The Riverside Group Limited (202318526)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318526

The Riverside Group Limited

9 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gates.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a medium-rise block. The resident’s son previously acted as his representative. As such, this report references ‘the resident’ but refers to actions of both the resident and his son.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 May 2023. He was unhappy that it had not yet repaired the gates to the communal car park. He asked when it would repair the gates and why it had not communicated any updates.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had made errors when initially raising the gate repairs as it had failed to raise the job to its specialist contractor. It said that when it corrected this, it gave poor information over the location of the affected gate, which caused further delays. It confirmed that its contractors would realign and repair the car park gate on 24 May 2023.
The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2023. He said it had not repaired the gate as promised. He was also unhappy that it had raised multiple jobs and had repeatedly said it would complete the works, but it had not done so. He said the outstanding repair created a security issue from unwanted visitors and put vulnerable residents at risk.
On 13 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Said it was difficult to locate the gate which needed repairs as the property had 3 gates under the same address.
2. Identified that unacceptable delays occurred in completing the gate repairs. It explained different factors caused this and it apologised for failing to provide an “acceptable level of service”.
3. Thanked him for providing a map overview of the 3 gates within the communal block. It said it had issued copies to its contact centre to assist in correctly identifying any future issues.
4. Explained 2 gates had outstanding repairs. This was for 1 of the car park gates and the pedestrian gate. It said it had ordered the required parts, and it would prioritise installing and repairing the 2 gates as soon as possible.
5. Apologised for its delayed complaint response. It said it held off responding “until all parties were satisfied with the outcome.”
The resident escalated his complaint to us. He remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs to the communal gates. He was also concerned with the safety issues posed by unwanted visitors accessing the car park. The complaint became one we could investigate on 10 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident previously complained to the landlord about the car park gates. We investigated this complaint (202216395) which covered events which occurred throughout 2022. As these matters have been determined, we will not consider them as part of this investigation. This report therefore covers matters that transpired after the landlord’s final response in the previous complaint in October 2022.
After the complaints process ended in September 2023, the resident said the issues with the gates continued. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. If needed, the resident can raise any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. He can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gates

The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs to the communal gates. The resident’s property is within a block, which is situated next to 2 other blocks. All 3 blocks share a car park and residents access this through electric gates. There are 2 car park gates and a pedestrian gate. It is important to note that both the resident and other residents within the blocks raised reports of the gates not working properly.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy explains that it will “inspect, service and maintain” any mechanical or electrical systems. This includes automatic gates and barriers. The landlord acknowledged “unacceptable” delays in responding to the gate repairs. It reflected on what went wrong and in doing so, it identified multiple failings in its handling of the repairs. This included:
1. Issues with approving the contractor’s quotes.
2. Waiting for parts to complete the repairs.
3. Confusion over which gate required repairs.
4. Poor information provided to its contractors about the repairs.
5. Raising new repair jobs despite having active jobs open.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings. We have seen evidence supporting its findings too. Between December 2022 and August 2023, the landlord’s repair records show 23 jobs raised in relation to the 3 gates. Some of the job notes are vague such as “car park gates not working.” It is therefore understandable that the lack of clear information over the location of the gates caused delays in completing repairs.
Similarly, the landlord recorded some of the jobs as “completed” but it is unclear what works it did. On some occasions, it raised new related jobs the day after it had completed the previous job raised. This suggests it repeatedly had not completed a full and lasting repair to the gates. However, due to its lack of detailed records, we cannot assess this.
Of the 23 jobs raised during this period, 9 do not have a job completion date. It is therefore unclear what action the landlord took in relation to these reports. On some of the job notes, it states it will complete the gate repairs on other job references raised previously.
In May 2023 the landlord linked a new repair report to a job which it had recorded as completed 3 months earlier in February 2023. It linked a further repair report in May 2023 to a job reference raised 2 months later in July 2023. It is therefore unclear how it could effectively manage the ongoing repair issues. Especially as it had already logged 1 job as completed and it had not raised the other at the time of the report. This suggests it did not proactively manage the repair reports.
In the landlord’s initial complaint response, it agreed to complete the gate repairs on 24 May 2023. It then rearranged this to 26 May 2023. It is unclear what happened during the appointment and whether the landlord attended or not. However, it is evident that it did not complete the repairs on this date. The landlord should reasonably have ensured that it held an accurate record reflecting whether the attendance went ahead and if it did, why it could not complete the repair. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and a missed opportunity to ensure that there was clarity around the management of the repair. Following this, the resident escalated his complaint on 26 May 2023.
Throughout this time, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord. He explained his concerns with the outstanding repairs to the gates. He was worried about unwanted visitors accessing the car park and causing antisocial behaviour. He said he did not feel safe living there as unknown persons used drugs and carried knives. He noted that this impacted vulnerable residents, and he felt someone may “die soon” due to these issues.
The resident raised such safety concerns on 8 occasions between March 2023 and September 2023, including within his complaint escalation. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to his concerns. By not doing so, it understandably caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. It also caused him further time and trouble in chasing the landlord on this matter and chasing the repairs itself. Additionally, it missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns. If it had, it could have taken appropriate action and offered any additional support if required. This was a failing.
The landlord told us that it raised multiple jobs for the same gate repairs because of the way it raises repair jobs on its internal systems. It explained that its call centre will log repairs against the residents’ block address. However, due to the 3 blocks sharing the same car park, this often meant it duplicated repair jobs. This supports the landlord’s explanation given to the resident in its final complaint response.
This issue occurred due to the way the landlord’s internal systems worked. In the final complaint response, the landlord said it would share the map provided by the resident to its call centre. It said it hoped this would assist in identifying where the issues occurred going forward. This was reasonable and provided resolution to the specific issues raised by the resident’s complaint. However, this did not address the wider issues of how it logged the repairs. While not investigated within this report, it is evident that the landlord continued to raise duplicate jobs across the 3 blocks after the complaints process ended. This suggests that the landlord did not learn from its mistakes, and, despite the provision of the map, it had failed to put things right for the resident.
We have seen evidence that the landlord communicated with its contractors to chase the gate repairs. However, it seemingly only did so following contact from the resident. The resident also chased its contractors directly to progress the repairs, and he often later updated the landlord with the next steps. By the landlord not proactively managing the repairs it understandably caused the resident further time and trouble in doing so himself.
Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its handling of the gate repairs. The landlord listed its failings which was appropriate for it to do. However, we have also found further failings throughout the investigation. This includes its failure to investigate the resident’s safety concerns and its failure to proactively manage the repairs with its contractor. Additionally, while the landlord reflected on its failings, it did not consider any compensation to put things right for the resident. This was not appropriate.
Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the communal gate repairs. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely impacted the resident.
It is also unclear whether there are any outstanding gate repairs. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether any repairs remain outstanding. It should then arrange an appointment to inspect the gates if needed. It should also discuss internally how it can resolve the issue of raising repairs against 3 different block addresses which impacted the service provided. It should provide us with a copy of its meeting notes showing what it discussed and proposed.

The complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling procedure set out how it would respond to complaints. At stage 1, it would acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days. It would aim to respond within 5 working days of receiving the complaint, but it could extend this to 10 working days if needed. At stage 2, it would acknowledge the complaint escalation within 2 working days. It would aim to respond within 10 working days of receiving the escalation request, but it could extend this to 20 working days if needed. This was broadly in line with the requirements set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
The resident made his complaint on 16 May 2023. The landlord has not provided us with evidence to show that it acknowledged his complaint. However, it provided its response within 5 working days, on 23 May 2023. Therefore, its prompt response mitigated any impact caused by this shortcoming.
On 26 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord acknowledged this in line with its 2-working day timescale on 31 May 2023. It said it would provide its response within 10 working days, by 9 June 2023. It also explained it would update him if it needed additional time to respond to the complaint.
Despite outlining this, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord updated the resident about its delay in responding to his complaint. This understandably caused the resident time and trouble in chasing the response on 13 July 2023. It therefore mismanaged his expectations about when it would respond to his complaint. This was a failing.
On 18 July 2023, the resident said he did not want the landlord to close his complaint until it had repaired the gates. The landlord later closed the complaint on 17 August 2023 as it believed it had repaired the 2 main car park gates. It noted repairs remained outstanding to the passenger gate.
It is unclear why the landlord chose to close the complaint without providing its response. It had also not completed the repairs to all 3 gates at the time. By doing so, it caused further time and trouble to the resident by asking it to reopen this. He asked this on 24 August 2023 and 7 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. This was 77 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This was a further 57 working days than the maximum timescale outlined in the landlord’s procedure and the Code. The landlord apologised for its delayed response. It said it left the complaint open until “all parties were satisfied with the outcome.” However, in doing so, it caused him time and trouble in trying to escalate his complaint. It also understandably caused him distress by thinking it did not take his concerns or complaint seriously.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delayed response, it did not offer appropriate redress for its failing. This was because it failed to consider the impact caused to the resident by its failing and whether it was appropriate to offer compensation to reflect this. Considering the above, the landlord should pay £60 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not significantly impact the overall outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gates.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £260 compensation. It should pay this directly to him. This consists of:
  1. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the communal gates.
  2. £60 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to confirm whether any repairs remain outstanding. It should then arrange an appointment to inspect the gates if needed.
4. Discuss internally how it can resolve the issue of raising repairs against the 3 different block addresses which impacted the service provided. It should provide us with a copy of its meeting notes showing what it discussed and proposed.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.