Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Riverside Group Limited (202304958)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304958

The Riverside Group Limited

3 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks and subsequent claim for compensation.

Background

  1. The residents are assured tenants of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom  flat with a balcony, in a block of similar properties within a housing scheme. For the purpose of this report, we shall refer to the residents as “the resident”.
  2. The resident made a number of reports of water leaking into the bedroom of the property. The landlord has provided a summary of these reports which include:
    1. On 4 December 2020 the resident reported water coming under the balcony door. On 9 December 2020 its operative fitted a new trim to the balcony door, filler foamed the gap under the trim and renewed the silicon seal on outside.
    2. On 7 January 2021 the resident reported that water was still coming under the balcony door. On 21 January 2021 its operative adjusted the ‘keeps’ to the door to make sure the door closed tightly, resealed above the weather bar and side of frames where existing sealant had perished.
    3. On 7 November 2022 the resident reported water was coming from the gutter above the balcony. The landlord arranged for the guttering to be cleared but it is not clear on which date this occurred.
    4. On 17 November 2022 the landlord has recorded that water was coming in via the weatherboard. Its operative checked everything and adjusted and re-sealed the door on 6 December 2022.
    5. On 11 January 2023 it said that issues with the gutters and roof were the cause of the leaks into the bedroom. However, it is not clear what work was carried out.
    6. On 7 April 2023 it erected scaffolding and removed a section of damaged render that it believed was the source of the leak and repaired it with resin.
  3. On 13 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint as he felt that the length of time it had taken the landlord to resolve the issue had led to his curtains becoming mouldy. He asked that the landlord provide compensation so that he could replace the curtains.
  4. On 20 April 2023 the landlord inspected the work that had been carried out on 7 April 2023 and also inspected the flat for internal water damage
  5. In its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023 the landlord said it had upheld the complaint due to the delays in resolving issues. However, it said it was not responsible for any damage from any leak and that the resident should make a claim on their contents insurance, which it advised all tenants to take up at sign up. It said if the resident did not have their own cover, whilst it sympathised for the inconvenience and distress that may have been caused, it was not liable for any claim to personal items.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint  on 25 April 2024 as he disagreed with the decision. However, in its stage 2 response on 3 May 2023 the landlord said it agreed with its stage 1 decision that the resident would need to claim on their contents insurance and that it would not be paying any compensation for the curtains.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 May 2023 as he felt that the landlord should contribute towards the cost of new curtains. He said he had been reporting the leaks for over 2 years and believed that it affected his and his wife’s health as they kept getting coughs and colds and he now had emphysema and breathing problems. He was also concerned that the repairs to the render may not provide a permanent solution and that this would not become obvious until there were storms and heavy rain.

 Events after the landlord’s internal complaints process.

  1. Although there were no further leaks during the summer months, on 1 November 2023 the resident reported that there was a further leak, which appeared to be coming through the balcony door.
  2. In March 2024 in response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request, the landlord said that the resident had raised another complaint about the further leak and that it was dealing with it at stage 1 of its complaint process. It also said that it had carried out a surveyor’s inspection and work to resolve the leak was due to start on 18 March 2024.
  3. In September 2024 the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the work the landlord carried out had resolved the leak. However, he said he and his wife had to spend over 3 months sleeping in a guest bedroom elsewhere in the residential scheme whilst awaiting the work, and that he could not recall receiving any response to the new stage 1 complaint he had made.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on his own and his wife’s health. Although we would give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states:
  2. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’
  3. The resident raised his original complaint on 13 March 2023. The complaint exhausted the landlords internal complaints process (ICP) on 3 May 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. As such, this investigation will focus on events up until 3 May 2023.The resident reported a further leak on 1 November 2023 and the landlord has confirmed to us in March 2023 that a new stage 1 complaint had been raised. However, as the further leak occurred after the end of the ICP of the original complaint, and the new complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s ICP, we will not be investigating this further leak in this report. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states:
  4. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
  5. The resident does not recall receiving any response to the new stage 1 complaint and it is unclear whether the landlord has issued one. Therefore, we will be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to either reissue the stage 1 response for the new complaint if it has already issued one previously, or to issue a response as a matter of urgency. It should be noted that if the new complaint exhausts the landlord’s ICP and the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response for that complaint, the resident would be able to refer that new complaint to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks and subsequent claim for compensation.

  1. The landlord’s Financial Redress and Compensation procedure states that on occasions where the level of service falls below its accepted standard it will work to put things right and this may include paying redress. It says redress or gestures of goodwill may be payable in several situations, including:
    1. When it has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards.
    2. When it is legally liable (at fault in law) for bodily injury or for damage to property (including a tenant’s property).
  2. It states that payments fall into 3 categories:
    1. Financial Redress – Ensuring the customer is not out of pocket because of its failure in service.
    2. Gesture of goodwill – As an apology for when it acknowledges that the level of service was below the standards its customers expect. Examples of when goodwill payments are made can include delays in resolving matters, unsatisfactory communication, or poor complaint handling.
    3. Legislative requirement – Right to Repair and Financial redress for Improvements, Home Loss, and Disturbance payments in these instances are prescribed by law.
  3. The Financial Redress and Compensation procedure also includes a Third Party Property Damage (TPPD) framework. This includes a specific pathway for claims of damage not exceeding £2,000 in value, which are dealt with in house, rather than via the landlord’s insurer. As the framework includes referring resident’s to their home contents insurer its decision to do that was reasonable.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2023, the landlord provided  a summary of the actions it had taken up until April 2023 to try to address each leak report it had received. The notes for the repairs carried out on 6 December 2022 say that the operative did not think the leak was entering via the balcony door. However, they had carried out repairs to the door in the hope that this would work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the operatives concerns at the time. However, it is not clear whether it did so before it noted on 11 January 2023 that it believed the leak was coming from the guttering.
  5. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the original repair records for the period up until April 2023. Instead, it provided a summary of the resident’s reports of water ingress at the property in response to our evidence request. It is noted that this summary did not include the operatives comments questioning the source of the leak on 6 December 2022 that were included in its stage 1 response. It also lacked any detail of the repairs that were carried out in January and April 2023. Landlords are expected to keep robust records to provide an audit trail, and to enable the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures. The lack of full records has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to assess whether its actions in relation to the leaks were reasonable and appropriate at all times. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that there had been delays in resolving the issues and upheld the complaint for that reason.
  6. In line with its Financial Redress and Compensation procedure, as the landlord had accepted that there were delays in resolving the issues, it would have been appropriate for it to have awarded compensation for those delays. However, it failed to do so. As the landlord had acknowledged the failing it would also have been appropriate for it have apologised for it. However, other than a general apology at the start of the stage 1 response for the fact that the resident had had to raise a complaint, there was no apology for the delays or the distress and inconvenience they would have caused the resident.
  7. As the landlord acknowledged there were delays in resolving issues but failed to apologise for them or to award compensation for the impact of them there was maladministration by the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving issues. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord acknowledged those failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  8. It is important to note that as this investigation focuses on events up until the end of the ICP on 3 May 2023, the £250 compensation is for the impact of events prior to that date. Any events that happened after that date, including the further leak reported on 1 November 2023, should be addressed by the landlord in its response to the new complaint the resident has raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks and subsequent claim for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the delays in resolving issues and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks and subsequent claim for compensation.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to either reissue the stage 1 response to his new complaint, or to issue a response as a matter of urgency if it has not already issued one.