The Riverside Group Limited (202314087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314087

The Riverside Group Limited

31 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Temporary decant.
2. Report of a burst water tank and associated repairs.
3. Request for compensation for damaged possessions, loss of earnings and associated losses.
4. Liability insurance claim.

Jurisdiction

Compensation for damaged possessions, loss earnings and associated losses

What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman as an alternative dispute resolution service does not operate in the same way a court does and we cannot make the same decisions. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence, liability or discrimination and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. The Ombudsman is not able to make a legally binding determination on the landlord’s liability for the resident’s damaged items as this would be a matter for the court. Therefore, the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions, loss of earnings and other associated losses is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to consider legal advice in respect of the damaged items.

Liability insurance claim

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The resident complained to the landlord about the outcome of her liability insurance claim with the landlord’s insurance provider and the sum it offered. This Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for buildings insurance claims or ill-health, as it is outside of this Service’s authority or expertise to do so. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it would not be within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the complaint. Therefore, this issue should be raised with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced In August 2020.

Landlord obligations

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep installations for water heating in working order. The tenancy agreement requires its residents to insure the contents of their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. It will respond to any emergency repair within 12 hours and ‘make safe’. It will complete a temporary repair and return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair. It would complete routine repairs within 28 days.
2. Residents are responsible for decorating and maintaining decorative order within their homes. However, where it has completed a repair and that repair resulted in damage to existing décor, or an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord ensures its dwelling was fit for human habitation. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause the occupant(s) harm and include issues for:
1. Defective fire stops to cavities – lack of, allowing fire to spread
2. Defective smoke and/or heat detectors with alarms or of detection and alarm system.
The landlord’s decant policy states it will provide a decant for urgent transfers for existing residents who need to move due to an emergency.

Summary of events

On 26 May 2023 at 11:30pm, water began pouring from the resident’s upstairs hallway ceiling. She shut off the mains water supply and reported it to the landlord at 11:50pm. The landlord sent a plumber which attended at 6:40am on 27 May 2023.
On the same date, the landlord arranged for the resident’s family to be decanted to a hotel urgently. However, the resident states the landlord had not communicated she was unable to check in until 3:00pm, after arriving at 9:30am.
Between 30 and 31 May 2023:
1. The landlord attended the resident’s property and confirmed the leak was caused by a burst expansion water tank in the loft, due to wear and tear.
2. The landlord ordered a replacement tank.
3. The resident was decanted to an alternative accommodation. However, the landlord did not provide details of the new accommodation until 4:00pm. She stated that from 9:30am she was not informed where her family would be moved to after checking out of the hotel.
Between 6 and 9 June 2023:
1. The landlord contracted a plasterer to ‘make safe’ the ceilings. Plasterboard was fitted to the landing, stairs and bedroom ceilings.
2. The water tank was replaced.
3. The resident made a formal complaint and a separate liability claim to the landlord’s liability insurer. She requested £12,000 compensation for damaged personal possessions including the cost of new carpets and redecoration. She also claimed for distress and inconvenience and loss of earnings for herself and her partner.
On 12 June 2023:
1. The decant ended and the landlord confirmed the property was safe for the family to return home. It would complete further repair works to the landing while the family were in the property.
2. The resident’s partner reported to the landlord that the property was not suitable to return home following inspection:
  1. He believed the landlord should have removed the carpets and insulation.
  2. He removed the carpets himself as they smelled. He was advised by a contractor it was not safe for him to remove the insulation.
  3. The children’s beds were wet and covered in plaster.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response:
1. It apologised that the hotel the resident was decanted to was initially unsuitable. It explained this was due to it being over a bank holiday weekend and there was limited availability. It also apologised the resident was not advised about the check-in time.
2. It recognised the resident reported the quality of food at the hotel was unhealthy. It therefore paid the resident food and drink expenses separate to the hotel reservation which totalled £202.30.
3. It explained the resident was not made aware of the second decant accommodation until 4pm on 31 June 2023 due to staff not working on 30 June 2023. It therefore did not get picked up immediately.
4. It forwarded the resident’s evidence and request for £12,000 compensation to its insurers.
On 29 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint due to the length of time the insurance claim would take to resolve. She also reported the property did not have working smoke alarms since the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on the same day and would send an operative to inspect and replace the smoke alarms within 24 hours.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. The claim on its insurance did not have a specific time limit to provide a final response, it aimed to provide a decision within 3 months.
2. It would attend within 12 hours to inspect the smoke alarms and the electrics would be inspected on 4 July 2023.
On the same date, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord to report:
1. Following repair works, the contractor completed the customer satisfaction card themselves and left it on the radiator, without him inspecting the work.
2. The plasterer did not remove the plasterboard by the front bedroom door. The plaster had 2 hairline cracks on the stair bulkhead. He asked for the downstairs hallway and bottom steps to be inspected to assess if further repairs were required. The landlord confirmed a final inspection of repairs would be taking place on 4 July 2023. It would ensure the inspector was advised of the concerns raised.
3. He wanted to be reimbursed costs for redecoration. The landlord explained this was part of the insurance claim made to its liability insurers.
On 4 July 2023:
1. The landlord’s repair record confirmed it replaced 2 smoke alarms and a light pendant.
2. Its technical inspector deemed the repairs completed were satisfactory and no further repairs or actions were needed.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord installed a smoke seal to the door frame and completed electrical tests.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident her complaint was closed as no further repairs were required following its inspection.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

Temporary decant

Following the resident’s report of the leak, the landlord acted in line with it’s decant policy to locate an alternative accommodation for the resident and her family urgently. While the initial accommodation was unsuitable for the resident, the landlord was limited in its options due to a bank holiday weekend. It therefore arranged for decant to a new accommodation on 31 May 2023. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s communication around the decant was however unreasonable. It failed to advise the resident of the check-in time for the initial decant accommodation. This left the resident and her family waiting for several hours without access to living facilities. Additionally, it did not provide details of the new decant accommodation until 4pm on 31 May 2023, approximately 7 hours after they were required to check out of the initial accommodation.
While the landlord explained this was because its staff did not work weekends or bank holidays to prepare for the second decant, this was unreasonable. This Service would expect the landlord to have maintained a good level of communication with the resident about her decant. It should also have planned around staff absence to ensure the second decant accommodation was confirmed and the resident was informed, especially as she had a young family. It was likely to have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant was service failure.
While the landlord apologised to the resident for its poor communication, it failed to recognise the impact caused to the resident. This Service has therefore made an order for compensation to be paid to the resident for the impact the landlord’s service failing had on her.

Report of a burst water tank and associated repairs

Following the reported leak, the landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect the repair and make it safe. It determined a replacement tank was required. It ordered a new water tank within 4 days of the incident. This was a reasonable timeframe and showed the landlord wanted to resolve the repair urgently for the resident and her family to return home.
Once the plasterer had made safe the ceilings, the landlord determined the property was safe for the resident and her family to return. It acknowledged further repairs were needed, but assessed these could be completed while the resident was in the property. This was a reasonable solution to minimise the period the family would be away from their home.
While the landlord considered the property to be safe for the family to return on 12 June 2023, the condition of the property reported by the resident suggested it was not in a satisfactory condition. The resident stated the carpets and insulation were wet and smelled, the children’s beds were also wet and covered in plaster from the repair works.
In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing residents’ personal possessions in this type of situation. However, this Service would expect the landlord to treat the resident and her family fairly and put things right to ensure they could live in the property.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to have returned the family to the property where the children were unable to sleep in their own beds and there was a damp smell on the carpets. The landlord should have considered what actions it could have taken to ensure the property was in a satisfactory condition following its repairs and could have been part of its claim on its own liability insurance.
This Service would also expect the landlord to have communicated to the resident about the condition of the property it was returning the family to. If it was unwilling to resolve the smell or dry out the beds, it should have made the resident aware so she could have prepared for the return to the property, rather than finding the property in that condition. It should also have considered extending the decant until the issues could be resolved. There is no evidence the landlord considered its responsibility to treat the resident fairly or managed her expectations. It was unreasonable to return the resident and her family to the property in the reported condition and was evidence of service failure.
While the resident reported concerns with the plastering which was carried out and there were minor cracks present. This Service has seen evidence the landlord inspected the works completed by its plasterer and confirmed it was in satisfactory condition on 4 July 2023. The landlord satisfied its repairing responsibility to remedy the damaged caused to the ceiling. This Service does appreciate the resident was frustrated she was responsible for the redecoration of the property and replacement of the flooring she had fitted herself. However, the tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is not responsible for redecoration or replacement of flooring that the tenant has fitted themselves. This is the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord had no obligation to redecorate and repair or replace any of the damaged flooring that had been fitted by the resident.
The landlord should have had had greater concern for the fire safety of the property. The resident reported the smoke alarms were not working when they returned to the property. This suggested the landlord did not conduct a thorough inspection ahead of the resident’s return. While the tenancy agreement confirms it was the resident’s responsibility to inspect smoke alarms following the start of the tenancy, it was unreasonable the landlord did not ensure they were in working order following its repair works or appreciate the risk to the resident in returning her family to a home without working smoke alarms.
Furthermore, the landlord completed further repair works to install a smoke seal to the door frame and completed electrical tests with the family in situ on 6 July 2023. The landlord had a responsibility to return the family to a safe property. It did not consider the potential fire risk or satisfy itself the electrics and fire security were safe and in satisfactory condition ahead of returning the resident to the property. The landlord should also have had consideration for its responsibilities under the HHRSS. This was evidence of a serious service failure, and it is fortunate no serious incident occurred while the outstanding fire safety works were completed.
The landlord’s initial response to the leak was reasonable and it acted to complete repairs as soon as possible. However, it failed to consider the property condition it returned the resident and her family to. It also did not ensure the property was fire safe and posed a serious risk to the family’s safety by returning the family to the property before it completed safety inspections. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlords handling of the resident’s report of a burst water tank and associated repairs was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s temporary decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a burst water tank and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request of compensation for damaged possessions, loss of earnings and associated losses is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s liability insurance claim is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication about the decant accommodation arrangements was unreasonable and did not manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord failed to communicate about the condition the resident would find the property in. It was unreasonable to return the family to the property where the children’s beds were wet, covered in plaster and it had not completed sufficient fire safety and electrical tests.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £500 comprising of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its communication failures in its handling of the decant.
  2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs.