Richmond Housing Partnership Limited — case 202416285

Decision Case ID 202416285 Decision type Investigation Landlord Richmond Housing Partnership Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident has lived in a house with her daughter since December 2023. The resident has mobility issues and her daughter is disabled. Shortly after moving in, she reported multiple repairs. She later complained about how these repairs were handled and staff conduct. The resident said the outstanding repairs risked household safety and that the property was let to her in poor condition.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in and the associated repairs. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its: Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in and the associated repairs.

Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. Complaint handling. Summary of reasons Condition of property The landlord apologised for the time taken to get the property ready, recognised its repair failings and offered an appropriate level of compensation to reflect distress and inconvenience. It committed to competing repairs, which it attempted to follow through with in a reasonable time. Staff conduct The landlord appropriately spoke with its member of staff concerned, and its apology and compensation offer reasonably remedied the complaint.

Complaint handling The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response within its policy timescales. However, it apologised and offered appropriate compensation that reasonably remedied the complaint. 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. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident £280 as offered on 30 August 2024. We found reasonable redress based on this amount being paid. The landlord should inspect the garden for any broken paving slabs and take appropriate action. The landlord should consider if there are any outstanding compensation payments it made in any other formal responses and contact the resident to arrange payments of these. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 1 July 2024 The resident complained that the landlord let the property in an unsafe and poor condition, despite the household’s complex disability needs.

She raised repeated repairs which she felt had not been adequately addressed. She said the situation had affected her child’s wellbeing and ability to live safely in the home. She also reported a poor quality of workmanship, unprofessional contractor conduct, and delays. 23 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response advising several issues had been addressed or were in progress. It said the garden works were nearly complete. It also arranged inspections for the extractor fan and patio doors, and confirmed the kitchen was due for renewal in 2024–25.

It apologised for delays in preparing the property and offered £50 compensation made up of £20 for the time it took to raise the complaint and £30 for repair delays. 23 July 2024 The resident escalated the complaint. She said the garden works were inadequate, and raised concerns about window handle locks. She also remained unhappy about the delay in replacing the patio door, condition of the kitchen, and faults with extractor fans, as well as damage to the bathroom following a flood.

She was also unhappy about staff conduct during a visit on 13 August 2024. She wanted the completion of all outstanding repairs. 16 August 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response explaining it had visited the property on 13 August 2024 to agree actions. It arranged an appointment for 20 August 2024 to address the repairs. It confirmed the garden turf had been laid satisfactorily, the kitchen was functional, and the bathroom would be repaired. The landlord apologised for the distress caused by its staff conduct, and confirmed the member of staff would not return to her home.

It partially upheld the complaint due to repair delays, and offered a further £150 compensation, made up of £70 for repair delays, £50 for the staff conduct matter, and £30 for the delay in its stage 1 response. 30 August 2024 Following further contact from the resident, the landlord offered a further £80 compensation, made up of £30 towards her water bill for the extra watering of the new turf, and £50 for the patio door repair delay. Most identified repairs were completed following visits in August 2024, with the exception of bathroom repairs, which remained in progress.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident told us that the garden work was still outstanding, including broken paving slabs, which was a trip hazard. She felt some bathroom and other repairs had been carried out poorly and remained unhappy about the staff conduct issue. As an outcome, the resident wanted the repairs the landlord committed works for to be completed and further compensation. 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 Condition of property and associated repairs Finding Reasonable redress What we’ve not investigated The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident told us that broken paving slabs in her garden posed a trip hazard for her daughter. Although the landlord agreed to carry out garden works in its final response, this related to concerns about turf and rainwater pooling, not the replacement of paving slabs.

We may not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident formally complained about the paving slabs before May 2025, which was after the landlord’s final response in August 2024.Any dissatisfaction about this should be raised as a new complaint. However, we have recommended the landlord inspect the garden for any broken paving slabs and take appropriate action. What we’ve investigated The resident complained about the condition of the property from when she moved there in December 2023 and the landlord’s handling of the repairs since then.

She reported issues from January and February 2024 onwards with the patio door, garden, a leak affecting the smoke alarm, faulty window handles and extractor fans, and outstanding bathroom works following a flood. She wanted the property brought to a modern, safe, and liveable standard. The landlord apologised for delays. It confirmed it had completed some repairs, and committed to outstanding works. It also acknowledged the impact of the delays, agreed to complete repairs, and initially offered £100 compensation for the repair delays.

The resident told us she felt the landlord did not manage the situation appropriately, failed to consider her household circumstances, including caring for a disabled child, and took around 2 years to complete some works. The landlord accepted failings in its handling of repairs. Where failings are admitted, we consider whether the landlord resolved the complaint satisfactorily and offered appropriate redress, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. The evidence showed that most repairs were completed by late August 2024 and within the landlord’s repair policy timescales.

These included 24 hours for emergencies and 20 working days or longer for larger jobs needing surveys, planning, and materials, such as replacement or structural works. These included replacing the bathroom extractor fans and window handles, and installing a soakaway to prevent water pooling. The landlord confirmed the patio door took longer than expected to resolve, noting its records showed the door was cracked but not unsecured. It acted fairly by offering an additional £50 compensation for the delay.

However, it was unclear why this was not included in the final response, given the need for replacement was identified in late June 2024. This was a shortcoming and we have highlighted this as a learning point below. Overall, it completed several repairs within policy timescales and responded promptly to emergency issues. Bathroom repairs were not completed by the end of August 2024. Although these works fell outside policy timescales, there were instances of the resident rescheduling appointments or not providing access.

The resident raised a new complaint about the bathroom in June 2025. Shortly after its final response, the landlord contacted the resident on 30 August 2024 to address her concerns. This demonstrated a customer-focused approach. It offered an additional £30 compensation for water costs linked to the new turf needing extra watering and £50 for the patio door delay, which was fair. It also clearly explained completed repairs and what to expect going forward. Although the resident sometimes missed or rearranged bathroom appointments, the landlord continued to make reasonable efforts to progress the works, including further attempts in December 2024.

The evidence showed it sought to accommodate her circumstances and hospital commitments by rearranging appointments. This was appropriate and consistent with its repairs policy. The landlord accepted failings in how it managed the resident’s repairs, particularly delays in completing some works. It apologised, acknowledged the impact on the resident, and took steps to put matters right. These included completing the majority of reported repairs, committing to outstanding works, and offering £180 total financial compensation for the repair issues, in line with our remedies guidance.

This recommends awards from £100 for when such issues adversely affect the resident. While some repairs were completed outside policy timescales, the evidence showed that the landlord responded appropriately to emergency issues, completed several repairs within timescales, and made reasonable efforts to progress outstanding works. It also demonstrated flexibility when appointments were missed or rearranged and sought to accommodate the resident’s circumstances. The resident’s frustration and distress were understandable.

However, the landlord actions provided proportionate and appropriate redress for its identified service failings. Taken together, the landlord’s response resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The resident has told us she had not been paid the compensation. We have therefore recommended that the landlord pay this to her. Complaint Staff conduct Finding Reasonable redress The resident complained that a staff member made upsetting and inappropriate comments during a visit on 13 August 2024.

She said the staff member suggested her expectations around safety and hygiene were unreasonable for a tenant. She also felt insulted by comments that questioned her ability to manage the watering of newly laid garden turf. The landlord apologised for how the interaction made the resident feel and stated that causing upset was not its intention. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of the impact of the incident. The landlord’s Code of Conduct requires staff to act with honesty, integrity, and professionalism, to communicate respectfully, and to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Good practice when responding to complaints about staff conduct requires the landlord to carry out an independent investigation, so it can reach an informed and reasonable decision on the issues raised. Our role is to determine whether the landlord investigated the complaint adequately, responded appropriately, and took proportionate action based on the information available. In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it took the report of staff conduct seriously. It investigated the complaint by speaking with the staff member involved, reached an informed decision, and provided a clear explanation of what happened.

It acknowledged that, although the staff member was attempting to resolve issues, a breakdown in communication occurred. This breakdown resulted in the staff member being asked to leave the resident’s home. The landlord apologised that the interaction caused upset and confirmed that the staff member would not return to the property. The landlord’s explanation of events was reasonable, and it provided clear reassurance that the staff member would not return to the resident’s home.

Its apology and offer of £50 compensation was in line with our remedies guidance and appropriately reflected the distress and inconvenience caused. Our guidance recommends awards from £50 to recognise when such issues cause distress and inconvenience. These actions therefore provided a reasonable and proportionate remedy to the complaint. We have recommended the landlord pay the compensation it offered to the resident for this to her. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Reasonable redress The resident complained to the landlord on 1 July 2024.

It issued a stage 1 response on 23 July 2024 outside its complaints policy’s 10 working‑day target, without apology or remedy. After the resident escalated the complaint on 23 July 2024, the landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 16 August 2024, within its policy’s 20‑working‑day target. Although the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response exceeded its policy’s timescale, the final response included £50 compensation in recognition of this, which reasonably remedied the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling delay.

This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards from £50 to recognise such delays in getting matters resolved. We have therefore recommended the landlord pay this to the resident. We have also recommended the landlord consider if there are any outstanding compensation payments it made in any other formal responses and contact the resident to arrange payments of these. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory because its records were appropriately clear, full, and accurate to allow us to complete our investigation.

Communication Overall, the landlord’s communication was appropriate. It sought to respond fully to the complaint points raised and engaged with the resident by raising repairs in response to her concerns. While there were some delays, the evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged these, apologised, awarded compensation, and completed the outstanding works. Landlords are expected to conduct a thorough stage 2 investigation. Offering compensation only after the complaints process has concluded makes it harder to demonstrate fair and consistent practice.

Complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity, including consideration of appropriate compensation where service failure is identified.