The Riverside Group Limited (202320607)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320607

The Riverside Group Limited

30 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs in the bathroom and her request for further works.
    2. Rubbish and overgrown weeds in the communal alleyway.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a joint assured tenancy for a house. The tenancy began on 1 April 2019.
  2. The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the vulnerabilities within the household.
  3. On 12 July 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property to fix a tap in her bathroom. The resident showed the operative her bath was rusty and had a hole on the lip of the bath. She said the operative told her the bath could not be repaired and would need to be replaced.
  4. The landlord arranged an appointment on 4 August 2023 to investigate the reports of repairs to the bath.
  5. On 4 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord as it did not attend the appointment that day.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. In its response it said it had arranged an appointment on 12 August 2023 to install a new bath. It apologised for any concern caused and for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 12 August 2023 and cancelled the appointment. The bath was replaced on 24 August 2023.
  8. On 24 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was rubbish in the communal alleyway between the houses, and it was overgrown with weeds and shrubs. This was making it difficult for her to move her rubbish bins.
  9. On 5 September 2023 the resident told the landlord the new bath was leaking.
  10. On 11 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She asked the landlord to remove her electric shower unit and replace the bathroom flooring. She said she wanted £100 worth of vouchers as compensation.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 September 2023. In its response it said:
    1.  As mould had since been found underneath the bathroom flooring, it agreed to replace it.
    2.  It had initially told the resident it would not remove the electric shower because if there was an issue with the boiler the resident would have no other washing facilities. However, it agreed to remove the unit as the resident raised concerns it was a risk to her son.
    3. It had arranged an appointment on:
      1. 2 October 2023 to measure the bathroom flooring and remove the electric shower unit.
      2. 3 October 2023 to replace the tiles which needed to be removed to remove the shower unit.
    4. It had cleared the rubbish from the communal alleyway and asked its environmental services team to investigate the weeds and shrubs.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. On 24 January 2024 the landlord cleared the weeds and shrubs from the communal alleyway.
  2. On 7 March 2024 the bathroom floorboards were replaced by the landlord and its contractor fitted lino flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman her bath had been in disrepair since she moved into the property in 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. This investigation will therefore look at the resident’s reports of the bath repairs from 12 July 2023. This is when the resident showed the landlord’s operative that the bath had rusted when it attended for an unrelated repair.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must keep any shared areas (especially fire exits) tidy and free from obstruction. It states this includes keeping outside shared areas tidy and maintaining gardens and paths, unless this is a service the landlord provides within a service charge.
  3. The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy states it will work with local partners to address issues such as environmental crime such as fly-tipping and participate in community safety forums and partnerships to agree common approaches to deal with neighbourhood issues. The policy states it will communicate to customers about landlord and customer responsibilities, issues reported and how it has or is responding.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated it would response to emergency repairs within 12 hours and routine repairs within 28 working days.
  5. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint. It stated it would acknowledge a complaint by 5pm the next working day. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
  6. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure stated it will offer compensation up to £700 depending on the level of impact on the resident.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom and her request for further works

  1. On 12 July 2023 the resident showed the landlord’s operative that the bath had rusted and there was a hole in the lip of the bath. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging to investigate the bath repairs on 4 August 2023. This was within its target response timescale of 28 working days for routine repairs.  However, the landlord failed to attend the appointment. There was no evidence it notified the resident, apologised, or offered any redress. This resulted in the resident raising a complaint to the landlord.
  2. The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s bath in its stage 1 complaint response dated 11 August 2023. The bath was replaced on 24 August 2023, and a new bath panel and tiles were fitted on 11 September 2023. This was within the landlord’s 28 working day target timescale. There was no evidence the landlord attended the resident’s property to investigate its repairing obligations before replacing the bath. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to agree a plan of works with the resident, to limit the number of appointments and avoid delays. This was not customer focused and caused the resident stress and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider the household’s vulnerabilities and discuss a plan of works with the resident to manage any risks.
  4. The resident reported a leak from the new bath on 5 September 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an appointment on 9 September 2023. The landlord’s records and its stage 2 complaint response stated the resident’s father had resolved the leak before this appointment. The resident told the Ombudsman that her father was not alive at this time. She said the leak was not resolved until 11 September 2023 when a second operative attended and found the pipework to the bath had been fitted incorrectly. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and enhance its ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord’s poor record keeping caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  5. When the resident’s bath was replaced on 24 August 2023, the resident asked the operative to fit a bath/shower mixer which she had purchased herself. On 31 August 2023 the resident told the landlord she had removed the electric shower hose and asked it to remove the shower unit from the wall as it was a risk to her son. The landlord acted reasonably by raising concerns that doing this would leave her with no alternative washing facilities if her boiler broke and offered to disconnect it to make it safe. The resident refused and asked for it to be removed. On 2 and 3 October 2023 the landlord removed the shower unit and re-tiled the wall. As the shower unit was not in disrepair, the landlord was under no obligation to complete these works. This showed that it considered the household’s vulnerabilities and wanted to resolve the complaint for the resident.
  6. On 31 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to replace her bathroom flooring as it had been ripped when the bath was replaced. The resident told the Ombudsman she took the flooring up on advice from the landlord, due to it being a trip hazard. The landlord replaced the bathroom flooring on 7 March 2023. This was a significant delay, which left the resident without any bathroom flooring for 6 months.
  7. The landlord had initially arranged to replace the bathroom flooring on 18 October 2023. The landlord told the Ombudsman the resident refused the works as it did not have the colour flooring she wanted. The resident told the Ombudsman the operator attended the appointment with tiles but said he could not lay tiles on her flooring. He was not qualified to lay lino flooring for the flooring could not be replaced that day. The contractor’s notes from that appointment mention tiles and the landlord’s internal records state it referred the work to its contractor as they specialise in lino flooring. The landlord failed to recognise its own failings due to its poor record keeping.
  8. The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould under the floor covering in September 2023, the landlord failed to investigate this until December 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to ensure it understood the cause of the damp and mould before arranging for the floor to be replaced. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the root cause of the damp and mould, or that it provided appropriate advice and support. This was not resolution focused and caused delays in the flooring being replaced.
  9. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. There was evidence the landlord did this with the bath replacement and removal of the shower unit, however, it told the resident to contact its contractor for the bathroom floor replacement. The evidence provided shows the resident chased the landlord for an update on when the flooring would be relaced on 16 November 2023. Wherever possible, landlords should avoid leaving external contractors to arrange appointments with residents directly. This ensures the landlord is fully aware of all issues and the onus is not put on the resident to report these issues and delays.
  10. In summary the landlord replaced the bath within its target timescale. However, there was no evidence the landlord considered any risks or discussed a plan of works with the resident. There was a delay in the landlord investigating the damp and mould and replacing the bathroom flooring, and evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord showed learning as it agreed to remove the electric shower unit due to the household’s vulnerabilities. However, the landlord failed to recognise the failings identified in this investigation and therefore did not apologise or offer any redress for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  11. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom and her request for further works.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish and overgrown weeds in the communal alleyway

  1. The resident told the landlord on 24 August 2023 there was rubbish in the communal alleyway, and it was overgrown with weeds and shrubs. The landlord acted reasonably by removed the rubbish on 13 September 2023 in line with its neighbourhood and estate management policy.
  2. In its stage 2 complaints response dated 28 September 2023 the landlord said it had asked its Environmental Services Team to investigate options in relation to the weeds and shrubs. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about the weeds and shrubs until 8 January 2024, 93 working days after the resident initially reported the issue. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
  3. On 10 January 2024 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the alleyway was blocked, and it was a fire escape for 4 houses. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out an inspection of the estate to ensure there was adequate safe means of escape in case of fire, and that access was not restricted for emergency services.
  4. The landlord removed the weeds and shrubs on 24 January 2024. This was 5 months after the resident reported the issue. The resident struggled to take her wheelie bins out to be emptied and this would have been a weekly inconvenience for a prolonged period.
  5. At the time of this investigation the resident told the Ombudsman the alleyway was again blocked with weeds and shrubs. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord communicated with the resident about who was responsible going forward for clearing the weeds and shrubs in the alleyway. The landlord has failed to be proactive in resolving the issue, which has left the resident reporting the same issues.
  6. In summary the landlord cleared the rubbish from the alleyway within a reasonable time. However, there was evidence of poor communication and there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord investigating the weeds and shrubs. The landlord has not showed any learning or taken steps to put things right. Although it temporarily resolved the situation, it failed to communicate to the resident whether it would consider a long-term solution. The resident has been left without a resolution to her complaint for over a year.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish and overgrown weeds and shrubs in the communal alleyway.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 August 2023, which was within its target response timescale of the following working day. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss a resolution to the complaint.
  2. The acknowledgement letter sent to the resident included an administrative error where the date it said it would respond by had not been filled in. However, as the landlord had already discussed the complaint with the resident this would not have caused her any time, trouble or inconvenience.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023, this was within its target response timescale of 5 working days. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response considered all the complaint issues the resident raised and detailed what action it was going to take to resolve the complaint. The response included the wrong date for when the resident said the landlord’s operative told her the bath needed replacing. As the landlord’s record are accurate, this was clearly an administrative error. However, landlords must ensure their complaint responses contain correct information.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this verbally the same day, which was within its next working day response timescale. However, there was a delay in it sending written acknowledgement, as this was sent on 14 September 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss why she wanted to escalate her complaint.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 September 2023, which was within its 10-working day target response timescale. The response considered all the residents complaint issues and provided timescales for the completion of the agreed works. The landlord acted appropriately by stating it would keep the complaint open until the repairs were complete.
  6. On 11 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a copy of its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The resident told the Ombudsman that she did not receive a response to her complaint until this date, and feels she only received a response after she approached the Ombudsman in September 2023. While the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s claims that she did not receive a response to her complaint until 11 October 2023. Without evidence to support this we are unable to investigate when the responses were sent. However, in line with our inquisitorial approach, the Ombudsman does question why both stage 1 and 2 responses were sent to the resident on this date. The Ombudsman has therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training.
  7. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord communicated well with the resident about her complaint, the evidence provided shows it responded within its target timescales and its responses were detailed and considered all the complaint issues.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration for the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom and her request for further works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish and overgrown weeds in the communal alleyway.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is broken down as:
      1. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom and her request for further works.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish and overgrown weeds in the communal alleyway.
    3. Consider what options are available to keep the communal alleyway clear from rubbish, weeds and shrubs without the resident having to report the issue. It must discuss these options with the resident and confirms in writing what action it is going to take to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
    1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses work orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
    2. Are accurately recording its communication, repairs and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.