The Riverside Group Limited (202500826)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor flat of a general needs building and is registered as disabled. She asked the landlord to authorise the installation of a stairlift on the building’s communal stairs. She was unhappy when the landlord refused this request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request to install a stairlift on the communal stairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a stairlift on the communal stairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In summary the Ombudsman found that:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a stairlift on the communal stairs

1. Errors in the landlord’s internal systems delayed the request being actioned.
2. The landlord delayed unreasonably in consulting experts and making its decision.
3. The landlord did not proactively communicate with the resident and providing conflicting information.

 In the landlord’s complaint handling

4. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint was 8 working days late.
5. The landlord gave unclear and incorrect information in its stage 1 response.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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. The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy states that it may refuse an adaption if it does not meet planning and building regulation requirements, if legal or contractual reasons prevent it from carrying out the work or if the adaption would adversely affect other residents.
6. The policy also states that the regional Aids and Adaptions Officer will assess communal-area adaptions, including stairlifts, on a case-by-case basis.
7. The landlord told us it first received the resident’s request for a stairlift on the internal communal stairs in her block on 23 January 2024. The resident told us her occupational therapist recommended the stairlift, after she had suffered a stroke. She said the local council had approved it and they were providing a grant for its purchase and installation.
8. On 14 June 2024, the contractor sent the landlord its proposed stairlift layout and asked the landlord to confirm approval. Because the building has multiple occupants, the contractor required building control, fire officer, and local authority approval from the landlord prior to installation.
9. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 21 October and 18 November 2024. Although the policy does not set a response time for communal-area adaptation requests, we would expect the landlord to update the resident within a reasonable time.
10. In November and December 2024, the landlord made enquiries with the local council and the relevant building safety and adaptation teams to determine whether the stairlift could be safely installed. The landlord was unclear what information was required for authorisation and who had decision-making authority.
11. On 16 December 2024, the landlord told the resident it had concerns that the stairlift might block the staircase during a fire and that the issue needed further assessment. While it was reasonable for the landlord to seek expert advice, it did not explain the earlier delay to the resident, which was not reasonable.
12. On 16 January 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it could not approve the stairlift because its width restricted the only escape route from the building. It was happy to review any alternative designs from the contractor or local council. Once the plans had been revised and approved, the landlord said it would update the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing this decision.
13. The landlord told the resident’s local council it was willing to collaborate to find a compliant alternative and that it was open to amended specifications or alternative proposals. This approach complied with its aids and adaptations policy and the Equality Act.
14. During a visit to the resident on 27 January 2025, the landlord offered to move the resident to more suitable accommodation that met her health and mobility needs. This was reasonable and aligned with its aids and adaptions policy. The resident declined this offer.
15. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the installation of the stairlift had been approved and that it would update the local council by 24 February 2025, after which the council would update the resident.
16. Its enquiries confirmed that neither the fire service nor the local council provides authorisation for stairlift installation, despite the contractor having requested it.
17. The landlord’s fire manger confirmed that the stairlift proposal had been risk assessed in line with the Building Risk Assessment and Fire Evacuation Policy. The landlord could not approve it because it breached the fire service’s minimum stairwell-clearance requirements.
18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 March 2025. It explained that the local council and fire service could not provide the approval the contractor had requested. It also explained that the stairwell was the only exit for all residents and that a stairlift would obstruct the escape route.
19. The Equality Act requires landlords to ensure accessibility for disabled residents; however, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in refusing the installation. It was appropriate that the landlord considered the resident’s request but was also appropriate that it considered relevant expert advice to make its decision. The advice said that the stairlift installation could impact other residents in the event of a fire due to restricting the stairwell, which is the only means of escape.
20. There was a significant gap between the contractor submitting the stairlift proposal on 14 June 2024 and the landlord taking action from 22 October 2024 onwards. There is no evidence that the landlord made any enquiries or investigations during this time.
21. The landlord told us the delay occurred because the contractor’s email was sent to an unmonitored mailbox. Normally, emails from that address are routed automatically into its internal case management system, but this did not happen due to a major internal systems integration, that affected email processing.
22. This error delayed the stairlift enquiries for 4 months, and the landlord’s subsequent decision-making process prolonged the matter by a further 3 months.
23. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to consult health and fire safety professionals, it did not respond to the resident within a reasonable timescale. We acknowledge that as other organisations were involved and the decision had potential serious consequences it was right that the landlord obtained relevant guidance. We acknowledge that this would take time. However, it failed to start this process for 4 months after the initial request and plans were submitted for the landlord’s consideration. At this stage it did not manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the process for authorisation or updating her about timescales.
24. The landlord told the resident on 16 January 2025 that it could not approve the stairlift because of fire-safety issues, yet in its stage 1 response on 21 February 2025, it stated the installation had been approved. This conflicting information would have caused confusion to the resident and raised her expectations.
25. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stairlift request. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 in compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed and inconsistent responses. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
27. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
28. The resident made her complaint on 30 January 2025. The landlord accepts that it did not acknowledge the complaint until it phoned the resident on 18 February 2025. This was 8 working days late and did not comply with the Code.
29. The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 21 February 2025. It is unclear when the resident escalated the complaint, and the absence of evidence highlights a record-keeping issue. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 24 March 2025.
30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 March 2025, which was on time.
31. The landlord stated that it upheld the complaint because its stage 1 response was unclear and incorrect. It apologised for the inconvenience but did not offer compensation. It also did not adequately explain how this happened and what lessons could be learned from this in the future.
32. In line with its compensation policy, which states that payments can be made for delays in the landlord resolving matters, unsatisfactory communication or poor complaint handling, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to award compensation. The resident received conflicting information in its complaint responses and the landlord’s responses did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations and caused her confusion.
33. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation, to reflect the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

34. The landlord should put in place a system that ensures staff regularly check inboxes and correctly refer enquiries to the appropriate departments.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. After logging the resident’s complaint on 30 January 2025, the complaint was not sent to the correct complaints team. The landlord also did not provide evidence of the resident’s escalation to stage 2. Clear and accurate record keeping is essential for the landlord’s transparency and for our investigations.

Communication

36. The landlord should have been more proactive in contacting the resident, including providing accurate information and an explanation for its delays.