The Riverside Group Limited (202007006)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007006

The Riverside Group Limited

24 May 2022


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Anti–social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbours.
    2. Repairs to the TV aerial and paving slabs.
  2. The related handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a block of purpose-built flats. The tenancy commenced on 1 May 2000 and ended on 29 September 2019.
  2. On 19 July 2018, the resident reported to the landlord that he had not had TV for seven months as the TV aerial had been blown down in a storm. The resident said that he believed the aerial was the landlord’s responsibility as it was in a communal area. The landlord said it would investigate this and get back to the resident.
  3. On 13 October 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that, in response to an earlier complaint in the summer of that year, it had agreed to arrange for the paving slabs to be inspected but this had not happened.
  4. On 10 May 2019, the resident called the landlord to say that he was fed up with the ongoing issues with the paving slabs.
  5. On 21 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to log a formal complaint and to say that he had decided, reluctantly, to hand in his notice due to:
    1. The behaviour of his neighbours which he said he had experienced for the past two and half years. The resident said that he first reported this in 2017 and that he had to sleep on a mattress in his living room for nearly two years.
    2. His aerial had been broken for over two years and on many occasions, promises were made that it would be sorted.
    3. Paving slabs sticking out in his garden which he said were dangerous and that he had fallen over them. The resident said that once again he had been promised on many occasions that this would be sorted.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 September 2019. With regards to the ASB, the landlord said that this had been dealt with by its Community Safety Team and that these types of complex cases can take time to resolve, and strict legal processes must be followed. The landlord also noted that the resident had raised several concerns regarding outstanding repairs, in particular the communal aerial, which its repairs team were looking to resolve. The landlord that, as an apology for the time delays it offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord noted that in its earlier telephone call with the resident he had declined this offer and wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage two.
  7. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 27 September 2019. The landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on 6 September 2019 and that during that conversation the resident had confirmed that he still wished his complaint to be escalated despite having served notice to end his tenancy.
    1. With regards to the ASB, the landlord said that it could find only one record of ASB by his neighbour being reported by the resident. That the case was closed in February 2017, and it had been unable to find any further reports of ASB after that. The landlord said that therefore, it was unable to uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
    2. With regards to the repair to the TV aerial, the landlord acknowledged that two repair jobs were raised on 21 March and 29 June 2018 and that no action was taken as the jobs had been raised incorrectly.
    3. With regards to the paving slabs, the landlord said that repairs were raised on 10 May and 25 July 2019, an inspection took place on 30 July 2019, but it could not identify any issues with the paving slabs as per the report that had been made. The landlord also included a photograph of the paving slabs, marked as being taken on 30 July 2019.
    4. The landlord repeated its offer of £250 compensation.
    5. The landlord ended by advising the resident that if he were dissatisfied with its response, he was entitled to escalate the matter to an MP, a councillor or its Tenants’ Panel, at the Designated Person stage of its complaints process. If he remained dissatisfied following the outcome at the Designated Person Stage, he would then be entitled to raise the matter with the Housing Ombudsman Service, eight weeks after he had received the final outcome of his complaint investigation by the Designated Person.
  8. The resident’s tenancy ended on 29 September 2019.
  9. The resident referred his complaint the Tenant Panel, as a Designated Person on 16 October 2019. On 19 June 2020, the offer of compensation was increased by the Tenant Panel to £500. This offer was not accepted by the resident.
  10. On 11 October 2020, the resident submitted a web complaint to this service. The resident complained about the noise nuisance he had experienced from the flat adjoining his bedroom wall, that he had had no TV for approximately three years and that the paving slabs in his garden were dangerous and he had fallen on occasion.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the tenancy terms and conditions the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the building and the installations for the use of services – water, gas and electricity.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for TV aerials or satellite dishes it has fitted for communal use and paths and walkways where shared or the main access to property.
  3. The landlord complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states complaints must be received within six months of the event concerned, it has a two stage complaints process and that if a complainant is not happy with the proposed resolution at Stage two, they have the option to either: Wait eight weeks and take the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, or raise the issue with a Designated Person (DP), which is defined as any MP, any local councillor, a recognised Tenant’s Panel. The policy notes that a complainant may have their complaint heard by more than one DP.

ASB

  1. In his complaint on 21 August 2019, the resident said that he had been experiencing ASB by his neighbour since 2017. In its stage one response the landlord referred to action that it had previously taken with regards to the resident’s reports but did not raise any issues regarding the timing of the resident’s complaint. It was not until the landlord’s final response that the landlord explained that it had no record of receiving any reports of ASB from the resident since 2017 and as such advised that it was not able to uphold this element of his complaint.
  2. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The landlord checked its records in relation to the resident’s complaint about his neighbour and the last report was from 2017. The resident did not provide any evidence that he had reported ASB more recently and so the landlord’s explanation of what happened in 2017 was reasonable. The landlord is only expected to act on the reports it receives and as there is little the landlord can do years after the event.
  3. As the resident had served notice on his tenancy which then ended on 29 September 2019, it was also reasonable for the landlord not to offer to carry out any further investigation into the ASB in its final response.

Repairs to the TV Aerial and paving slabs.

  1. With regards to the TV aerial, the first record of the resident contacting the landlord about his TV aerial was on 19 July 2018, at which point he said that he had had no TV for seven months as the TV aerial had been blown down in a storm.
  2. When a landlord is advised of a repair the Ombudsman expects it to respond in accordance with its repairs policy and to complete the repair within a reasonable period. The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the timescales for responding to repairs. Two repair jobs were raised on 21 March and 29 June 2018 but according to the landlord no action was taken. At the time of the resident’s formal complaint of 21 August 2019, over a year later the repair had still not been completed. This was not a reasonable of time for the resident to wait to have his concerns addressed.
  3. With regards to the paving slabs, the resident initially contacted the landlord on 13 October 2018, to report that the landlord had agreed to arrange for the paving slabs to be inspected but this had not happened. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps at that time, nor of the resident pursuing the repair until he contacted the landlord, seven months later, on 10 May 2019, regarding the ongoing issues with the paving slabs.
  4. Following the resident’s report of 10 May 2019, the landlord acted appropriately raising a job the same day for the inspection of the slabs. There is no record of what happened with regards to that job. A further job was then raised on 25 July 2019 and an inspection took place on 30 July 2019, three working days later. When the inspection took place, it found no issues with the slabs.
  5. In its stage one response on 3 September 2019, the landlord said that its repairs team were looking into the outstanding repairs. However, the landlord failed to apologise to the resident or to provide him with any explanation for the delay in it carrying out the repair to his aerial or the inspection of the slabs. It is also noted that the inspection of the slabs took place prior to the landlord issuing its stage one response, however, there is no mention of the inspection in that response. In recognition of the delays in carrying out the repairs the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation.
  6. In its final response, the landlord repeated its offer of £250 compensation, acknowledged its failure to take timely action, particularly in relation to the repair to the resident’s TV aerial, referring to an even earlier date of 21 March 2018. It explained that the reason for this was that it had failed to take any action as the jobs had been raised incorrectly. The landlord also confirmed that an inspection had taken place on 30 July 2019, that it had found no issues with the slabs, and provided the resident with a photograph taken on the day of the inspection to support its position. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
  7. In summary, whilst there were service failures by the landlord, these were acknowledged, and the resident was offered £250 compensation to resolve the complaint. The £250 offered by the landlord is at the lower end of the range suggested by the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance in respect of complaints where there has been a failure by the landlord over a considerable period to address repairs.
  8. It has been noted that following the landlord’s final response, the complaint was considered by a Tenant’s Panel, as a Designated Person, which increased the compensation offered to £500. This service cannot investigate a decision made by a Designated Person, in this case that is the findings of the Tenant’s Panel. However, it has been recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £500 offered by the Tenant Panel rather than the £250 awarded in its final response as this also falls within the range of compensation suggested within the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for the level of service failure in this case. This would also take into account the failure identified in the landlord’s complaint handling – set out below.

Complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to provide its residents with accurate information regarding their right to access the Ombudsman’s services.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states that if a complainant was not happy with the proposed resolution at Stage two, they have the option to either: wait eight weeks and take the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman or raise the issue with a Designated Person (DP).
  3. In its final response the landlord advised the resident about raising his complaint with a Designated Person but incorrectly advised him that he would need to wait until eight weeks after he had received the outcome of his complaint investigation by the Designated Person, to raise the matter with the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  4. The resident followed the landlord’s advice and waited until eight weeks after he had received his response from the Tenant Panel to refer his complaint to this service.
  5. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with accurate information about accessing this service resulted in an unnecessary delay in the resident raising his complaint with this service which missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier. As a result, a finding of service failure has been made with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling for which the landlord is to apologise to the resident. It is also recommended that it pays the resident the £500 compensation offered by the Tenant’s Panel.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of Anti–social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbours.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the TV aerial and paving slabs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of ASB by his neighbours. However, having found no evidence of any reports by the resident since 2017, approximately two years earlier, it was reasonable and in accordance with its complaints policy for the landlord to not uphold that element of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failures with regards to the delays in it actioning the resident’s repair reports with regards to his aerial and paving slabs and offered him compensation, which was later increased by the tenant panel, that  provided the resident with reasonable redress to resolve the complaint.
  3. The landlord failed to provide the resident with accurate information with respect to him accessing the Housing Ombudsman Service which resulted in an unnecessary delay in him raising his complaint with this service and achieving an earlier resolution to his complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord apologises to the resident for giving incorrect information about escalating his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

  1. That the landlord pays the resident the £500 compensation offered following the Tenant Panel on 19 June 2020. The determination of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying compensation to the resident.

The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with this order and recommendation.