The Riverside Group Limited (202223926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223926

The Riverside Group Limited

25 April 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding from his shower and its response to his request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom retirement living flat and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 27 September 2021.
The property was occupied by the resident and someone who the resident was caring for. The resident has advised this Service that the person he was caring for had disabilities. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it was aware of the other occupant’s vulnerability.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing:
1. The structure and exterior of the property.
2. The installations for room heating, water heating and sanitation, including…basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible “to keep in repair and proper working order the installations to the dwelling house…”. This includes showers that were installed by the landlord.

Summary of events

On 13 December 2021, the resident reported that sewage was backing up in both the shower and the kitchen. An operative attended on the same day. The toilet was found to be blocked and therefore the operative unblocked it. The operative stated that the ‘whale pump’ was not working and would require a plumber (a whale pump is used to pump waste water from a shower). The landlord therefore raised a follow-on order and a plumber attended on 18 December 2021. The job notes stated that the plumber unblocked the shower and it was left in working order.
On 6 January 2022, the resident reported a further blockage to the shower. A plumber therefore attended on 7 January 2022 and cleared the blockage.
On 24 January 2022, the resident reported that the shower was leaking when used. A plumber attended on the same day and reported that the shower was working correctly, was not blocked and did not have any leaks.
On 19 March 2022, the resident reported that the shower was backing up and therefore the bathroom was flooded. An operative attended on the same day and found that the shower was blocked. The operative reported that a plumber would be needed to look at the pump. The landlord therefore raised a follow-on order and a plumber attended on 22 March 2022. The plumber stated that the pump was not working and needed to be renewed.
The landlord’s records show that operatives also attended the property on 24 and 25 March 2022 and reported that the pump was not clearing water from the shower floor quickly enough and therefore the pump needed to be replaced. However, a plumber attended on 29 March 2022 and found that the shower was blocked but decided that it did not need a new pump. The plumber stated that a plastic razor blade had been lodged in the outlet pipe. Therefore, the plumber removed the item, replaced the rubber seals and an electrician reset the pump. The notes stated that the shower was left in working order.
The resident phoned the landlord on 4 April 2022 to report that an operative had attended his property on 3 April 2022 but did not carry out any repairs. The resident stated he was advised that someone would return to the property on 4 April 2022. The resident said he was dissatisfied because the issue had been ongoing for 6 months and he had not been able to use his shower for over a week.
The landlord logged the resident’s phone call as a stage one complaint and acknowledged the complaint on 4 April 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 April 2022 to advise him that someone would attend on 5 April 2022 to address the leak from the shower. The resident stated that he wanted a refund of 3 months’ rent.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 April 2022 and the resident confirmed that the repair to deal with the leak had been completed (one of the pipes had come loose from the soil stack). However, he reported that he had recently redecorated and now there were holes in the wall.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 April 2022 and confirmed that the plasterer would attend on 12 April 2022. The resident requested compensation in relation to the shower for the inconvenience of having to take the person he was caring for downstairs to the communal shower when she had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 11 April 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had requested reimbursement for 3 months’ rent.
2. An appointment had been made for a plasterer to attend on 12 April 2022.
3. The landlord stated that it could not offer compensation as it had attended each of the jobs within the agreed service level timescales.
A plasterer attended on 12 April 2022 and repaired the wall in the bathroom by using plasterboard, bonding and skim plaster. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident on 12 April 2022 and was able to confirm that the plastering had been completed. The landlord advised the resident that it was unable to offer compensation as it had left the shower in working condition each time it had attended. The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
The resident phoned the landlord on the same day (12 April 2022) to ask about the repair to the shower. The resident stated that he was expecting an operative to attend on that day. However, the landlord advised him that the only appointment listed was for 14 April 2022. The resident reiterated that he had not been able to use the shower for over a week. The landlord’s records show that an operative attended the property on 14 April 2022 to replace the whale pump but was not given access to the property.
The landlord’s maintenance records stated that a plasterer attended on 21 April 2022 and plastered the holes in the bathroom.
On 15 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the shower pump was not draining. The landlord raised an order, however, the job notes stated that the resident phoned to cancel the appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 and again requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered compensation at stage one.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 17 May 2022 to repair the shower pump, which was not draining. The resident advised the landlord on 17 May 2022 that he had been using the communal guest room shower for the past 3 days. He sent photos to the landlord and also reported the following issues:
1. He said there was a bad smell coming from the sink.
2. He said there were problems with the hot water in the toilet.
3. The water from the shower was not very hot (he was having to wait 5 minutes before he could use it).
4. The warm water was coming out of the cold water tap.
The resident sent further photos to the landlord on 19 May 2022, which he stated showed that water was remaining in the shower. He stated that this had been the case for 56 days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2022 to confirm that although it had arranged for an operative to attend that day, the resident had asked for the appointment to be rearranged until 24 May 2022.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident who confirmed that a plumber had attended that day and left the shower in working order. The job notes stated that the plumber had serviced the pump.
An internal email sent by the landlord on 27 May 2022 stated that it did not know why the pump continued to become blocked and had adjusted/renewed several parts of the pump’s waste system. The landlord stated that the resident had not incurred any financial losses and had been able to use the communal guest room when needed and therefore the landlord did not consider compensation to be warranted. The landlord’s records show that on 27 May 2022, there were further conversations between the landlord and the resident regarding the resident’s request for compensation.
On 30 May 2022, the resident reported that water was pooling around the toilet pan. The landlord therefore raised an order, however, the job notes stated that the operative could not get access to the property. The landlord attended on 1 June 2022 and unblocked the shower tray.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 June 2022 and offered him a goodwill gesture of £75. However, the resident rejected this offer.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 June 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had spoken to the resident and the resident had explained that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply because of the ongoing issues with flooding from his shower.
2. The resident had been able to use the guest room when necessary.
3. The landlord had spoken to the resident on 17 May 2022 and advised him that it had brought forward an appointment to repair the shower to 19 May 2022. However, when the landlord attended on this date, the resident said the appointment was inconvenient as he had a hospital appointment. The resident advised the landlord that he would be available on 24 May 2022.
4. The landlord attended on 24 May 2022 as agreed with the resident and carried out the necessary repairs to the shower. The resident confirmed that he had tested the shower following the repairs and found that it was no longer flooding.
5. The landlord stated that it had considered the resident’s request for compensation but had not identified any service failures. It acknowledged that it had “attended multiple times” to repair the shower but it had resolved the shower issue and left the shower in working condition on each occasion. Therefore, the landlord stated that it was unable to pay compensation.
6. As a good will gesture, the landlord had offered the resident £75, however, he had declined this offer.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord raised an order to unblock the shower pump. An operative attended on the same day and was advised by the resident that he had already booked an appointment for 22 June 2022 and therefore he wanted to keep that appointment. A plumber attended the property on 22 June 2022 and inspected the pump. The plumber adjusted the pump settings and on 23 June 2022 the landlord ordered a new pump as a result of the inspection.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 and advised that he was seeking redress through the landlord’s Tenant Panel. The landlord’s records stated that it had advised the resident that the case was with the Tenant Panel and it had no control over the timescales for the panel to respond.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord replaced the pump in the bathroom. (The landlord’s records show that there were no further reports of blockages to the shower following the replacement of the pump on 5 July 2022).
Between July and November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to request an update regarding his complaint and the landlord advised him that the matter was with the Tenant Panel. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 November 2022 to confirm that the complaint was still with the Tenant Panel, however, due to unforeseen circumstances it was taking the panel longer to deal with the complaint than anticipated. The landlord had explained the options available to the resident and he had stated that he wanted to wait for the panel to review his complaint.
The landlord’s Tenant Panel wrote to the resident on 21 December 2022 and stated the following:
1. The Tenant Panel had visited the resident at this property on 15 December 2022.
2. The resident had explained to the panel that the shower had caused flooding in both his own property and in the flat below. He had therefore been “upset” with the compensation that the landlord had offered.
3. The resident had advised the panel that the complaint had been ongoing since October 2021. The resident had advised that there had been at least 21 visits to his property in relation to the shower and this had affected his personal health.
4. The panel felt that the timescale of the resident’s complaint had been “both long and with multiple issues” and the resident had kept a record of every visit concerning ongoing repairs and calls made to the landlord. The panel therefore recommended that the landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £150.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had experienced flooding more than 14 months ago and his carpet had been damaged. He also mentioned that he had experienced the stress of having to use the communal guest room as he was a carer for someone in the property. The resident stated that he had been offered £150, which he was dissatisfied with.
The resident wrote to this Service on 9 February 2023 and explained that while his shower could not be used, he had used the shower in the communal guest room, which he found difficult as he was a carer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During his meeting with the Tenant Panel in December 2022, the resident advised the panel that the issues regarding the shower had affected his personal health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
The resident advised this Service that he had reported issues with his heating, radiators, hot water and toilet after the landlord’s final response letter dated 6 June 2022. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, these issues have not formed part of this investigation as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that they have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and therefore the Ombudsman does not consider it fair and reasonable to include them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding from his shower and its response to his request for compensation

The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as emergency, urgent or routine repairs:
1. Emergency repairs are to be attended within 12 hours;
2. Urgent repairs within 5 days; and
3. Routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will: “Deliver an effective repairs service which responds to the needs of customers, and which has the objective of completing repairs at the first visit”.
On 13 December 2021, the resident reported that sewage was backing up into his shower. An operative attended on the same day and found that the toilet was blocked and therefore he unblocked it. During the visit, the operative found that the whale pump serving the shower was not working. The landlord therefore raised a follow-on order and an operative unblocked the shower on 18 December 2021 and left it in working order. The landlord’s contractors therefore attended both the blocked toilet and the follow-on order for the whale pump within appropriate timescales.
The resident reported a further blockage to the shower on 6 January 2022. A plumber attended on 7 January 2022 and cleared the blockage. Therefore, the contractor had attended and dealt with the blockage within the appropriate timescale.
The resident reported that the shower was leaking on 24 January 2022. However, a plumber attended on the same day and stated that the shower was working correctly, was not blocked and did not have any leaks. The contractor therefore attended within the appropriate timescale and checked the shower. As the plumber had not found any issues with the shower, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings from its contractor.
During March 2022, the resident reported further problems with the shower and therefore operatives attended the property on 24, 25 and 29 March 2022 to examine the whale pump, which it was thought was not clearing water from the shower quickly enough. However, during the visit on 29 March 2022, the plumber found a plastic razor blade lodged in the outlet pipe and concluded that a new pump was not required as he had cleared the blockage in the pipe. Although the resident had been reporting issues with the shower since December 2021, it was again reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its contractor who had cleared the blockage and reported that a new pump was not required.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 4 April 2022 regarding a leak to the shower. The contractor attended on 5 April 2022 and resecured a pipe which had come loose from the soil stack. The landlord had therefore arranged and carried out the repair through its contractor within an appropriate timescale.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2022 to ask about repairs to the shower. He explained that he had not been able to use the shower for over a week. An operative attended on 14 April 2022 to replace the whale pump but was not given access to the property. As there had been various jobs raised to deal with blockages and leaks from the shower, it was reasonable that the landlord had agreed for the whale pump to be replaced. It is unclear from the evidence seen why the operative could not access the property on 14 April 2022. However, the landlord’s records confirm that this was the case and therefore the landlord had taken reasonable steps to comply with its repair obligations.
The resident phoned the landlord on 15 May 2022 to report that the shower was not draining. The landlord raised an order but the resident phoned to cancel the appointment. The landlord raised a further order on 17 May 2022 after the resident made contact to say he had been using the communal guest room shower for the past 3 days as the shower was not draining.
The resident sent photos to the landlord on 19 May 2022 to show that the shower was not draining. The contractor had therefore attended on the same day but the resident had asked the contractor to call back on 24 May 2022. A plumber attended on 24 May 2022, serviced the pump and left the shower in working order. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had therefore acted reasonably by sending a plumber on 19 May 2022 and then rearranging the appointment to 24 May 2022 at the resident’s request.
On 30 May 2022, the resident reported problems with pooling around the toilet pan. The contractor initially attended but could not access the property. The contractor attended on 1 June 2022 and unblocked the shower tray. The landlord had therefore again responded within a reasonable timescale and had unblocked the shower.
Although the landlord had responded in a timely manner to the individual reports of blockages to the shower, the resident’s stage 2 complaint was, in the Ombudsman’s view, an opportunity for the landlord to consider whether there was an underlying issue given the number of times the resident had reported problems. Instead, the landlord pointed out in its stage 2 reply that it had “attended multiple times” to repair the shower and had left it in working order on each occasion. This was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord to consider whether a more permanent solution was available.
The Ombudsman accepts that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as blockages or leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset. In some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would have been appropriate to resolve the issues. Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. However, in this case the landlord was aware there was a vulnerable person living in the property who was having to use the shower in the communal guest room. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not carried out earlier investigations to identify any underlying problems causing the blockages to the shower.
The landlord raised a further order to unblock the shower pump on 20 June 2022 and a plumber attended on 22 June 2022. The plumber adjusted the pump settings and ordered a new pump. The new pump was fitted on 5 July 2022 and, following this there were no further reports of blockages to the shower.
As well as the blockages to the shower, the resident had also reported damage to the plasterwork in the bathroom due to works carried out by the contractor in relation to the shower pump. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2022 to report that he had just redecorated the bathroom and the contractor had made holes in the wall while carrying out work to the shower pump. A plasterer therefore attended on 12 April 2022 and repaired the bathroom wall. The landlord’s records show that a further plasterer attended on 21 April 2022 and repaired holes in the bathroom wall.
It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had not been proactive in raising a follow-on order for the plaster repairs after damaging the wall while repairing the shower pump. Instead, the landlord had been prompted by the resident regarding the damaged plasterwork. However, following the resident’s report of the damaged plaster, the landlord responded appropriately by raising an order and arranging for the contractor to attend twice within a reasonable timescale.
The resident has advised this Service that he had to redecorate again as the landlord and the landlord did not offer to reimburse him for the materials used. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence showing that the resident requested reimbursement from the landlord or included this as part of his formal complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response to the question of reimbursement for the redecorations carried out by the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £75 in its stage 2 reply as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s Tenant Panel then wrote to the resident on 21 December 2022 and increased this to £150. This sum was within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer went some way to address the failings identified in this report. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s Tenant Panel accepted there had been multiple visits carried out to the property over a long period to repair the shower. The number of visits and the periods the resident was without the use of the shower caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and the person he was caring for. This person was known to be vulnerable due to her disabilities and therefore the landlord should have factored in the additional inconvenience of the resident having to use the communal guest room shower. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this Service has made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation. The total amount ordered is £350, which includes the £150 already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one of the process it will aim to respond within 5 working days. If this is not possible, it will respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will aim to respond within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances where this is not possible, the landlord will contact the resident to agree an extension.
The Ombudsman has noted that the wording of the landlord’s stage one complaints process at the time was ambiguous and lacked clarity for the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlord’s should, as a rule, provide written responses to complaints within 10 working days at stage one, and within 20 working days of receiving a request to escalate to stage two. The landlord has since simplified the wording in its complaints policy and brought its published timescales in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The complaints policy stated that residents who had completed both stages of the complaints process had the option of contacting a ‘designated person’, who could be an MP, councillor or the landlord’s Tenant Panel. The policy added that residents could also contact the Ombudsman without first referring their complaint to a designated person.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 about problems with his shower and this contact was logged by the landlord as a stage one complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 11 April 2022 and therefore replied within an appropriate timescale.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 and requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process as he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered compensation at stage one. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 June 2022, which was 13 working days after the resident’s request for his complaint to be escalated. The landlord had therefore responded within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord’s stage 2 reply had correctly signposted the resident to the next stage of the complaint process, which was to appoint a Designated Person or a Tenant Panel or refer it to the Ombudsman. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 and advised that he was seeking redress through the landlord’s Tenant Panel.
Between July and November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions for an update regarding his complaint. The landlord explained to the resident that it did not have control over the time taken by the Tenant Panel and he had the option of approaching the Ombudsman. As the Tenant Panel was comprised of tenant volunteers, the Ombudsman understands that the landlord would have had limited control over the panel. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord reminded the resident that he had the option of approaching the Ombudsman at any time.
The Tenant Panel met with the resident on 15 December 2022 and wrote to him with the outcome of its review on 21 December 2022. It had therefore taken almost 6 months for the panel to issue its final response letter following the resident’s contact with the landlord on 1 July 2022. The time taken was therefore excessive and it prolonged the process for the resident. However, as stated previously, the landlord had advised the resident that he had the option of approaching the Ombudsman at any time. The Ombudsman has therefore not highlighted the time taken by the Tenant Panel as a service failure.
Overall, the Ombudsman has therefore found that the landlord handled the resident’s complaints reasonably.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of flooding from his shower and its response to his request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced multiple issues with his shower over a long period. The landlord did not investigate at an early enough stage whether there was an underlying reason for the problems with the shower. The landlord offered financial redress but the amount offered did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints at stage one and two of the process within appropriate timescales. Although there was a delay in the Tenant Panel considering the resident’s complaint, the landlord had made the resident aware that he could approach the Ombudsman at any time after stage 2 of the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 for the handling of the flooding from the shower (this sum includes the £150 already offered by the landlord).