We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202421923)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421923

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

19 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s requests for an inspection of the external brickwork.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The lease began on 26 October 2022. The property is a 2-bed ground floor flat. 
  2. On 20 November 2023, the resident reported damp in the bathroom, which they believed to be due to water ingress through the external wall. The landlord raised a works order the next day for an investigation of the external brickwork.
  3. On 8 December 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as the landlord had not acted on the works order despite her chasing it.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It said that the resident was responsible for any internal repairs and she should contact it with any concerns about external repairs.
  5. On 13 December 2023, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She expressed disappointment that nothing happened in the 22 days since raising a works order and said that the landlord had not understood the complaint.  
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 23 January 2024. It apologised for the delays and said these were due to a lack of response from its contractor. The landlord said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 8 February 2024 and it would act on their findings. It offered compensation of £100 for the delay.
  7. The surveyor attended on 12 February 2024 and recommended that the landlord remove ivy from the external walls and clear the gully outside the property. Landlord notes show the contractor completed the required works on either 13 or 18 March 2024.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for payment of the compensation on 19 June 2024. The landlord recently confirmed to us that it has not paid the compensation. 

Assessment and findings

External brickwork

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will ‘tackle risks quickly’ by ‘carrying out repairs if required’. The policy says that the landlord will complete such repairs in accordance with the repair policy. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should complete ‘general repairs’ within 10 working days.
  2. Following the resident’s first contact on 20 November 2023, the landlord took 58 working days to inspect the brickwork. This is a service failing. It did not meet the timeframe of 10 working days set out in its repair policy. During this time, the resident experienced time and trouble in chasing the inspection request.
  3. The landlord said the contractor was the cause of the delay as they failed to action the initial report and then did not respond to its requests for updates. Landlord records show that it did raise a works order for the inspection and requested updates when the resident chased it.
  4. However, it only made these requests to the contractor by email. Despite the number of failed requests, it continued to make them in the same manner, without any success. Given the lack of response from the contractor during November-December 2023 and the lack of any action by them, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more pro-active.
  5. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord provided dates for the emails it sent to chase the contractor. The last date that it offered was 20 December 2023. This meant that when it issued the stage 2 response (on 23 January 2024), it had been over a month since the landlord last chased the works. This is another service failing by the landlord. It did not demonstrate effective management of its contractor or adequate oversight of the outstanding works order.
  6. After the inspection on 12 February 2024, the resident had to chase the landlord for the findings from the inspection. It took the landlord 16 days to provide the resident with the findings. Given that the resident had asked for the landlord to provide this information, as she was not present for the inspection, this was an unreasonable delay, particularly given that the complaint was partly about a lack of communication.
  7. The inspection noted no issues with the brickwork but directed the landlord to arrange for the removal of ivy and to clear a gulley. Despite providing this information to the resident 16 days after the inspection, it took the landlord a further 14 days to raise a works order. Overall, it took a month for the landlord to raise the works order. This showed a lack of oversight of the required works and a failure to meet its timeframe of 10 working days for a general repair.
  8. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delays in it arranging the inspection. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged failings and awarded compensation. However, given the additional delays and service failings since that offer, which adversely affected the resident, this Service will order increased compensation.
  9. Overall, it took the landlord 83 working days to conduct an inspection and general works at the property. This is significantly outside the timeframe set out in its repair policy. During this time, the resident consistently chased the landlord for updates and had to go through the full complaint process before it offered a date for the inspection.
  10. Although the landlord eventually completed the works, which seemingly resolved the damp, it failed to show a desire to ‘tackle risks quickly’, as per its damp and mould policy. Although the landlord was not responsible for treating the damp and mould, it was aware of the resident’s concern that this was linked to the external condition of the property. The resident has advised that she had to carry out mould washes and use her own dehumidifier due to the delay. The landlord could have limited the detriment caused to the resident had it met the terms and timeframes of its own policies.
  11. Having considered the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for an inspection of the external brickwork.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it is committed to the following this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes they are seeking. The landlord’s own complaint policy says that it should acknowledge where things have gone wrong.
  2. However, the stage 1 response failed to show an understanding of the resident’s complaint. The landlord indicated that the resident was seeking treatment of damp and mould within the property. This was incorrect. The resident had requested an inspection of the external brickwork which they suspected to be the cause of damp in the bathroom.
  3. The stage 1 response shows a lack of investigation despite the reasons for the resident’s complaint being clear. The resident said they were unhappy with the lack of action and the lack of any updates to their request for works.
  4. Had the landlord investigated the complaint adequately, it may have acknowledged the failings in its management of the resident’s request to date, escalated the inspection request and provided a resolution. Instead, the stage 1 response likely led to frustration for the resident as they were no better off for having raised the complaint. The landlord’s lack of understanding of the complaint meant that its response was factually incorrect, lacked any acknowledgement of its failings and meant there were no actions to address the actual problem.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. However, it took the landlord 27 working days to do so. Had the landlord required extra time due to actions to address the complaint or a need to gather evidence, this delay may have been reasonable. However, both the actions proposed to resolve the complaint and the content of the response were available to the landlord earlier. This was another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling. It offered £50 compensation. This level of compensation is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance where there is a short-term landlord failing that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  7. Had the landlord made this payment, the Ombudsman would likely have made a finding of reasonable redress for this element of the complaint. However, the landlord failed to do so and recently confirmed to us that it still has not.
  8. In June 2024, the resident chased the compensation payment with the landlord. It apologised for the delay and said that it would review the level of compensation offered. Despite this assurance, this Service has not had sight of any evidence of a compensation review and the landlord still failed to make the payment. The landlord later closed the complaint after leaving a voicemail with the resident. This was unreasonable and led to additional time and trouble for the resident.
  9. In view of the delayed and inadequate complaint investigation, we will order increased compensation and have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.     

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for an inspection of the external brickwork.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £300 to the resident (inclusive of the £100 it offered through the complaints process), made up of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the resident’s requests for an inspection of the external brickwork;
    2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.