The Riverside Group Limited (202307138)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307138

The Riverside Group Limited

24 February 2025


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 concerns about the boiler, including her request that it be replaced.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband are joint assured tenants of the landlord. They live with their adult daughter, and 2 grandsons (both children). The tenancy began in September 2021. The property is a 3 semi-detached bedroom house, with 1 bathroom, and 9 radiators. It has a gas combi boiler with 25 kilowatt (kW) power output. The house was a new build at the time the resident moved in.
  2. On 2 August 2022, at an end of defects liability period meeting (involving the resident, the landlord and the builder of the house), the resident raised a concern about the boiler. She had previously reported intermittent hot water. Records provided indicate that between 16 August 2022 and 19 September 2022 the landlord’s contractor tried to contact the resident to arrange an appointment but was unsuccessful.
  3. On 13 October 2022, an engineer from the boiler manufacturer inspected the boiler. They reported to the builder and landlord that the boiler was functioning as intended. On 11 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the same engineer had told her the boiler was not powerful enough to heat her home.
  4. On 15 November 2022, the landlord asked the builder for a report of the 13 October 2022 inspection by the engineer. On 23 December 2022, the builder sent the landlord an email from the manufacturer. This said that the engineer reported the boiler was working to specification. The manufacturer said a 25 kW boiler was suitable for 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom properties.
  5. On 19 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord for a new boiler, as the current boiler was not sufficiently effective to heat her home. On 10 February 2023 the landlord offered to bleed the radiators, but the resident declined. She said the radiators were working. She contacted the landlord again on 18 April 2023 to ask it to inspect the boiler as it had “never worked properly,” since the start of the tenancy.
  6. A gas safety check was carried out on 11 May 2023, and the gas safety record shows no faults with the boiler.
  7. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2023. She said she had ongoing boiler issues, and the landlord was ignoring her. She said it cost 3 times the amount she expected for heating and hot water. She asked the landlord to install a more powerful boiler.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It said the boiler was functioning correctly. The “industry standard and regulation” for a 3-bedroom property, with up to 10 radiators, was 24 to 27 kW. Therefore, as the resident’s boiler was 25 kW, the landlord would not replace the boiler. It acknowledged the resident would be disappointed, and apologised for this.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 27 May 2023. She said the boiler was not powerful enough, and up to 3 of the radiators did not work as they should. Both she and her MP had asked the landlord to assess the efficiency of the system, but this had not been done. She felt the landlord did not care. She pointed out that the manufacturer’s engineer had told her the boiler was not powerful enough, and it was also expensive to run, as they had to run the water for a long time for it to get hot.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. This said the boiler was correctly specified and was performing correctly. Therefore, it would not be taking any further action.
  11. The resident has told us that from her perspective the problem is still ongoing as, although the boiler works, it is not powerful enough. She has said it takes too long for the water to get hot, and some of the radiators in the house do not get hot.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In her complaint to the landlord the resident said she had had issues with the boiler for 18 months. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances. We must also consider whether the matters should have been escalated to our Service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation. For this reason, it is not fair to either party to consider matters that have been ongoing over an extended period, but not raised as a formal complaint to the landlord. In this case, as the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in May 2023, this investigation will focus on the period from May 2022 to 14 June 2023, the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response. Reference to events before or after these dates is made for context only.

The boiler

  1. The landlord had a responsibility under s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to put right any disrepair to the boiler and keep it in working order. Once a landlord has been notified of disrepair it must put this right within a reasonable period of time. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy said routine repairs would be carried out within 28 calendar days. While the landlord had a duty to carry out repairs, it did not have a duty to carry out improvements.
  2. The evidence suggests the landlord was not proactive in making sure the boiler was inspected within the 28-day target. While it was aware of the resident’s concerns about the boiler since the 2 August 2022 end of defects liability period meeting, it delayed logging the repair for 7 days, and delayed asking its subcontractor to attend for a further 7 days. Although it contacted the resident on 15 September 2022 to ask her to contact the subcontractor, this was already 44 days after it became aware of the issue, on 2 August 2022. The landlord did not stick to its own repairs policy timescales, and this was a failing.
  3. While the builder had said on 2 August 2022 that they would inspect the boiler, and potentially ask the manufacturer to do so, the defects liability period had ended, and the landlord was responsible for keeping the boiler in repair. Additionally, no evidence has been seen that the landlord was proactive in contacting the builder to find out when they, or the manufacturer, planned to inspect. Therefore, the landlord did not act with sufficient promptness in carrying out its repair duty. As a result, the resident waited 10 weeks after she reported her concerns on 2 August 2022, until the manufacturer’s engineer inspected the boiler on 13 October 2022.
  4. Although there is a note on the landlord’s repairs system that the manufacturer’s engineer had attended, and found the boiler was functioning as intended, no evidence has been seen that the landlord communicated this to the resident. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. As a result, the resident was kept waiting and had to contact the landlord on 11 November 2022 to ask for an update. While the engineer may have communicated their findings directly to the resident at the time of the inspection, no formal communication of the inspection outcome was issued by the landlord to the resident. This may have contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord did not care/was ignoring her.
  5. There was a discrepancy between the engineer’s report to the builder and landlord, and the resident’s report of what she was told during the inspection. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord sought contemporaneous evidence of the inspection. On 15 November 2022, the landlord asked the builder for a report of the 13 October 2022 inspection by the manufacturer’s engineer. The builder said they would ask for a copy of the report and confirmed that the correct size of boiler for the property had been calculated by the manufacturer during the design stage. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord relayed to the resident the initial assurance from the builder that the boiler had an adequate output capacity for the property size, as calculated by the manufacturer. This meant the landlord failed keep the resident updated and missed an opportunity to manage her expectations.
  6. No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s report that it cost 3 times the amount she expected for heating and hot water, and that this was not affordable. Notwithstanding the rapid increase in utilities costs in the UK around this time, it would have been good practice for the landlord to provide advice on energy efficiency and explore whether the resident needed signposting for money advice. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord provided any response whatsoever on this. This cannot but have damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
  7. On 23 December 2022, the builder sent the landlord an email from the manufacturer. This said the engineer reported the boiler was working to specification, and the manufacturer said a 25 kW boiler was suitable for 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom properties. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord updated the resident on this. This was over 2 months after the inspection, yet the resident was still to receive any outcome to her raised concerns that the boiler was insufficiently powerful. This was poor on the part of the landlord, as an opportunity to reassure and manage the resident’s expectations was missed.
  8. On 19 January 2023 the resident reported that the boiler was not heating her home effectively and asked for an inspection and a new boiler. The landlord records show it raised a job on its repair system, and tried to phone the resident on 23 January 2023, but was unsuccessful. It then closed the job, taking no further action. It noted on its repair system that the that boiler was working to capacity. However, no evidence has been seen that it inspected the boiler, on which basis it must be assumed that it was relying on the findings of the inspection by the manufacturer’s engineer on 13 October 2022, almost 3 months previous. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not reinspect the boiler to confirm it was still working correctly. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that it closed the repairs job without communicating this to the resident, after only trying to contact her once.
  9. The landlord’s records for 10 February 2023 show it raised a job on its repairs system to bleed the radiators, but then cancelled this as the resident told it the radiators were fine. It was appropriate that the landlord considered factors (such as the radiators needing to be bled), other than the power output of the boiler, that may have contributed to the actuality of heat output.
  10. On 18 April 2023 the resident again asked the landlord to inspect the boiler. She said it had not worked properly since the start of the tenancy. The landlord told the resident it had forwarded her email to its development team, but no evidence has been seen that it inspected the boiler or took any further action. This was unreasonable. The landlord was responsible for keeping the boiler in repair, and it had been 6 months since the manufacturer’s engineer had inspected and said the boiler was working correctly. It therefore did not take reasonable steps to ensure it carried out its repairing duty.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 May 2023 was provided 4 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was within the 10 working days required by its complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
  12. It was appropriate that the stage 1 response clearly stated that the “industry standard and regulation” for the size of property, with up to 10 radiators, was 24-27 kW, and therefore the model of boiler in the resident’s property was adequate in terms of its power output. It was appropriate that it acknowledged the resident would likely be disappointed by its decision not to replace the boiler, and apologised for this. However, there is no evidence seen that, as part of the complaints process, the landlord gave any detailed consideration to wider factors that might have influenced the actuality of the output in terms hot water and heating throughout the home. Rather it simply focussed on confirming that the power output of the model of boiler was adequate.
  13. The landlord also did not respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint. Specifically, it again did not respond the resident’s report that it cost 3 times the expected amount to heat the home and provide hot water. This meant it failed to engage with the concerns reported by the resident, and the resident felt ignored.
  14. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 11 working days later, on 14 June 2023. This was within the 20 working days required by its complaints policy and the Code.
  15. The content of the stage 2 response reiterated the landlord’s position at stage 1. Although the resident had said, in her request for escalation, that up to 3 of her radiators did not work as they should, the landlord did not refer to this in the stage 2 response, and it did not log a repair to inspect the radiators. While the resident had told it on 10 February 2023 that the radiators were working, and declined a visit to bleed them, 4 months had passed since that time. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not log a repair to inspect the radiators, and to consider the effectiveness of the overall heating system. As it did not respond to all of the points raised by the resident, she felt her concerns were not taken seriously.
  16. Considering the landlord’s handling of the matter overall, there were multiple instances where the landlord’s actions fell short. A theme of poor communication with the resident has been noticed. The resident had to chase it to respond to her. It missed opportunities to reassure the resident and manage her expectations, as it was not until the stage 1 response that it confirmed that the boiler was of adequate power output capacity. It also failed to engage with all of the concerns reported by the resident, for example not responding to all points made in her formal complaint and request for escalation to stage 2.
  17. Furthermore, the landlord focussed on confirming with the builder and manufacturer that the power output of the model of boiler was adequate, but no evidence has been seen that it inspected the boiler during the time period considered to confirm it was in working order. Additionally, no evidence has been seen that it gave adequate consideration to the wider heating and hot water installation, and its effectiveness in providing heat and hot water throughout the home.
  18. As a result of the above failings, the resident experienced uncertainty regarding the suitability of the boiler, expended time and trouble chasing the landlord for answers, and felt her concerns were not taken seriously. Taken together, the landlord’s failings constitute maladministration. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £350. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, for maladministration where there was a failure which adversely impacted the resident, and the landlord has not sufficiently acknowledged its failings and taken proportionate steps to put things right. The landlord has also been ordered to inspect the central heating system to identify any faults/disrepair and assist the resident through recommendations, demonstration and advice regarding achieving maximum heat and hot water output, and affordability.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the boiler, including her request that it be replaced.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £350, broken down as follows:
      1. £250 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience and arising from its handling of her reported concerns about the boiler.
      2. £100 for the shortcomings in the investigation and responses to her complaint.
  2. The landlord must inspect the central heating and hot water system, including, but not limited to the boiler. This inspection should assess for factors which may adversely influence its effectiveness. The landlord must also direct the resident to energy saving advice organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust and offer information on money advisory services to the resident. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide written feedback to the resident and this Service regarding its findings, including any additional work needed, or any advice given regarding maximizing output and affordability. If additional work is needed, it is to provide a detailed schedule of works with dates.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should, if it does not do so already, provide boiler user guides following any new heating installation or new tenancy, and ensure signposting to energy saving advice organizations as a matter of course to all its residents.