The Riverside Group Limited (202121870)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121870

The Riverside Group Limited

7 March 2023


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 handling of the consultation process with residents, prior to the 2021 partnership between the landlord and another housing association.
  2. The Service has also considered any associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In December 2021, the landlord formed a partnership with another housing association, with the latter joining the former as a subsidiary. Prior to this, the landlord underwent a consultation process involving residents from both housing associations.
  3. The landlord also developed a panel which residents could apply to be part of. The purpose of the panel was to make sure the voice of residents from both landlord agencies was heard throughout the merger process.
  4. On 4 October 2021, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the consultation process, in particular the way in which the panel was formed. This was done via a formal complaint made to the landlord.
  5. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s findings following its stage one complaint response.
  6. The landlord’s stage two response partially upheld one of the complaint points. In doing so, it provided the resident with further information regarding opportunities to give feedback on the merger. All remaining complaint points were not upheld, including those relating to the consultation process and panel selection.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. To resolve his complaint, the resident requested:
    1. The merger be blocked, with any future acquisitions prevented until improvements to performance and services relating to specific residents are made.
    2. The landlord be required to put the partnership to a binding vote, between residents of both housing associations.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the consultation process with residents, prior to the 2021 partnership between the landlord and another housing association.

  1. It is important to note there is no legal basis for the Housing Ombudsman Service to block a merger between landlords, as this falls outside our powers to resolve individual complaints. However, the Service has investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether it acted fairly, in line with its own policies and procedures when responding to him.
  2. The landlord’s tenant and resident involvement policy states:
    1. The landlord “will provide tenants, residents and customers with information to make them aware of the engagement, involvement and empowerment options available to them.”
    2. And “that there are tenants on all Boards who are able to influence decisions and have equal standing with other members”.
  3. Throughout his complaint, and when referring it to the Service, the resident has suggested there was an absence of information from the landlord. He states this resulted in him and other social housing tenants, being excluded from the consultation process about the merger.
  4. The landlord has a platform in place for residents to engage with it and influence any local policy decisions. This platform is known as Riverside Customer Voice (RCV). Prior to the partnership between Riverside and One Housing, a platform for Impact residents was available to them. This was called Impact Customer Voice (ICV) and had been in place from August 2018. The landlord states that, from 2018 up until Summer 2021, ICV was advertised to their residents as well as opportunities to join the RCV Executive. This was done by advertising in hubs, on posters, mailing and on the landlord’s social media accounts. Those opportunities gave residents the chance to become part of the wider ‘engaged customer’ community. All ‘engaged customers’ were written to in 2018, however Impact residents were not included. During an advertising campaign, the landlord included information about ICV with all outgoing rent statements, including those sent to Impact residents.
  5. The landlord has provided evidence showing a social media post regarding the partnership consultation between the landlord and the other housing association. The post reminded those affected by the partnership that the deadline to submit their feedback was approaching. The resident commented on the social media post regarding the content of the survey. The landlord has also provided an email sent to the resident, in response to his complaint. In this email, the landlord asks for the resident’s consent to pass on his details to a colleague for them to discuss joining RCV. This demonstrates the landlord presented the resident with an opportunity for him to join or, at the very least, discuss joining RCV.
  6. Both housing associations also agreed to creating a Joint Customer Advisory Panel (JCAP) and appointed an Independent Tenant Advisor to support the panel and provide impartial advice to all its residents. Due to time restrictions, the JCAP was made up of ‘engaged customers’ from the existing RCV Executive.
  7. While the landlord could have included Impact residents when writing to ‘engaged customers’ in 2018, the Service has found it took reasonable steps to follow their tenant and resident involvement policy. Through advertising campaigns, social media posts and written correspondence, the landlord provided information to its residents about the engagement options available to them. Although the landlord states timing had an impact on the makeup of the JCAP, it took additional steps to ensure all its residents had the opportunity to provide their opinion and influence decisions.
  8. Given the actions taken by the landlord, the Service is satisfied it acted fairly during the consultation process leading up to the 2021 partnership between itself and another housing association.

Associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaint process:
    1. “We aim to acknowledge the complaint escalation in writing within two working days of the request to escalate the complaint being received.
    2. We aim to provide a written response at stage two within a maximum of ten working days from receipt of the request to escalate”.

The landlord issued a stage one complaint response in line with its published timescales. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 October 2021. The landlord did not issue its stage two response until 15 working days later, on 1 November 2021. While the Service acknowledges the landlord failed to meet its complaints policy timescales and this would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall the delay was not excessive and there is no evidence to suggest the delay had a significant impact on the resident or the complaint outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The consultation process with residents, prior to the 2021 partnership between the landlord and another housing association.
    2. Its associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure it adheres to the complaint timescales set out in its complaints policy. When unable to meet these deadlines, the landlord should inform the resident and provide an updated response time and an explanation of the reasons for the delay.