The Riverside Group Limited (202337969)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337969

The Riverside Group Limited

29 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:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.
2. The resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The tenancy started on 1 January 2003. The property is a 4 bedroom house. The landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities on record for the resident. These were the resident having difficulty with sight and reading, and to allow extra time for access. The resident told the landlord during the complaints process she has additional vulnerabilities including chronic illness, and significant mobility issues.
On 9 July 2023 the resident reported a leak from the bathroom. The landlord attended that day. The landlord noted the leak had stopped on arrival and no obvious leak was found. The landlord made safe a light in the hallway. A further job was raised to trace and track the leak and to reinstate the light in the hallway once the leak was fixed. The light in the hallway was repaired on 23 August 2023. Further repairs took place to the bathroom between July and September 2023. On 13 September 2023 a further leak occurred and the hallway ceiling collapsed.
The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2023 about the time taken for the landlord to resolve the leak. This was initially made via a phone call to the landlord. The resident followed this up with an email on the same day and another the next day adding further points to the complaint. The emails said the following:
1. The resident had been exposed to risks which further impacted her due to her vulnerabilities which included chronic illness, disabilities, and significant mobility issues.
2. The unresolved leak caused the resident distress, and a decline to her mental health because the probability of a fall was higher.
3. The resident was left without lighting in her home for a period of 4 weeks to the bottom and top landing of the house. She had no light when accessing the stairs during this time. The resident uses a walking stick, frame and trolly to support her walking. No risk assessment was carried out to assess the risk of harm.
4. The resident was not able to uphold her basic needs and had struggled to use the shower during the repairs. The resident uses a catheter and required upmost hygiene to avoid infection.
5. The landlord signed off the repair to the leak on 12 September 2023. The resident told the landlord the ceiling looked like it was going to “cave in.” The resident was scared when the ceiling collapsed in the early hours the next morning.
6. A number of repair appointments were made between 17 July 2023 and 13 September 2023. This was an emergency repair and was not dealt with in line with the repairs policy.
7. On many occasions incorrect operatives attended who were not skilled to make the leak safe.
8. The resident wanted redress beyond the cosmetics of the house.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. It apologised for the time taken to repair the bathroom. The landlord said it attended the property on 13 September 2023 and fixed a leak from the whale pump, replastered and stain blocked the hall ceiling and wall. It said it was waiting for a date to replace the bathroom flooring. The landlord said it had received the resident’s compensation request and would update the resident once a decision on this was made.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She escalated her complaint and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 15 November 2023. It stated the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome at stage 1 because the repair had not been completed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 22 February 2024. It said the following:
1. Repairs had taken place between 16 November 2023 and 16 February 2024 to the bathroom. This included investigations into the leak, an electrical inspection, removal and refitting of wall tiles, resealing, repair to the flooring, replastering, replacement of tiles, and repair to the radiator and towel warmer. These repairs were now completed.
2. It would contact the resident about a further repair reported for loft insulation.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time she waited for the leak to be located and fixed.
4. It apologised that the resident had to make a complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident confirmed to this Service in March 2024 that the bathroom was still leaking. The resident said she was without electricity for 6 weeks during the repair period resulting in an outage of disability aids. She also said that she was not offered a decant during the repair, and was not offered compensation for damage to her personal items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.

The tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the property. The landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property and repairs including walls, ceilings, plasterwork, floors, and plumbing.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy says financial redress and gestures of goodwill may be payable in situations including when the landlord has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards. The landlord’s redress guidelines state gestures of good will can be made for instances of low impact on the resident of between £0-£250, £250-£700 for medium impact, and £700 and above for high impact.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will resolve the fault at first visit whenever possible. The landlord catagorises repairs with timescales as follows:
1. Emergency repairs within 12 hours.
2. Urgent repairs within 5 days.
3. Routine repairs within 28 days.
The policy says emergency repairs may include small leaks, and damaged or failing electrical wiring, lighting or light fittings. It says the landlord will complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 12 hours of the repair being reported. If it carries out a temporary repair, it will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair. If there is an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety within their home, the completion of the full repair will revert to its urgent timescales.
The policy says the landlord will keep electrical wiring, and sockets and light switches that were present or installed at the time the tenancy started, in repair and working order.
The resident first reported the leak to the shower on 9 July 2023. From the landlord’s records it was evident several repairs took place between this date and the final repair on 26 January 2024. This was a timeframe of over 6 months. This did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.
While it took a long time to resolve the problem, the Ombudsman does acknowledge that certain problems such as leaks, can be complex and take time to diagnose, with an element of trial and error involved. The landlord demonstrated it attended the property promptly when leaks were reported. However, it did not identify the root cause of the leaks within an appropriate timeframe. This resident also endured a high number of repair appointments during this time which caused further frustration.
As a result of the delay in locating and fixing the leak, the resident had not had the full use of her bathroom for an excessive period. This caused the resident significant inconvenience, in consideration of her vulnerabilities and medical needs, which included self–catheterisation. The resident told the landlord in September 2023, she had struggled to meet her personal care needs without the full use of the bathroom.
The landlord confirmed to the resident in its final response on 22 February 2024 that the repair to the leak in the bathroom was completed. The resident stated in correspondence with this Service in March 2024 that leaks were still present in the bathroom. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this and if necessary either inspect or raise a repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The resident said in her complaint that she was without lighting in the hallway and landing of the property during the repair to the leak. The landlord’s repair records showed the landlord made safe the 2 gang light switch in the hallway on 9 July 2023 following the initial report of the leak. The light switch was reinstated on 23 August 2023. This was a period of 45 days. The landlord confirmed to this Service the resident was also without light in the hallway for a further 17 days between 5 November 2023 and 22 November 2023. While it was noted the landlord was investigating the causes of the leaks during this time and was not able to reinstate the light switch until safe, it did not demonstrate that considered the impact of having no light to the top landing and bottom hallway on the vulnerable resident.
The resident confirmed in her email on 13 September 2023, that she uses a walking stick, frame and trolly to support her walking. The landlord did not demonstrate that a risk assessment was carried out to assess the risk of harm. The resident told this Service said she had to “crawl up the stairs” to navigate the stairs in the dark. The landlord here did not demonstrate it considered the health and safety risk to the resident here when prioritising its response to the repair in line with its repairs policy. It also did not consider if a decant was appropriate given the risk of harm to the resident. The landlord failed to sufficiently take into consideration the vulnerabilities in its actions here, or in the timeliness of its repairs.
There was evidence of the resident informing the landlord of her health vulnerabilities and disabilities during the complaint period, in emails of complaint to the landlord on 13 and 14 September 2023. The landlord confirmed to this service it had vulnerabilities noted for the resident as struggling to see or read. However, it is unclear if the landlord has the resident’s full vulnerabilities and disabilities on record. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time for the leak to be located and fixed. To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord offered the resident an apology for having to raise a complaint. However, it failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its delay in locating and fixing the leak.
In summary, the landlord took too long to complete the repairs to the leak in the resident’s bathroom. The resident was without the full use of her bathroom for over 6 months and she also reported that she had significant access issues to these facilities in this time. This had a significant impact on the resident’s ability to meet the needs of her health condition. The landlord failed to take into consideration the vulnerabilities of the resident in the timeliness of its response. The landlord failed to demonstrate it considered the risk to the resident of being without light to her hallway for an extended period of time in consideration of her vulnerabilities.
While the landlord acknowledged the length of time the resident waited for the leak to be located and fixed by upholding this part of her complaint, it did not offer suitable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom. In consideration of the overall length of time the resident was inconvenienced and the level of distress during this time, compensation of £800 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a serious and detrimental impact on the resident.

The resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak and subsequent damaged caused.

The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure says financial redress or gestures of goodwill may be payable in several situations, including when it is legally liable for damage to property, including a resident’s property. The policy says bodily injury and damage to property amounts to public liability claims against the landlord. Injury claims, or property damage claims over £2000 need to be referred to its insurer. Claims of damage to buildings and properties below £2000 can be dealt with by the complaint handler following the third-party property damage framework to process a small damage claim.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says residents are responsible for decorating their homes. Where the landlord has completed a repair and that repair has 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 landlord’s repair records showed the resident’s hallway ceiling fell down in the early hours on 13 September 2023, due to the leak from the bathroom. This was following the completion of a repair to the shower the previous day. It was noted the landlord attend to the damaged ceiling on 13 September 2023. It replastered the ceiling and applied stain block to the walls. This was an appropriate response by the landlord to repair the initial damage. This was in line with the timescales in its repair policy for emergency repairs.
When raising her complaint, the resident told the landlord the damage to the ceiling from the leak caused damage to the decoration in the hallway and requested compensation for this. The landlord sent the resident a compensation request form on 26 September 2023. The resident returned this the following day and requested £812 of compensation for replacement flooring for the hallway, paint, wallpaper, and replacement bath towels. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident it had received the compensation form and would update her when a decision was made.
The landlord’s action to provide the resident with a compensation form was appropriate. Given that the resident indicated she felt the landlord was responsible for the damages caused. This action was in line with the landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure.
The resident confirmed in an email to the landlord on 1 December 2023 that the landlord refused to offer compensation for the damages. The landlord confirmed to this Service it offered the resident new beading on the flooring and decorating as redress. It said it carried out an inspection and the flooring was not damaged but required new beading. This demonstrated the landlord had considered the resident’s claim and provided her with an offer to resolve the damage.
It was not clear from the evidence provided if this work was completed. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and reoffer to redecorate and apply new beading to the flooring.
This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the damage to the resident’s hallway and belongings, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord had followed its procedure for dealing with damage claims below £2000. The landlord offered to redecorate and apply new beading to the flooring. This was in line with its repair policy. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s customer feedback procedure from the time of the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint says it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 the landlord will contact the resident the next working day after receipt of the complaint. The landlord will communicate a resolution plan to the resident’s complaint within 5 working days of starting a complaint investigation.
The landlord’s complaint policy effective from 9 October 2023 says it will aim to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. At stage 2 the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. At both stages, if an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint, the landlord will inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. In all cases where the landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation will be provided to the customer setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. The landlord will provide a written response to all complaints, addressing all points raised and providing clear reasons for any decisions.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The resident raised her complaint on 13 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. This was a timeframe of 23 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said the target date for resolving the complaint was 19 September 2023. The landlord failed to meet the timescale for response in its complaints policy or the Code.
The was noted the landlord was in contact with the resident about the complaint during this time. The landlord emailed the resident a compensation form on 26 September 2023 and advised that once the resident completed this it would address the issues in her previous emails and send a formal response via a resolution letter. The landlord did not provide further evidence that it kept the resident updated following this contact.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 15 November 2023. It provided its final response on 22 February 2024. This was a timeframe of 68 working days. Again, this did not meet the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 December 2023 and asked if the complaint could be closed down because the repairs to the electrics and bathroom were completed. The resident said the overall points of the complaint had not been addressed. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 1 December 2023 the complaint would stay open while it looked into the issues raised.
It was evident the landlord failed to keep the resident further updated on the progress and delay to the complaint response. As a result of the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated, she had to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2024 and said she had not received any contact or resolution following her complaint escalation.
By keeping the stage 2 complaint open for 68 working days, this resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident. This delayed the resolution for the resident and delayed the resident’s access to this service.
In her complaint, the resident raised a number of issues about the landlord’s handling of the leak and repairs. This included concerns about the length of time the resident was without a light to the hallway and landing, the resident being left in an unsafe condition, incorrect operatives attending to complete jobs they were not able to complete, and procedures not being followed. The resident sent these concerns in writing on 13 September 2023, with further information added on the 14 September 2023, after initially raising her complaint on the phone. It was noted the email address for the complaints team was incorrect on both these emails. However, both emails were also sent directly to the member of staff dealing with the stage 1 complaint.
The resident also resent the emails to the correct email address for the complaints team on 17 November 2023. The landlord did not respond to these issues in either of its complaint responses. This was despite the landlord confirming to the resident in an email on 26 September 2023 it would address the issues in her emails and send a formal response. The landlord also told the resident on 1 December 2023, it was chasing up a response on the concerns raised in the emails.
It was noted the landlord’s acknowledgment letters stated its understanding of the complaint and at both stages the landlord asked the resident to get in touch if she disagreed with or wished to clarify this. It was evident the resident provided further points to her complaint after this stage 1 acknowledgement letter. She also provided a copy of these points again on 17 November 2023 following the stage 2 acknowledgement. Therefore, the landlord was aware the resident had additional parts to her complaint, other than the reasons listed in its acknowledgement letters. The landlord failed to adequately address these points in its complaint response. This was not in line with the Code.
The landlord told the resident on 1 December 2023, her additional points were not part of the original complaint. It said the complaint was about a repair to a leak. It offered to open a further complaint about the additional points. When the resident advised she was told the points raised would be looked at collectively, the landlord confirmed it would keep the complaint open. The information provided to the resident here was unclear. The resident was left with the impression all the points raised during the complaints process would be addressed.
In summary, the landlord’s complaints process did not answer all of the resident’s complaint and took too long. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed, and its delay at stage 2 was excessive. This caused the resident the time and trouble of continuing to follow up on the points raised in her complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £950. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £800 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.
2. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

The landlord is to contact the resident about further reports of leaks to the bathroom and inspect or raise a repair if necessary, in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, if it has not already done so.
The landlord is to contact the resident and reoffer to redecorate and apply new beading to the flooring if this has not already been completed.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.