Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202529282)

Decision
Case ID	202529282
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her family. Shortly after moving into the property, she reported repairs, including damp and mould, drainage issues from a neighbouring property and a leaking toilet pan.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of:
   1. Repairs to the toilet, leaking pipes and related follow‑on works.
   2. Damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs to the toilet, leaking pipes and related follow‑on works.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of damp and mould.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Management of repairs to the toilet, leaking pipes and related follow-on works

7. The landlord allowed unsafe and unhygienic conditions to continue. It delayed emergency repairs and the sewage clean‑up, and it did not provide temporary sanitation. Its compensation offer did not reflect the impact on the resident.

Management of damp and mould

8. The landlord did not find or resolve damp that was present at the start of the tenancy. It delayed investigations and essential follow‑on work, and its compensation did not reflect the resident’s prolonged experience of damp conditions.

Complaints handling

9. Delays in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses left key repair issues unresolved. The resident had to keep chasing updates, and the landlord only offered partial 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.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 01 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £300 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the impact of prolonged disruption to essential sanitation, repeated leaks, and the extended period in which the toilet, waste pipes and associated areas were not functioning as they should. £400 to reflect the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience arising from the prolonged impact of damp and mould, including the resident living with damp conditions for an extended period, delayed investigations, and dependencies on unresolved underlying defects. £150 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures, including delays, missed opportunities to progress the case and the resident’s repeated need to chase updates. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 01 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve: The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects all repair issues relevant to this complaint (including wastewater drainage, sanitation, damp and mould, bathroom ventilation, chimney breast removal, and floor levels) of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: If the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, the landlord must show it has considered its obligations under the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. The most probable cause of any unresolved disrepair. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The timescales to commence and complete necessary work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must provide a copy of this report to the resident and to us.	No later than 15 May 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the identified works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 29 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider whether further compensation is appropriate for the period after 18 November 2024, when key repairs remained outstanding.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 July 2024	The resident emailed the landlord about several repairs that were still outstanding after she moved in. She reported damp and mould in a cupboard, wastewater from the neighbouring property spilling into her garden, and a toilet leak that a contractor had repaired poorly. The faulty repair caused raw sewage to enter the wall cavity and spread into the bathroom. The sewage remained in place for at least 5 days. She asked the landlord to explain how and when it would fix the problems.
7 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would reply within 10 working days. It asked for a 10‑day extension on 21 August 2024.
5 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had booked all follow‑on repairs for 6 September 2024, including repairs to the external render, replacement of the contaminated boxing‑in for the toilet and bathroom, and installation of a new bath panel. It said a roof leak had caused damp in the chimney breast in April 2024 and that its repairs team would provide updates. It upheld the complaint and offered £100 as a goodwill payment for poor repair quality and inconvenience.
10 September 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said: the landlord’s plumber made the toilet problem worse later operatives found nails through a water feed pipe that caused a major leak the plumber who attended on 5 September arrived without clear instructions and had limited time to complete repairs the follow‑on works planned for 6 September did not happen and many repairs were still outstanding the landlord had not investigated her report of damp and mould in the understairs cupboard the stage 1 response did not provide correct dates or address all reported issues.
12 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
8 October 2024	The resident emailed the landlord with more information about her complaint. She said the landlord had told her before she moved in that long‑term leak damage from a neighbour’s guttering would be fully repaired. She said damp had returned throughout the toilet room, the external brickwork was still wet, and a recent inspection showed high moisture readings. She also said the neighbour’s waste pipes were discharging onto her property and that a broken pipe inside the wall was leaking into the adjoining wall. She asked the landlord to make sure it completed all repairs properly before winter.
10 October 2024	The landlord asked for a 20 working day extension to provide its stage 2 response. It would reply by 7 November.
18 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said a damp survey found no visible mould. The surveyor recommended checks on the moisture in the cupboard and rear wall. They also recommended checking whether the chimney breast had been removed and supported. The landlord said it would investigate the stack‑pipe leak on 18 November. It would replace the bath panel and toilet boxing on 27 November. It would repair damaged plaster on 2 and 3 December. It apologised for delays. It upheld the complaint and offered £350 (£250 for repairs and £100 for complaint handling).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us in September 2025. She said the landlord had not fixed the damp and leaks linked to the neighbour’s property. She said the landlord had not arranged a structural survey for the chimney breast. Rising damp and defects from earlier alterations were still unresolved. She also said repairs were slow and communication was poor. The landlord had not arranged toilet facilities while the works were pending. The resident said she wanted the landlord to finish the damp and mould work to a good standard. She asked for ventilation in the bathroom. She wanted better communication. She also wanted the home to be decent and fit for habitation.

 

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	The landlord’s management of repairs to the toilet, leaking waste pipes and related follow‑on works.
Finding	Maladministration

10. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) treats “Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage” as a hazard. It recognises the risks from defective drainage and exposure to human waste, including raw sewage. Raw sewage in a home is a serious defect that requires urgent action.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to attend emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete them within 24 hours. For out of hours emergencies, it will aim to attend within 3 hours and finish the job the next working day. It aims to complete general repairs within 10 working days and complex repairs within 20 working days.
12. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill payment guidelines say it must maintain basic sanitation if a household has no flushing toilet for more than 24 hours. It must provide a chemical toilet or Portaloo or offer alternative accommodation if it cannot restore sanitation within that time.

Toilet repair and sewage leak

13. The resident reported a leaking toilet pan on 23 July 2024, which left “a large puddle of yellow water”. The landlord logged this as “urgent.” Because of the hygiene risk, we assess it against the landlord’s emergency timescales.
14. The landlord repaired the toilet 3 working days after the resident’s report. This fell outside emergency timescales. It did not consider providing temporary toilet facilities or alternative accommodation, even though this was the resident’s only toilet.
15. That night, the resident reported sewage leaking from a poorly fitted waste pipe. The leak spread through the boxing and wall cavity into the bathroom. The landlord attended 13 hours later and repaired the pipe. Its operative said the toilet room needed full removal and deep‑cleaning. The landlord did not carry out any clean‑up at that time.
16. On 30 July 2024, a contractor reported that “the wall is full of water and faeces” and advised an environmental clean. The landlord’s records do not show that this work took place. The landlord should have cleaned and sanitised the room and then carried out further repairs.
17. The resident’s stage 2 complaint said a contractor visited on 5 September 2024 and found the toilet waste pipe still leaking and the stack pipe cracked. This was 30 working days after the sewage leak. The landlord said it would replace the toilet boxing on 27 November 2024, 88 working days after the leak.

Neighbouring property wastewater and drainage issue

18. On 10 July 2024, the resident reported that her neighbour’s bathroom wastewater discharged into her garden and overspilled onto the patio. The landlord attended within 4 hours but did not record any repair details.
19. The resident later told us an emergency plumber found the neighbour’s waste pipes were broken inside the wall. Wastewater was leaking into the shared wall and contributing to damp.
20. On 11 November 2024, the landlord raised works to repair a defective outside pipe. However, the operative recorded that the work had already been completed months earlier and that the only task left was reinstating the bath panel and boxing‑in. This showed the landlord did not have a correct record of outstanding issues.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would investigate the stack‑pipe leak on 18 November 2024. This was 93 working days after the resident first reported the problem and outside policy timescales.

Summary

22. The resident lived with unsafe conditions. She had periods without a usable toilet because of sewage contamination. Raw sewage remained in her home for a prolonged period. This affected her ability to maintain basic hygiene. Delays in resolving the drainage and wastewater defects meant damp and wet conditions continued in several areas of the home.
23. The landlord took some steps to progress repairs. However, it did not meet its repair timescales. It did not provide temporary toilet facilities. It did not act promptly to clean sewage or fix the neighbour‑related drainage defects.
24. The landlord offered £450 compensation. This did not reflect the length or severity of the impact. Its own guidance calls for higher awards for loss of sanitation, loss of essential rooms and prolonged delays. The resident lost her only toilet for more than 24 hours. She lived with sewage contamination and months of damp and water ingress. The landlord did not calculate compensation for these losses or consider the combined impact of delays, poor communication, and incomplete repairs.
25. For these reasons, the offer did not provide reasonable redress. The delays in managing the toilet repair, sewage leak, and drainage issues, along with the low compensation, amount to maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

26. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the home in repair. The landlord must also assess hazards under the HHSRS, including damp and mould, and fix them when needed.
27. The landlord’s lettings standard says the home must be sound, weather‑proof, clean and free from damp before it is re‑let. It must also be safe, with no leaks and no hazards.
28. The resident reported damp and mould in a cupboard on 10 July 2024. This was six weeks after she moved in. The landlord’s records show no inspection at the time. The landlord sent the case to its voids team on 3 September 2024, 39 working days later. The voids team said they had not recorded mould when the property was empty.
29. The stage 1 response said there had been damp in April 2024. This was before the resident moved in. The landlord did not show that it investigated or fixed this before letting the home.
30. A damp survey took place on 26 September 2024. It found moisture in the cupboard and damp on the rear wall. It also found poor ventilation and possible structural issues with the chimney breast. These issues, along with the earlier record from April, suggest the defects were present when the tenancy began. The landlord did not identify or fix them during its void checks. The home did not meet the lettings standard at the start of the tenancy.
31. The landlord said on 18 November 2024 that a surveyor would review the findings. This was 37 working days after the survey. The delay did not match the landlord’s own guidance, which says damp and mould cases are urgent.

After the Internal Complaints Process

32. The landlord continued to act after 18 November 2024. However, damp‑related defects were unresolved by September 2025. These included a floor‑level defect and a wastewater leak from the neighbouring property. Internal repairs in the resident’s home could not progress until these issues were fixed.

Summary

33. The landlord took some helpful steps. It arranged an independent survey and asked a surveyor to review the issues. Work linked to the neighbour’s home required the neighbour’s cooperation, which added difficulty and delays.
34. However, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s first reports. It also delayed acting on the survey findings. As a result, the resident lived with damp for a prolonged period. She also had to keep chasing updates.
35. Overall, the delays outweighed the positive steps. The landlord did not address damp that was present from the start of the tenancy. It did not follow its own urgent approach to damp and mould. Major defects remained for many months. Records were inconsistent, and progress was slow. These issues meant the landlord did not manage the damp reports properly.
36. The landlord offered £450 during the complaints process. This included £100 at stage 1 and £350 at stage 2. Its own compensation policy says higher awards apply when residents lose enjoyment of their home for a long time or when they live with damp or structural defects. Damp was present from the start of the tenancy, and key problems remained for many months. The resident also spent considerable time chasing updates.
37. The compensation did not reflect the length or impact of the damp issues or the landlord’s failure to meet its lettings standard. It also did not reflect the landlord’s own guidance for serious service failures or long‑term loss of essential rooms. The offer did not provide reasonable redress.
38. For these reasons, the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, along with the low compensation offer, amounts to maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

39. The landlord’s complaints policy follows the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). It says it will acknowledge, define, and log a complaint within 5 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
40. The landlord’s remedies policy allows compensation when it does not follow its own guidelines. It may compensate when it does not follow its complaints policy, does not provide a service it is responsible for, or leaves a resident without essential amenities. It may also compensate for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
41. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 1 working day late. It issued the stage 2 response 7 working days after the extended deadline. These delays did not, by themselves, cause direct harm. The landlord recognised the delays, paid compensation at stage 2 and said it had provided staff training.
42. The landlord upheld the complaint at both stages. It accepted fault and increased its compensation offer at stage 2. It also listed steps to progress repairs and improve communication.
43. However, the stage 1 response did not address several issues the resident had raised. These included delays in fixing the toilet leak, the long delay in cleaning sewage, the lack of action on damp and mould and the unresolved neighbouring wastewater issue.
44. The stage 2 response also missed key issues. It did not address delays in dealing with damp, the sewage clean‑up or the neighbour‑linked leak.
45. The landlord accepted it needed to improve its communication and timeliness. But several repairs remained outstanding when the complaints process ended on 18 November 2024. These included damp and mould work, the neighbouring wastewater leak and repairs linked to the sewage incident. The complaint process did not resolve these issues or ensure the repairs were completed in time.
46. The delays in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not cause direct harm. However, the landlord’s handling meant it did not address or resolve key issues during the complaints process. The resident had to keep chasing updates and wait for repairs.
47. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered some redress. But it did not address several critical issues, and many repairs were still outstanding at the end of the process. The redress was not proportionate to the situation and did not fully resolve the complaint. On balance, the landlord provided only partial redress. This amounts to a service failure in its complaint handling.

 

Learning

48. The landlord may wish to consider triaging damp reports in line with its damp and mould self-assessment to avoid future delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

49. The landlord’s repairs records may benefit from including more detailed notes to ensure accurate understanding of completed and outstanding work.

Communication

50. Residents benefit from regular and proactive updates during repairs and complaint processes. The landlord did not provide these in this case.