The Riverside Group Limited (202204973)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204973

The Riverside Group Limited

11 October 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring, following water ingress through her front door.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has provided a timeline for the repairs in its complaint response, stating that in July 2021, the resident reported water seeping into her hallway through her front door. The landlord responded by attending her property and undertaking repairs to the door. The resident raised another report of water ingress in late July 2021, which the landlord attended to in August 2021. She reported that the same issue was occurring again in November 2021, stating that her floor was now water damaged due to the leaking front door. In response the landlord booked a repair appointment, which was cancelled by the resident, due to her contracting Covid-19.
  3. In January 2022, the resident paid for her flooring to be replaced privately. She raised a complaint in February 2022, stating that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s repeated attempts at fixing her door. She explained that she wanted compensation for her new floor, and for her stair carpet to be inspected.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 February 2022, and replaced her door in March 2022. It responded to her complaint, stating that it had attended her property after each repair report, and had endeavoured to put things right. It concluded there had been no service failure in the way it had handled her door repairs. It explained that the resident should have allowed the landlord the opportunity to inspect the flooring prior to removing it. Without evidence of the damage, the landlord was unable to provide compensation. The resident felt this was unfair, and escalated her complaint, restating her original concerns.
  5. In its final response the landlord reiterated its position, stating that without evidence of damage, it could not provide compensation. It signposted the resident to its third complaint stage, which was an independent tenant panel. It also stated that, if she preferred, she could pursue her complaint through this Service.
  6. The resident has stated in her complaint to the Ombudsman that she would like to recover the cost of replacing her laminate flooring, which was £930.

Assessment

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that she must not carry out any improvements or alterations to her home without obtaining the landlord’s prior written consent. The agreement specifically lists laminate flooring as an example of such an improvement. It also states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the home and the interior walls, doors and floors, but not the decoration of these.
  2. The landlord has not provided a repairs policy showing its repair timescales. Nonetheless, the usual standard for routine repairs amongst social landlords is approximately 28 days, and so that is taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s action in this case. It took several visits between July 2021 and February 2022 for the landlord to conclude that the resident’s door was beyond repair and needed replacing. However, it can occasionally take several visits to ascertain what the most appropriate solution might be for a repair issue. This is particularly true in cases such as this one, where the issue is intermittent, e.g., a leak caused by rain. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests that the multiple visits were due to previous failings or omissions by the landlord. After each of the resident’s repair reports, the landlord attended the property promptly, and endeavoured to resolve the leak issue. From the information provided, there was no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s repair reports.
  3. In November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the water ingress was still ongoing and that, as a result, her flooring was now very damaged. The landlord responded appropriately by booking a repair appointment to address her reports of the water ingress and the floor. However, the resident cancelled this appointment, due to being ill with Covid – 19, and no new appointment was made. The landlord needed to be given the opportunity to inspect the flooring, to ascertain the full extent of the damage, and to decide what course of action to take. Without having been able to review the damage, it was not possible for the landlord to determine if it needed to replace the flooring or to consider any alternatives.
  4. Although the occupancy agreement states that the resident needed landlord approval before replacing the flooring, there is no evidence of a discussion with the landlord about it before the resident proceeded, or any agreement by the landlord that it would reimburse the resident. The resident needed to gain the landlord’s agreement to cover the cost of the floors, before undertaking the works. As she did not gain permission for the new floors, the landlord would not be obligated to cover the cost, unless there had been a service failure in how it had handled the repairs. Having reviewed its response to the resident’s repair reports, the landlord was appropriate in its decision to state there was no service failure, and therefore its decision not to reimburse for the costs of the flooring was reasonable. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.