Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202414659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414659

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

12 November 2024

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 about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and back doors of the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of security upgrades at the property.
3. The landlord’s response to reports of electrical faults at the property, and its handling of the associated repairs.
4. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and its handling of the associated repairs.
5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has lived in a 1-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement since April 2022. In October 2022, the resident was the victim of a burglary, which resulted in damage to his front door.
The resident raised a complaint on 11 May 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. following the burglary in October 2022, he had been told that the landlord would replace the front door but this had not happened
2. he had been told following the burglary that the landlord would install high fencing around the property and a gate to increase security, but this had not happened
3. he had been repeatedly reporting problems with the electrics in the property which caused electrics to trip, switches to turn other things off when switched on, and which he believed caused his TV to blow
4. the landlord’s electrician had previously told him the property needed rewiring, but this had not been done
5. he had repeatedly been reporting damp and mould in the property which had damaged his possessions
6. the landlord had previously told him that the walls needed replastering, but it had instead done a mould wash which had not resolved the problem
7. he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and upgrades, and offer compensation for the damage to his possessions
In its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023, the landlord:
1. stated an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) had been completed in December 2022 and no repairs were identified
2. stated a mould wash had been attempted in April 2023 but this had not been completed due to the severity of the mould
3. stated it had ‘overhauled’ the front and back doors in April 2023
4. explained that there were unspecified repairs regarding extractor fans, damp and mould, and electrics, and that these had been passed on to its new contractor
5. apologised for the level of service it had provided and offered £200 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the time taken to raise the complaint
  2. £150 for the delay in completing repairs
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 June 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the landlord’s stage 1 response was poor in that it was vague, did not directly address the points raised in his complaint, and did not explain what the landlord would do in response
2. the landlord had not mentioned the outcomes he clearly stated he was seeking in his complaint
3. the landlord had stated its December 2022 inspection of the electrics had not recommended any repairs, but neglected that an inspection had been carried out in January 2023 which recommended rewiring
4. the landlord had neglected to mention his complaint about the additional security measures it had promised
5. the landlord neglected to mention that, prior to it attempting a mould wash, it had already identified that the walls needed replastering and redecorating
6. the landlord had not explained specifically what repairs it had referred to its new contractor or when these would be done
7. since his complaint, the landlord had made an appointment to install new vents, but the operative was unable to complete this because the landlord had not made any holes to fit the vents into
8. another electrical inspection had been carried out, which again recommended the property needed rewiring
In its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2023, the landlord:
1. explained repairs relating to the electrics and mould were outstanding due to ‘the complexities of the work needed’ and apologised for the delay
2. confirmed it had raised the following repairs:
  1. inspection to the wiring of the property and rewiring to be carried out where needed
  2. wall paper and plaster to be removed, replastered, and repapered
3. stated it had amended a repair job for new vents to be fitted
4. stated a surveyor would inspect the property on 17 August 2023
5. offered £500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £350 to assist the resident with the cost of replacing his TV
  2. £50 for time and trouble
  3. £50 for the delay in completing repairs
  4. £50 for the delay in providing its complaint response
In his complaint to this service, the resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the front door had not been replaced as previously promised
2. the back door remained insecure
3. the electrics in the property continued to trip and he was concerned about the safety of the property
4. although the landlord had installed vents in the kitchen and bathroom, the property continued to suffer from damp and mould problems, which had caused significant damage to his possessions

Assessment and findings

Scope

In his complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident reported that the damp and mould had caused or contributed to his ongoing health problems. This included heart and respiratory problems.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the impact on his health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on evidence in the form of expert medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should seek independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould, and whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and back doors of the property

The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. emergency repairs will be responded to within 3 hours and completed within 24 hours
2. general repairs will be responded to within 10 working days
3. more complex repairs may take longer than 10 working days to complete
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents
On or around 4 July 2022, the resident reported that someone had attempted to break into the property and that the handle of the front door was damaged. The evidence indicates that a repair appointment was booked for 11 July 2022. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known whether this appointment was attended or if any repairs were carried out. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
What is known is that on 19 July 2022, contractors told the landlord that they had recently attended the property and were unable to complete any repairs because it was a fire door. There is no evidence the landlord took any further action to complete the repairs following this. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
On or around 15 August 2022, the resident reported that the front door was insecure, in that it could be pushed open from the outside even when locked. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have treated this as an emergency repair and attended the same day to make the door secure.
On 23 August 2022, the landlord’s contractors told it that a new mechanism had been ordered and they would contact the resident to arrange the repair the following week. This indicates that the repairs were not attended as an emergency. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this repair was subsequently attended or completed. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
On or around 7 October 2022, the resident reported he had been the victim of a burglary, that the front door had been damaged, and that he felt unsafe in his home.
Under the landlord’s policy, it ought to have attended and carried out interim repairs to secure the door within 24 hours. The evidence indicates that the landlord may have attended on or around 10 October 2022, which was 3 days later. Furthermore, due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what repairs were completed at or around that time. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In October 2022, the landlord also identified that the front door was in need of replacement. Between October 2022 and May 2023, the resident told the landlord on at least 7 occasions that the door had not been replaced.
The resident reported that the back door of the property was insecure on 1 February 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine how the door was insecure. Between February and May 2023, the resident also asked the landlord to respond to this on at least 3 occasions.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it had ‘overhauled’ the doors on 5 April 2023. There was no explanation in the stage 1 response as to what this meant, or what repairs to the door were needed, had been completed, or were outstanding, if any at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord attended a repair appointment on 5 April 2023.
Following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident continued to report the front and back doors were insecure.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the front and back doors of the property. This is because there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that:
1. the landlord attended to repair the front door in July or August 2022, or if it did, whether the time taken to do so was reasonable or consistent with its policy
2. the landlord responded to the door repair in October 2022 within a time that was reasonable or consistent with its policy
3. at any time replaced the front door as it indicated it would
4. at any time inspected the back door of the property, or if it did, whether it identified any repairs or completed those repairs within a reasonable time
As a result, the resident reports that he feels unsafe in the property because he has been unable to secure his home for an extended period of time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that this would have caused the resident distress which was avoidable, and for which the resident ought to be compensated.

The landlord’s handling of security upgrades at the property

The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining fences around the property. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that it is not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades.
Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where an improvement or upgrade is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair. This is standard across the housing sector.
The resident reported that following the burglary in October 2022, the landlord told him that it would install high fences around the property and a lockable gate to improve security. This service has not been provided with any evidence which supports the resident’s account.
There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to install higher fences around the property or a lockable gate. This is because under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for fencing. Furthermore, this would be an improvement, rather than a repair. This is another reason why the landlord was not obliged to offer security upgrades.
However, the resident has consistently and repeatedly asked the landlord about these upgrades since October 2022, including in his complaints. There is no evidence that the landlord has at any time considered the resident’s request, come to a decision, or explained its decision to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the security upgrades, in that:
1. even if it were the case that the landlord had previously told the resident it would upgrade the security, there is no evidence it was obliged to do this
2. there is no evidence that the landlord has at any time considered the resident’s request, made a decision about the request, or explained that decision to the resident
Had the landlord explained its decision to the resident, he could have applied for permission for alterations to upgrade the security at the property at his own expense. The landlord’s lack of response has unreasonably and unnecessarily delayed the resident in making this decision.

The landlord’s response to reports of electrical faults and its handling of the associated repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations regarding repairs are detailed at paragraphs 14 and 15 of this report.
The evidence indicates the resident has been reporting problems with the electrics in the property since at least May 2022, which was around 1 month after the start of the tenancy. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known what action the landlord took in response to these reports at the time, if any at all. This was a failure by the landlord.
In July 2022, the resident reiterated his concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property and told the landlord that following a recent inspection, it had been identified that the property needed rewiring. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify whether an inspection of the electrics took place in or around July 2022, and if there was, whether any repairs were identified.
An EICR was conducted on 9 December 2022, which stated the electrics were in a satisfactory condition and identified no repairs. Despite this, the resident consistently reported the same problems with the electrics throughout 2023. This included concerns that the electrics would cause a fire, and that it had caused his TV to blow.
In his complaints, the resident referred to an inspection on 31 January 2023, which he reported had again identified that the property needed rewiring. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. if an inspection did take place on or around 31 January 2023
2. if an inspection did take place, what repairs were identified, if any
3. if repairs were identified, whether those repairs were completed or whether the time taken to do so was reasonable
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that the EICR in December 2022 had not identified any repairs. However, the landlord did not:
1. mention the specific claims by the resident that an inspection had been carried out in January 2023 and it had been identified a rewire was needed
2. explain what it intended to do in response to the ongoing reports of the electrical faults
3. explain what repairs it believed were needed, if any at all
An inspection of the electrics was carried out on 15 June 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s records in relation to this inspection were poor. The records state that an operative attempted to replicate the problem of tripping electrics but was unable to do so. It is not clear from the evidence provided:
1. what this test entailed
2. whether the actual wiring of the property was inspected or tested
3. whether any further investigations or repairs were needed
4. that the operative conducting the inspection was appropriately qualified to identify electrical problems
Furthermore, this inspection was at least 6 months after the resident had raised his concerns, following the EICR in December 2022. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such a delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated it would inspect the electrics again and carry out any rewiring necessary. Again, it did not directly address the specific claims made by the resident, as detailed at paragraph 39 of this report.
There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the electrics at the property following its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to order landlords to carry out inspections that have already been identified as necessary.
The evidence indicates the landlord did install 4 new plug sockets in the property in December 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine why these were installed, or whether they had been identified as a solution to the problems with the electrics.
What is known is that, as of the date of this determination, the resident continues to report electrics tripping at the property.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of electrical faults at the property, and its handling of the associated repairs. This is because there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord:
1. responded to the resident’s reports of electrical faults in May and July 2022, and if it did, whether those responses were either reasonable or appropriate
2. responded to the resident’s reports of electrical faults between January and May 2023, and if it did, whether those responses were either reasonable or appropriate
3. responded to the specific claims raised by the resident in his complaints about its handling of the electrical faults
4. carried out the inspection it promised in its stage 2 complaint response, and if it did, what repairs were identified, whether those repairs were completed, and whether the time taken to do so was either reasonable or appropriate

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations regarding repairs are detailed at paragraphs 14 and 15 of this report.
The resident has been reporting problems with damp and mould throughout the property since at least 20 October 2022, and provided photographic evidence of this to the landlord on 21 November 2022.
On 1 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that the property had been inspected on 28 December 2022 and it had been identified that the walls of the property needed replastering. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify the resident’s account. However, this has not been disputed by the landlord.
Furthermore, due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine:
1. whether the extent or the cause of the damp and mould was identified
2. what repairs were identified to address the cause of the damp and mould, if any at all
In addition, if the landlord did inspect on 28 December 2022, this would have been over 2 months after the resident reported the problem. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such a delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a further failure by the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it had attempted a mould wash on 5 April 2023, but was unable to complete this due to the severity of the problem. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify that a mould wash was carried out on that date. However, this is not disputed by the resident.
Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that a mould wash was an appropriate or reasonable response to the resident’s reports. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to identify the extent or the cause of the damp and mould.
In addition, if a mould wash was conducted on 5 April 2023, this would have been over 3 months after the alleged inspection in December 2022. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such a delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a further failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, if the landlord was aware that a mould wash could not be completed on 5 April 2023 due to the ‘severity’ of the problem, it ought to have then taken further action to identify the appropriate repairs. There is no evidence that it did so. This was a further failure by the landlord.
In his complaint escalation, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had attempted the mould wash despite already being aware that the walls needed replastering. He was also dissatisfied that at an unspecified date, a contractor had attended to fit vents but was unable to do so because the landlord had not made any holes for them to be fitted into.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine:
1. when contractors attended to fit vents
2. whether the time taken to fit the vents was reasonable
3. whether the installation of vents was an appropriate remedy to address the cause of the damp and mould
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated it would replaster and redecorate the walls of the property, and that it would install vents.
There is no evidence that the landlord has replastered the walls of the property. This was not appropriate. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to instruct landlords to carry out repairs which they are already aware of. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The evidence indicates that vents were installed in the kitchen and bathroom of the property on 14 May 2024 and 29 July 2024 respectively. This is at least 20 months after the resident first reported the problem with the damp and mould. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such a delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord has:
1. taken reasonable or appropriate steps to identify the extent or the cause of the damp and mould
2. taken reasonable or appropriate steps to identify repairs to address the cause of the damp and mould
3. completed all the appropriate repairs within a reasonable time
In his complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident explained that the damp and mould had caused extensive damage to his possessions, and that living in these conditions had caused him significant distress and affected his wellbeing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident ought to be compensated for the avoidable distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord must address the resident’s claims about the damage to his possessions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time
2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
3. provide detailed complaint responses which explain the nature of the complaint, what the landlord has done to resolve the problem, and what the landlord intends to do the resolve the complaint
The resident raised his complaints on 11 May 2023. On 18 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and stated it would provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023, which was 9 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint was severely inadequate in that it was vague, lacked meaningful detail, and did not address all of the points raised in the complaint. This is because the landlord:
1. stated the doors had been ‘overhauled’ but did not explain what this meant, whether there were any further repairs to be carried out, and if there were, when these would be done
2. did not mention the resident’s complaint about the security upgrades
3. stated an electrical test had been carried out in December 2022 with no recommendations made, but did not directly address the resident’s claim that he had been told following an inspection in January 2023 that the property needed rewiring
4. stated it had attempted a mould wash in April 2023 which had been unsuccessful, but did not explain what it intended to do about the damp and mould
5. stated there were outstanding repairs relating to extractor fans, damp and mould, and electrics, but did not explain what these were or when it intended to do them
6. did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to his possessions
This was not acceptable, because it was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations set out in the Code. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 30 June 2023 and stated it would provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023, which was 26 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also severely inadequate. Again, the response lacked meaningful detail and did not address all of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord:
1. did not clarify its position regarding the doors
2. again, did not mention the resident’s complaint about security upgrades, despite the landlord’s lack of response to this being raised in the resident’s escalation
3. stated it would inspect the property and carry out any necessary rewiring, but gave no indication of when this would be done
4. stated it would replaster the walls and install vents to address the damp and mould, but gave no indication when this would be done
5. did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to his possessions
This was not acceptable, because it was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations set out in the Code. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although this was a reasonable offer to resolve the delay, it was not sufficient to adequately address the other complaint handling failures identified in this report.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints. This is because the landlord’s complaint responses:
1. lacked meaningful detail
2. did not clearly explain what the landlord intended to do to resolve the complaints
3. did not address all aspects of the complaints

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the front and back doors of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of security upgrades at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of electrical faults at the property, and its handling of the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould, and its handling of the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £1,800 comprised of:
  1. £500 for the delay in completing repairs to the doors of the property and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
  2. £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s requests for upgrades to the security at the property
  3. £500 for the delay in responding to the reports of electrical faults and completing the associated repairs, and for the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident
  4. £500 for the delay in responding to the reports of damp and mould, the delay in completing the associated repairs, and for the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident
  5. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report
  6. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord, and therefore the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation that may already have been paid in relation to this complaint
2. provide evidence of the above payments to the Ombudsman
3. consider the resident’s request for security upgrades, explain its decision to the resident, and provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman
4. instruct an appropriately qualified professional to inspect the wiring in the property and provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman
5. instruct an appropriately qualified professional to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property, and provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman
6. carry out an inspection of the front and back doors of the property, and provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman
7. gather evidence of the damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the damp and mould, and decide:
  1. whether the claim should be resolved by the landlord, or referred to insurers
  2. explain its decision to the resident and the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. complete all of the repairs identified in its inspection reports
2. if it is unable to complete the repairs within this time, the landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an explanation of the delay and a schedule of repairs setting out the scope of works and when they will be completed
3. review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, and provide the Ombudsman with a report as to how it will strengthen its record keeping in future