The Riverside Group Limited (201909546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909546

The Riverside Group Limited

 1 March 2021

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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front and back doors.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder.

Summary of events

3. The resident initially reported issues with the front and back doors of his property in June 2019. The resident advised that the landlord assessed the issues and arranged an appointment for 5 July 2019 for both doors to be replaced. The resident stated that the landlord did not attend the appointment. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 July 2020 and confirmed that it visited the property on 5 July 2020 and carried out the following works:

1. refitted door closer
2. eased and adjusted the door.

4. The resident advised that he then went on holiday and contacted the landlord via telephone upon his return, in the first week of September 2019. The landlord informed the resident that the repair work order was closed and advised that a new one would need to be raised. The resident advised that a new assessment was carried out and it was determined that both the front and back doors needed replacement.
5. The resident said he then contacted the landlord in respect of this matter, and he was informed that, as per its records, only the back door needed replacement and that the front door did not require any repairs. The resident informed the landlord that the state of the front door was worse than the back door and that he was “feeling insecure due to the front door”. The landlord agreed to carry out a new assessment and arranged an appointment for 27 September 2019.
6. Moving forward, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that no one attended the property on 27 September 2019 and therefore a new appointment was arranged for 13 October 2019. The landlord’s records state that the repair works were completed on 5 July 2019 but a new door was to be fitted on 9 October 2019. The resident confirmed that the landlord’s contractor attended his property on 10 October 2019, checked the front door, and advised this would need to be replaced.
7. While the exact date when the stage one complaint was raised was not confirmed to this Service, the landlord’s internal records, dated 8 October 2019, showed that the resident’s complaint was not upheld. The resident was informed of this via telephone and advised “that the repair was attended”, the contractor “adjusted the door”, and that it had “a job booked in for 9 October 2019”.
8. On 19 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to seek confirmation whether the repair works were completed. The resident replied to the landlord and advised that the front door was yet to be repaired. Furthermore, the resident explained that the door was “very difficult to open or close” and that it was “deformed from the bottom”. The resident informed the landlord that neither his wife nor daughter could open the door which led to them not being able to carry out certain activities, in the resident’s absence. The resident advised that this situation was impacting his mental health.
9. At the request of this Service, the landlord confirmed that it escalated the resident’s complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure on 28 October 2019.
10. On 22 November 2019, the landlord issued a written stage two complaint response, addressing the following matters:

1. The landlord apologised for the service provided in relation to the repairs.
2. The landlord advised that, in accordance with the lease agreement, the resident was responsible to “maintain and repair the premises (i.e. the house)”, including the doors.
3. The landlord informed the resident that it would not replace his doors.
4. The landlord acknowledged that the “lease should have been checked and explained at the initial reporting stage to avoid unnecessary delay”.
5. The landlord confirmed that it would use this situation as a lesson to “improve” its service.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident has stated that he considers that this situation has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front and back doors and his medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The lease terms and conditions

12. The lease terms and conditions state that the resident, as a leaseholder, is responsible “to keep the premises (…) in good and substantial repair and condition”.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door

The resident reported issues with the back and front doors of his property in June 2019. As a result, the landlord arranged for the doors to be inspected and repaired on 5 July 2019. In respect of this appointment, the information provided to this Service was contradictory as the resident advised that no one attended; in contrast, the landlord confirmed that the works were completed during the visit, along with the hours its contractor was there. In respect of the events dated 5 July 2019, this Service was unable to ascertain what actually happened due to the conflicting nature of the information provided, and our role as an independent third party.

13. Moving forward, it was noted that the resident contacted the landlord again, regarding the same repair issues, at the beginning of September 2019 and a new appointment was arranged for 27 September 2019. The resident confirmed that this appointment did not go ahead either and a new one was scheduled for 13 October 2019. The information provided to this Service, in respect of this visit, was contradictory as well as the appointment was scheduled for 13 October 2019; however, the landlord confirmed that a new door was to be fitted on 9 October 2019 and the resident advised that the landlord visited his property on 10 October 2019.
14. Due to the amount of time that had elapsed from his first report and the amount of appointments made for the front and back doors of his property to be repaired, the resident logged a complaint with the landlord. The landlord decided to not uphold the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure, although, in its stage two complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that, as per the terms of his lease, it would not replace or repair the doors to his property because this was his responsibility. In this instance the landlord acted in line with the terms imposed by the lease agreement, which stated that the resident was responsible for keeping the property in a good repair condition, including any repairs needed to the doors.
15. Taking into consideration the information provided to this Service, it is clear that the landlord was within its rights to refuse to carry out repairs or replace the front or back doors to the resident’s property. However, based on the events detailed above, it is evident that the landlord was unreasonable in its handling of repairs to the resident’s front and back doors because it arranged a number of appointments which were either not attended or did not result in the issues being rectified. It is noted that these repeated incidents caused unreasonable delays and inconvenience to the resident and his family. What is more, they implied an expectation that the repair responsibility lay with the landlord and not the resident. In this instance, it would have helped if the landlord would have been clear, regarding its repairs responsibilities, from the outset as this would have given the resident the opportunity to arrange the works himself. He would not have known to arrange the repairs himself as he was told the landlord would be carrying out the work.
16. Furthermore, this Service appreciates that, in its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its error and that it should have reviewed the lease terms sooner, and also advised that it would use this situation as a learning experience to improve its service. However, the landlord failed to address or offer reasonable redress for the number of unnecessary appointments and the inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, to put matters right, the landlord should apologise to the resident and offer compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident by:
    1. The number of appointments arranged to carry out the repair.
    2. The amount of time the repairs were left outstanding for due to this misunderstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the front and back doors of the resident’s property.

Reasons

17. The landlord failed to effectively identify that it was not its responsibility to carry out repairs or replace the resident’s front door, which led to several appointments being arranged over the course of approximately six months. These delays have caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident, especially as the doors of his property were still in need of repair as he would not have known to arrange the repairs himself until the landlord confirmed this to him.

Orders

18. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident.
    2. Pay compensation of £125 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by delays and miscommunication concerning the repairs to his doors.
19. The compensation has been calculated based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is to be paid in full to the resident within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

20. The landlord is recommended to provide further training on its complaints procedures to its staff, to ensure these are handled accurately.