From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202428740)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428740

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the kitchen.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the stairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. She lives at the property with her children.
  2. The resident had previously made a complaint to the landlord in 2022. She was concerned with an ongoing leak in the kitchen and a safety issue with the stairs.
  3. On 5 December 2023, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord. She said the outstanding repairs impacted the family’s health and created “unacceptable living conditions.” She said the kitchen leak remained unresolved, causing water damage to the flooring. The resident said it had promised to complete an asbestos survey in January 2023, but it had not provided any further updates to her. She said that the property was also cold, and she had increased heating costs due to trying to heat the home. The resident added that the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work and there was a safety issue with the stairs. She asked the landlord to resolve the repairs.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 December 2023. It said it inspected the kitchen on 21 December 2023, and it found rising damp behind the kitchen cabinets. It said it would arrange works to repair this. It said it would “look into” the water damage to the flooring once it had resolved the leak, and it would update her “soon” about the asbestos report. It also confirmed it had arranged an inspection of the stairs, and asked her for more information about why the property was cold. It said the repairs team would manage the outstanding repairs to ensure it completed these. It offered her £30 compensation. This consisted of £15 for her chasing the repairs and £15 for not resolving the kitchen leak after her previous complaint.
  5. On 3 January 2024 and 12 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about her complaint. She said it had not addressed her concerns of the impact caused to her family’s health and her increased heating costs. She said the landlord had poor communication and a lack of coordination of the repairs. She said it had not resolved the rising damp and pipe issues identified on 21 December 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 April 2024. It apologised for its delayed response. It also apologised for the time taken to resolve the outstanding repairs. It said the works were “complex”. It arranged a joint inspection with a surveyor and its contractors for 9 May 2024 to agree a schedule of works to resolve the issues. It gave her a key point of contact who would oversee the repairs. It offered her a further £350 compensation. This consisted of £100 for its delayed repairs, £100 for its poor communication and £150 for the impact and inconvenience caused to her.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the ongoing leak in the kitchen and that it had not responded to her concerns about the asbestos test. The complaint became one we could investigate on 17 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has experienced ongoing issues related to a leak in the kitchen and an issue with the stairs. She raised these issues within an earlier complaint to the landlord in 2022. We cannot investigate complaints which were not brought to us within 12 months of exhausting the complaints procedure. We will therefore focus on events which occurred from December 2022. This is around 1 year prior to the resident’s new complaint in December 2023.
  2. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the ongoing kitchen leak. More recently there is mention of mould in her kitchen. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
  3. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leak impacted the family’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Handling of reports of a leak in the kitchen

  1. The first report of a leak in the kitchen was in December 2021. The landlord raised multiple jobs to try to repair the sink leak, but it remained ongoing. The landlord investigated this as part of the resident’s previous complaint and arranged a further repair on 13 November 2022. It is unclear what happened at the appointment, but the leak remained an issue after this.
  2. On 11 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the kitchen leak repair. On the following day, the landlord confirmed it needed to complete an asbestos survey before completing repairs to the kitchen. It said it would update her about this.
  3. The landlord’s records show it requested the asbestos test in December 2023, and it received the report on 12 January 2024. There was no asbestos found within the kitchen flooring and so it did not need to take further action about this. However, it failed to update the resident about this outcome.
  4. The resident was understandably concerned that the water damaged flooring may contain asbestos, and she was worried about the impact to her family’s health. She asked the landlord for information about the asbestos risk multiple times, including within her complaint escalation. While the landlord was satisfied there was no risk of asbestos, it failed to offer such reassurance to the resident. It also missed opportunities to reassure her throughout the complaints process too. It is unclear why it did not do so, but this was a failing.
  5. There is no evidence to show that the landlord updated the resident or arranged the repairs after receiving the report in January 2023. It seemingly only raised a repair after the resident made her complaint in December 2023. As such, the evidence does not show that it proactively monitored or managed the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it does not have a timescale for larger jobs where it needs to complete a survey before works can start. However, failing to arrange the repairs after the asbestos test meant it therefore failed to manage the repair appropriately. While its policy is silent on timescales, we expect it to complete works within a reasonable period. However, its lack of action caused an 11-month delay in arranging the repairs. This was a significant failing.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 21 December 2023. In its initial response, it told the resident that it found rising damp and issues with the pipework. It needed to remove the kitchen cabinets to repair this. It attended the property again on 6 February 2024. The repair notes stated that the cause of the leak and damp needed further investigation, and it may need to remove units and some of the flooring. It suggested the cause could be a leaking mains water pipe under the flooring or a drainage issue.
  7. Despite this finding, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted on the findings or took steps to investigate the leak further at this time. The resident reported her concerns with the lack of updates about the kitchen repair within her complaint escalation on 12 February 2024. It is a failing that it did not communicate with her and that it cannot evidence that it took meaningful steps to progress the repair.
  8. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould provides recommendations for landlords. This includes that landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.” It is imperative that landlords do not leave residents with damp for an extended period. If it does not deal with damp at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident. It can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. As such, the landlord should have acted promptly to investigate and resolve the damp. However, the evidence suggests that it did not do so. This is a failing.
  9. In the landlord’s final response over 2 months later, it said it needed to arrange a further inspection for 9 May 2024. This would have understandably caused further delays in resolving the repairs, given this was its third inspection into the kitchen leak. This was around 5 months after the resident made her complaint and nearly 2.5 years since she first reported the leak. While it needed to coordinate the joint inspection, it should have reasonably prioritised this to be able to repair the issues sooner. The evidence shows it was not proactive in its approach to the repairs. The delay, combined with its poor communication and lack of updates, would have understandably caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  10. It is concerning that throughout this time, the resident advised the landlord on several occasions that the condition of the property impacted the family’s health. Neither the resident nor landlord could definitively conclude that any health issues were due to the leak. However, being notified of the situation should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident. It could have assessed whether the property condition posed any health and safety risks. Its failure to do so was not appropriate.
  11. Within the resident’s complaint, she said the property was “excessively” cold despite constantly keeping the heating on. It is unclear whether this related to the damp within the kitchen or whether it was a separate issue. In the landlord’s initial response, it asked her for more information about why it was cold so it could look into this. It is understandable that it needed to ask for more information to arrange the appropriate repair. However, it could have also considered investigating this during the inspection it had arranged into the leak itself. Especially given she had raised these concerns during the winter months.
  12. On 3 January 2024, the resident said she was concerned with the landlord’s response about the temperature in the property. The landlord then asked if she wanted to arrange a surveyor inspection due to the heat loss and overall property condition. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why it did not offer this as part of its complaint response to help put things right for her. This was a shortcoming. However, it is positive that it offered this to investigate her concerns. It is unclear whether the surveyor inspection went ahead or not. We have therefore made a relevant order below about this.
  13. The resident was concerned about the damage caused to her flooring by the leak. The landlord said it would “look into” the damage once it had resolved the leak. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances given further damage may occur while the leak remained ongoing.
  14. Within the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged its poor communication and its delay in completing the repairs. It also acknowledged that it had made multiple visits but had not yet resolved the repairs. It was appropriate for it to reflect on its handling of the kitchen leak. The landlord offered a total of £380 compensation. This was for its poor communication, the delays in completing the repairs, and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  15. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation as part of its commitment to putting things right. However, the amount was not proportionate to the failings identified within our investigation. It did not reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen leak up until May 2024.
  16. Considering the above, the landlord should pay a further £370 compensation, totalling £750 compensation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had a significant impact on the resident. This amount reflects the time taken to arrange the inspection after the asbestos test and its delay in arranging the repairs after the resident made her complaint.
  17. The landlord completed the inspection as promised on 9 May 2024. While we are not investigating the events that occurred after the landlord issued its final response, it is evident the leak in the kitchen remains ongoing. The landlord has told us that it has scheduled the necessary repairs for 4 August 2025. As such, we have made a relevant order about this below.

Handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the stairs

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed a repair to the bathroom extractor fan in April 2023. There is no evidence that the resident had raised further concerns about the fan prior to her complaint in December 2023.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint, she said she was concerned about the “lack of an extractor” in the bathroom. The landlord asked her for further information about this, as to whether it was missing or faulty. This was understandable as it needed to raise the correct appointment to be able to resolve the issue. After the resident confirmed it was not working, the landlord arranged a repair to the fan for 19 January 2024.
  3. The resident later asked the landlord to reschedule this repair as she was not available on this date. The landlord told her that its contractor would contact her directly to rearrange this repair. Based on the landlord’s records, there is no evidence that it later did so. However, the resident has since told us that it has completed the repair. Nevertheless, the landlord’s poor record keeping has meant we cannot conclude that it did so within a reasonable timescale in line with its repairs policy. As such, this is a failing.
  4. The first record related to repairs to the stairs was in January 2022. The job notes show it was due to a damaged stair tread. In the landlord’s previous complaint response, it said it had no records of completing any appointment related to this job. As such, it raised a new job to repair the stairs in November 2022. It is unclear what happened after this.
  5. In the resident’s complaint in December 2023, she said the stairs still had a “safety issue”. It is unclear whether this was related to the earlier repair job or not. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection of the stairs for 8 January 2024. There is no evidence provided to confirm whether this appointment went ahead and if it resolved the issue. We therefore cannot conclude that it put things right as promised within its complaint response. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s safety concerns and whether the stairs posed a risk to the household. This is a failing.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s records lack detail about these repairs. Due to this, we cannot clearly establish whether it completed the works or whether the time taken to complete the repairs was appropriate or not. Therefore, we have found maladministration for its handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the stairs. Considering this, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident. As it is unclear if the issues with the stairs remain unresolved, we have made a relevant order below.

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1, landlords must respond within 10 working days of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
  2. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 within the timescale set out in its policy and the Code. This was appropriate.
  3. On 3 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response. While the resident did not specifically state this was a request to escalate her complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm if she wanted to escalate her complaint or not. By not doing so, it may have missed opportunities to consider her outstanding concerns and investigate this sooner. However, it did respond outside of its complaints procedure. This understandably mitigated any significant impact caused to the resident.
  4. The resident later escalated her complaint to the landlord on 12 February 2024. It acknowledged this within 5 working days, which was appropriate. However, it took the landlord a further 48 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This was 28 working days beyond the timescale set out in its policy. This was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord’s policy explains that it can take a further 10 working days to respond to a complaint if needed. However, to do so it must update the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, and its delay went far beyond an additional 10 working days. During this time, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for its response. Its poor communication and delayed complaint response therefore caused her time and trouble in chasing the landlord. This was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its delayed complaint response at stage 2 within its final response. While it is positive that it acknowledged its mistakes, it did not consider the impact caused to the resident. It also did not consider compensation for the impact caused. It therefore missed opportunities to put things right. This was a failing.
  7. Within the landlord’s initial response, it mentioned a phone call which it said took place on 15 December 2023. The resident disputed this and said it did not occur. The landlord investigated her concerns and apologised for its error on 3 January 2024. It therefore acted appropriately to recognise its mistake and put this right.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to forward her complaint to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The landlord was entitled to decide to manage the complaint through its complaint handling team. This is because the team are better suited to investigate any concerns and find a resolution for residents. However, the landlord should reasonably have explained that it would not be honouring the request’s request. As it did not, she was caused further inconvenience as she asked for an update on 16 January 2024. Its poor communication was therefore not appropriate.
  9. The resident’s complaint also included concerns which the landlord did not respond to. This included concerns with her increased heating costs due to the property being cold, the condition of the property, and the impact caused to her family’s health. On 3 January 2024, she told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response as it had not answered her concerns about these matters. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to these points in its stage 2 response either.
  10. The Code outlines that landlords must respond to all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s responses were therefore not compliant with the Code. As such, it was a complaint handling failure that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It missed opportunities to investigate these points and to put things right for her. We therefore have made a relevant order below about this.
  11. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged its delay in issuing its final response, it did not consider the full impact of its failings. This included its poor communication with its delayed response and the resident’s request for CEO involvement in her complaint. It also failed to respond to all of the points raised by the resident. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident but did not significantly affect the overall outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the stairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account. This consists of:
      1. The £380 compensation offered within its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
      2. A further £370 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of a leak in the kitchen.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the stairs.
      4. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss whether any repairs to the stairs or heating remain outstanding. If repairs are needed, it should write to her to confirm an appointment in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    4. Write to the resident and provide a response to the concerns which it had not addressed within its complaint responses. This should include its response to:
      1. Her increased heating costs due to the property being cold.
      2. The condition of the property.
      3. The impact caused to her family’s health.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Complete a post-inspection of the works scheduled for 4 August 2025. It should assess whether the works have resolved the leak in the kitchen and whether any further works are required. It should then write to the resident to confirm its findings, and any further appointments arranged, if needed. It should provide a copy of this and the post-inspection report to us. If it is not able to do this within 8 weeks, it should write to the resident and us to explain why it cannot do so. It should then provide a date for when it will complete the post-inspection.
  3. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident after it has post-inspected the repairs to discuss her damaged flooring, as agreed within its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord should consider providing refresher training to its complaint handling staff. This should focus on the importance of responding to all points raised by residents and improving its communication during the complaints process.