The Riverside Group Limited (202312336)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312336

The Riverside Group Limited

30 June 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs at the property following the resident’s reports of leaks and drainage issues.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Aside from the complaint under investigation here, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2024, centred around the way a repairs operative spoke to her. Records show the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 5 February 2024 and followed this up with a phone call on 29 February 2024. At this point its records indicate that the complaint was closed to the resident’s satisfaction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord was asked to escalate the complaint after it issued its stage 1 response. As a result, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be considered within this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns regarding staff conduct, she can re-raise this with the landlord or ask that her complaint is escalated, even if this is ‘out of time’ as per the landlord’s complaint policy.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides in the property, which is described as a 3-bedroom house, with her 3 children. The tenancy began in June 2023.
The landlord has advised it is not aware of the resident or her family having any vulnerabilities or health concerns.

Summary of events

On 7 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to submit a complaint about “the way (repair) issues…are being dealt with” at her new property. Concerns she raised included:
1. Since moving into the property on 16 June 2023, she had experienced leaks and problems with the drains. She was unhappy with how the landlord had responded.
2. She had been told a jetting company would return on 3 July 2023, but no-one had attended. Nor had any other drainage company come back to the property, although a plumber had attended the day before to complete repairs to the toilet and fit a bath panel.
3. She was “angry” she and her children had been rehoused to a property “with unhealthy issues that were already there” and stated she believed the landlord knew about the repair issues prior to her moving in.
4. She and 2 of her children had reportedly become ill since moving in and reported there had been “faeces coming out of the walls”. She had therefore moved her family out and was staying at her mother’s 1 bedroom property, which was overcrowded. She advised that the previous couple of weeks had been “very stressful” for the whole family.
5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted to be transferred to a new property as she believed her current one was unsafe to live in.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day, provided a reference number and said it would be in touch to discuss “next steps”. It added it was “sorry to learn” the resident had “been in such a difficult situation”.
The resident emailed the landlord again 13 July 2023 regarding the condition of the property (wet walls, the presence of mould in the bathroom and the fact a contractor had reportedly described the bathroom floor as “unsafe”). She also reported that a portable toilet which should have been collected on 6 July 2023 was still in the property. She provided the landlord with photos. It responded the same day to advise the issues had been “added to (her) complaint” and it would be in contact again by 17 July 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident the following day regarding her complaint. It noted it had spoken with her and understood her complaint to concern:
1. Ongoing repair issues following the installation of a new bathroom.
2. “Discharge from the drainage system into (her) home”, which made the property uninhabitable.
3. Unresolved damp issues and damage this had caused.
4. The condition of the bathroom floor and associated safety concerns.
5. The fact that a soil stack was “an internal fitting”.
6. Its failure to collect a chemical toilet.
7. Poor communication between various parties involved in the repairs.
On 28 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was “extremely angry” at the way the issues she had raised were being dealt with and considered the landlord’s treatment of her to be “disgraceful”. Despite the attendance of multiple operatives and contractors, issues had not been resolved and repairs remained outstanding. She reiterated her wish to be moved to a new property as a resolution to the complaint.
The landlord responded the same day and advised it had accepted the escalation request. It stated a complaint handler would be in touch.
The resident then contacted this Service on 31 July 2023, requesting for the complaint to be taken to “the next stage”. She stated she had had to move back in with her mother “a second time” as the reported leaks had not been resolved. She reported that the stress of the situation was “getting (her) down” and, as she believed the repair issues could not be fixed, she wanted a transfer.
On 11 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said it understood the complaint to be about issues with “leaks and drains from the bathroom” which the resident had experienced since moving into the property in June 2023, and which had affected other areas of the house. It noted the resident had advised that “multiple contractors (had) attended” and she had been residing with her mother while repairs, including works to an internal soil stack, were completed. It made the following comments and findings:
1. It was “sorry for the issues” the resident had experienced and accepted this had “caused you and your family significant disruption”.
2. It identified that “several contractors and teams” had been involved in handling the repairs and reported leaks. It noted the bathroom installation had been carried out by a voids contractor through the landlord’s Asset Team, while another contractor who manage general void repairs reportedly “stepped in” once it was identified that snagging issues following the installations had not been completed satisfactorily.
3. It found that the “number of teams and contractors…involved has caused difficulty in getting the repairs completed quickly”, acknowledged this had “caused…problems” and that, as a result, the resident had been unable to move into her home. It apologised for this and clarified the resident’s complaint had been upheld.
4. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord advised the following:
  1. “Feedback to all teams involved” and use the case as an opportunity to learn lessons and “improve communication between involved parties” in the future.
  2. A Technical Inspector had visited the property to assess outstanding repairs. Following this, repairs had been booked for 15 August 2023.
  3. It offered the resident £50 compensation for failing to resolve her complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
  4. It offered £500 to reflect the “disruption and inconvenience” caused to the resident by having to live with her mother for several weeks.
  5. It offered a further £100 to apologise for the length of time it had taken to resolve the complaint and “all outstanding repairs”.
5. Finally, it clarified that it was unable to offer a move to another property as a resolution to the complaint and stressed it aimed to resolve all outstanding repairs so the resident could to move into her home as soon as possible.
On 12 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she did not accept its offer of compensation and considered it to be “degrading”. The landlord responded 2 days later, acknowledging the refusal and advising it would come back to her regarding any further offer. It acknowledged that “the issue (she was) complaining about is still not resolved”. It also provided an update regarding the repairs:
1. Following a technical inspection, a wet patch in the dining room and “damp to the wall” were believed to be coming from “a leak inside the boxed internal soil stack”.
2. The foul smell the resident reported was believed to be caused by a leak from the soil stack.
3. Repairs were booked for the following day and involved removing the wall around the soil stack, tracing and repairing any leak, and reinstating the wall. It would also “overhaul” her WC to “identify and remedy the cause of the leak”, while it believed that a reported leak when the shower was in use was “part of the same problem”.
4. It also clarified the attending contractors had not been previously involved, other than to attend a previous emergency call out.
Internal landlord correspondence from 23 August 2023 noted that after it had “assured (the resident) that the problem had been resolved” the previous week, the complaint had been closed and she had moved back in. However, she had now “woken up to discover an identical floor/leak of foul water” and reiterated her request to be moved to a new property. It was suggested the property should be voided “to investigate this defect fully to rectify (the issue)”.
A case note added to the landlord’s records the following day referred to the returning “leak/flood issue” and that the resident had now moved out of the property again. The case note stated the landlord had spoken with the resident on 21 August 2023 and made an increased compensation offer of £900 which she had initially accepted but had now refused following the recurrence of the leak. It also noted she had again asked to be transferred to a new property.
On 25 August 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm authority had been granted to offer her a transfer to a new property. It stated one had been identified and while it was not ready to be viewed, it gave the resident the address and advised she could “check it from the outside”. It asked her to confirm by 30 August 2023 if she “would consider this property”. It would then arrange a viewing if she was interested. A further internal email sent on 31 August 2023 referred to the transfer offer and noted “far more substantial works are necessary to resolve this (repair) issue” at the resident’s current property.
Landlord records show a meeting took place on 8 September 2023 when a survey was booked (for 3 days later) to assess whether the “(soil) stack can be replaced externally”. Repair records indicate that “work to re-locate soil stack went ahead (on) 16 September as planned”. Landlord diary records indicate the resident was “satisfied” but noted “some minor works still required” and that updates regarding progress on this was needed so the issues could be resolved, and it could consider an offer of appropriate compensation.
On 22 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident “following the completion of works” that had made her decide to keep her tenancy rather than move and to increase its offer of compensation to £1200. It added it was “pleased that this matter is resolved”. Landlord records indicate its offer was accepted by the resident and payment was processed the following day.
On 27 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a contractor had been unable to gain access to carry out “a small roofing repair”. The resident responded that she had been unaware of any appointment or any issue with the roof but reported that, despite being plastered the previous week, her dining room wall was “still wet”. In correspondence between the landlord and one of its contractors, it was suggested the damp wall could be caused by “residual water from the old leak” in the soil stack. The landlord noted that compensation had already been paid and it would look “ridiculous” if there was “still a defect not dealt with”.
Following this, and up to February 2024, the resident continued to report issues and the landlord carried out further inspections and works. An order to “inspect (the) bathroom for leaks” was raised on 10 October 2023 and a further repair order was raised on 16 October 2023 regarding “rainwater ingress in chimney stack”. Further works were undertaken on 23 October 2023 to repair a section of guttering and replace a down pipe, while follow-on works took place on 7 November 2023 to “re-make some joints” after leaks were found on the pipe works attended to on 23 October.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2023 to state she believed the “old soil pipe is still coming through the wall”. She stated this was where the bad smell was coming from and considered the soil stack should be removed. The landlord replied 3 days later to state it had asked all involved parties to meet and review “what is happening and why we seem to be failing to fully resolve the various issues for (the resident)”. It aimed to “provide…a summary of what is going to happen and approximately when” after the meeting.
In submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised a further technical inspection took place on either 20 or 21 December 2023 following further reports of damp from the resident. The landlord has advised that, following this survey it was concluded that ongoing damp issues were caused by rainwater continuing to access the redundant soil stack. Although this Service has not seen details of any report completed following the inspection, repair records note that an order was raised on 22 December 2023 to “remove redundance soil stack/lead slate and tile over” and to “extend downpipe into gully to stop water penetrating through wall”. An appointment booked for 16 January 2024 had to twice be rearranged due to bad weather before, on 2 February 2024, records show work to cap off the waste pipe was completed.
In response to the resident’s again expressing her belief that the soil stack should be removed entirely, landlord records show the Technical Inspector emailed internally on 23 February 2024 to state they considered the works carried out “should be sufficient” if the roof was watertight. A further note on 29 February 2024 indicated that, following a meeting of the landlord and its contractors, it had made the decision that the soil stack would not be removed entirely from the property as it had been “sealed at the roof and bricked up at the base” and to do so would cause “structural issues”. Records indicate it contacted the resident the same day to advise her of its position.
In a July 2024 email to this Service, the resident confirmed that issues relating to the soil stack “seem OK” and indicated the matter had been resolved. However, she stated her toilet was still “getting blocked constantly” and reported issues with water “leaking down the walls in (her) kitchen” when using the bath. Although the landlord had attended “a couple of weeks ago”, the issue continued and as a result she reported only being able to use her shower.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property following the resident’s reports of leaks and drainage issues

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing certain repairs at the resident’s property. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s original complaint, issued in August 2023, the landlord stated it was “sorry for the issues” experienced by the resident and it acknowledged the repair issues up to that time had caused “significant disruption” to her and her family. It noted there had been snagging issues with repairs carried out while the property was void and issues had not been resolved “quickly” due to the number of teams and contractors who became involved in the process. It indicated lessons had been learned and it would offer feedback to its contractors. Records also show it appropriately diagnosed issues with some repairs carried out while the property was void and sought to address them, particularly regarding the bathroom installation.
The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation, including £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by her having to stay away from the property and £100 partly related to the time taken to complete “all outstanding repairs”. It also appropriately considered her request to be offered a transfer and agreed to this once a property became available, although the offer was later declined.
When it became clear that “all outstanding repairs” had not been completed and the resident continued to experience leaks and associated issues with the smell of sewage and damp and mould, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1200 on 22 September 2023. This was slightly more than the Ombudsman would normally expect to see in the circumstances. This Service does not normally consider awards of compensation made after the conclusion of a complaint procedure can amount to reasonable redress. However, in this case the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident after the conclusion of its complaints procedure and it acted reasonably when reassessing the situation as it changed. From internal correspondence seen by this Service, the landlord’s Housing Services Manager evidently considered the effect the situation had on the resident and her family, and it was positive that they acted appropriately when reviewing the amount offered, increasing it twice. The landlord’s final offer appeared to be part of an ongoing process to resolve the complaint and clearly linked to the final response, rather than a later review of the case and accordingly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, at this stage it amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
However, following its final offer of compensation, it is clear the issues the resident had complained about – the leaks, foul smell and repairs related to a soul stack – had not been resolved. From the evidence available, the landlord took at least a further 4 months to finally resolve the issue, when it completed a repair to cap off the soil stack, after initial repairs to re-locate it proved ineffectual. Records indicate that during this period, the landlord remained responsive to the resident. In particular, its Housing Services Manager appeared to make clear efforts to progress repairs and ultimately resolve the outstanding issues for her by liaising with contractors and chasing inspections.
Nevertheless, from the evidence available, the landlord was aware from around July 2023 onwards that the damp and leaks reported by the resident were related to the soil stack. While it clearly took several actions to try and resolve the issue, including relocating the soil stack and repairing downpipes and guttering, the landlord’s inability to resolve the issue over such a protracted length of time was unreasonable and clearly caused the resident and her family further distress and inconvenience. Having also identified that delays had been caused by the number of contractors and teams involved in the repairs process within its stage 2 response, from the evidence available as the landlord continued to identify further repair issues, there was at times further confusion regarding which contractor or service area would lead on certain repairs. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord is unable to evidence that it learned from its earlier handling of the resident’s case and that it put steps in place to prevent the same failings, and the resultant delays, from recurring.
Having offered the resident compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by the leaks and repair delays up to and including September 2023, it is unclear why the landlord appears to have not considered whether any further redress would be appropriate given the situation continued for at least a further 4 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given how it had acted positively in reassessing its previous compensation offer when it became clear the resident had been caused further detriment between August and September 2023, it should have done the same given that she continued to be affected by those same issues up to February 2024. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not treat the resident fairly and meant the landlord failed to assess, or even appropriately acknowledge, the further detriment caused by its failure to resolve the soil stack issues and the associated problems with leaks and damp.
It is also of concern that the resident continues to report issues with an apparent leak from her bathroom when she uses the bath. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response addressed concerns about a leak when the resident used the shower, noting it believed this was also related to the soil stack, from the evidence seen it is unclear if this was ever confirmed to be the case. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is, a year after the resident’s first report, unable to evidence this issue has been resolved.
For the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including to a soil stack, following reports of leaks and drainage issues. The landlord’s final offer of compensation, intended to reflect the inconvenience caused up to September 2023, was reasonable and sought to treat the resident fairly. However, given the fact that the issues remained unresolved, and the resident was caused further detriment, including her time and trouble in chasing the repairs and an outcome to the issues raised, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should have done more to “put things right” via a further offer of redress. It was unfair that it failed to do so, which had the effect of not recognising the additional distress and inconvenience the resident would have been caused by its prolonged failure to resolve and complete repairs.
The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to pay the resident additional compensation that reflects the additional detriment she was caused between September and February 2024. It is also ordered to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s bathroom, to address her concerns regarding a reported leak from the bath. It should establish whether any repairs are required and, if so, draw up an action plan to ensure they are completed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out a target timeframe of 5 working days to respond to complaints at stage 1 of its procedure. Having received her email, the landlord wrote to her to acknowledge the complaint on 14 July 2023. It appropriately acknowledged that it should have provided its complaint response that day and apologised that this had not been possible. It advised this was due to the fact its investigation had changed. It was good practice that the landlord provided both an explanation as to why it had been unable to provide a response in line with its target and that it gave a revised target date for its response. This provided the resident with a clear expectation of when she could expect its stage 1 response.
However, it then failed to provide its response by that date, leading to the resident contacting it again on 28 July 2023 and asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. This was not appropriate and meant the resident again had to exercise time and trouble chasing a response.
It was also positive that it decided to use its discretion to escalate the complaint. Following its failure to provide a stage 1 response, its subsequent handling of the escalation request was reasonable and sought to treat the resident fairly. Its response was clear and sought to address each of the concerns the resident raised. It provided an update on when the resident could expect to have outstanding repair resolved, although it should have provided more detail regarding the specific repairs it had identified and raised. It also showed it had considered the effect the repair issues had had on her and appropriately made an offer of compensation. As identified above, it was also fair that it kept in contact with the resident following the conclusion of the complaint procedure and revisited its final offer on 2 occasions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was also evidence of good practice and an indication that the landlord sought to treat the resident fairly.
While the landlord should have provided a stage 1 response in line with its procedure, that it did not do so was seemingly due to the fact it reasonably used its discretion to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when requested. Therefore, the resident was not caused significant detriment overall. While it would have been preferable for the landlord to have issued a response at stage 1, it was reasonable that it acknowledged its failure to resolve the complaint at that stage and offered the resident £50 compensation to reflect this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
However, it was inappropriate to refer to its final offer, made in September 2023, as a “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase which indicates that, if accepted, the resident could be unable to take her complaint further. Although the landlord’s complaint response makes clear the resident had the right to refer her complaint to this Service, as this offer was made after the complaint process concluded, the phrase may have been misleading and could have led the resident to understand there was no further negotiation open to her.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate to use such a term to a lay person without explaining the implications of such a phrase. In future, the landlord should avoid using the term within the context of its complaint responses and procedure altogether. It should only be used where the parties were explicitly seeking a final settlement in the context of a legal claim, in which case, the landlord should explain itself. An order will be made at the end of the report for this to be addressed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property following the resident’s reports of leaks and drainage issues.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

While the landlord initially acted reasonably when responding to the resident’s repair reports, identified where errors were made and offered appropriate redress to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, repairs were not completed in a timely manner after the conclusion of its complaint process and final offer of compensation. The resident continued to experience leaks and damp in the property and, despite the landlord attending on multiple occasions and raising several repairs, it was a further 5 months before it capped the disused soil stack and rectified the main issue.
After receiving her complaint, the landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response in line with its stated target. However, it appropriately communicated with her regarding a new target date and, when it missed this, it reasonably chose to exercise its discretion when escalating the complaint straight to stage 2 when requested to do so. Its stage 2 complaint response was reasonable, and it acted appropriately by offering a small amount of compensation for its complaint handling failings.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a further £1000 compensation to better reflect the additional detriment caused by further delays in completing repairs.
2. Complete an additional inspection of the resident’s bathroom regarding the reported leak from her bath and establish whether any further repairs are required. If they are, the landlord should draw up an action plan to ensure they are completed in a timely manner and share this with both the resident and this Service.
3. Carry out a review of how it corresponds with residents regarding compensation offers. It should ensure it ceases the use of the phrase “full and final settlement”, or that it includes wording that provides an explanation of residents’ options should they accept the payment.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.