Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202347911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347911

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

27 March 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reported outstanding bathroom repairs.
2. Her request to move to alternative accommodation.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. At the time of the complaint, she lived in a 1-bedroom/studio flat on the first floor of a low-rise block. Records indicate she has since moved to a larger property, also managed by the landlord, following a nomination by the local authority.
The landlord has advised its records note the resident has reported “poor mental health”. It did not provide any further details.
The landlord operates a ‘choice based lettings’ housing register scheme where it advertises available homes to residents. The scheme is called Home Choice.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident has at times contacted them directly, and at others her mother has acted as her representative. Her mother also referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. For ease, this report will refer to both as “the resident” unless this difference needs noting specifically.
In September 2022, landlord records show several bathroom repairs were raised. Notes indicate that 3 days would be needed to complete the following:
1. A new bath was required.
2. Renew the toilet and wash hand basin.
3. Hack off tiles and replaster the walls.
4. Retile around the bath and behind the toilet.
On 27 September 2023 the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord. She raised the following concerns:
1. There were “unfinished” repairs to her bathroom. This constituted a health and safety issue for her children. She said the repairs, which had been outstanding for 8 months and “rendered the bathroom unusable”, included:
  1. A leaking toilet.
  2. Damp ceilings and walls.
  3. The lack of a hand basin.
  4. Pipes had been left exposed and protruding from the wall.
2. She had been “left in a studio flat with 3 young children”. She said this amounted to statutory overcrowding. While the landlord had awarded her a Band B on its housing register, the local authority had placed her in Band A.
3. She understood from the housing charity Shelter that the landlord had a “statutory obligation to rehouse” the resident. This was due to the repair issues and overcrowding in the property.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It summarised the complaint as being about “outstanding repairs (and a) housing transfer”. It understood that, to resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the repairs to be completed. It made the following comments and findings:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had spoken to its repairs team. It said that “as there (were) a number of repair” (sic) outstanding, it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 25 October 2023. They would inspect the bathroom “and any other rooms you wish (them) to look at”.
2. Regarding her rehousing request, it said it was “not the local authority or council” and did not “have properties available for transfers”.
3. It confirmed it did operate a waiting list, but said any wait could be “many years”. This was because its properties “hardly ever become available”. It signposted her to the local authority and suggested she join its waiting list as it would have “access to more properties” than the landlord.
4. It enclosed a transfer application form “in case (the resident wanted) to be added to (its) waiting list”.
5. It said it was “sorry for the level of service” regarding outstanding repairs. It apologised for any “upset this may have caused”. It said that, once the surveyor had attended, its repairs team would make sure the outstanding repairs had been completed.
6. As it said its service “could have been better”, it made a “discretionary offer” of £80. This consisted of £30 for the time taken to raise the complaint and £50 for the “impact to (her)”. It did not specify whether the impact related to the repairs or raising of the complaint.
The resident responded on 12 October 2023. She reiterated the outstanding repairs related to a “bathroom which has not been usable for over 8 months”. She asked for her complaint to be escalated and made 8 numbered points:
1. She was unsure why the landlord had sent her transfer application and medical assessment forms. She understood she had been on its transfer list for the past 5 years.
2. She said Shelter had advised her the landlord would be “non compliance with the Housing Act” if it did not offer her more appropriate accommodation. This was because her current property was classed as being statutorily overcrowded.
3. Her bathroom had been left “in a dilapidated state”. There were protruding pipes, damp and mould on the walls and ceiling, a leaking toilet and no wash hand basin. As a result, she had to visit her mother “on a daily basis” as the bathroom posed a health and safety issue to her 3 young children.
4. She had already applied to the local authority for rehousing. It had awarded her Band A status, whereas the landlord had “left” her in Band B.
5. The local authority had accepted her as ‘homeless’ (under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996) due to the “totally unacceptable situation” she was in. It had offered to provide her with temporary accommodation but, as this would not necessarily be in the local area, “this route (was) not viable”. She said the local authority advised her she should contact the landlord.
6. Its compensation offer was “totally unacceptable”.
7. She wanted the landlord to provide a 3 or 4 bedroom house close to her children’s school.
8. Once she had moved to a new property, the landlord would be able to “carry out the renovations” needed to her current flat. It could then house someone else on its waiting list.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It addressed the points raised by the resident in her escalation request:
1. It acknowledged it had sent her a Home Choice application form in error. It clarified she should only have been sent a medical assessment form. She could return this “if there were any updated medical changes” from the time of her last medical review in 2018.
2. It said, “statutory overcrowding…has occurred through (her) family size growing”. She had been “adequately housed when (she) first moved into” the property. It did not consider there had been any breach of the Housing Act 1996 and referred to “clear guidance regarding statutory overcrowding” being available on Shelter’s website. It clarified it had recognised the overcrowding in her home via her banding on Home Choice.
3. It had booked an inspection of the bathroom. However, it said it had been “unable to access the property” on the day of the visit. This would need to be rebooked. It would “arrange for the repairs that are required” once the survey had been completed.
4. It clarified the resident had been placed in Band B on Home Choice and was able to apply for 3-bedroom properties. It explained her banding was based on her overcrowding and medical circumstances and its banding system was different to the local authority’s. If the resident felt she should be given a higher banding on Home Choice, she could complete the medical assessment form and provide supporting evidence. An independent medical assessor would carry out a further review.
5. It said the local authority was “correct” to signpost housing association residents to their respective landlords. It acknowledged that, as a landlord, it held the “largest amount of social housing” in the resident’s Borough. This meant the local authority nominated homeless applicants to the landlord’s properties. This arrangement meant it had “a limited pool of housing stock available for (its) own customers” through Home Choice. It advised that “3 out of every 4” of its vacant properties were allocated to the local authority.
6. It had reviewed its compensation offer at stage 1 following the resident’s feedback. It agreed to increase this to £250.
7. It was “sorry (it was) not currently able to help” with her “request for a family sized home near (her) children’s school”. It said it understood that living with overcrowding would be “very challenging for all of you”. It advised it would contact the resident when it was next advertising a 3-bedroom property on Home Choice so she could ‘bid’ for it. It clarified it did not make “direct offers (of alternative properties) …unless there’s an assessed risk to life with supporting evidence” from a third party.
In an email sent on 2 December 2023, the resident confirmed a surveyor attended the property on 29 November 2023. She said they had been “appalled” at what they had seen. She said the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was “totally unacceptable”.
A further survey of the bathroom took place on 9 December 2023. Orders were raised which included the installation of a new wash hand basin, new toilet, new radiator, 8 sqms of new tiling and a complete redecoration of the room.
In February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding its final complaint response. She said she had since taken legal advice and believed she should have been offered compensation “in the region of” £12,480.
On 21 March 2024 the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She clarified that the bathroom repairs had now been completed. However, she remained unhappy with the compensation offered and wanted to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Outstanding bathroom repairs

When a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress it offered “put things right” and resolved the complaint in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete general, non-emergency repairs, within 10 working days. It says it aims to complete repairs that are “larger jobs” or those which “may require a survey to enable the ordering of materials” within 20 working days.
We have not seen details of the resident’s original repair reports, nor details of any initial survey. Landlord records show bathroom repairs were raised in September 2022. Although its repair notes could be clearer, the repairs raised appeared to identify the need for 3 full days for works to be completed. Works raised included the installation of a new bath (although it is unclear if this was identified at the beginning, or once other repairs had been raised), hacking off tiles and replastering the room, “renewing” the toilet and wash hand basin.
As noted in other recent cases with this landlord, the repair records lack detail. At times it had been difficult to establish the repairs that were, or not, carried out during certain periods. Notes indicate that “materials (were) required” on 14 October 2022 and an appointment was carded on 15 November. No further details are provided by way of explanation. A further entry on 30 November 2022 said that “works (were) carried out” but that “more time (was) required”. Again, there are no further details. The landlord is therefore unable to fully demonstrate it was responding appropriately, by recording which repairs were complete and which were outstanding, or whether these apparent delays were unavoidable or could have been foreseen. This is not appropriate.
By December 2022, works had been carried out to the resident’s bathroom but remained incomplete. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 to ask why she had been left with “an unfinished bathroom”. She was unhappy that repairs were not due to be completed until March 2023. Photos provided by the resident show issues including a hole where the wash hand basin should have been fitted, with pipes protruding. It is noted in this case that the landlord has not disputed these photos are accurate.
The landlord confirmed the next available repair dates were in March 2023, although said it would keep checking for cancellations in case it could bring thig forward. This left the resident without a wash hand basin for 3 months. The landlord was not completing the repair within its target timeframe. While she may have had another sink in the kitchen, it was unreasonable that the landlord considered it appropriate for the resident and her 3 children to use this after using the toilet and there is no evidence it carried out any kind of health and safety risk assessment. The resident raised health and safety concerns at the time and in her later complaint but there is no evidence the landlord considered this at any point. This was not appropriate. It should have taken greater care to satisfy itself that potentially vulnerable residents were not being put at risk.
In any event, records show the outstanding repairs did not take place in March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on the day asking where the contractor was (although the contractor said they had attempted to call ahead and advise her their operative was sick). Works were rescheduled for 22, 23 and 24 May 2023, meaning a further 2 months passed with an incomplete bathroom and no wash hand basin. Staff sickness is unavoidable, and the landlord was not to blame when its contractor did not attend as scheduled. However, it should have been more proactive in ensuring that repairs were rebooked at an earlier date, to minimise further disruption to the resident.
Records then show the repairs were “cancelled by user” on 5 May 2023. No further details are provided, so it is unclear whether these were cancelled by the resident, the landlord or its contractor. This lack of clarity is unreasonable. In fact, there are no further records regarding the bathroom repairs until the resident complained at the end of September 2023. There is therefore no evidence the landlord took any steps to progress the issue during this time. At the time of her complaint, the resident had been without a wash hand basin in her sole bathroom for at least 8 months. This was unacceptable.
In its initial complaint response, the landlord accepted there were “outstanding repairs” in the bathroom. It said it would inspect the bathroom and offered the resident compensation for the “impact” the issue had on her. While it is important the landlord had an up to date understanding of the repairs required, it is of concern it did not appear aware of what works had, and had not, been completed. There is no evidence it was managing the repair appropriately.
Following its stage 2 complaint response, a survey took place in December 2023. This identified several outstanding repairs, including the need for a new wash hand basin and toilet. Although the landlord’s records do not make clear when the repairs were completed, correspondence from the resident indicates works were finished sometime in February or March 2024. While the time taken to finish works after the December 2023 survey was not particularly excessive, overall the bathroom repairs had been incomplete for around 15 months (from at least the time of the resident’s contact in December 2022). This was not acceptable and represents significant delay, for which the landlord’s records and correspondence do not provide an appropriate explanation.
The evidence shows the resident was left with a bathroom which did not have a wash hand basin, among other outstanding repairs, from at least December 2022 to February or March 2024. After the landlord acknowledged repairs were outstanding in October 2023, a further 6 months elapsed. Overall, it has offered £250 compensation, some of which it apportioned to the time and trouble taken to raise the complaint. The compensation it offered is significantly below the level we would expect to see for repair delays of this nature. It did not reflect the extent of the impact the delays would have had on a resident, particularly one living with 3 young children.
The landlord’s own compensation policy indicates it will compensate for the loss of a room, due to issues such as “health and safety reasons”. However, there is no indication the landlord considered the health and safety concerns the resident raised, or whether the bathroom was “unusable”, as she had stated. Therefore, it did not treat the resident fairly. This would have meant she felt unheard. It missed an opportunity to “put things right” and review and increase its offer of compensation once the repairs had been completed, to recognise the significant length of time it had taken it to reach that point.
In fact, internal correspondence shows the landlord declined to respond to the resident’s request for further compensation. After learning the resident was referring her complaint to us, it said it would have “assumed” it would have moved her on a temporary basis had the bathroom been unusable when, as noted above, there is no evidence it had every assessed this. It therefore suggested it “stick at what was offered and if (the Ombudsman) want us to increase it…we’ll take it from there”. This was not an appropriate position for the landlord to take. It should have satisfied itself that its offer was appropriate and made in line with its policies by investigating whether the resident’s bathroom was, or had been, unusable. Its stance did not treat the resident fairly and meant she had to refer her case to the Ombudsman, to ensure her concerns were investigated thoroughly. It should have been more proactive in considering whether the facts of the case warranted further redress. The clear inference that it would only consider offering further compensation when ordered to by the Ombudsman is also concerning. This suggests it did not have a customer-centric approach to resolving the complaint and ensuring it offered suitable redress when appropriate.
Based on the evidence seen, we have made a finding of severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the outstanding bathroom repairs. The delay in completing the repairs was significant and there is no evidence that the delays were unavoidable or outside the landlord’s control. It failed to properly consider the effect the incomplete repairs would have had on the resident and her family. It failed to respond to any of the health and safety concerns she raised or show that it gave these any consideration at all. While it acknowledged the repairs were “outstanding” in October 2023, its compensation offer at the time was wholly inadequate, as was its final offer.
The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an increased amount of compensation to better reflect the delays that occurred. It is also ordered to compensate the resident in recognition of the effect these delays would have had on her and her family, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
Based on the landlord’s own compensation policy we order the landlord to pay the resident £1,808.08 in relation to the repair delays. We have calculated this as 20% of the 2023/24 weekly rent of £137.03 for 66 weeks (to reflect the lack of a fully functioning bathroom during the period December 2022 to 22 March 2024, when the resident confirmed to us that repairs were now complete).
Additionally, we order the landlord to pay a further £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience the delays had on the resident and her family during this period. The landlord should also write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this case.

The resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation

It is not in dispute that, prior to the resident’s move to new accommodation (which took place some time after the events under investigation here), her property was overcrowded. The property has been described as both a studio and 1-bedroom property. Either way, she lived there with 3 young children and the landlord, in its stage 2 complaint response, appeared to accept she was statutorily overcrowded. However, this investigation has not considered whether the landlord was in breach of the Housing Act 1985.
In her complaint, the resident stated she had been advised by Shelter that the landlord had an obligation to move her to a bigger property. She stated she wanted to be allocated a 3 or 4 bedroom property near to her children’s school.
The initial complaint response caused some confusion. It said both that it did not have “properties available for transfer”, while also that it operated a waiting list. It also mistakenly provided a transfer application form, despite the resident already being registered on its Home Choice scheme. Its statement that it was “not the local authority or council” was, while factual, likely to have come across as being dismissive and further context regarding this should have been given.
However, the landlord’s other advice was appropriate and sought to manage the resident’s expectations. It advised there could be a wait of “many years” for a property to become available via Home Choice, which was consistent with the information it gave on its Home Choice website. It also appropriately signposted her to the local authority’s housing department, explaining that it had access to more properties. This was reasonable.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately acknowledged its error in sending a new transfer application form. It said she could complete and submit a new medical assessment form if there had been any changes since the last review in 2018. This was reasonable.
The landlord also reasonably set out its position regarding the overcrowding situation in the resident’s home. While its language could have been more sympathetic – the choice of words could be read as effectively blaming her for her own situation – it was entitled to state its position and clarify that its assessment of her Home Choice application had recognised the overcrowding.
The landlord’s allocations scheme says it awards Band B to households that “have more than one serious need, such as overcrowding and a medical need”. It confirmed the resident had been awarded Band B and could bid for 3-bedroom houses. From the evidence seen, the landlord applied its policy reasonably regarding her banding and the kind of property she could apply for based on her household size, and it fairly relayed this within its response.
The landlord also acted reasonably when it addressed points the resident raised in her escalation request in more detail. It provided further information about how its banding scheme differed from the local authority’s and clarity on how most of its vacant properties went to the local authority. It reasonably sought to manage expectations regarding the resident’s request to be moved to a larger property near her children’s school. Its offer to notify her when another 3 bedroom property became available on Home Choice was fair.
At the time of her complaint, the resident advised the landlord the local authority had agreed to rehouse her. She said she did not want to take that option as there was no guarantee where the accommodation would be. It is completely understandable that the resident would be reluctant to consider that option. However, an option was available that would have relieved the overcrowding at her property, and it was available for her to take that option.
From the evidence seen, the landlord had assessed her application in line with its policy. While its correspondence could have at times been more empathetic, it nonetheless provided appropriate and relevant advice and signposting. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of outstanding bathroom repairs.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the repair failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £2,308.08 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £1,808.08 in recognition of the loss of full use of the bathroom and resulting inconvenience caused by the repair delays.
  2. £500 to reflect the distress caused.
The landlord should provide us evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of the date of this report.