Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202001482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001482

The Riverside Group Limited

10 February 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 is about:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his property, including the conduct of its staff and damage to the property and his appliances; and
    2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership agreement with the landlord and has occupied the property since 22 October 2019.
  2. The resident experienced a leak into his property on 4 May 2019 following heavy rainfall. The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised on 7 May 2019 to carry out an inspection of the roof. This Job is logged as completed on 15 May 2019, although the records do not confirm that the appointment was attended and no notes have been provided of the outcome of this inspection. A second job was raised for a roof inspection on 22 May 2019, with reference to the resident’s extractor hood. This job is logged as attended on 6 June 2019, although again there are no notes as to the outcome.
  3. On 1 September 2019, the landlord acknowledged a formal complaint from the resident about damage to his cooker, referring to the resident’s responsibility for internal repairs. The resident confirmed that his cooker had been damaged by water penetration through his extractor, which he suspected had originated from an external source as there was no plausible internal source. He noted that this would be the landlord’s responsibility to address. The resident was frustrated that he had been notified that his formal complaint had been closed without any communication or attempt at resolution.
  4. The landlord responded on 10 September 2019 stating that it would follow up after an electrician had visited the following week but that this may be able to be pursued as an insurance claim. It also suggested that the resident contact his neighbour to determine whether the leak was coming from their property, or it offered to do so on his behalf. If the source could not be located, the resident was advised to arrange for a plumber to carry out a search and trace, the cost of which should be covered by an insurance claim.
  5. The landlord and resident had further discussions between 15 September 2019 and 22 September 2019. The resident confirmed that as there had been no reoccurrence of the leak since May 2019, it may be difficult to trace it but his main concern was the safety of the affected electrical appliances. He complained about the landlord’s unresponsiveness and noted occasions where the landlord’s contractors had failed to give notice and also that his complaints had been closed without response. The landlord asked who the resident’s key contact had been previously and what action had been taken to support him. The resident confirmed that there hadn’t been a key contact, despite him asking for one, and that he had received practically no support.
  6. The resident reported further water ingress into his flat on 1 November 2019. He later confirmed that neither of his neighbours had noticed a leak at that time. He remarked on the correlation between heavy rainfall and the times the leaks occurred and reported that water was dripping through his hallway light and staining the ceiling. He complained about the landlord’s continuous insistence that the leak was originating from within his flat, when it had failed to carry out investigations. He believed that under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for addressing the issue. He noted that he had been without his cooker for 18 weeks following the last leak and asked the landlord to collaborate with him to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord’s Leasehold Officer responded on 5 November 2019 and requested photographs to forward to the resident’s neighbour. It advised the resident to contact a plumber to carry out a search and trace, the cost of which could be claimed back from the insurer. Once the source of the leak had been determined, the landlord could plan next steps. It offered assistance in resolving the issue with the resident’s neighbour, if that proved to be the source, and confirmed that the matter could be referred to the buildings insurer. The landlord later advised that the resident contact the buildings insurance company to arrange a search and trace but the resident confirmed that he had been advised that this would not be covered under the policy. The resident suggested that the landlord arrange for its maintenance operative or an external specialist attend to trace the source.
  8. On 6 November 2019, the landlord advised that the resident was responsible for determining where the leak was originating from. It told him to keep receipts from any investigations in case this was something he could claim on the buildings insurance. The landlord stated that as there was no sign of a leak in the communal areas ‘this suggests that it would not be coming from any pipework that we are responsible for’. The landlord offered to review any photos of the ‘potential leak damage’ and confirmed that if, following a search and trace, ‘it is identified that it is our responsibility, we will act from there … we would need a full written report with evidence supporting this’.
  9. The resident responded on 10 November 2019 repeating that the location of the leak indicated that it was coming from an external source as it only occurred following heavy rain. He proposed that the landlord accept responsibility for the search and trace if the next occurrence of the leak followed rainfall, and the resident would arrange for the search and trace if the leak did not follow a period of rainfall. He noted that having spoken to a neighbour, they were now also experiencing a leak, which they stated had been reported to the landlord.
  10. On 12 November 2019 the landlord offered to pay for the search and trace to help achieve a resolution. On 18 November 2019 it confirmed that it would be in touch to arrange access. The resident raised concerns about the safety of the electrics within the property, as the leak had reoccurred following more rainfall the previous evening.
  11. The resident informed the landlord on 28 December 2019 that, following rainfall on 22 December 2019, the leak had reoccurred and he witnessed water ‘running like a tap through [his] extractor fan’. His kitchen light had also been affected. Both the landlord’s plumber and a surveyor who had attended to inspect on 12 December 2019 believed that the source was external. The resident stated that this contradicted advice previously given by the landlord’s staff.
  12. On 5 January 2020 the resident reported that he had received a phone call from a contractor to confirm an appointment to determine the works required to address the issue. The resident asked what the landlord intended to do about the damage to his extractor fan, again raising safety concerns. The resident chased a response and the outcome of the inspection on 11 January 2020. On 14 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that its contractors had found no obvious source of the leak but had sealed around ventilation outlets. The landlord asked the resident to monitor the situation to see if this had resolved the issue. The resident again asked the landlord what it intended to do about the damage to his extractor fan, hall light and water marks on his ceiling.
  13. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2020. He stated that he wished to raise 4 complaints about:
    1. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to respond to his queries about the cause of the leak and the damage caused to his property.
    2. The conduct of the landlord’s staff, including the initial refusal to investigate and the insistence that the source of the leak was internal. He noted that a plumber and surveyor had attended and immediately identified the source of the leak as external. He believed that staff had lied and deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to avoid dealing with the issue.
    3. The resident considered that it was unreasonable of the landlord to expect him to investigate the source of the leak and noted the time and trouble he had expended in doing so.
    4. The resident complained that the landlord had delayed unreasonably in carrying out an inspection of an issue that raised safety concerns due to water running through electrical outlets.
  14. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 6 February 2019:
    1. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s email of 18 January 2019. It confirmed that this fell below the required service standard and this had been addressed with the relevant member of staff and his line manager. The landlord would provide additional training in customer service.
    2. The landlord had reviewed its communication with the resident and stated that the initial advice provided to him that he would be responsible for identifying and repairing issues within his flat was correct. The landlord accepted, however, that ‘it was clear from an early stage that the source of the water ingress was from outside [the resident’s] premises’ and that it should have been more proactive in investigating the source of the leak to determine whether it was responsible for the repair. Following the complaint, the landlord had provided information on dealing with leaks in leasehold flats to all Leasehold Officers to prevent similar issues arising in the future.
    3. The landlord confirmed that any ‘components’ that it was responsible for maintaining would always be checked by a qualified tradesperson. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the effect of water ingress on his kitchen extractor fan and hall light and damage to his hallway decorations. The landlord advised that this was the resident’s responsibility to address under the terms of his lease but that this should be covered by the buildings insurance paid for via his service charge. In recognition of the service failure identified, the landlord offered the resident £100 to cover the cost of the policy excess should he wish to make an insurance claim.
  15. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and sent an email outlining the outstanding issues on 1 March 2020. He confirmed that water was no longer entering his property since works were completed to the roof and blockages to the guttering of a neighbouring property cleared. The resident confirmed that his complaints were not about poor customer service. He had logged 4 separate complaints about the landlord evading its responsibilities, the dishonesty of staff members, the inconvenience caused to him due to the landlord’s inaction and the landlord’s refusal to deal with safety issues caused by the leak. He noted that these could be summarised as 2 complaints about the landlord’s response to the leak and the associated damage and the ‘widespread, extensive corrupt conduct of [the landlord’s] staff’. He stated that he would revert to the landlord with further details on the first complaint but that he would like his complaint about staff conduct escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  16. The landlord responded on 4 March 2020, stating that the resident’s 4 complaints had been dealt with as a single complaint. The resident outlined the outstanding issues in an email on 23 March 2020, which were that damage had been caused to his flat due to the landlord’s deliberate unwillingness to accept responsibility for the leak and the dishonest conduct of its staff. The resident noted that the landlord had failed to take action in relation to safety concerns raised following damage to his cooker and other electrical items from the leak. He stated that he was left without a cooker for 18 weeks. The resident requested a direct response to his complaint from a board member.
  17. The landlord responded on 24 March 2020 stating that it would ‘ensure that any response provided is countersigned with the level you have requested’. The resident noted that he had attempted to contact the landlord’s insurer regarding the damage to his property, however he had received no response. The resident estimated that he had spent around 50 hours attempting to resolve the issues and expressed his frustration at the poor communication and lack of response.
  18. The landlord provided a response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 1 April 2020. The landlord upheld the complaint ‘as a result of poor processes, poor service and ineffective communication’. It provided additional clarification:
    1. The landlord had discussed the insurance claim with its insurers and asked them to contact the resident directly. The landlord was in the process of providing additional information and on completion of the claim it would review its handling of the issue to see if its processes could be improved.
    2. The landlord accepted that its staff had not acted ‘robustly and with expedience’ to resolve the issues. As a result of the complaint, the landlord had reviewed its procedures to ensure that customers received better service in the future and that technical surveying support could be provided when necessary. The landlord offered to meet with residents to discuss their general concerns with its service.
    3. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the resident’s complaint with the Director of Assets and the Director of Home Ownership, both of whom were satisfied with the response provided.
    4. The landlord stated that it was prepared to increase its offer of compensation, in recognition of the ‘extreme delays [the resident has] encountered in bringing the repair and complaint to a close’. The landlord stated that it would contact the resident separately to discuss this.
  19. The resident responded on 13 April 2020. He was dissatisfied that the response had not been countersigned by a board member and noted that although the landlord had shared the response with senior individuals in the organisation, these were not main board members. The resident highlighted that his complaint was not about poor customer service but that staff had deliberately lied and misrepresented the facts. He had clarified this in previous emails and the landlord’s failure to address this at stage 1 was noted in his stage 2 escalation request. The resident requested compensation for the significant time and trouble he had taken to attempt to resolve the leak and in bringing his complaint. He estimated that the time spent addressing the matter had been approximately 2 working weeks. He also requested compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused, and for the landlord to cover the cost of safety tests to any affected appliances, and also to pay for or make good any damage caused.
  20. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 April 2020, confirming that the insurer had received the necessary estimate of damages from the resident on 31 March 2020 and could now progress the claim. The landlord provided the email address of a direct contact at the insurers. The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £100 to £300.
  21. The resident clarified on 19 April 2020 that the insurer had informed him that it was awaiting further details of the repairs completed by the landlord to determine how to process the claim. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation, which he believed did not reflect the length of the delays, the deliberate dishonesty of the landlord’s staff and the considerable stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s ‘extensive malpractice’.
  22. The resident has stated that he made 2 separate complaints to the landlord about 2 distinct issues. The first related to its response to leaks into his property and damage to his cooker and the second related to staff conduct. The resident has informed this Service that he never received a formal final response to his complaint about the cooker.

 

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of leak

  1. The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the building which, as stated at paragraph 5(3) of the resident’s lease, includes the roof and external walls. The landlord would therefore be expected to investigate reports of a leak thought to be originating from an external source to determine whether it was responsible for completing repairs. This obligation is reflected in the landlord’s ‘Service Pledge to Leaseholders’, which states that ‘when you report a repair we will confirm who is responsible for it’.
  2. The information provided suggests that the landlord did take action to investigate the leak when it was first reported in May, as 2 jobs were raised for a roof inspection. This was an appropriate response, however, the landlord’s records do not confirm whether the first inspection took place, and there are no notes recording the outcome of either the first or second inspections. In the absence of complete repairs records, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord took adequate steps to investigate the issue to identify its repairing obligations. The landlord is reminded that good record keeping is vital to evidence the action it has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively.
  3. No correspondence with the resident prior to 1 September 2019 has been provided to this investigation. The resident has stated that many conversations about the issue took place over the phone, however, the landlord has not kept records of these calls or details of the matters discussed. Following the leak in May 2019, there is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of its inspections. The resident states that he made repeated requests to the landlord to address the damage to his cooker. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord sent an electrician to inspect the electrics in September 2019, however, this was 4 months after the issue was first reported. There is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its position regarding responsibility for the damage to his cooker, or referred him to the insurers to address the internal damage prior September 2019. The landlord failed to support and effectively communicate with the resident to resolve the issue between May 2019 and September 2019.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the initial report of a leak in May 2019. The landlord failed to adequately investigate and report back to the resident to confirm it if was responsible for repairs related to the leak, or to manage the resident’s expectations about its responsibility for making good the damage to his property. The landlord should have identified and addressed any repairs it was responsible for within a reasonable time. It is common for damage to the interior of a property following a leak to be referred to the buildings insurer, however the landlord failed to refer the resident to its insurers at the earliest opportunity. Had the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns, it may have been able to resolve this aspect of the complaint at an earlier stage.
  5. Following the reoccurrence of a leak on 1 November 2019, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord did engage with the resident to determine the source. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident make enquiries with his neighbours as an expedient way of ruling out an internal source, however, it should also have pursued its own investigations into a possible external cause, given the previous issues and the correlation with heavy rainfall.
  6. When the resident confirmed that he had spoken to his neighbours, the landlord continued to insist that the source was internal, without evidence to support its conclusion, increasing the resident’s frustration. It also inaccurately advised that the resident was responsible for tracing the source of the leak and stated that it would only act if a report confirmed that it was responsible for the repairs. The landlord did offer to carry out a search and trace on 12 November 2019 and completed works to seal around the ventilation ducts in January 2020.
  7. The resident has noted that as well as the works completed by the landlord, blocked drains on a neighbouring property were cleared by contractors and there has since been no reoccurrence of the leaks. The source of the leak therefore remains unclear and so the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions about the responsibilities of the parties. The landlord has, however, accepted that it was clear from an early stage that the was external and that it could have been more proactive in investigating the issue.
  8. The landlord took steps to investigate and complete any works it was responsible for when the leak reoccurred and since the formal complaint has assisted the resident in progressing a claim via the buildings insurance. Works are currently being undertaken to address the internal damage. However, had the landlord immediately accepted its obligation to investigate the issues, this would have reduced the inconvenience caused to the resident and may have prevented the breakdown in the landlord and tenant relationship. It is also noted that the landlord failed to clearly address the resident’s requests to complete safety checks of his electrical outlets and appliances after the leak in November 2019.
  9. The resident has made allegations that the landlord’s staff deliberately lied to avoid taking responsibility for the repair and that management had encouraged staff to be dishonest. Telephone recordings are not available to this investigation and so the Ombudsman cannot comment on the advice given verbally, however, in the email correspondence provided to this Service, there is no evidence of any deliberate attempt to mislead the resident or to evade responsibility for the repair. The Ombudsman notes that had the landlord kept more thorough records of its investigations, notes of its contact with the resident, and communicated more clearly when the issues were reported, this may have helped to maintain the resident’s trust.
  10. In its complaints responses the landlord identified an instance where it failed to respond to the resident in line with its service standards and outlined the action it has taken as a result. It also accepted that its staff could have been more proactive and acted more quickly to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman considers that there were additional failings due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and poor communication with the resident about its investigations and repairs responsibilities.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 the landlord will discuss the complaint with the resident and attempt to resolve it within 5 working days. The resident made a formal complaint about damage to his cooker, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 1 September 2019. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed a resolution with the resident or provided a substantive response to that complaint. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s subsequent queries as to why the complaint had been closed without comment or resolution.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his complaint of 2 February 2020, which he stated he wished to bring as 4 separate complaints. It was reasonable for the landlord to address each complaint in a single response, as the issues were related, however, the complaint responses do not evidence a thorough understanding of the issues. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about systemic issues and staff dishonesty at both stages of its complaints process, despite this being highlighted in the stage 2 escalation request.  
  3. In the stage 2 escalation request the resident also asked the landlord to provide an explanation as to why he was responsible for the damage to his belongings when the landlord’s failure to maintain the roof in line with the terms of the leasehold agreement had caused the damage. The landlord did not provide a clear explanation of the extent of its responsibilities in its response.
  4. The resident asked that he be provided with a complaint response from a board member and the landlord confirmed by email that its response would be countersigned by someone of the level requested. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that the complaint had been reviewed by 2 directors. This was a reasonable approach to the resident’s request, as the complaint was referred to directors in appropriate service areas. It is noted, however, that the landlord could have done more to manage the resident’s expectations that the response would come directly from an executive board member and bear their signature. 
  5. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling, as it did not adhere to the requirements of its complaints policy, it failed to respond to the resident’s queries about its processes and it failed to respond to some aspects of the complaint of 2 February 2020. 

Compensation

  1. The landlord has accepted and acknowledged that its response could have been better and offered the resident £300 compensation in recognition of its failings. Ombudsman has identified additional failings in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and communication above those identified by the landlord during the complaints process. The resident does not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation reflects the significant stress and inconvenience he has suffered as a result of the leak. He has also highlighted the time and trouble he has taken to pursue the issue and subsequent complaint, which he estimates is the equivalent of in excess of 2 weeks’ work. 
  2. When considering an appropriate amount of compensation the Ombudsman takes into account the impact on the resident of the landlord’s action or inaction, whether avoidable stress and inconvenience was caused and whether the resident has had to take excessive time and trouble to pursue their complaint. In this case, the Ombudsman that the award of compensation made by the landlord did not take into account the landlord’s failure to provide a response to the complaint about damage to the resident’s cooker, its failure to respond to the aspect of the complaint about staff misconduct, and its poor communication and record keeping.
  3. The Ombudsman therefore considers that a total offer of £500 compensation is more appropriate, with an additional £100 in respect of the landlord’s inadequate response to the leak and £100 for its poor complaints handling. This is in line with the suggested amounts referred to in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into his property; and
    2. service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord identified service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak due to poor services, poor processes and poor communication. In addition, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to evidence the investigations it carried out when the leak was first reported in May 2019, to report the outcome to the resident and to clearly explain its repairing obligations and the appropriate means of pursuing a claim for internal damage.
  2. The Ombudsman has identified that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint due to its failure to respond to the complaint about damage to his cooker and its failure to address all issues raised in the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation, in addition to the £300 offered at stage 2 of the complaints process, in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping and poor communication in response to the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint about damage to his cooker and to accurately identify and respond to all aspects of the resident’s subsequent complaint.
    3. Review its complaints handling processes and provide additional training to staff to ensure that all complaints are responded to in a timely manner, and that residents are advised of the progress of their complaints through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.