Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202429416)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat with a wet room.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her wet room.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her wet room
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould reports

5. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to resolve the damp and mould as it failed to act on key recommendations.
6. There was a delay in it following through on its commitments.

    The complaint handling

7. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint but offered fair redress.

 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.

Recommendations

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

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 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.

8. We will consider events that occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response in August 2024 in this assessment. This approach is viewed as fair and reasonable, as it helps determine whether the landlord’s actions resolved the issues raised in the complaint. Where repair problems remain, we will assess whether they have been or are being addressed appropriately.
9. We expect landlords to maintain detailed records of contacts and repairs. Clear, accurate, and accessible records provide an audit trail and support effective problem resolution. In this case, the landlord did not maintain adequate records during the earlier stages of the complaint, and confirmed that the records of jobs and surveys from previous contractors were unavailable. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted where appropriate throughout this report. The lack of records made it harder for the resident to get timely repairs. This was a failure by the landlord.
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says:
    1. it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective way
    2. it will communicate clearly and regularly with residents
    3. moderate cases will involve routine mould treatment within 28 days, with a surveyor inspection if needed
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
12. On 29 September 2023, the resident reported widespread damp and mould in her wet room, which the landlord classified as moderate. There is no evidence when the contractor attended, but by 11 January 2024, the resident reported that only the tiles had been treated. She said mould was still visible on the walls and ceiling. Despite the landlord recording the problem as moderate, the treatment carried out was incomplete. The delay in fully addressing the issue would understandably have caused frustration for the resident.
13. The landlord completed a mould treatment on 16 February 2024. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s contact and showed it was following its policy.
14. It identified further issues during the mould treatment on 16 February 2024:
    1. window silicone sealant needs removing and replacing
    2. tiles on windowsill were loose and needed new grout
    3. the shower drain was blocked as water took too long to drain away
15. A full survey was also completed but it is unclear when this took place. This is a record keeping failure and restricts our ability to assess how the landlord responded in line with its policy. However, there is a brief note on 1 March 2024, which recorded the following outcome from the survey:
    1. “bathroom wall is papered – not suitable for bathrooms – customer responsible for decorations”
    2. bathroom ventilation upgrade required
    3. repairs to bathroom grout needed
16. There is no evidence the landlord raised repairs following the job on 16 February 2024 or the survey to address the window sealant, grout, or blocked shower drain. This suggests it only partially completed the work. This left the resident with unresolved repairs which were potentially contributing to the mould. It is also unclear if the landlord shared the wallpaper issue with the resident at the time, though it was later noted in the stage 2 response. This delay could have impacted the resident’s ability to act upon the advice. It was appropriate that the landlord scheduled new fans on 1 March 2024, which it installed promptly on 14 March 2024, in line with its policy.
17. Despite these actions, the resident continued to experience mould and reported having to pay for cleaning. She made a formal complaint on 23 May 2024.
18. As above, the landlord’s sent its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. This was a fair response as it showed an acknowledgement of the delay and the impact this had on the resident. It showed a willingness to take further action to resolve the problem. However, the landlord missed a further opportunity to act on the earlier repair recommendations. This was unreasonable as these could have helped reduce the mould reoccurring and further inconvenience for resident.
19. On 14 June 2024, the resident escalated her complaint and requested the wet room be replaced with a standard bathroom. She also reported a fungal toe infection, which she believed was linked to the mould.
20. As part of the stage 1 actions the contractor completed a survey on 7 July 2024. The report confirmed:
    1. no mould required treatment
    2. fans were performing well
    3. advice given to keep windows closed after showering, to allow optimal performance of the fan, particularly in colder months
    4. floor seals were damaged, and it raised a repair
21. The landlord raised the flooring repair on the same day of the survey which showed the landlord was willing to take prompt action to help reduce the mould reoccurring.
22. As above, the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. It showed the landlord took the concerns seriously and it was committed to taking further action. This would have provided clarity and reassurance to the resident that the landlord was committed to resolve the damp and mould.
23. However, we have found the stage 2 did not go far enough. It did not acknowledge the impact it was having on the resident, specifically, her concern regarding her fungal infection. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate empathy and provide appropriate advice, which could have helped to rebuild trust and confidence in its service.
24. It did not consider the previous repair recommendations identified and confirm when these would be actioned. This was a gap in the landlord’s response, as it did not ensure earlier findings were actioned. This was not appropriate and could have caused the resident to continue to experience the mould when the repairs may have reduced or prevented the mould growth.
25. While the resident requested a standard bathroom, the landlord was not required to carry out such a change without supporting medical evidence. However, it should have fully investigated the cause of the mould and explained its decision clearly. It would have been reasonable to confirm whether earlier repairs would be completed and whether the wet room design contributed to the issue. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and build confidence in the landlord’s commitment to resolving the problem.
26. The resident contacted the landlord towards the end of August 2024 in response to its stage 2. She said:
    1. she was unhappy as she wanted the wet room removed
    2. there was a lot of damp and mould in the wet room, and it was affecting her wellbeing
    3. there were drainage issues
    4. it was having an ongoing impact as the conditions required her to take showers at friends and families houses
27. The landlord provided no evidence it responded to her concerns. This was unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the resident’s inconvenience, and provide clarity or support in resolving the drainage issue which had been reported previously.
28. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord completed the flooring repairs on 18 October 2024. The delay was due to access issues. However, it did not complete the mould treatment and assessment until 17 April 2025. This was 8 months after its stage 2 response. This was an unacceptable delay by the landlord and not in line with its policy. The landlord’s failure to fully follow through on its own action plan undermined the resident’s trust in its ability to resolve the issue effectively as she continues to live with the mould.
29. While our findings show the landlord took some steps to resolve the issues, there were missed opportunities. The resident continues to live with mould in her wet room. It continued to impact her as she told the landlord it was affecting her wellbeing. She has been living with the issue for over 2 years. This is an unacceptable amount of time to live with such conditions.
30. Given the above post internal complaints procedure update, it is positive that the landlord has since offered additional measures to help reduce mould growth. We have seen evidence the landlord has attended to the drainage issues. However, these later actions do not remove the earlier failings, and the resident continues to live with damp and mould. The resident still lacks a clear plan of action.
31. Therefore, we have found maladministration and decided that additional compensation is appropriate. Considering the £320 already offered, the landlord should pay an additional £200 for the delay in actioning the commitments following its final response and the distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance where service failure has had a significant impact on the resident.
32. It is necessary to order a further inspection because:
    1. of the ongoing presence of mould
    2. the lack of clarity if previous repairs recommendations have been actioned
    3. the resident’s refusal of proposed work due to her preference for standard bathroom
33. This inspection will allow the landlord to reassess the wet room, confirm any outstanding repairs, and determine whether the design contributes to the issue. It will support informed decisions and help ensure the problem is resolved effectively.

34. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
35. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales and extensions.
36. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 13 working days. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days but was a minimal delay.
37. The landlord responded at stage 2 within 43 days. This was outside its target timescale of 20 working days. On 16 August 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to complete its investigation and stated she should receive a response by 13 August 2024. It sent the stage 2 response on 16 August 2024.
38. There was a delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 response which caused further frustration for the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged this delay and offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling delay. This is in line with its compensation policy and the Code.
39. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

40. The landlord took some steps to address the damp and mould by arranging mould treatment and surveys. This showed willingness to address the resident’s concerns.
41. Where damp and mould issues persist, it could adopt a more proactive approach to root cause analysis.
42. Commitments made in complaint responses, like mould treatments or assessments, must be completed within stated timeframes. Failure to do so undermines trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord confirmed it did not have records of surveys and works done by some of its contractors because they no longer worked for it. It should maintain accurate records of repair visits, contractor actions, and survey outcomes which are accessible. This supports accountability, timely follow-up, and effective complaint resolution.
44. The landlord did not follow up issues identified during inspections. It could implement a system to track and action all survey recommendations to prevent partial repairs.

Communication

45. The landlord could share survey outcomes with residents promptly to support informed decision making and timely action. It did not inform the resident of key findings until the stage 2 response.