The Riverside Group Limited (202403987)

Background

1. The resident complained that her gas supply was disconnected for a week, leaving her without heating and hot water. She said the landlord had not kept appointments or taken account of her vulnerabilities. The landlord apologised and offered £175 in compensation.
2. Some of the resident’s complaints to the landlord also involved an elected representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and the representative as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. An interruption to the resident’s gas supply.
   2. Customer service during the gas supply interruption.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of an interruption to the resident’s gas supply.
   2. The complaint about customer service during the gas supply interruption is outside our jurisdiction.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of an interruption to the resident’s gas supply

5. The landlord acknowledged some failings and apologised to the resident. The compensation it offered was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s customer service during the gas supply interruption

6. This complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The resident told us that when she contacted the landlord’s call centre during the gas supply interruption, the agents were rude and dismissive, and shouted at her. The resident did not raise this issue in her complaints to the landlord. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have not investigated this customer service issue.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The landlord’s response at stage 2 was delayed slightly. However, this was not serious enough to constitute a service failure.

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 investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us that the situation had an impact on her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it might last.

What we have investigated

9. The evidence shows the resident reported the gas problem to the landlord on 1 December 2023 (Friday). The landlord responded the next working day, 4 December (Monday) to provide heaters but could not gain access as the resident had gone to stay with friends nearby. It arranged repair appointments for 6, 7, and 8 December (Friday). Only the Friday appointment went ahead, and the gas was reconnected.
10. The landlord acknowledged the failed appointment on 6 December 2023. It apologised and offered compensation. The resident said there had been a further missed appointment on 7 December because the landlord ignored a request she had made to be given notice of the contractor attending, as she was staying elsewhere because her flat was too cold. There is evidence that the landlord passed the request to its contractor, but that the contractor did not attempt to contact the resident before arriving at the flat. The landlord did not acknowledge that missed appointment.
11. The resident was able to stay with friends and family during the period but said the landlord did not take account of her vulnerabilities. The landlord said the resident had not made it aware of any vulnerabilities. While the resident mentioned a medical condition when making her complaint, no evidence that the landlord knew about it at the time of the issue has been seen. The resident did not explain specifically how her vulnerabilities meant she had been additionally impacted by the gas outage. Nonetheless, we have made a recommendation in relation to this.
12. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation and told both the landlord and us that it should reflect the cost had she needed temporary commercial accommodation, such as a hotel. There is no indication that the resident asked the landlord to temporarily move her, or that the property was uninhabitable, despite the inconvenience the resident experienced. Because of that there were no reasonable grounds on which the landlord should have considered such an action.
13. There is no indication that the original gas issue was due to any failings by the landlord. Because of that it was not obliged to consider offering compensation for the disconnection. It attended to the repairs in good time on the first working day after they were reported and was prepared to offer temporary heaters, which was in line with basic good practice. Nonetheless, the 2 failed follow-up appointments on 6 and 7 December delayed resolving the problem by 2 days.
14. The landlord acknowledged only one of those failed appointments, but the £175 compensation it offered exceeded our own compensation guidance for 2, as well as for the additional inconvenience and distress its failings caused. Along with its apologies, the compensation was proportionate to the nature and scale of its failings, and suitably resolved the complaint.

15. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
16. The landlord responded at stage 1 after 3 working days. It responded at stage 2 after 24 working days, slightly outside the 20 working days required by its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response.
17. Although the stage 2 response was 4 days outside the timescales specified in the Code, this had no apparent impact and was not significant enough to constitute a service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s records were of an appropriate standard, which enabled us to robustly consider its actions and decisions regarding the substantive issue and the associated complaint.

Communication

19. There were some issues of communication, particularly in relation to the resident asking to be contacted before contractors arrived at her flat. The landlord should reflect on adhering to requests made by residents, particularly when it has given no indication that a request received would be difficult or impossible to honour.