The Riverside Group Limited (202317333)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202317333
The Riverside Group Limited
19 August 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 request for repairs.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 7 January 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of independent living accommodation for people over 55 years.
- The resident’s son is authorised to act as the resident’s representative. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’ The landlord’s notes record that the resident is vulnerable and that due to “frequent hospitalisation and illness” all contact regarding her tenancy is conducted through her son.
- During a resident’s meeting in October 2021 the resident reported a number of outstanding repairs in the property and communal areas. They included redecoration, emergency help buttons in the lifts being out of service and missing carpet on the communal stairs. On 27 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that a number of repairs remained outstanding. On 12 July the resident chased the landlord again. By 8 August the majority of the repairs were completed. The carpeting was completed in September.
- On 27 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the outstanding repairs. Following the meeting in October 2021 the landlord had promised to “blitz” the repairs. However, some remained outstanding with no completion dates. The resident asked if a surveyor had inspected and whether there was a mechanism in place for staff to report repairs.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2022, as follows:
- It apologised for the delay in its response and the length of time taken to complete the repairs. It said it was committed to improving and would do a lessons learnt session.
- Its repairs and building safety teams had carried out a number of visits to review the repairs and the work was being overseen by its head of assets.
- It confirmed there was a mechanism in place for residents and staff to report repairs via its call centre. Its building inspectors could also log repairs with its contractors and on its systems following their routine and regular compliance checks.
- It apologised if the resident felt the building was “unloved.”
- It attached the list of repairs, providing an update on each.
- On 7 August 2022 the resident made a stage 2 complaint because the landlord had not provided an explanation for the delay in carrying out the repairs. It had also failed to set out lessons learned and what it would do differently. The resident also queried why the landlord’s own compliance checks had not picked up the issues.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 November 2022, as follows:
- It apologised again for the delays in carrying out the repairs.
- Repairs reported to onsite staff by residents should have been sufficient however “this could probably have led to an initial delay in time taken for staff to load the jobs.” It said there was a potential risk that not all repair requests would get loaded onto system for action “due to an error or omission” by staff who were undertaking other duties.
- The best method for residents to report repairs was to call the landlord or report them via its portal.
- It said that as part of its learning it was reviewing outstanding repairs live on the system on a weekly basis. It was identifying repairs outside of target and working with its repair partners to understand the reasons why, as well as seeking to complete the repair.
- Compliance checks were undertaken by its building safety team however, it agreed it was unsatisfactory that the issues raised by the resident did not appear to have been captured by this process.
- It offered £150 as a goodwill gesture.
- On 14 December 2022 the resident contacted this Service to express their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
Assessment and findings
Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to resolve:
- Emergency repairs within 4 hours, including health and safety related matters.
- Any hazard in communal areas such as slip, trip or fall hazards.
- Its neighbourhood and estate management policy says:
- It is committed to ensuring its communal areas are safe and well-maintained.
- Its building safety inspectors check all shared spaces regularly in accordance with its ‘communal area risk management inspection procedure’ to ensure they are clear and safe. It ensures any safety concerns from these inspections are reported and actioned as quickly as possible.
- It carries out fire risk assessments in its buildings and follows up any concerns to reduce risks.
- Wherever safety equipment is needed it fits them and checks them regularly, including fire safety equipment and lift emergency call points.
- Its fire safety management policy says that it will:
- Identify and deal with any hazards or lack of suitable fire management controls found, by taking corrective and remedial actions as appropriate.
- Maintain all fire safety equipment and installations and undertake regular inspections and testing in line with guidance.
- Its complaints policy says that it will:
- Respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. If this is not possible it will provide an explanation and a date by which the response should be received. This should not exceed 10 days without good reason.
- Respond to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days from receipt of the request to escalate. In exceptional circumstances only where this is not possible then the senior manager conducting the review will contact the customer to agree an extension.
- Its financial redress and compensation procedure (compensation procedure) says that a gesture of goodwill may be paid by way of apology considering the circumstances of the case, as follows:
- Low impact – the issue had caused minor inconvenience or distress, maximum of £250.
- Medium impact – the issue has caused considerable service failure inconvenience or distress to the customer, this may also be a repeat incident, £250 to £700.
- High impact – the customer has suffered a severe long-term impact inconvenience or distress, £700 and above.
Scope of the investigation
- Around the time of this complaint, the resident also raised additional complaints relating to doors and bins and a request for service related information. These complaints were also escalated to this Service and were allocated separate case references 202317321 and 202317327.
Repairs
- On 27 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up the repairs reported at the resident’s meeting in October 2021. During the meeting the landlord had promised a “blitz” on the outstanding repairs. However he provided photographs, noted by the landlord as taken on 26 April, which showed that a number of repairs remained outstanding. He also asked the landlord to clarify whether a surveyor had inspected the building and the reporting mechanism for repairs.
- This investigation has not seen any notes or minutes of the meeting. However, the landlord accepted that this was the date it was first put on notice of the repairs.
- The landlord replied on 29 April 2022 to say it would provide an update in due course however, it did not provide one. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when chaser emails were sent to the landlord on 1 and 31 May and 5 July 2022.
- The landlord replied on 7 July 2022 to say it would check which repairs had been completed and would provide an update. It asked the resident to “please bear with me and to reassure you we are prioritising these for completion.”
- An email sent by the resident to the landlord on 12 July 2022 set out their dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response. This was because, despite several requests, completion dates had still not been provided 9 months after the repairs were first reported. The landlord replied on the same day, 12 July, to say it would provide an update within 14 days setting out when the repairs would be completed. It would explain the delay and what it would do differently.
- There is no evidence that the landlord provided an update until its stage 1 complaint response of 29 July 2022. From the date the resident first chased the repairs on 27 April it took the landlord 93 days to provide a detailed update. As set out below, this was because it did not take action to complete the repairs until the date of its stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, it had no updates to provide. This was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident.
- The list of photographs provided by the resident on 27 April 2022 were merged onto a document which also contained the landlord’s updates for each item. The updates were undated however the list was attached to, and referred to in, its stage 1 complaint response of 29 July. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the updates were also from the same date, 29 July. There were 2 repairs for the property itself, the remainder were communal repairs. The repairs and the corresponding updates were:
- Inside the property the isolation taps on the central heating in the electric cupboard needed to be replaced. The landlord’s notes say that the job was to be raised with its contractor and the repair was logged on 28 July 2022.
- The bathroom walls and ceiling in the property needed redecoration following a leak from the property above. The landlord’s updates say the painter was visiting that day and would make an appointment with the resident.
- Ceiling to be repaired and redecorated outside the property by the lift – painter due to be on site 28 July.
- Wall to be redecorated where fire extinguisher brackets were removed – painter due to be on site 28 July.
- Carpet tiles to be cleaned/replaced – booked for 3 August.
- Ceiling and wall by lift area to be redecorated – painter due to be on site 28 July.
- Capping on staircase in the lift area to be fixed and carpet missing on stairs between second and first floor to be replaced – capping was being checked and carpeting booked in for 3 August.
- Access panel at side radiator in communal area to be repaired – booked for 5 August.
- Lift call button not working – logged on 28 July and order raised for contractor.
- Ceiling above window on ground floor damaged – plasterer to attend 29 July.
- Plinth for the dryer in the laundry room was required – it was sourcing materials, date for works to be confirmed.
- Ceiling above the fan in the laundry room needed repairing and painting following a leak – booked in for 29 July.
- Ceiling on third floor needed to be repaired and redecorated – repair to hole in ceiling booked for 29 July.
- Stairwell ceiling on third floor to be redecorated – painter due to be on site 28 July.
- A piece of skirting board was missing which needed to be repaired and redecorated – booked for 5 August.
- Handrail and wall to be redecorated in the stairwell – painter due to be on site 28 July.
- Emergency help buttons in both lifts missing – “relogged” 28 July. The contractor had ordered push pads for the lift and the job number was to be confirmed.
- Beading around the glass on the fire door next to the office was damaged – repair completed 28 June.
- The landlord was first put on notice of the repairs in October 2021 and chased on 27 April 2022. It is clear from the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 July that it failed to act on the repairs, only doing so days before issuing its stage 1 complaint response. For example, an internal email dated 11 July was sent to outline the results of an inspection of the communal areas to identify where redecoration was required. While this was a positive step, it should have taken place much earlier.
- It had taken no action to carry out the repairs in the 9 months that had passed since the residents meeting which was unreasonable. It is particularly concerning that the repairs included health and safety related matters including emergency help buttons in both lifts being out of service, a faulty lift call button, faulty capping and missing carpeting on communal stairs. This demonstrates a concerning approach by the landlord to risk management and steps taken to ensure a safe environment for its residents.
- The landlord failed to comply with its neighbourhood and estate management policy to ensure its communal areas were safe and well-maintained. It failed to ensure lift emergency call points were working correctly. Furthermore, it also failed to comply with its responsive repairs policy to resolve hazards in communal areas including slip, trip or fall hazards.
- The document also contained photographs of a damaged fire alarm call point. The unit itself was hanging out of the wall, exposing the wires. The resident’s notes say that the fault was reported in February 2022 however, it was not fixed until 12 April. This was not disputed by the landlord who confirmed that the repair had been completed. It said “thank you for supplying these we will ensure that we follow this up to ensure that this does not occur in any other scheme.”
- It took the landlord approximately 3 months to carry out this emergency repair. This is a further example of a worrying response by the landlord to fundamental issues such as fire safety. It failed to follow its fire safety management policy because it did not take corrective and remedial action as appropriate. It also failed to maintain its fire safety equipment. Its failure to act put residents at potential risk of harm for the period the call point was out of service which is not acceptable.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to explain the delay in carrying out the repairs. It said it wanted to improve and would identify lessons learned. The landlord should have used the complaints process as an opportunity to reflect on its response and provide details of what it would do differently. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it took the issues seriously and had taken action to prevent a recurrence. That it missed the opportunity to do so was a failure.
- This is significant because, as discussed above, some of the repairs posed a potential risk to the health and safety of residents. It is concerning that the landlord did not identify and/or demonstrate an understanding of the seriousness of its failures.
- The resident’s email to the landlord of 7 August 2022 confirmed that the redecoration work had taken place to a “very high standard.” On 8 August the landlord replied to confirm that most of the repairs had been completed with the exception of the ceiling and the carpeting on the stairs. The carpeting work had initially been carried out “on the fourth” (this is assumed to be 4 August based on the landlord’s updates to the resident) but was not deemed satisfactory so had been rescheduled for 5 September.
- The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 9 August 2022 to confirm that it was waiting for a survey of the ceiling to be carried out and that a joiner was due to attend that day to look at the plinth in the laundry.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 4 November 2022 suggested that resident’s reporting of repairs to its on site staff “probably” accounted for the delay in repairs being logged onto its system because they may have also been undertaking other duties. It was inappropriate for the landlord to put the onus on residents to report repairs directly instead of to onsite staff.
- Staff in independent living schemes are a vital point of contact for residents living in such schemes, particularly as some may experience difficulties accessing phone and/or online services. Furthermore its explanation confirms that this method may not be reliable because staff may omit or make an error in logging repairs that they identify.
- The landlord, and therefore its staff, is responsible for providing a safe environment for residents. When staff are on site they act as the eyes and ears for the landlord. Identifying and reporting repairs, particularly those relating to health and safety issues, in this type of accommodation is a critical part of their role. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the matter a training issue, providing a response accordingly.
- It appropriately agreed that it was “unsatisfactory” that its compliance checks had not identified the repairs. However, it once again failed to explore what had gone wrong including whether it needed to review its processes and/or arrange staff training. Formal compliance checks, combined with more regular monitoring of communal areas by other members of staff, are key to ensuring that the landlord fulfils its obligations to its residents.
- The landlord was asked to provide a copy of its communal area risk management inspection procedure for the purposes of this investigation however, it failed to do so. Therefore, it has not been possible to assess the landlord’s response against its procedure.
- Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. The landlord has failed to provide any repair or compliance check logs which is a record keeping failure.
- The landlord failed to:
- Complete the repairs in a reasonable time scale only doing so shortly before issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
- Provide updates to the resident who had to continually chase.
- Provide a satisfactory approach to fire and other health and safety matters in line with its obligations.
- Identify and acknowledge the seriousness of its failings.
- Undertake a critical review to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently.
- The failures amount to severe maladministration. This reflects the number and serious nature of the findings, which could have potentially put residents at risk of harm, and the landlord’s lack of learning. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was severe long term impact. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Complaint handling
- The resident made a Stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2022. The landlord provided its response on 29 July 2022, 64 working days later and 59 working days over the landlord’s 5 day response target.
- This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when they emailed the landlord on 12 July 2022 to ask that in the absence of a stage 1 complaint response, their complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord replied on 14 July to apologise for the delay and advised it was waiting for an update from repairs. This was inappropriate because it was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations by providing a date by which the response should be received. It failed to comply with its complaints policy.
- As discussed above, the evidence shows that the delay in completing the repairs and in providing its complaint response went hand in hand. The landlord failed to consider offering the resident compensation as a means of putting things right.
- The resident requested to escalate their complaint on 7 August 2022. On 8 August the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had raised a stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided its response on 4 November 2022, 63 working days later and 53 working days out of time. Once again, it failed to comply with its complaints policy because the delay was unreasonable and it failed to contact the resident to agree an extension.
- The delay caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when they emailed the landlord on 2 October 2022 to chase the response. The landlord failed to respond, causing the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble when they emailed this Service on 23 October to seek assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 1 November to ask that it provide a response by 15 November.
- The Housing Ombudsman’s compensation policy – guidance for landlords explains that landlords should consider providing redress to restore a person to the position they would have been in had the service failure not occurred. Compensation payments are redress for a failure to provide a service. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to them as goodwill gestures. This is reflected in the orders section below.
- The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident £1650 compensation comprised of:
- £1500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
- £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
- Arrange for its chief executive to issue an apology, either in writing or verbally depending on the resident’s preference (if verbally it should be followed up in writing). A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
- Pay the resident £1650 compensation comprised of:
- Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review its compensation policy in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation policy – guidance for landlords. It should provide a copy of the outcomes of the review to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
- In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure it carries out an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and what it will do differently. This should include:
- A review of its practices, including a process for regular and timely property inspections to identify defects and a mechanism to follow up on repairs, in relation to health and safety, including fire safety.
- Consideration of how it will triage repairs to accurately classify them and act on repairs in a reasonable time frame.
- A review of its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps accurate and timely records of inspections and repair requests, including those made directly to staff by residents.
- Setting out steps it will take to ensure its independent living stock currently meets its legal obligations with regards to health and safety, including fire safety, and provide an action plan to address any issues that it identifies. It should also consider, once it had undertaken this assessment, whether it needs to self-refer to the Regulator for Social Housing.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.