The Riverside Group Limited (202343640)

Background

1. The resident is an elderly person. He lives on the seventh floor of a 12 block building served by 2 lifts. Each lift serves either the odd or even numbered floors in the building. The resident raised concerns about frequent breakdowns with the lifts in his building. The landlord’s contractors often attended to resolve the issue. However, the landlord said that the age of the lifts, made it difficult sourcing parts quickly. The frequency of the issues experienced led to the resident’s complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns of lift breakdowns in the block.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. A reasonable offer of redress offered by the landlord in its response to lift breakdowns in the block.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Lift breakdowns

4. There were concerns about the landlord’s record keeping for the works completed to the lift. Its records often did not explain when it resolved the issues. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings in the lack of service provided to the resident, and the inconvenience caused to him by the lift outages. It offered compensation which we consider proportionate for the failings found. It also committed to explore upgrades and discuss the issues further with its contractors to see if it could identify a solution.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not show it acted in line with its policy as it delayed issuing its stage 2 response. It also did not show that it requested an extension for the delayed response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. Our investigation focuses between March 2023 and March 2024. This is because this covers the events leading to the resident’s complaint and provides an adequate overview of the events during the complaint period. In May 2025 the resident raised another complaint about the lift which exhausted the landlord’s process on 1 July 2025 We are currently investigating this complaint under case reference 202514262.
7. The evidence shows that the lifts in the building broke down on several occasions between March 2023 and March 2024. This was especially the case for the lift serving the resident’s floor. The records specify that the landlord abandoned quite a few jobs, but the notes provide useful context. They explain that the landlord either passed the jobs to its contractor, or it waited for parts to bring the lift back up to working order. The records however provide no information on when it completed the necessary works. We see this throughout the records for example on 29 March 2023, 30 August 2023 where the landlord’s caretake chased the job for a failed lift, and in December 2023 where the resident chased works as the lift was out of service.
8. Further, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it raised a job with its contractor on 7 November 2023 following the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s records do not show this occurrence. All these instances raise concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should ensure that its repair records appropriately reflect the actions it has taken. The records should also include information about when contractors resolved the issues. However, we have seen an email dated 7 November 2023 in which the landlord discussed issues with the lift with its contractor. Its response also provides some context which may explain some abandoned jobs as at times when contractors arrived around lift concerns, the lifts were in working order.
9. We then see from the records issues with the lifts in December 2023 which led to the resident’s complaint escalation. Between his escalation and the landlord’s response date in March 2024, the landlord’s records show it raised at least 7 more jobs around lift outages in the building. It explained in its stage 2 response that the latest issue occurred on 25 January 2024. However, its records do not show this. They show it raised a job on 20 January 2024 which it abandoned, but the notes say it passed on to its contractor. It confirmed that the lift remained out of service for 8 weeks and this was inappropriate.
10. Throughout our investigation, we cannot see that the landlord considered the impact of the situation on the resident. He told the landlord about his age and that he had to walk up 14 flights of stairs whenever the lifts were out of service. It did not show that it put any contingencies in place during such occasions. We also cannot see that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident. This was particularly concerning given the repeated nature of the lift breakdowns. Its actions were unreasonable.
11. To put things right, the landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation. The total offer addressed the inconvenience caused to the resident, the failure to provide a service, and the length of time taken to repair the lift during the 8 week outage. Its offer of £250 is in line with its compensation procedure as it considered its failure to provide an adequate service. Its further £250 offer for the distress and inconvenience also falls under a finding of medium impact caused to the resident. The total amount was proportionate for the failure we have identified. It falls within our Remedies Guidance for situations where there has been a failing which adversely affects a resident for a prolonged period.
12. While the landlord’s records were incomplete at time, we have seen the landlord was proactive in its attempts to resolve the issues. The landlord also committed to explore lift upgrades and to discuss the issue further with contractors and building safety teams. This was a reasonable response. It showed that the landlord took the reoccurrence of the issue seriously and was committed to resolve it so that it would prevent the lift being out of service often.

13. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it requires an extension to the timescale, it will inform residents of the expected timescale for response. This would not be more than 20 working days without good reason, and it will explain this to the resident. It would also provide our details to the resident and agree suitable intervals for updating the resident about their complaint.
14. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within the necessary timescales. It however delayed with its stage 2 response. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 December 2023. The landlord should have responded by 5 January 2024. We note that the landlord explained it spoke with the resident within the complaint response. We have however seen no evidence to support that it requested an extension for the delay in its response or provided “good reason” as explained in its policy. Its delay also significantly fell outside the 20 working day extension timeframe provided in its policy. The response remained outstanding for over 2 months from 5 January 2024 to 15 March 2024.This was inappropriate.

Learning

15. The landlord should ensure it considers the impact of the situation on any vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord’s records will benefit from an improvement in its repairs record to show:
    1. Reasons for abandonment of jobs and show that it has resolved the jobs.
    2. All requests raised with its contractor and completion dates.

Communication

17. The landlord should ensure it provides adequate updates to residents to keep them informed, particularly about complex repairs and when repair parts are delayed. Its communication should be proactive, rather than reactive.