The Riverside Group Limited (202208873)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208873

The Riverside Group Limited

20 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her fence.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. On 14 April 2022, the resident reported that her front fence was rotten. The landlord arranged for its contractor to inspect the fence on 26 April 2022. The contractor concluded that the fence required repairs. These repairs were completed on 25 May 2022, however, on a further inspection on 31 May 2022, the contractor concluded the repairs were not sufficient and that the fence should be renewed.
  3. It arranged for renewal works to take place on 6 July 2022, however, as the works were extensive, the landlord sought a second opinion. A different contractor attended the property on 1 July 2022, and decided that the fence could be repaired rather than replaced. These repair works were then undertaken on 6 July 2022.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint on 7 July 2022. She stated that she was unhappy that the landlord had decided against replacing her fence, as she considered it to be unsafe.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 August 2022. It sympathised that the resident was dissatisfied with its decision, but disputed that it had definitively confirmed it would renew her fence. It explained that it was standard practice to gain a second opinion when proposed works were of an extensive nature. It also noted that all necessary repairs had now been carried out.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2022. She considered that the condition of the fence was not reasonable, and represented a health and safety risk to her dog and visiting grandchildren. The landlord sent its final response on the same date. It explained that since the resident’s complaint, it had re-inspected the fence and found it in good condition. It confirmed its position that it would not be replacing the fence, or undertaking any more works.
  7. The resident has stated in her complaint to this service that the fence is not in good condition. She would like more repairs to be undertaken, or for the fence to be replaced.

Assessment  

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining the structure and the outside of the resident’s home. This includes external boundary walls and fencing. Within the same policy, the landlord defines ‘responsive repairs’ as minor, ad-hoc or unplanned work that is reported by residents. It does not include cyclical or programmed maintenance such as replacing all fencing. 
  2. The policy does not give a specific timeframe for responsive repairs. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman must assess what is reasonable, which will be dependent on the circumstances.
  3. Following the resident’s reports on 14 April 2022, the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection on 26 April 2022. After concluding that the fence could be repaired, the contractor undertook repairs on 25 May 2022. These timeframes aligned with best practice in the industry and were reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. Following the repairs and a further inspection by the landlord’s contractor, the contractor concluded that the fence should be replaces and informed the resident that this would occur on 6 July 2022. Given that additional materials would need to be sourced, this timeframe was also reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that a landlord has a responsibility to manage its resources and finances appropriately, and that in instances where there is high expenditure, it is reasonable for it to arrange for a second opinion to ensure the expenditure is necessary. Following the initial contractor’s decision to renew the fence, the landlord arranged for a second contractor to inspect the fence. This was reasonable in the circumstances, however, it is not evident that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding its intention to get a second opinion. The landlord has noted the contractor informed her that the fence would be replaced, rather than the landlord directly, however, the Ombudsman considers that the contractor was a representative of the landlord, and it should have kept her informed about its actions to manage her expectations.
  6. In the landlord’s formal responses, it appropriately acknowledged the resident’s frustration about initially being informed her fence would be replaced, then subsequently only receiving repairs. Given that the resident raised concerns about safety, the landlord also appropriately carried out a further inspection. The Ombudsman notes that the resident remains concerned about the state of her fence, however, given that the landlord had carried out multiple inspections, it was reasonable for it to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff.
  7. While its position on the replacement of the fence was reasonable in the circumstances, it is evident that the landlord’s communication about obtaining a second opinion after having initially raised the resident’s expectations about a replacement was poor. Given the extended timeframe between the initial contractor’s inspection, and the final repair works being completed, the landlord had ample time to keep the resident informed, which it did not do. This would have caused frustration for the resident, and amounted to service failure in the circumstances. While this poor communication did not ultimately affect the outcome of the complaint, an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about her fence.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation, in recognition of its poor communication relating to further inspections and repairs to the fence.

Recommendations

  1. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns about the safety of the fence reported to this service, the landlord should reinspect the fence to satisfy itself that the repairs remain effective.