The Riverside Group Limited (202126771)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126771

The Riverside Group Limited

13 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about increases to the service charges for the 2021/22 financial year.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat in a block of four flats. The resident’s occupation agreement states that the tenancy is subject to variable service charges.
  2. In April 2021 the landlord gave notice to the resident of proposed increases in service charges. The resident queried the proposals and asked for more detail to justify them. The resident was especially concerned that fire safety and health and safety inspection charges be better explained. The landlord responded with further information and having reviewed the charges it reduced amounts due for recovery charges from the total. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s explanation and submitted a formal complaint in March 2021.
  3. The landlord’s stage one response was issued on 22 March 2021. It explained fire safety and health and safety elements of the charges and apologised for a lack of ‘suitable explanation’ in the original rent increase letter. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of charges, the explanations given by the landlord and the time taken to deal with his complaint.
  4. The landlord’s stage two response (12 May 2021) upheld the complaint and provided a more detailed explanation of the elements of the service charge that the resident had highlighted. The landlord agreed in the response to make internal recommendations that (i) amounts allowed for future fire maintenance works be reduced and (ii) explanations to residents for the calculation of service charges be improved for the future. The landlord also said in this stage two response that the resident had the further option of progressing his case to its tenant panel.
  5. The resident reported difficulty in progressing through this final stage of the complaints process. He received the tenant panel response on 7 January 2022, six months after his request for this to be escalated. The tenant panel upheld the landlord’s stage 2 response. The panel concluded that the landlord had gone ‘above and beyond’ when investigating the complaint and apart from the delay due to staff holiday had dealt with the complaint in a timely manner. The panel did not comment on the time taken for the complaint to be brought to the panel for consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident, in recent correspondence, has stated that he has raised a further complaint, on similar issues for the current year’s service charges. The resident said that the landlord had refused progression of this complaint on the basis that he should bring his complaint to this Service. The Ombudsman is not normally able to investigate issues that have not progressed through a landlord’s complaints process. If the resident has raised new issues that have not been considered under its complaints process, the landlord is required to go through this process with him.
  2. Should he remain dissatisfied at the end of the process, the resident has the right to bring this further complaint to this Service for formal investigation. By consequence, this investigation has been limited to issues raised and responded to in the complaint that culminated in the landlord’s final response of 7 January 2022.
  3. In addition, the Ombudsman will not normally investigate the level of a service charge increase as court/tribunal services are typically better placed to assess such issues. However, the Ombudsman will consider the complaint that has been raised about such issues and can assess whether a landlord has addressed the issues that have been raised, put right any service failures identified and whether it has communicated reasonably throughout. This investigation has proceeded on this basis.

Service charges for the 2021/22 financial year

  1. In February 2021, the landlord gave notice to the resident of a proposed increase in service charges for the 2021/22 financial year. The resident queried the increases and asked for more information to justify the proposed charges, in particular the resident wanted an explanation for firefighting equipment and health and safety inspection charges.  The landlord responded with more information and having reviewed the charges, also made a reduction in the total.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and on 10 March 2021 made a complaint. The landlord upheld the complaint and shared information provided by the landlord’s audit department which explained in detail why amounts charged for firefighting equipment and health and safety inspections needed to increase. The landlord also agreed to make an internal recommendation that the amount allowed for future fire maintenance works be reduced and that information provided to residents with the rent increase letter be improved. The response included an apology for the delay in responding to the complaint and explained this was due to holiday leave and the bank holiday period.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response letter also explained that the resident now had the option to raise the matter with an independent tenant panel. The resident asked the landlord to arrange this and after a long delay the tenant panel issued its decision on 7 January 2022. This decision upheld the outcome of the stage 2 response.
  4. Up to and including stage 2 of the landlord’s enquiry and complaints procedure the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously and investigated the case thoroughly. The resident’s account was checked and as a result the total reduced and the inadequacy of the explanation provided in the original rent increase letter was acknowledged. At stage 2 the landlord also recommended that a further reduction should be made in the amount allowed for fire safety charges. The landlord demonstrated that it intended to learn from the complaint by recommending improvements in the communication of service charge increases to residents in the future.
  5. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably. It investigated the resident’s reports, identified the need to re-calculate the charges in the resident’s favour, identified learning for improving this service in future and recommended that specific charges be reduced in future years. Whilst the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the charges as presented in his 2021/22 service charges, the landlord’s response offered explanations for these charges and addressed the issues it identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In March 2021, when the resident first made a complaint, the landlord’s processes for handling complaints was set out in its customer feedback procedure.  This document sets out timescales for a two stage process after which, if the resident was still not satisfied, there was an option to ‘raise’ the complaint with an independent tenant panel.
  2. In September 2021 the landlord adopted a new complaint handling procedure. This procedure removed the third stage review by a tenant panel and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s current complaint handling code which recommends that a third stage review is generally unnecessary. In the Ombudsman’s view, a two stage process is sufficient for a landlord to investigate and then review a complaint, with further stages having the potential of prolonging the dispute for all parties.
  3. Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the landlord’s customer feedback procedure set out timescales for dealing with complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. The procedure stated that at stage 1 a resolution timeline needs to be agreed with the resident and once investigated a resolution plan should be communicated within 5 working days. The resident’s complaint in this instance was concluded in 8 working days. At stage 2 the landlord did not follow its own procedure and exceeded the timeframe of 10 working days.  The resident was told by the landlord that the aim was to deal with the complaint within 20 working days. In the event the response was sent out on the 27th working day. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and explained the reasons for the delay in its stage 2 response letter.
  4. Whilst these delays were no doubt frustrating for the resident, they do not present as excessive given the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaints process. As such, its apology is considered reasonable for the failures at this stage of the process.
  5. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure gave residents the option to raise complaints with a tenant panel at the time of the stage two response. The procedure did not, however, explain the role of the panel and neither did it set out the process or the timeline for the tenant panel to carry out its review. The landlord’s stage 2 response letter offered the opportunity to raise the complaint with a tenant panel. It also explained that the role of the panel was to work with both sides to find a solution and to decide if the solution offered by the landlord was reasonable. No information was provided in the letter regarding the process or timescales for consideration by the tenant panel or whether the resident would have an opportunity to make representations.
  6. The resident attempted to submit a request for the complaint to be raised with a tenant panel in June 2021. By August 2021, with no response from the landlord, the resident chased the matter up and was told that the form had been lost and the resident was told to resubmit his request. The resident did so on 6 August and the complaint entered the tenant panel process on 9 August. The resident has told the Ombudsman that 4 emails were sent to the landlord between September 2021 and January 2022 asking how the matter was progressing. The tenant panel issued its decision on 7 January 2022 more than 6 months after the resident had first attempted to raise the complaint for consideration.  The resident had expected to be able to make representations to the panel but was given no opportunity to do so.
  7. The decision of the tenant panel upheld the landlord’s stage 2 response. It acknowledged delays at stage 2 and accepted the landlord’s explanation for these delays. No mention is made in the panel’s final review letter of the time taken to bring the complaint for the panel’s consideration.
  8. The landlord recognised and apologised for moderate delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 and 2 of the process. After stage 2, however, there were several significant failures in the landlord’s complaints handling service.
  9. The landlord did not action the resident’s first request to raise the complaint with a tenant panel and then failed to deal with the complaint within a reasonable timescale. The landlord did not keep the resident informed and failed to explain what the resident could expect from the process. In particular the landlord did not explain whether or not the resident could attend or make representations to the panel.
  10. Taken together these delays and failures to deal with the resident fairly amount to failure in its complaints handling. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure paragraph 2.1.1 provides that compensation can be offered by way of apology where it is accepted that the service has not achieved the expected standard. In the Ombudsman’s view, a compensation payment of £100 provides a reasonable remedy for the detriment experienced by the resident in relation to the failures identified here. This amount reflects the landlord’s compensation policy that details awards of between £50 and £200 where inconvenience or distress has resulted from landlord failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response the to the resident’s concerns about proposed increases in service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £100 in compensation for the failures identified with its complaints handling.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance to this Service within 28 days of this investigation report.