property including all communal areas and grounds…” The landlord was therefore responsible for ensuring the paths outside the resident’s property forming part of the estate were in good repair. This involved minimising any trip hazard. The paths consist of paving slabs. As the resident’s property is in a flood zone, the slabs sit on pedestals to enable drainage.
8. The resident reported loose paving slabs outside her property shortly after moving in. When reporting defects in her property on 4 May 2023, she included loose paving slabs outside and by her front door. Also, in May 2023, while in the defect liability period, the developer recalled its contractor to attend to loose slabs. The landlord assumed direct responsibility for ensuring the slabs were in good repair in August 2023, after the end of defect liability period.
9. After the resident reported that her daughter fell and broke her fingers on 29 September 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a repair. This was not consistent with its repair obligation. In fact, the repair procedure in effect at the time indicated it should have completed a routine repair within 10 working days, or within 20 working days if the work was considered a “repairs exclusion”. On 1 January 2024, the resident reported that her daughter had fallen again. It was only after this further report that the landlord raised an emergency repair. On 9 January 2024, it made safe 4 slabs near the resident’s front door. However, it noted that several slabs were uneven and moving slightly. The resident also fell in January 2024 and was subsequently placed in a foot boot. These incidents highlight the necessity for the landlord to explore how best it could ensure the stability of the paving slabs.
10. The landlord sought a quote from an external contractor for a permanent repair on 3 March 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not explore how it could best conduct a longer-term permanent repair sooner. This is especially the case given there had been further falls and injuries since the resident’s initial report of 29 September 2023.
11. The contractor on 5 March 2024 advised to prevent slabs from rocking, it would have to lift slabs and replace the pedestals over a 12 metre area. The landlord’s records show the contractor completed the works on 16 April 2024. It also extended the top steps and reduced the width of the first row of slabs. In the interim, the landlord completed another emergency repair to make safe a slab near the steps on 11 April 2024. By completing these works, the landlord took steps to ensure slabs were in good repair and safe at that time. However, it is not evident that the landlord checked the quality and effectiveness of the works.
12. The resident raised a complaint as she remained unhappy with condition of the slabs and the continual repairs. On 19 June 2024, the landlord told her its action plan. It said it would ask the developer to confirm the specification of the pedestals for the paving so it could assess whether they were fit for purpose. If they were not, it could then go back to the developer to rectify. If they were a suitable product, it would need to complete the works and find an alternative solution. However, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the developer or updated the resident. We understand this is because a member of staff left the organisation. This caused a further delay in finding a resolution to the resident’s complaint. It also indicated that the landlord did not handover the resident’s case to ensure continuity of service.
13. An internal note dated 30 September 2024 indicated the landlord thought the resident had reported an additional area of damage. However, there is no evidence that it committed to further action until its stage 2 response of 17 October 2024. In the response, the landlord said it would inspect on 21 October 2024 to assess the standard of current repairs with the potential for trips and falls. It also said it would assess how long the current paving would be fit to use until a planned replacement. On 4 November 2024, the landlord raised an order to compact the hardcore under the slabs, then relay the slabs on a bed of cement mortar. It completed the works on 20 December 2024. It also applied anti-slip paint on the new top step on 14 January 2025. While it took steps to repair loose slabs at that time, again, there had been a significant and unreasonable delay. It did not meet its timeframe in its repairs policy for completing repairs after raising an order on 4 November 2024. Moreover, over 6 months had passed since its action plan of 19 June 2024.
14. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation for the failings in its handling of repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. We acknowledge that the landlord made the offer in good faith to resolve the complaint; however, we do not consider that the offer was proportionate to the case. Ultimately, the resident had complained of recurring loose slabs since September 2023. She had reported significant injuries in her household as well as a vulnerable child. This should have increased the urgency of the landlord’s response. Also, after agreeing to inspect further on 21 October 2024, the landlord delayed in completing the works identified.
15. We have also considered advice that the developer gave on 20 May 2024. It stated, “as the paving slabs are not mechanically fixed in position there is always going to be an element of movement, so once any displaced or damaged pedestals have been renewed, the movement should be within a tolerable limit. …To keep this from happening again, it would be sensible to establish a more frequent maintenance regime of checking and adjusting the pedestals to ensure that any in the areas of particularly high footfall don’t move over time creating excessive movement and a potential trip hazard.”  In light of the advice and the number of reports by the resident, the landlord should have considered how it could be proactive in minimising the risk from loose slabs. Taken altogether, we have found maladministration by the landlord.
16. We award the resident £700 compensation. In making this award, we have considered our remedies guidance. In particular, we have considered the range of compensation for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant (physical and/or emotional) impact on the resident.
17. When first making her complaint, the resident complained that the landlord did not accept that the estate site map was incorrect. This caused the resident distress as she did not feel that the landlord believed her. The landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of her complaint. It apologised and offered compensation of £150 which was proportionate to the error. It also confirmed on 4 June 2004 that it had resolved the substantive issue by using an internal map system which showed the new buildings on the estate.

18. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and send the response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and send the response within 20 working days. It may extend the response date by 10 days at stage 1 and 20 days at stage 2 if it is not able to provide a response by the due date. It should explain the reasons to the resident. The procedure is consistent with our Complaint Handling Code.
19. The resident raised her complaint initially on 17 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, on 24 April 2024, which accorded with the Complaints Procedure. It sent a holding response on 9 May 2024 which is permitted by the procedure. It then sent the response by the revised target date of 23 May 2024.
20. The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 17 July 2024 by 2 days. It sent a holding response which extended the target response date from 23 August 2024 to 23 September 2024. The landlord did not respond by the revised target date. Consequently, the resident sent 3 emails and made 2 phone calls to pursue the response. She also contacted us and we asked the landlord to respond to the stage 2 complaint by 1 October 2024.
21. Due to the delay in the stage 2 response, the resident experienced additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The landlord offered redress for this by offering £100 compensation in its stage 2 response. The amount was in line with its Compensation Policy at the time which allowed awards up to £100 for service failure. The amount is also in line with the compensation outlined in our Remedies Guidance for instances of service failure.
22. Resolving a complaint and offering redress also entails putting the matter right and learning from outcomes. As per the Code, landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and a culture of learning from complaints. They must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of any learning from the complaint. This includes the handling of the complaint.  In this case, the landlord in the stage 2 response accepted “there is not an acceptable reason for these delays”. It advised “We’re working hard to ensure our customers receive their stage two complaint response on time and inline with our complaints policy. We’ve identified where improvements need to be made and we’re currently implementing changes as it’s our priority to ensure you as our customer receive a better service.” This indicates that the landlord has sought to learn from its handling of the case.
23. In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. However, it offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling. It has also recognised the delay in its complaint handling and has stated it is taking steps to ensure it meets its deadlines for responding.

Learning

Communication and Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions, or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation.” This was a factor in this case.
25. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
26. In this case, the landlord lost oversight of the resident’s case after the stage 1 response after a member of staff left. The resident also disagreed with the works that the landlord did carry out, including the type of works that it completed and their effectiveness. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what works were completed at certain visits. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had better followed the advice and recommendations in our spotlight reports.
27. The landlord in its complaint responses accepted it should learn lessons for future works and its complaint handling from the resident’s complaint.