The Riverside Group Limited (202348496)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat in a block. Each flat has its own bin. She contacted the landlord in February 2024 because a neighbour had moved the bins from the car park to the side of the building, opposite her flat’s window. She wanted the landlord to locate them elsewhere.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request to relocate the refuse bins.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the refuse bins.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord notified the resident of the relocation of the bins via a letter. It advised residents why the relocation was necessary. When the resident raised concerns, it visited to discuss the situation. The situation was subsequently resolved by relocating the bins.
   2. The landlord did not provide accurate date records of its complaint handling. It failed to address its delay within its investigation.

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.

5. There is nothing within the tenancy agreement that states the landlord must notify a resident prior to making alterations to communal areas. This includes the relocation of bins from one location to another. In this particular case there was no designated bin store area.
6. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding the relocation of the bins without prior notification from the landlord. The records show the landlord had produced a block letter to notify residents of the planned change. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to advise that a neighbour had already moved the bins. This action was not taken by the landlord and was outside its control. The letter demonstrates the landlord had intended to inform residents in advance of the relocation, and our assessment therefore focuses on whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
7. The landlord used its stage 1 response to inform the resident of the reasoning for the relocation of the bins. This included the freeing up of 2 parking spaces as well as their previous location attracting vermin. It also confirmed a housing officer had visited the resident to discuss her concerns. This shows the landlord’s commitment to respond to the situation.
8. The resident escalated her complaint. She advised the landlord, it had merely moved the pest issue, not addressed it. She provided photographs showing residents were placing refuse bags next to the bins. She requested the landlord consider erecting a dedicated bin shelter. As the landlord is responsible for managing its budgets and resources, it was reasonable that it explained to the resident that it did not have the budget for a specific bin shelter in its stage 2 response.
9. That said, the evidence shows the landlord also wrote to all residents to remind them of being neighbourly and using the bins correctly. These actions show the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and took steps to minimise the misuse of the bins.
10. The landlord has shown it intended to notify residents of the need to move the bins. It is reasonable that it relied on the professional opinion of a pest controller when deciding this.
11. Furthermore, following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure the resident has advised us that the landlord has relocated the bins. She has advised this has resolved the complaint. It is positive the landlord continued an open dialogue with the resident to find a lasting solution.

12. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
13. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what date it registered the resident’s initial complaint. The records show the resident first contacted the landlord on 1 February 2024 to report the incident. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024. This is a period of 27 working days from when she first raised her concerns. This is outside of the timescale stated in its policy.
14. The landlord made no reference to the delay within its response and did not record the date it registered the resident’s complaint. Although the response referred to a housing officer visiting the resident on 6 March 2024, the landlord’s records do not clearly show when the resident first made her complaint. Given that a visit was arranged, it is likely the complaint was raised before this date, but the absence of clear records means the origin of the complaint cannot be accurately established.
15. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
16. The resident responded to the landlord and provided photographs, which showed the situation as unresolved on 21 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 3 working days later on 26 March 2024. This is in line with the timescale in its policy.
17. While its responses gave details of the reasoning for its actions, it failed to acknowledge the short delay in its response. Even though this delay did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, it resulted in minor inconvenience, time and trouble. As such, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £25 for the time and trouble caused to her by this delay.

Learning

Learning finding

18. In future it would be beneficial for the landlord to assess the impact of such changes and have a more consultative approach with residents. This would enable the landlord to gather feedback to better inform its action and build relationships.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord has not properly documented the dates the resident raised or escalated her complaint. It should ensure that it consistently records complaint contacts, registration dates, responses, and any visits or actions.

Communication

20. This case shows the need for clear and open communication during complaint handling. The landlord explained its actions but did not acknowledge the delay in issuing its stage 1 response. Landlords should clearly explain any delays, set out the reasons, and confirm how the complaint is being progressed. Acknowledging delays helps manage expectations, shows accountability, and reduces unnecessary time and trouble for residents.