The Riverside Group Limited (202310728)

Background

1. The resident previously lived in a property let by the landlord. The resident said that she moved from the property due to issues with damp and mould. After leaving the property, the resident made a claim for reimbursement of costs from the landlord for damage to her belongings and areas of the home. The landlord did not accept liability for the damage but paid £300 for the delay in its response to the president’s request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s compensation claim for damage to her belongings.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claim.
   2. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

What we have not considered

4. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould itself as the resident’s complaint was solely a claim for compensation for her belongings, which she said had been damaged because of mould in the property. The resident also said her daughter’s health was also impacted by the damp and mould in the property. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
5. When the resident brought the complaint to us, she raised concerns about other repair issues in the property during her tenancy. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint concerning the landlord’s response to these repair issues therefore we have no power to investigate them.

What we have investigated

6. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claim and whether it followed its procedures accordingly on receipt of the request.

The landlord’s handling of the compensation claim

7. The resident submitted a compensation claim form to the landlord on 6 January 2023. Within the claim form the resident provided itemised list of her belongings she sought compensation for, which totalled over £3,000.
8. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that any claim for damage to property over £2,000 should be referred to its insurance team.
9. In its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023, the landlord said it had passed the details of the claim to the insurance team. It informed the resident that the team would be responsible for reviewing the claim and contacting her with the decision. This was in line with its procedure.
10. In her email to us on 24 February 2024, the resident detailed that she had repeatedly contacted the landlord for an answer but felt constantly ignored. She was told the delays were due to staff departures, change in insurance company and she felt that she was passed to various different departments, none of which were able to assist her.
11. Following our contact with the landlord on 10 May 2024, the landlord responded with another stage 1 response on 16 May 2024. It apologised for the time it took to reply about the compensation request. It said its litigation team advised that it would not be liable for the damages caused to the resident’s belongings by the damp and mould. It did however, offer £200 for the delay in its response to the compensation claim.
12. On 16 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not accept liability and its offer of compensation. On 2 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £300, for the time taken to respond to the complaint. It reiterated its position that it was not liable for the damage.
13. While it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurers in line with its policy, it remained responsible for ensuring the claim was progressed within a reasonable timeframe and keeping the resident informed.
14. There is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with proactive updates between 17 January 2023, when it said it referred the matter, and 16 May 2024, when it confirmed its response to the compensation claim. This period, a total of 15 months, was excessive time for the resident to wait for a decision.
15. While we cannot determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings, our assessment has considered whether the landlord followed its procedure in handling the resident’s compensation claim. The evidence shows that the landlord did follow the correct process by referring the claim to its insurer, as required for higher value claims. However, the failure in this case relates to the length of time it took the landlord to confirm its position. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in responding to the resident, attributing these to staff capacity issues and delays with its insurer. It also offered compensation in recognition of this.
16. However, we do not consider the £300 compensation the landlord offered the resident reflects the detriment to her. The landlord’s offer also considered the time it had taken for the landlord to provide a response to the complaint. Considering the resident waited 15 months for a response to her request and the time and trouble she spent pursuing the matter, we consider additional compensation is appropriate. For this reason, we have found a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claim.
17. Although the delay did not affect the outcome of the insurance claim itself, the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to communicate its decision. While the landlord acknowledged the delays, this was not sufficiently reflected in its offer. Under our remedies guidance for such cases therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged delay.

Complaint Handling

18. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that for stage 1 responses, the landlord should communicate a resolution plan to the resident within 5 working days. If any other actions are agreed, these should be completed within 10 working days. For stage 2 complaints, it should provide its response to the resident within 10 working days of the request to escalate.
19. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.
20. The landlord provided its initial stage 1 response to the resident in line with the Code. Following our request in May 2024 for it to raise a complaint, it issued a further stage 1 response, also in accordance with the Code.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and advised it would respond by 17 June 2024. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 2 July 2024. This was 32 working days later and therefore not in accordance with the Code.
22. In light of its delays in its complaint response, the landlord increased its stage 1 offer of £200 to £300 at stage 2. Whilst the delays in its complaint response were excessive, the landlord acknowledged this and offered compensation that reasonably reflected the impact of its complaint handling failure. The amount it offered appropriately recognised there had been a delay and was in line with our remedies guidance. We have therefore found the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.