Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202423720)

Decision
Case ID	202423720
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about repairs to her windows, and damp and mould. The resident and other members of her household have medical conditions which make them more susceptible to damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window repairs.
   2. Damp and mould
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   3. Reasonable redress in its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord accepted failures in its handling of the repairs, including poor communication and avoidable delays. Although it offered compensation, it has not fully put things right for the resident. The repairs have not been completed.
5. The landlord accepted failures in its handling of damp and mould, including poor communication and avoidable delays. Although it offered compensation, it has not fully put things right for the resident. It should have been more proactive in pursuing a repair at a neighbouring property. Not all the recommended repairs have been completed.
6. There was a delay in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. In our opinion, the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to recognise the delay.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a director. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 March 2023
2	Legal advice order: The landlord must provide evidence to us that it has sought legal advice on action it can take to compel the freeholder of the neighbouring building to repair the guttering and do any other associated repairs. By the due date, it must tell the resident and the Ombudsman if it intends to take legal action, setting out its reasons.	No later than 13 April 2026
3	Compensation order: The landlord must pay the resident £225 in compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its handling of window repairs. This award is in addition to the £1,325 the landlord has already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 March 2023
	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the following repairs are completed promptly and in any event by the due date: The scheduled repair to the resident’s windows. Replace the door trim on the bathroom and lounge. Install a vent in the resident’s cupboard. It must also inspect the resident’s skirting boards and tell her in writing if it intends to replace them. If it does not intend to replace them it must explain why. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works.	No later than 23 March 2023

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider replacing the resident’s windows if its scheduled repair is not successful.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: She had reported faulty window locks in November 2022. The landlord had inspected on several occasions and said that it needed to replace the windows. The repairs were outstanding and the landlord’s communication about the issue was inadequate. There was damp and mould in her home. A member of her household has a medical condition which increases their risk of negative health impacts as a result of damp and mould. The extractor fans in the property were not effective. It was not possible to clean them. The damp and mould had caused damage to the decoration of her home.
7 February 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It upheld the resident’s complaint, saying: There had been ongoing issues with the windows since 2021. It had attended the property on several occasions, but the windows were not fully functional. It had logged a new repair based on its previous findings. It had assigned a damp and mould manager to arrange treatment for the damp and mould. It apologised for the failings in its handling of the repairs and offered the resident £100 in compensation, made up of £50 for the delay to the repairs, and £50 for the resulting damage.
2 July 2024	The resident asked the landlord to consider her complaint at the second stage of its complaints process. In addition to what she had already explained, she said: The landlord’s offer of compensation was inadequate. It had not repaired the windows. She could not open them. Its communication was poor. The landlord’s mould treatment did not fix the underlying cause of the damp and mould. The building next to hers had a broken gutter which was affecting the brickwork of her home. After the landlord treated the mould, it returned. She wanted it to fix the damp and mould, and repair damage to her walls and skirting boards. One of her children had moved out of the property due to the damp and mould. Another child, living in the property, had a respiratory condition.
13 September 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said: Its specialist contractor did a damp and mould survey at the property on 10 April 2024. It treated the mould and upgraded the resident’s extractor fans. It gave the resident advice on managing damp and mould in her home. During the inspection it found that the broken guttering on the neighbouring building was causing damp and mould in the resident’s home. It also recommended installing a vent on the hallway cupboard. It would contact her in the next 5 days to arrange a surveyor appointment. Its surveyor would assess the resident’s property and the neighbouring building. The resident’s windows were not due to be renewed until 2046 so it would repair them if possible. It accepted failures in its handling of the case, including delays and communication failures. It acknowledged they impacted the family’s living conditions and health. It offered the resident £1350 in compensation, made up of: £100 for its delayed stage 2 of the complaints process. £250 for communication failures. £500 for the delay in completing the damp and mould repairs. £500 for the impact of its failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. Although some of the repairs were completed, she said the guttering on the neighbouring building was still broken.  She said the landlord had not fully repaired the windows.

 

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.

Complaint	Handling of window repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

7. The resident has reported window repairs since 2021. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process until 18 January 2024. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from January 2023, which were addressed in both stages of the complaint process. Earlier reports have been considered for context.

What we have considered

8. Under its repairs policy, the landlord aims to complete general repairs within 20 working days. Repairs to windows are usually considered to be general repairs, except where new glazing or a full window replacement is needed. These repairs can take longer as parts are made to order.
9. Extensive repairs were needed to windows throughout the resident’s home. Several contractors said that the windows were at the end of their lifespan. One contractor noted that no windows in the property were functioning as they should. This has affected the resident’s ability to open her windows and ventilate her home.
10. The repairs to the windows were complicated as the resident has ‘tilt and turn’ windows. These are less common than casement windows, and several of the landlord’s contractors could not do the repairs needed. Also, some fittings had been discontinued.
11. However, the landlord accepted that there were delays in the repairs process. There was an initial delay of around 9 months between the resident reporting a repair in January 2023 and the landlord doing a partial repair in November 2023. The landlord has not explained this delay, so we consider that it was unreasonable.
12. After this, although the windows were assessed by at least 2 contractors, we did not see evidence that a repair was attempted until at least March 2025. The landlord’s records show that some of this delay was due to difficulties identifying a suitable contractor. It has asked at least 4 contractors to repair the windows.
13. Overall, the landlord should have been more proactive in pursuing the issue. For example, it could have asked the contractors if they could work on the resident’s window type before assigning the job, or ask multiple contractors to provide quotes in the same period. This may have shortened the repairs process.
14. The result of the cumulative delays in the repairs process is that the resident’s windows have not functioned correctly for around 3 years. This has caused her significant inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing the repair.
15. We saw evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for updates on her window repairs. This indicated that the landlord was not keeping the resident updated. When she spoke to the landlord, it was not always able to update the resident on the status of her repairs. This caused frustration for the resident. The landlord accepts failings in its communication with the resident.
16. Although it has identified that the windows are in a poor condition, the landlord intends to repair the windows. Landlords are entitled to try to repair issues rather than doing replacements where this is possible. This helps them to manage their finances and value for money service to residents. However, where repair is not possible, or repeated repairs have failed to resolve an issue, landlords should consider replacement. This may be more cost effective than multiple repair attempts and less disruptive for residents.
17. The landlord has booked further repairs to her windows. Given the poor condition of the windows, the landlord’s repeated repair attempts, and the impact of the disrepair over an extended period, the landlord should consider replacing the windows in the resident’s property if the scheduled repairs are not successful.
18. The landlord offered the resident £750 in compensation in recognition of failures in its handling of the repairs, including its communication failures. It did not apportion this award between its handling of the window repair and the damp and mould repairs. As such, we have apportioned the award equally.
19. In our opinion, the landlord’s award of £375 does not sufficiently recognise the impact of the failures on the resident. Additional compensation has been awarded, in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website). Our remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where an offer made by a landlord is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	Handling of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

20. After the resident reported damp and mould in January 2024, the landlord took approximately 2.5 months to carry out an inspection. This exceeded the timescales set out in its damp and mould policy. As the landlord did not explain the delay, we consider it avoidable. On the day of the inspection, the landlord completed damp and mould treatment and upgraded the extractor fans. This was a pragmatic approach preventing further delay.
21. The resident told us that since the treatment, the mould has not returned. The landlord has also redecorated the property and tiled the resident’s bathrooms. These were positive steps to improve the resident’s living conditions.
22. However, the landlord did not act on the other recommendations made in its inspection report. These included replacing door trims in 2 rooms, and installing ventilation in the resident’s cupboard. While landlords are not obliged to follow such recommendations, if they choose not to, they should have clear documentation of their reasoning. In this case the recommendations were made to control moisture levels in the property. As the landlord did not say why it did not follow its contractor’s recommendations, we have ordered the landlord to do the works.
23. The damp and mould contractor made the landlord aware of faulty guttering on a neighbouring property in April 2024, but the landlord did not arrange a survey until its stage 2 complaints response in September 2024. This was a further unexplained 5-month delay.
24. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed that broken guttering on a neighbouring building is an underlying cause of damp and mould on the resident’s home. It is a commercial building which the landlord does not own or manage. As such, it cannot do the repairs. This has caused some unavoidable delay in the repairs process.
25. However, the landlord has not been sufficiently proactive in pursuing the repair. While it explained to us that it has written to the freeholder on several occasions, it would have been reasonable for it to consider legal action when it did not get a favourable response. The resident told us the guttering on the building is still broken.
26. This is a significant failure in this case, as without repairing the underlying cause of the damp and mould, it is likely to return. We have ordered the landlord to seek legal advice on its options.
27. The resident asked the landlord to replace her skirting boards. She says they are rotten due to prolonged exposure to damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request. This will have been frustrating for the resident, causing her to feel she had not been listened to. The landlord has been ordered to tell the resident its position on the skirting board.
28. In its damp and mould policy the landlord says it will risk assess damp and mould cases. It says:
    1. It will class cases where there are ‘levels of vulnerability present…young and elderly residents with known vulnerabilities that exacerbate risk’ as severe.
    2. It says it will assess cases as moderate only where there are ‘some low level of customer risk factor such as very young or elderly but no specific vulnerabilities’.
29. It assessed the resident’s case as moderate. This indicated that it had not fully considered the family’s medical circumstances. The resident had disclosed that one of her children had a respiratory condition during the complaints process, which would place the household in the severe category. This impacted its handling of the case, as its damp and mould policy timescales are shorter for severe than moderate cases. If it had assessed the family as being in the severe list, it may have done the repairs sooner.
30. The resident and one of her other children have also been diagnosed with significant respiratory conditions. There is no evidence the landlord was aware of this when the resident initially complained. As such it could not have considered these conditions in its risk assessment.
31. The landlord appropriately accepted failings in its handling of the case. It offered the resident £875 in compensation, in recognition of the impact of failures in its handling of the damp and mould repairs. In our opinion, this adequately reflects the impact these failings had on the resident, as it aligns with our remedies guidance. No further award of compensation has been made.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord met its policy timescales at stage 1 of the complaints process.
33. The landlord did not meet its policy timescale at the second stage of the complaints process. On 30 July 2024 it told the resident it would not be able to respond on time and said it would respond by 28 August 2024. This was in line with its complaints policy, which says it can extend a stage 2 complaint response by up to 20 working days if needed. However, it did not respond until 13 September 2024. This was an additional delay of 13 working days.
34. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay, which will have caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. It offered her £100 in compensation. In our view, the compensation offers reflects the impact of the delays in the landlord’s complaint response, as it is in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website). Our remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have not had a permanent impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. Overall, the landlord’s records were robust, and there was evidence of clear internal communication between teams. This was good practice by the landlord.
36. Delays in the case when repairs were passed to the landlord’s contractors indicated that the landlord was not adequately monitoring and progressing repairs after they were allocated to its contractors. It should consider how it monitors repairs that it allocates to contractors to ensure a consistent high-quality service to residents.