The Riverside Group Limited (202314741)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202314741
The Riverside Group Limited
10 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s application for alternative accommodation.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- At the time of the complaint the resident held a license with the landlord, which is a housing association. The license commenced on 30 January 2023 and ended when the resident moved to new accommodation on 14 July 2023.
- The landlord has not set out any vulnerabilities for the resident however, it is noted that the property was supported accommodation. In his email to the landlord on 19 June 2023 the resident confirmed that he had mental health issues including depression.
- The landlord entered a partnership arrangement which is designed to provide access to supported housing for adults rough sleeping. The property was a room in a hostel which had communal facilities.
- Having made an application to be considered for alternative accommodation the resident was invited to attend a meeting with the landlord on 19 May 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the way the meeting was conducted and did not feel the landlord was following procedure. Due to his concerns the resident requested to immediately suspend the meeting.
- On 19 May 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint, the main points being:
- The officer did not introduce himself to the resident until he asked him what his name was.
- The officer asked him pre-qualification questions starting with why he wanted to move to the accommodation. He queried the need to request this information because his support worker said it was already on file.
- The officer had said he did not want his staff tied up with “someone who constantly complaints” which he believed referred to complaints he had made at his current accommodation.
- He felt under duress from the officer’s line of questioning and believed that the landlord was not following procedure.
- The officer had said “could we hurry this up and move on as I have limited time and have service users to attend to.” This put him under further duress.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023, as follows:
- It was required to assess potential residents before they accessed a service. However, in this case the meeting was not a formal meeting so was not part of that process.
- The officer agreed that the resident had asked him to confirm his name before he introduced himself.
- Its intention of the meeting was to ensure that the resident was aware of staffing and resource differences between his current accommodation and the new scheme. It needed to be satisfied that the accommodation was suitable.
- It reassured the resident that it “accepted complaints 24 hours a day although support service elements may have to wait until staff are available due to shift patterns and support being provided to other customers.”
- The officer tried to bring the discussion back to the new scheme which may have appeared as “hurrying the meeting on” however this was not the intention.
- As the meeting was not a formal meeting there was no process to follow.
- It signposted the resident as to how he could apply for new accommodation through its formal process.
- On 14 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, as follows:
- The officer should have introduced himself at point of meeting outside the door and before leading him through to the meeting room. That he failed to do so was a safeguarding issue.
- He queried the need for the meeting when all his information had been provided by his support worker.
- During the meeting the officer categorically said “can we hurry this up.”
- There was “no such thing as an informal meeting” and if it was informal why was it not formal.
- He queried the need to make a formal application when he had already done so.
- On 26 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
- When it emailed its stage 1 complaint to the resident on 26 May it missed a letter from the email address so the resident did not receive it. This was a “genuine” mistake. It apologised that this delayed him receiving the outcome of his stage 1 complaint. It said it had updated its systems to avoid this happening again.
- It had spoken to the officer who confirmed that the date and time of meeting had been agreed prior to it taking place. He also confirmed that he knew who the resident was and while he had not spoken to him in person he visually recognised him. The officer was in the kitchen when he recognised him at the door so he opened it to make him aware he was there. He then told him where the meeting was taking place.
- The responding officer at stage 1 had used appropriate letters and worked within the deadline. It apologised that the resident felt the content and evidence was insufficient. As part of its learning from the complaint it would share its stage 2 response with the responding officer and carry out a reflective exercise.
- It did not follow the entire process set out in its procedure for which it apologised. This was because there was no record of the resident’s referral on the system.
- Referral forms should be completed on its recording system. On receipt of a referral the provider would consider the information and make necessary checks and carry out further investigations in accordance with their own policies and procedures.
- Had it followed the correct procedure the resident’s support worker would have referred him on the system. If they were able to assess the referral they would have contacted the resident to arrange a meeting to include an assessment and explanation of their service.
- The resident had lived in his accommodation for over 3 months therefore it took the correct action by carrying out a new assessment. The officer who conducted the meeting followed the process as it stipulated that an introductory meeting may take place so the provider could explain the project specific requirements with the resident to ensure it met with their expectations.
- It said it would ensure that its support workers and service managers had refresher training on the process and were clear about their role and how to record a referral.
- Its partnership manager would anonymise the resident’s case and take it to its partnership board to explore how they could ensure that all accommodation providers were following the correct processes. As part of this process it would highlight the impact this could have on residents if not followed.
- It partially upheld the complaint in relation to the process not being followed and apologised for any distress caused.
- On 8 August 2023 the resident contacted this Service to set out his ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
Assessment and findings
Landlord’s responsibilities, policies and procedures
- The landlord’s partnership referral process says:
- Referrals would not be processed where the risk assessment was more than 3 months old. It was the referrers responsibility to ensure the documents and the referral form were up to date and completed fully.
- On receipt of a referral the provider would consider the information supplied and make any necessary checks, carrying out further investigation in accordance with its own policies and procedures.
- Once the provider had all the information required an initial decision would be made on their suitability.
- If the referral was progressed through to interview, the provider carrying this out would usually contact the client directly to arrange the meeting.
- Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints in writing within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
- Its compensation policy says it will consider making a gesture of goodwill to apologise when its level of service was below the standard its residents may expect. Circumstances include unsatisfactory poor complaint handling. Compensation is broken down into the following categories:
- Low impact £0-£250.
- Medium impact £250-£700.
- High impact £700 and above.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s application for alternative accommodation.
- In his email to the landlord of 19 May 2023 the resident raised concerns that the officer had not introduced himself when he arrived for his meeting. He was concerned that this was a safeguarding issue.
- The landlord provided a different account. In an internal email dated 23 May 2023 the officer confirmed that the resident was directed from the front door to his office. He said that when he met the resident at the front of the building the resident immediately checked his name. He responded likewise to confirm the resident’s name. When they sat down the officer clarified that he was the scheme manager.
- In his email of 19 May 2023 the resident also raised concerns that the officer had not conducted himself appropriately by asking him to “hurry up.” He also reported that the officer had referred to his making complaints at his current accommodation when he said he did not want his staff “tied up” with someone who “constantly complains.” The officer’s behaviour during the meeting caused distress to the resident.
- In the officer’s email of 23 May 2023 he confirmed he referred to complaints in the context of the staff’s ability to respond to complaints raised by residents. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 26 May it confirmed that the officer had tried to refocus the discussion. It was not their intention to appear as though they were hurrying the resident.
- This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the events he describes. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
- In his email to the landlord of 19 May 2023 the resident expressed his concern that the meeting had been part of a formal process to determine his suitability for the accommodation. He queried why this was necessary given that his information was already held on file. He had become distressed and asked to suspend the meeting because he did not believe that the landlord was following the correct procedure.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 26 May 2023 confirmed that the meeting was informal. Its purpose was to ensure the resident understood the differences between service provision at his current and proposed accommodation. It was not a formal assessment of his suitability and on that basis there was no formal process to follow. It signposted the resident to how he could apply for new accommodation through its formal process.
- In his email to the landlord of 14 June 2023 the resident asked why he needed to apply again given that he had already made the application which led to the meeting.
- Contrary to its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 June 2023 identified that it had not followed the correct procedure. It set out the correct process which was consistent with its referral process.
- It acknowledged that it had not followed the process in its entirety because there was no record of the resident’s referral on the system. It appropriately set out in detail its learning from the complaint and what it would do differently.
- It acknowledged its failure to identify what had gone wrong as part of its investigation into the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It appropriately said this would be addressed with the stage 1 complaint responder as part of a “reflective” exercise.
- The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord was fair to the resident by acknowledging its failures and there is evidence of its learning. However, it failed to provide a meaningful acknowledgement of the distress caused. It also failed to consider how it might put things right which was inappropriate.
- As discussed below, the date on the stage 2 complaint response was inaccurate because it was emailed to the resident on 22 June 2023, before the date on the letter itself.
- The Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address why the resident had been asked to make a new formal application which was inappropriate.
- Due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble. This was because he emailed the landlord on 23 June 2023 to ask why, given that the landlord had confirmed the meeting was part of a formal process, did its stage 1 complaint response say it was an informal meeting. He also asked again why he had to reapply.
- On 26 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to explain that because it had not identified the failure with regards to the referral process at stage 1, it believed it was taking a more informal approach. It reiterated that it had identified learning in regard to this point. The landlord had recommended that the resident make a new formal application because it had not been able to find one on the system and this was the first step to making a formal process.
- It concluded that to save further time and trouble for the resident it would arrange for the referral to be uploaded. It was positive that the landlord did so in order to try to put things right for the resident. However, it should have been considered earlier in the process.
- In an internal email dated 26 June 2023 the landlord identified further action points including creating the referral form on the system and arranging to reconvene the meeting and progress the referral in line with its procedure.
- It said the complaint had “cast doubt on its processes and integrity.” It was confident that the action points identified would ensure this would not happen again.
- The landlord failed to:
- Follow its referral process.
- Carry out a thorough complaint investigation at stage 1.
- Respond to all the points raised at stage 2.
- Acknowledge the distress caused to the resident and provide redress for distress and inconvenience caused.
- The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact and the landlord’s compensation policy.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 19 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 May and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May in line with its complaints policy.
- However, on 12 June 2023 the resident’s support worker advised that he had not received the response which caused him distress. Upon investigation it transpired that the responding officer had made a typographical error in the resident’s email address meaning he did not receive it.
- Upon discovering the error the landlord immediately corrected the email address and resent the response that same day, 12 June. It appropriately provided an explanation for what had gone wrong. It also confirmed that the timeframe in which the resident could request to escalate his complaint would be extended accordingly.
- While it appropriately restored the resident to the position he would have been in were it not for its error, it failed to consider providing compensation for distress caused by the delay in line with its compensation policy.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2023 to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. The complaint was acknowledged on 15 June in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
- The stage 2 response is dated 26 June 2023 which was also appropriately in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the records show that it was emailed to the resident on 22 June. Given that this predates the date of the response itself, this is a record keeping failure.
Previous determination
- The determination for case reference 202317333 ordered the landlord to review its compensation policy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. This was because the landlord’s compensation policy referred to redress for failure to provide a service as a goodwill gesture. This is not appropriate because it is a means of putting things right following a failure, and therefore not a good will gesture. Therefore it has not been necessary to make an order to address the matter in this case.
- The landlord failed to consider redress for the distress caused by its typographical error at stage 1. There was a record keeping failure at stage 2. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to service failure. This is because the failures were of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s application for alternative accommodation.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident £250 compensation comprised of:
- £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused but its failures in its response to the resident’s application for alternative accommodation.
- £50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
- Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the case.
- Pay the resident £250 compensation comprised of: