The Riverside Group Limited (202100881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100881

The Riverside Group Limited

23 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to urgent repairs within five days and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints handling procedure says that it is mandatory to provide a written response to all stage one complaints. The procedure also says that it will communicate a stage two complaint decision to the resident within 10 working days of the request to move the complaint to stage two.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure says that compensation may be paid by way of apology, commensurate with the circumstances of the case. The policy sets the following range of payments for compensation where there has been medium impact on the resident: £50 – £200 and says that a person authorising a payment is not bound by these limits when agreeing compensation.
The resident says that she has been reporting issues concerning damp and mould at the property since 2014.
In mid-December 2020 the resident informed the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property. On 23 December 2020 the landlord inspected suspected damp in the bedroom and identified a possible problem with the roof. The landlord informed the resident that it would carry out work to the roof in January 2021.
On 6 January 2021 the third national Covid 19 lockdown began. During this time landlords were able to carry out repairs and maintenance of properties as long as social distancing measures were adhered to.
On 23 February 2021 the resident again spoke to the landlord about a leak in the roof at the property and said that mould at the property had been a problem since it was built. She said that the landlord had come to the property many times since 2014 to look at mould and she wanted the mould dealt with and the landlord to pay her compensation. She said that she had been told someone would be attending the property in January 2021 but had not heard anything further from the landlord. A complaint was logged about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and suspected damp in the property.
The landlord attended the property on 26 February 2021. A new job was raised for scaffolding to go up and “rectify whatever is up there really.”
On 12 March 2021 the landlord attended the property and advised that the black mould on the landing was not coming from the roof. The landlord’s notes say that it was going to attend the property the following week to look in the loft, but the issue was potentially condensation. The landlord was also planning on erecting scaffolding the following week to the front of the property to check the leak.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord attended the property, and its notes say that it did not think there was an issue with the roof but that the issue was with insulation not rolled out to the eaves. The landlord booked a job for 8 April 2021, and this was confirmed with the resident.
The landlord’s notes say that on 8 April 2021 it completed works internally and to the roof. The landlord inspected the works on 9 April 2021 and advised there were a few snags on the roof. These were completed on 12 April 2021.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and apologised about the behaviour of its operatives and advised that information about this had been fed back to the contractor. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for time and trouble but the resident rejected the compensation offer.
The resident again spoke to the landlord on 12 April 2021 and said that she wanted to complain about:
1. The landlord’s response to her reports of mould at the property. She had first reported it in 2014.
2. One of the landlord’s operatives had attended the property numerous times, the last time being on 23 December 2020. The resident said that the operative had a “can’t be bothered” attitude: He couldn’t be bothered to get his ladders out and asked her what she was complaining about as it was only a bit of mould, and everyone has it.
3. She had been accused by the landlord of drying washing on radiators and causing the problem.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord sent an internal memo saying that it had spoken to the resident who was under the impression that the complaint had been passed to stage 2.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord sent an internal email saying that the resident had reported the issue in mid-December 2020 and the landlord had inspected the property on 23 December 2020. During the inspection the landlord had told the resident that it would return in January 2021 with another member of staff as it thought the mould might be due to a roof leak. The email went on to say “They didn’t return at all (due to covid) but didn’t notify customer. Complaint came in Feb as customer hadn’t received any contact since 23rd Dec. They eventually went out in March and put scaffolding up to check the roof, this was a potential misdiagnosis and customer didn’t want to let [member of landlord’s staff] deal with it any further. [Another member of staff] then went out and advised insulation was required in the eaves of loft and this has now been sorted. Customer was offered £50 as gesture of goodwill but declined it and moved to stage 2.”
On 14 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss the complaint further. The landlord explained the maximum amount of compensation that it could offer was £125. The resident said that this sum was not enough to resolve the complaint. The landlord said that it would write to the resident confirming the offer and would close the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint notes say that compensation was offered for the time taken and its operative’s behaviour, but the resident was not happy with the length of time it took to resolve issues, the behaviour of the operative involved and the level of compensation offered.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. In the complaint response the landlord:
1. Reiterated its apology for the length of time it took to complete the works.
2. Assured the resident that her comments had been fed back to its contracts manager.
3. Explained that it understood that the resident’s outstanding concerns were:
  1. The time it took to resolve the issue.
  2. The implication that the resident’s actions had caused or contributed to the issue.
  3. The general conduct of the operative(s) involved.
  4. The level of compensation offered (£125)
4. Said that the goodwill offer of £125 remained open if the resident wished to accept it.
5. As the complaint had now been resolved it would close the complaint.
The landlord’s letter dated 14 May 2021 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that the resident’s complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure.
During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this Service that it carried out further works to the roof on 11 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
There is evidence that the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of mould and issues with the roof during 2019, and the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 13 November 2019. There is, however, no evidence that this complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint made in February 2021 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 14 May 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property as:
1. The resident reported the problem with mould in mid-December 2020, but the issues weren’t rectified until 12 April 2021, approximately 102 days later. This was approximately 74 days after the 28-day timescale for carrying out non routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
2. The landlord says that it did not attend the property in January 2021 due to the third Covid 19 lockdown. However, landlords were able to carry out repair work during this lockdown as long as social distancing measures were adhered to.
3. Despite informing the resident on 23 December 2020 that it would be returning to the property to carry out work in January 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about delays to carrying out the work.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologisng for the length of time it took to complete the works and for the behaviour of its operatives.
The compensation offered by the landlord was within the range of awards set out in its financial redress and compensation procedure for incidents when there has been a medium impact on the resident. However, as set out in paragraph 26 the delays in completing the work were significant and the landlord did not keep the resident updated about the delay between December 2020 and March 2021.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies says that in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident, awards between £250 and £700 may be used. Examples could include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, as in this case.
Whilst the landlord said that it had fedback the resident’s concerns about its operatives’ behaviour to its contracts manager, it did not provide evidence that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint in addressing delays in carrying out repairs.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The £125 compensation did not put right the time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s significant delays in carrying out the works to the property. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that as a result of the landlord’s actions she has incurred costs in paying for an electrician and roofer. However, as the Ombudsman has not seen further details or evidence concerning these costs it has not been possible to assess whether there was any quantifiable financial loss incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. It did not provide a written stage one complaint response, despite the provisions of its complaints handling procedure that a written stage one response is mandatory.
2. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 12 April 2021. However, the landlord did not provide its stage two complaint response until 14 May 2021, some 23 working days later and 13 working days after the ten working day timescale set out in its complaint handling procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in carrying out repairs and did not keep the resident updated.
The landlord did not provide a written response to the resident’s complaint at stage one and delayed in providing a stage two response to the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £375. This is comprised of:
1. £125 previously offered if this has not already been paid to the resident.
2. A further £150 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of mould at the property.
3. £100 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to establish if there is any further mould or damp in the property or any problems with the rood leaking. If there are, within two further weeks, the landlord is to confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service what remedial works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.