The Riverside Group Limited (202208736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208736

The Riverside Group Limited

12 December 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 decision to recharge the resident for the repair to the soffit.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 28 March 2022.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2022 and stated that there were bees in the loft and requested the landlord to arrange a pest control contractor. The landlord advised it did not provide a pest control service and signposted the resident to environmental health. In a subsequent inspection by a surveyor, a large hole in the front elevation soffit was identified and it was noted the resident stated he had broken it to assess the bee issue. The landlord then completed the required work to repair the soffit.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 25 June 2022, as he was dissatisfied he had been charged £1984 by the landlord for the repair. In his complaint escalation, the resident stated that there was a hole in the soffit prior to him moving in, which should have been identified to prevent the damage.
5. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it had recharged the resident for repairs to the front and rear soffits, but as he had only caused damage to the rear elevation, the additional charges had been removed. It advised the outstanding balance was £992.16, which the resident was responsible for, as the soffit would not have collapsed without “external assistance”. The landlord advised there was no evidence of damage in the void inspection or pictures, and it had not received any reports of damage from the resident.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he disputed full responsibility for the damage to the soffits, as he stated there were holes present in the soffit when he moved into the property. He said he had reported the hole and bee issue to the landlord, but it had not taken any action. The resident wanted the landlord to remove the charge, or reduce it to £250 in acknowledgement that he made the repair issue worse.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

7. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the roof of the property.
8. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for reporting repair issues to the landlord, if it falls within its responsibilities.
9. The tenancy agreement states that if the resident causes damage to the property, they are responsible for making good the damage. If the landlord completes the required work, it can charge the resident for the cost of the repair. 

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the repair to the soffit

10. It is important to note that in this case, the majority of the evidence provided by the landlord was a recollection of events, rather than contemporaneous documentary evidence. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the lack of evidence has impacted the outcome of the complaint.
11. In line with the tenancy agreement, it was appropriate for the landlord to initially recharge the resident for the repair to the soffit, given that the contractor had advised that the resident had noted he caused the damage. However, following the resident disputing the charge, the landlord was obliged to investigate his reports and assess the available evidence.
12. It is unclear whether the landlord has a rechargeable repair policy, however, in line with best practice, it should have clear evidence that the resident caused the damage before recharging him for the repair. As a result of the landlord’s investigation, it identified the resident had been incorrectly charged for damage to the front elevation soffit, as the contractor had only reported the resident caused damage to the rear elevation. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord removed the charge for the front elevation soffit, as the resident was not responsible for the repair. The landlord should review its staff training requirements regarding rechargeable repairs, to prevent incorrect recharges being sent to residents.
13. The resident disputed full responsibility for the damage, as he stated there was already a hole in the soffit when he moved in. As the landlord has not provided the original communication logs, as requested, this Service is unable to conclude whether the resident had reported damage to the soffit at an earlier stage, such as when he reported the bees in the loft. Given that the resident’s tenancy had recently commenced when the issue was identified, it was possible the damage was already present.
14. Due to the lack of detailed void information or supporting evidence such as inspection pictures, this Service is unable to make a determination on whether the damage was already present at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy. As a result, the landlord’s decision that the resident was entirely responsible for the damage was unreasonable. The onus is on the landlord to provide the required evidence to prove that the resident was liable for the damage. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide sufficient evidence, during both the complaints process and requests made by this Service.
15. Additional issues have been identified with the landlord’s record keeping as the void report noted that it had checked the loft area and removed all rubbish. However, the landlord noted this was completed on 16 May 2022, thus after the resident moved in. As there are noted inaccuracies, it questions the validity of the landlord’s records. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its voids record keeping practices, to ensure that the records are reliable.
16. The landlord has largely relied on the contractor’s account of events regarding its decision that the resident was liable for the damage to the soffits. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the contractor said the soffit “would not have collapsed without any external assistance” due to the stable structure and long lifespan. In some cases, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors. However, in this case, particularly due to the value of the repair, the landlord would be expected to provide a detailed explanation to justify its decision that there was no other possible cause of the damage, such as the age of the soffit (which is unclear). In the absence of an irrefutable explanation, it was not appropriate for the landlord to maintain the assertion that the resident was entirely responsible for the damage to the soffit.
17. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that its decision to recharge the resident for damage to the soffit was reasonable, due to the lack of evidence provided. The resident has not disputed that he contributed to the damage, however, due to the lack of evidence, this Service is unable to quantify the cost of the additional damage caused by the resident. As a result, an order has been made below for the landlord to waive the recharge for the repair to the soffit.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the decision to recharge the resident for the repair to the soffit.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to either waive the charge for the soffit repair, or reimburse the resident if he has already made the payment. The landlord must provide evidence of this to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations 

20. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices regarding the voids process and rechargeable repairs, to ensure that its records are accurate, and it can provide the required records to this Service if requested.
21. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding rechargeable repairs.