The Riverside Group Limited (202208737)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208737

The Riverside Group Limited

27 January 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 request that his kitchen, kitchen door, windows, external doors and radiators be repaired or replaced.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 28 March 2022. The property is a house which has an attached external ‘alley’ with external doors at either end.
  2. The resident reported several repair issues soon after moving in. Works to repair leaking radiators, replace the thermostat valve on a radiator, repressure the boiler, adjust three external doors, fix holes above a downstairs window and check the radiators within the property were suitable for the size of each room were completed between March and April 2022. In April 2022, the resident reported that the kitchen door and frame had been damaged by a previous tenant. He also requested that the radiators in the property were replaced due to their condition and that an additional radiator was installed in his living room. He also reported that the hinges to some of the windows had been twisted which meant that they were difficult to open.
  3. An inspection of the property was carried out on 13 May 2022 which identified works required to fit draught strips to the back door following the resident’s reports of a draught, renew a section of plinth under the sink base unit as this was slightly water damaged, ease living room and bathroom windows, renew hinges to the rear living room window and both front bedroom windows, renew all rusted hinges to kitchen unit doors and refit a loose floorboard in the kitchen. The evidence shows that these repairs were completed between 24 May 2022 and 7 June 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in July 2022 as he was dissatisfied that the landlord would not replace the radiators in his property or install an additional radiator in his living room. He said that the kitchen, internal kitchen door and kitchen window needed to be replaced due to their condition and that the door had been twisted and damaged by the previous tenant. He added that the repairs carried out to the two external ‘alley’ doors had not been sufficient and wanted these to be replaced. He also expressed concern that there was a smell in the property that he could not locate and that the previous repairs carried out to re-hang the external alley doors were no sufficient.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised that it would not bring the kitchen renewal forward from 2028 as it was able to complete repairs to the kitchen and it did not warrant a replacement. It explained that it would not replace the kitchen door as it was repairable, adding that the damage was not ‘fair wear and tear’ and no issues were raised with the door in the void period before the property was let. As such, it was not classed as a repair issue. It confirmed that its gas team had attended and found that the radiators were working to a good standard and correctly for the size of room they were in. As such they were not in need of replacement. It confirmed that the two external doors had been adjusted and it had fitted new hinges to the kitchen window. It said that it had also completed a further inspection and confirmed that no further repairs were required.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the condition of the property. He advised that there was a smell within the property and the issues had impacted his mental health. He wanted the landlord to install a new kitchen, doors, radiators and an additional radiator in the living room.
  7. Following the complaint, the evidence shows that one radiator was found to need replacement, however, this was not completed by the landlord as the resident chose to replace this himself. In addition, he advised that the front and back alley doors let water in when it rained and the landlord arranged to replace the rear door which was scheduled for November 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that his kitchen door, window, external doors and radiators were replaced.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to external doors, external window and door frames, internal doors and door frames and installations for room heating. The resident would be responsible for making good any damage caused to the property that is not the result of fair wear and tear.
  2. The repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 12 and 24 hours and routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. The landlord also has a planned investment programme where it completes kitchen, bathroom, window and door replacements over a given financial year depending on the condition and age of the item in question.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident reported several repair issues in the property at the beginning of his tenancy and had requested that several elements of the property were replaced due to their condition. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident in line with any relevant policies and procedures and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the radiators, kitchen or various doors at the property required replacement, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with these elements of the property in a reasonable manner.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord completed a void inspection before the property was let and carried out a series of works across the property, including to the external alley doors, front door and internal doors as well as completing a clean of the property. The records note that the resident did not raise any specific repair issues to the landlord when he accepted the property on 28 March 2022 and the property was signed of as being up to a suitable standard.
  5. It should be noted that social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord would not be expected to replace items within a property at the resident’s request unless the item in question was beyond economical repair. Doing so would be considered an improvement which the landlord is not strictly obliged to do. In addition, landlords are entitled to complete work to replace kitchens, doors and windows as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond economic repair. The landlord is ultimately entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when determining whether an item can be successfully repaired.

Radiators

  1. The evidence shows that the resident initially reported that several radiators were leaking on 29 March 2022, the day after moving in. Whilst it would have been preferable for the landlord to have identified the issues prior to the tenancy beginning in the void period, in some cases, issues such as leaks may not become apparent until the property is inhabited and installations are in use. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a repair on 30 March 2022 within its emergency timescales.
  2. The resident then expressed concern that the radiators were dirty, in a poor condition and had asked for them to be replaced. He also requested that an additional radiator was installed in his living room as he did not believe that one radiator was sufficient for the room size. The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns on 25 April 2022, prior to the complaint being raised. It found that the radiators were working sufficiently and that the radiator in the living room had the correct output for the size of the living room in question. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would not replace the radiators or install an additional radiator as the radiators were found to be suitable, maintaining the correct heat output and not in need of repair. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have suggested alternative measures that either it or the resident could undertake to improve the cleanliness and appearance of the radiators in order to resolve the resident’s complaint more fully, but this in itself does not constitute a failing.

Kitchen

  1. In response to the resident’s request that the kitchen was replaced, the landlord advised that it was not able to bring the kitchen renewal (scheduled for 2028) forward, as it was able to complete repairs to bring it up to a suitable standard. The resident has argued that due to the condition of the kitchen, it should be replaced sooner. The landlord has acted fairly by confirming its obligations to repair the existing structure where needed. The evidence shows that following a property inspection on 13 May 2022, repairs were carried out to renew rusted hinges on the kitchen unit doors, renew a section of plinth beneath one of the units and re-fix a floorboard. These works were completed on 24 May 2022 which was within a suitable timeframe. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any further issues within the kitchen that would fall under the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
  2. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the kitchen had been successfully repaired and was not yet in a condition that warranted a full replacement before the planned review date in 2028. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not install a new kitchen earlier and instead complete repairs where required was reasonable in the circumstances.

Windows

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident also advised that various windows in the property needed to be replaced. It is noted that the landlord had initially determined that the repair to the window hinges in the property would be rechargeable as the windows were signed off as being functional during the void period. However, it appears that the landlord agreed to complete works to renew the hinges following a further inspection on 13 May 2022 and confirmed that it would not recharge the resident on 18 May 2022.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that no further repairs were required to the windows in the property following the repairs, carried out on 7 June 2022, as its qualified staff and contractors had determined that the windows had been successfully repaired. The evidence shows that a further repair was raised for windows on 8 September 2022. It remains unclear as to what this consisted off, however, it is noted that the resident refused the repair as he wanted the windows to be replaced. As above, the landlord would only be obliged to complete a replacement if the windows were beyond economic repair and the repair was the result of fair wear and tear rather than tenant damage. It is recommended that the landlord confirms when the windows are due to be considered for renewal as part of a planned programme in order to manage the resident’s expectations moving forward.

External doors

  1. The void report provided by the landlord shows that work to repair the front door frame and draught strip as well as work to adjust, repair and decorate the external alley doors had been completed during the void period before the property was let.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by completing further work to adjust the three doors took place on 11 April 2022, fit a draught strip to the rear door on 24 May 2022 and complete further work to re-hang the front external door on 5 July 2022 following reports by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise in its complaint responses that the external doors had been successfully repaired, as it had completed repairs following each report made by the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. Following further reports that the alley doors let water in when it rained in October 2022, the evidence shows that the landlord had agreed to replace the rear external door, which was scheduled for 4 November 2022. Whilst it may have been helpful for the landlord to have considered whether the door should have been replaced at an earlier stage given the number of repairs that had been required, it was again entitled to rely on its contractors opinions that the doors could be repaired and it was not strictly obliged to replace them if the doors were otherwise secure and functional. The evidence shows that the landlord ultimately acted in line with its repair obligations by completing repairs as required.

Internal kitchen door

  1. The evidence shows that the resident first reported that the internal kitchen door was “twisted” and that the frame had been damaged by a previous tenant on 11 April 2022. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that the photos from the void inspection showed the door to be in a good condition and any repair issues would have been identified at the time. It confirmed that it would not repair or replace the door as the damage was deemed to be caused by the resident and not to be fair wear and tear.
  2. Whilst the landlord would not be obliged to carry out repairs to items that had been damaged as a result of tenant’s actions, the resident disputed full responsibility for the damage, as he stated the damage had been caused by a previous tenant, prior to him moving in. The resident reported that the door had been “twisted”, although it remains unclear as to what the repair issue consisted of based on the available evidence.
  3. The void report shows that a repair to adjust the ‘keeper’ to the kitchen door was carried out during the void period and it is reasonable to assume that any other repair issues should have been identified at the time. However, it should be noted that the onus is on the landlord to provide the required evidence to prove that the resident was liable for the damage reported. The Ombudsman would have expected to see clear evidence of the condition of the door when let with additional evidence of the current condition of the door, to justify its decision not to repair the door. The landlord has not provided sufficient supporting evidence such as inspection pictures. As such, this Service is unable to establish 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 and a minor failing. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide sufficient evidence, during both the complaints process and requests made by this Service.

Conclusion 

  1. In summary, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations to the resident by carrying out repairs in line with its repairs policy. It has acted appropriately by confirming its obligations to repair elements of the property and clearly confirming its position in relation to the resident’s request that various elements of the property were replaced. Its decision not to replace the kitchen, radiators, windows or internal doors was reasonable given its contractors opinions that repairs could be carried out and these elements were not in a condition that warranted replacement at the time of the complaint. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that its decision not to repair the damage to the kitchen door was reasonable, due to the lack of evidence provided.
  2. As such, within four weeks, the landlord is to complete an inspection of the kitchen door and carry out any repairs required. It is recommended that the landlord completes an audit of the property to obtain documentary evidence of its condition to support it in concluding whether repair issues are the result of fair wear and tear or tenant damage in the future if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord aims to respond within five working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within ten days. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint within its complaint responses.
  2. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing its complaint responses at each stage within a reasonable timeframe. However, as part of the complaint, the resident raised specific concerns related to a smell in his property. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s concern regarding a smell in the property within its complaint responses which was likely to have caused inconvenience as the issue remained outstanding and unresolved.
  3. In view of this, the landlord is to offer the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to address his concern. The landlord should contact the resident, confirm whether he is still experiencing a smell within the property and carry out an inspection where appropriate in order to confirm its position regarding any remedial works required.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that his kitchen, kitchen door, windows, external doors and radiators were repaired or replaced.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Complete an inspection of the kitchen door and carry out any repairs required.
    2. Contact the resident, to confirm whether he is still experiencing a smell within the property and carry out an inspection where appropriate in order to confirm its position regarding any remedial works required.
    3. Pay the resident £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to address the resident’s concerns related to a smell within the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm when the external doors and windows are scheduled to be reviewed for renewal in order to manage his expectations moving forward.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord completes an audit of the property to obtain documentary evidence of its condition to support it in concluding whether repair issues are the result of fair wear and tear or tenant damage in the future.