The Riverside Group Limited (202416907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416907

The Riverside Group Limited

9 September 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. The lack of servicing to the stairlift in the property.
   2. The conflicting advice by its contractors regarding the safety of the stairlift.

c. The damage caused to the carpet when repairing the stairlift.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, along with her husband. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s husband underwent a leg amputation in 2021 and required the installation of a stairlift in the property to access upstairs.
3. The landlord used a contractor to complete repairs to the resident’s stairlift. The contractor also used a sub-contractor to complete work.
4. The stairlift was installed in the property in 2021. In March 2024 the resident reported a fault with the stairlift to the landlord. The contractor called the resident to understand the fault and told her it was still safe to use. The resident continued to experience issues so reported it to the landlord again. A sub-contractor attended and confirmed the stairlift was no longer suitable and safe to use due to the weight limit of the stairlift. The sub-contractor also confirmed the stairlift had not been serviced since installation.
5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord, and it acknowledged it on 5 April 2024. The resident said she was unhappy with the conflicting information by the contractor regarding the safety of the stairlift and the lack of servicing since installation.
6. The landlord provided an initial stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024. On the same day the landlord sent the response, the resident queried the damage caused by the sub-contractor to the carpet during the stairlift repair. Therefore, a full stage 1 response was sent on 10 May 2024.
7. In the stage 1 response the landlord apologised it had not followed the correct internal process during the installation of the stairlift, which would have raised a service each year. The landlord apologised for the conflicting advice provided by the contractor regarding the safety of the stairlift. The response confirmed the landlord did not have contractors that are carpet fitters, so it was unable to arrange a repair to the missing patches of carpet. However, as a gesture of goodwill it offered £50 as an apology for the carpet.
8. The resident was unhappy with the response and compensation offered so requested escalation to stage 2.
9. On 17 July 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It repeated the outcome of stage 1. However, it said they would offer a further £50 redress for any distress and inconvenience caused by the conflicting advice provided by the contractor.
10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman following the landlord’s stage 2 response. She said she was unhappy with the response, the offer of compensation, and the resolution offered regarding the damaged carpet. The complaint was one the Ombudsman could consider on 4 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

The lack of servicing to the stairlift in the property.

11. The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy says it will ensure that appropriate servicing contracts are in place for any relevant equipment such as (but not exclusive to) track hoists, stairlifts and through floor lifts.
12. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure allows for gestures of goodwill where service has fallen below expected standards and includes ranges:
    1. Low impact is £0 to £250.
    2. Medium impact is £250 to £700.
    3. High impact is £700 and above.
13. It is undisputed by both parties that the landlord should have serviced the stairlift twice since installation in 2021. While the impact only became apparent when the residents reported a fault, the lack of servicing represented a significant failure in the landlord’s responsibilities.
14. The resident reported the initial fault on 11 March 2024 as it was making a noise and jolting on the corner going up. The landlord logged a job to the contractor, who contacted the resident the next day and confirmed an inspection would be raised. However, the resident continued to experience issues and contacted the landlord on 21 March 2024. A sub-contractor attended the same day to repair and completed the service when it realised no service had been done previously. The sub-contractor sent a report back to the landlord which informed them about the lack of servicing and confirmed it had now been rectified. The resident confirmed she was happy with the repair and the service completed by the sub-contractor.
15. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the failure in servicing the stairlift, which resulted in a delay picking up the repair. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided reassurance that both teams involved in the stairlift process now understood the requirement to update the system. This demonstrated its commitment to learning. In the evidence provided, a further inspection was also booked in October 2024, in line with its policy requirements.
16. Whilst it is of concern that the landlord had failed to service the stairlift, in line with its policy, this Service lacks the technical expertise to say if or how the repair was linked to the lack of service. While it is understandable that the resident was concerned by the lack of servicing, once the landlord was aware of its failing, it attempted to put things right. It did this by apologising, completing the service on the repair visit, the same day it became aware and putting steps in place to ensure future servicing was set up correctly. Therefore, this Service has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the lack of servicing to the stairlift in the property.

The conflicting advice by its contractors regarding the safety of the stairlift.

17. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms problems with equipment installed as part of an adaptation is an emergency repair. It states it will respond to these repair requests within 4 hours (phone call or attend) and then complete a repair to make safe within 12 hours. The policy goes on to confirm further repairs required would be made within a reasonable timeframe.
18. The resident was unhappy she received conflicting advice by the contractor when she reported a repair to the stairlift. The repair was initially reported on 11 March 2024. When the resident spoke to the contractor over the phone the next day, she expressed her concerns regarding safety, as it was making a noise. The contractor confirmed it was safe to use but would attend when next in the area.
19. On 21 March 2024 the resident was still experiencing noise coming from the stairlift so reported it to the landlord again. The sub-contractor attended the same day, in line with policy requirements, and told the resident the stairlift was not safe to use. The resident brought her concern about the conflicting advice to the landlord’s attention as part of the stage 1 complaint.
20. The resident told the landlord the conflicting advice caused distress as her husband could have had an accident, fallen down the stairs, and really hurt himself. Initially, the contractor gave advice over the phone without inspecting the issue and told her it was safe to use. This failure to follow the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, and attend within 12 hours resulted in conflicting advice to the resident. Once the sub-contractor visited, in line with the policy requirements, they advised the stairlift was not safe to use as they were able to inspect the issue. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this failing and apologise in its response to the resident.
21. The contractor confirmed in its response to the landlord that the operative who spoke to the resident over the phone should have advised the resident not to use the equipment until it had been inspected. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the contractor directly. It did this as soon as the resident made them aware. The contractor apologised and confirmed operatives would receive training. In its stage 2 response the landlord also offered £50 redress for any distress and inconvenience caused.
22. This Service considers the landlord’s apology and offer of financial redress reasonable and proportionate. The conflicting advice did not have a long-lasting impact on the resident. The landlord’s response was prompt, picking it up with the contractor as part of the stage 1 complaint. It also offered financial redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, in its stage 2 response. Therefore, we consider that it amounts to reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the conflicting advice by its contractors regarding the safety of the stairlift.

The damage caused to the carpet when repairing the stair lift.

23. Under its financial redress and compensation procedure, the landlord may address cases of reported damage by arranging repairs to make good. The landlord can also offer financial redress, so the resident is not out of pocket, in line with the ranges mentioned above. Where damage is under £2,000, the landlord can settle such claims directly rather than referring to insurers.
24. The sub-contractors repair work to reposition the stairlift track left visible holes in the carpet. The resident told the landlord she felt it was unfair that she would have to pay to put this right due to the initial incorrect installation of the stairlift. The landlord disputes this and confirmed the photographs of the carpet provided by the resident show how the original stairlift was fitted over carpet installed at that time. This carpet then became visible when the sub-contractor replaced the stairlift track, as it had fittings at different frequencies to the first track. The landlord confirmed in its evidence that this could not be foreseen when the first stairlift was installed.
25. There is no evidence which shows that any discussions took place with the resident regarding the change of position of the stairlift track and the impact this may have had on her carpet. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate this with the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain its position on its responsibility for any damage.
26. The landlord acknowledged the damage and apologised. It explained it did not have an in-house repairs team or contractor who could complete carpet repairs. The landlord’s communication on 22 April 2024 implies that if it did have the resource, it would have taken responsibility for repairing the carpet. The £50 offered as an apology also indicates that it acknowledged some responsibility.
27. Whilst the landlord’s procedure allows an offer of financial redress where it could not make good the damage itself, the amount offered should have been proportionate to the impact and in line with its own guidance. The procedure makes it clear that redress should ensure that the resident was not out of pocket, and that gestures of goodwill should be scaled to the impact experienced.
28. The landlord’s confirmation that it did not have carpet fitters within its workforce does not absolve it of responsibility to ensure the resident was not disadvantaged. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore third party contractors or reimburse the resident for the reasonable cost of making good, supported by quotes or receipts. The procedure allows for the resident to provide receipts or estimates for replacement, but there is no evidence the landlord provided her with this opportunity.
29. The landlords offer of £50 was not accompanied with any evidence of how it came to this amount. It sits at the bottom of its procedure’s low impact range and does not reflect the ongoing, visible nature of the damage. The landlord’s procedure states residents should not be out of pocket when damages occur but there is no evidence the landlord considered this as part of its £50 offer. The landlord’s response was not consistent with its procedure or the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It failed to communicate the damage as an outcome of the repair with the resident. It failed to either arrange a practical resolution or provide a level of redress that fairly addressed the impact on the resident.
30. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this demonstrates service failure in the landlord’s response to the damage caused to the carpet when repairing the stairlift.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the lack of servicing to the stairlift in the property.
32. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in response to the conflicting advice by its contractors regarding the safety of the stairlift.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the damage caused to the carpet when repairing the stairlift.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failing identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £50 offered at stage 1, if it has not done so already.
    3. The landlord should arrange for a suitable qualified person to inspect the damage to the carpet. It should then set out its position with timescales on what it will do to make good the damage. The landlord should provide a copy of this to the resident and this Service.
35. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

36. We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident £50 previously offered in compensation at stage 2, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.