The Riverside Group Limited (202329485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329485

The Riverside Group Limited

14 April 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a power and water outage.
2. The landlord’s handling of a lift outage, and an associated rescue of persons trapped inside the lift.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, and they have held the lease since 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a wider block of flats. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities.
On 5 September 2023 there was a power outage in the resident’s block of flats. Due to the loss of power the communal water pump and lifts stopped working. This resulted in residents having no access to running water, and two residents being stuck in the lift. A lift engineer attended the block on 5 September 2023, but they could not fix the lift until the power was restored.
Power was restored to the building on 6 September at 12:14pm. A contractor attended the block on 7 September 2023 and fully repaired the lift. The National Grid attended the block on 8 September 2023 and restored the running water.
On 6 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said they were dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled the power outage. They said it took 2 hours for a lift engineer to attend, and the plumber who attended did not know what they were doing.
In its stage one response dated 28 September 2023 the landlord said:
1. After it had received reports of the power outage it logged the matter as a priority repair.
2. It apologised that it did not provide residents of the block with bottled water when there was no running water.
3. It said it would carry out staff training following this incident. The landlord wanted its staff to understand the impact such incidents could have on residents.
4. The resident was concerned that neighbours had reported seeing a contractor in the power room before the power outage. The landlord said it was unable to confirm to the resident if it had reported this to the police.
On 16 October 2023 the resident escalated their complaint. They felt there were questions the landlord had left unanswered, and they wanted these addressed in a stage 2 response.
In its stage 2 response dated 28 September 2023 the landlord said:
1. It had arranged for an in-person meeting to discuss this incident with residents on 8 November 2023.
2. On the day of the power outage the landlord had not arranged for any repairs to the block, so its contractors did not access the power room prior to the power outage.
3. It was not going to report the incident to police. As all residents have a code to access the power room it could not determine who went into the power room prior to the outage. It advised the resident they could contact police if they felt this was beneficial.
4. It had fully addressed the running water issues in its stage one response.
On 27 October 2023 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses. They wanted to understand how the landlord was going to improve, and they felt they should have been offered compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service they want the landlord to review its service charges and sinking fund. The resident said that when the power was restored after the outage the communal lighting remained on 24 hours a day, and this would have led to increased service costs. The Ombudsman is not able to assess a landlord’s service charges, as it does not have jurisdiction to do so. Additionally, the Ombudsman is only able to assess matters which have been investigated via the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, this element of the resident’s complaint has not been investigated.
If the resident remains concerned about their service charges, they should file a complaint on this matter with the landlord. If the resident remains concerned after the landlord has assessed their complaint, they should seek legal advice or contact the property division of the first-tier tribunal.

The landlord’s handling of a power and water outage

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it classifies a complete loss of electricity, water and lift services as emergency repairs. For emergency repairs the landlord aims to rectify the issue, or put a temporary fix in place, within 12 hours.
The landlord’s compensation policy says when it is considering offering a resident discretionary compensation it will assess the impact on a resident using the following scale:
1. £0 to £250 for low impact incidents where a resident has experienced minor distress or inconvenience.
2. £250 to £700 for medium impact incidents where a considerable service failure has caused inconvenience and distress.
3. £700+ for high impact incidents where a resident experiences severe and long-term distress.
The compensation policy includes that residents are entitled to a fixed amount of compensation if the landlord does not repair a complete loss of water or electricity within the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. A resident is entitled to a £10 fixed payment, and a further £2 for each day the matter is not resolved.
The resident’s lease says the leaseholder is granted the right to an uninterrupted supply of water and electricity.
On 5 September 2023 a power outage occurred in the resident’s block, it is unknown precisely when the power outage occurred. As the outage caused the lift to stop working, it is likely the power outage occurred sometime before residents reported the lift was not working at 6:49pm. The power outage also caused the water pumps to stop working, meaning all residents did not have access to running water.
The occurrence of the power outage was beyond the control of the landlord and there is no evidence it was caused by the landlord’s actions or failure to act. However, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure it adequately responded to the power outage and the associated loss of running water in-line with its repairs policy. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it should have rectified the loss of power and water, or put in place a temporary fix, within 12 hours. In this instance the landlord:
1. Arranged for an electrician to attend the building on 6 September 2023, and the power was restored at 12:14pm.
2. Arranged for a plumber to attend the building on 6 September 2023. The plumber identified that there was a fault with the water pumps which required an electrician. The water supply was restored on 8 September 2023 after a national grid engineer attended.
The landlord did not respond to the power or water outages in-line with its repairs policy. The power outage lasted for around 18 hours, and the water outage lasted for over a day. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to not have access to power or water, it was also not in accordance with the content of the landlord’s repairs policy.
Emails provided to the Ombudsman showed the landlord did not follow its correct procedure after learning of the power outage. As the power outage occurred outside of business hours, the landlord should have contacted its out of hours contractor to attend the incident. This did not occur, instead a contractor was sent to the building the following day during working hours.
The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its procedure prolonged the period where the resident was inconvenienced by not having access to electricity and water. The landlord did not include details of this in its complaint responses, so the resident was unaware of this failing. This was inappropriate as the Ombudsman expects landlords to be transparent, and to take accountability for, and learn from, their own shortcomings.
However, the landlord did offer to meet with residents and hear their concerns about the power outage. This was appropriate and indicated the landlord was willing to learn from this incident.
During the water outage the landlord did not offer to supply the resident with bottled drinking water. In its stage one response the landlord apologised for this and said it would carry out training with its staff to address this failure. The resident has said that during this time the landlord did not make any provisions for alternative toileting arrangements.
As the landlord was unable to restore the running water until it could repair the electrical supply, to act in accordance with its repairs policy it should have put temporary provisions in place for residents. It was unreasonable the landlord did not make such arrangements, considering water is a basic necessity.
In their complaint the resident raised concerns about the power outage being caused by contractor mismanagement, or that the electrics were deliberately tampered with. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had not arranged for any contractors to attend the block on 5 September 2023, so the outage was not caused by a contractor. The landlord said all residents had a code to access the plant room, and they were unable to identify an individual who accessed the room prior to the power outage. Because of this the landlord said it was not reporting the matter to the police.
The landlord advised the resident they could call 101 if they wished for the police to be made aware of the incident. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its rationale for not contacting the police. However, the incident has highlighted to the Ombudsman that there may be some security concerns around access to the plant room. To address this the Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord review the security measures it has in place to assess if they are adequate.
The period in which the resident had no access to electricity and water would have caused distress, discomfort and inconvenience. The landlord did not offer the resident financial compensation for any distress associated with the water and power outages. Considering the content of the landlord’s compensation policy the landlord should have offered the fixed compensation for a loss of water and electricity. It also should have considered if the distress the resident experienced could meet the threshold for low or medium impact compensation.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s apology was insufficient to fully redress the failings identified. Whilst an apology was appropriate, this did not fully acknowledge the failings and was not adequate redress in the circumstances. The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The water and power outages were not rectified or addressed in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
2. The landlord was not transparent with the resident about its failure to follow its out of hours repairs procedure.
3. The landlord’s failure to contact its out of hours contractor contributed to delays in the power being restored.
4. The landlord acknowledged it should have arranged for bottled water to be distributed, but it did not offer the resident any financial redress for this failing.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £300in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to adequately respond to the power outage. The Ombudsman considers £300 compensation to be appropriate, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for matters where a landlord has not fully acknowledged its own failings.

The landlord’s handling of a lift outage, and an associated rescue of persons trapped inside the lift.

The landlord’s repairs policy is outlined in paragraph 15 of this report.
At 6:49pm on 5 September 2023 the landlord was informed of the lift outage. Following this it arranged for a lift engineer to attend. The engineer arrived at 8:49pm and made the lift safe, as the lift could not be fixed until the power was restored. The engineer returned on 7 September 2023 and fully repaired the lift. This was an appropriate response time for an out of hours repair, and it was in-line with the landlord’s policy.
The resident has said they felt the engineer took too long to arrive considering two of their neighbours were stuck in the lift. The resident said it was a very hot day, and the people stuck in the lift started to panic, they became dizzy and dehydrated. The resident said when the landlord was told that there were people stuck in the lift, they felt the landlord dissuaded residents from calling the fire services. The resident said the landlord advised that any damage caused by the fire services would result in leaseholders being charged for repairs to address any damage caused.
The landlord has told this Service it only retains recordings of telephone conversations for a year; therefore, it is not known what exactly the landlord told residents on 5 September 2023. From the resident’s account it appears the landlord may have been unsympathetic in its explanation. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s concern; however we also note that the landlord had to finely balance the resident’s concerns and its safety protocols.
The landlord’s actions in advising residents that they could be charged for any damage caused was reasonable considering:
1. A professional lift engineer who could facilitate an extraction was on the way to the building.
2. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to pay for any potential damage considering it had already arranged for a lift engineer to attend.
It is not the place for the landlord to tell residents if they can or cannot contact the emergency services. If a resident considers a matter to be an emergency, then it should be the resident’s decision to contact the emergency services. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to inform residents of any possible outcomes following the attendance of the fire services, to allow them to make an informed decision.
The landlord did not explain its position relating to the lift outage or rescue in either of its complaint responses. This was inappropriate considering the resident had complained about the landlord’s actions in this regard. Had the landlord explained the reason behind the advice it gave, this could have given resident some understanding or closure on the incident. The Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure.
The impact the resident experienced from this issue is limited as they were not one of those trapped in the lift. The impact the resident might have experienced in this instance would be concern for others, or annoyance at the lift being out of action for a short time. The landlord has been ordered to explain the advice it gave about the lift outage to the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to complaints. The landlord commits to responding to complaints via a stage one response within 5 working days. If the complaint is progressed to stage 2 then the landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 10 working days.
The resident made their complaint on 6 September 2023, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response 17 working days later on 28 September 2023, this was not in-line with its complaints policy, nor was it in-line with this Service’s Complaints Handling Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge that its stage one response was late, or to apologise to the resident. This was unreasonable.
Sometimes complaint handling delays can be reasonable, but when this occurs the Ombudsman expects delays to be fully explained to the resident. The time the landlord took to respond to its complaint responses would have caused the resident frustration.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 10 working days, this was appropriate and in-line with its complaints policy.
The Ombudsman has determined that a service failure occurred as the landlord did not provide its stage one response in line with its complaints policy, and an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £50. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures which have a lower impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the power outage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlords handling of the lift outage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £350 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the water and power outages.
2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is to write to the resident and explain why it advised the resident that any damage caused during a lift extraction could be recharged to leaseholders.
The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the security measures it has in place in relation to the plant room to assess whether they are currently sufficient.