The Riverside Group Limited (202328178)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328178

The Riverside Group Limited

23 June 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 the resident’s request for a different contractor to attend.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1–bedroom flat and the resident has lived there since January 2023. The landlord has reported that the resident is vulnerable due to her mental health and mobility.
The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 13 September 2023, this was for the resident’s sink to be raised and straightened. The landlord initially attended on 22 September 2023 and 29 September 2023, follow up works were booked for 11 October 2023.
On 11 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the contractor’s operative had tried to lower the sink instead of raising it, and had told her they could not straighten it. The landlord’s log states the resident refused the work and requested that the landlord reattend within a week to complete the works correctly. The resident stated she did not want the landlord’s contractor to reattend and requested a different organisation to complete the work. The contractor’s operative reported that the resident had been abusive during the appointment.
On 17 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to remind her of the need to allow access for its annual gas safety inspection. It noted that the check would be carried out by the landlord’s contractor.
On 25 October 2023, the resident reported a repair to her shower. The landlord’s records state that the resident refused to speak to the Housing Officer and requested a call from a senior manager. The resident stated she did not want the landlord’s contractor to complete the repair and requested that the landlord send a different organisation. The landlord offered to attend with the contractor and suggested that the resident leave the property whilst the repair was carried out, which the resident declined. The contractor arranged for the works to the shower to be subcontracted so that the repair could be completed, it also explored whether the subcontractor would be able to complete the adjustment to the resident’s sink. It is unclear if the resident allowed access for the shower and sink repairs to be completed.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that the annual gas inspection was overdue and it would need to attend. The resident complained on the same day. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had received this letter when she had previously made it clear she would not allow the contractor to attend. A further letter was sent to the resident on 3 November 2023, it outlined the resident’s obligation to allow access in her tenancy agreement.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It did not uphold the complaint.
2. There was a legal requirement for the gas safety check to be completed.
3. The resident had signed her tenancy agreement which set out the obligation to grant access.
4. It had offered for its Housing Officer to attend with the contractor or the resident could have a friend, family member, or support worker with her. The resident had refused this.
On 10 November 2023, the resident requested her complaint be escalated because she did not want the contractor to attend. The landlord spoke with the resident on 13 November 2023, it stated it did not have another contractor who could complete the gas safety check but reiterated its offer for a member of its staff to attend with the contractor. It issued its stage 2 response later that day, it held the same position as its stage 1 response. The gas safety check was carried out by the contractor on 4 December 2023.
The resident referred the matter to us on 11 January 2024. She requested that the landlord apologise to her and agree not to send the contractor to her property.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow access to the landlord and its staff, agents, and contractors to carry out a repair, and inspect and service any gas appliances in the home. The landlord will give the resident at least 24 hours notice of when access it required unless it is an emergency. If the resident does not give immediate access or is not home in an emergency, the landlord may enter the property.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the installations for room heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity.
The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 place an obligation on landlords to ensure gas appliances, fittings, and flues provided for tenants are safe. All social housing landlords must carry out an annual gas safety check on every gas appliance and flue in its properties. This check must be conducted by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
When the resident raised her concerns about allowing the contractor to reattend, the landlord spoke with her to outline its obligation to complete repairs. It provided adjustments it could offer to make the resident feel more comfortable, including sending its own member of staff to supervise the contractor’s operative during the repair. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s internal correspondence was provided to us as part of the investigation. The landlord and the contractor explored whether it was possible that the resident’s shower was under warranty and if it could arrange a third party to attend through this avenue. Having read the landlord’s internal emails, we are satisfied that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
We recognise that the resident is vulnerable and had expressed concerns about allowing the contractors into her home. However, it is also important to note that landlords have a statutory obligation to carry out annual gas safety inspections, and a balance must be struck between the resident‘s individual needs and the landlord‘s legal responsibilities. Residents are also expected to allow access in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement. This includes allowing reasonable access where required.
The landlord was clear with the resident in its communication. It outlined that the contractor was its only supplier of gas safety checks which is why it needed to attend. It outlined its legal obligations so that the resident understood why the contractor needed to carry out the check.
In its complaint responses, the landlord was sympathetic towards the resident and demonstrated it understood her concerns about allowing access. The landlord showed it had considered the resident’s lived experience and reiterated its offer of support. It offered to rearrange the appointment so that the resident had more time to decide what support she required for the visit.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a different contractor to attend. This is because the landlord:
1. Acted in line with gas safety legislation and its own policies.
2. Offered support to the resident in facilitating the visit.
3. Was clear with the resident about why the contractor needed to carry out the visit.
4. Demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns and lived experience into account when making its decision.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a different contractor to attend.