The Riverside Group Limited (202003714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003714

The Riverside Group Limited

15 June 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a property transfer offer.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

4. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 1 November 2000.
5. The property is a bedsit situated within one of three blocks on a housing estate.  The resident lives in the bedsit with her six-year-old daughter and as such, is classified as being overcrowded.
6. The estate has become a regeneration site, with plans to demolish and rebuild all blocks, as well as to add additional housing. Due to the estate being classed as a regeneration site, no new assured tenancies are being offered. 
7. Existing tenants have been prioritised to move off the estate into other properties of the landlord’s across London and the south east or they may choose another housing provider. If a tenant leaves the estate they are entitled to a home-loss payment of £6,000 and the landlord will also cover reasonable moving expenses.
8. Through the landlord’s regeneration offer, it has committed to offer existing tenants new accommodation that meets their current and future housing need, with the resident being eligible for a two bedroom flat.
9. The landlord also made a commitment to existing tenants on the estate that if they were currently overcrowded in their current home they would be supported to move to larger flats when a void became available on the estate. However, this would be dependent on the repair cost, which was limited to £3000.
10. The landlord’s voids policy states that it will not replace kitchens or bathrooms which are functioning and in good condition, this includes replacing kitchens or bathrooms that have been adapted.
11. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby the landlord aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at both stages one and two, although at stage one, a timescale will be agreed with the complainant in the first instance.
12. The landlord’s ‘Financial Redress and Compensation Procedure’ states that a bouquet of flowers may be an appropriate and proportionate apology in respect of some complaints.

Summary of events

13. In June 2020 the landlord made the resident aware that there was a two-bedroom void property available on the estate.  Having viewed and accepted the property, however, the landlord allocated it to a family who was deemed to be more in need and the landlord retracted its offer and made an alternative offer of the property below.
14. The resident declined the offer of the second property on the basis that she was aware of historical issues of damp at the property, having viewed it two or three years previously and she also wanted a bathtub and this property did not have one as the bathroom had been adapted to a wet room.
15. On 23 July 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about it having made a property offer which it later retracted. She said that she was told the tenancy agreement would be ready within two weeks and then delayed a further two weeks after that.  It was not until she chased, that she was advised that the property had been allocated to a family in more need. 
16. The resident explained that having accepted the landlord’s offer on the property she had started packing her belongings and felt distressed at the turnaround in decision.  She did not want to accept the alternative property offered because she believed it to have damp issues and she wanted a bathtub, as she had in her bedsit.
17. On 27 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, reporting that having had a telephone discussion with it earlier that day about the retracted offer and the new offer, a member of staff asked her in an inappropriate tone “do you want the property or not?” and ultimately hanging up on her.
18. On 4 August 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint in a telephone call and on 6 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response.  It upheld the complaint.  The landlord apologised for its communication and management of the property transfer process, for which it found a lack of ownership.  It advised that the second property offered to her was still available if she wished to take it, explaining that the photos it had were prior to repair works being carried out and that it would try to get some more up-to-date pictures.  It added that it would not be installing a bath in the wet room.
19. On the same date, the resident advised the landlord that she wished for her complaint to be escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure. She did not feel she should accept a property with a wet room, as neither her or her daughter required this adaptation and she wanted the same facilities that she currently had, i.e., a bath, to be provided in any offered property.  She also continued to believe that the property may have a damp problem.
20. On 7 August 2020 email correspondence between the landlord and resident, the resident reiterated that she did not see why she would have to accept a property without a bath and would not.  The landlord explained that the resident was under no obligation to accept the property offered to her.  It reiterated that it had been identified as a property that could have repair works carried out and then offered to a family in need who was currently overcrowded on the estate.
21. Shortly thereafter, the landlord sent a bunch of flowers to the resident by further way of apology.
22. On 10 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint, having spoken with the resident earlier that day.  The landlord upheld its original response, finding that it had responded fairly and appropriately at stage one.  The landlord reiterated its offer of the second property and said it would continue to offer her two bedroom flats (as per her need) while awaiting regeneration of the site and said that she would eventually be moved into a brand new two bedroom flat.

Assessment and findings

23. The landlord has accepted that it offered the property to the resident in error – having identified a family more in need – and that its handling of the matter and communication was poor.  For this, the landlord has apologised, sent the resident a bunch of flowers and offered her an alternative property.  The landlord’s response was appropriate.  It was appropriate because having recognised failings on its part, it took steps to put the matter right. 
24. The apology was appropriate given that the landlord acknowledged it had got things wrong and in apologising it recognised this and the impact that the error had had on the resident.  Similarly, the bouquet of flowers further demonstrated a genuine apology from the landlord and sending a bouquet was in accordance with its compensation policy.  Monetary compensation is not the only way of resolving a complaint; this is only one way it may be appropriate to put things right. 
25. The landlord’s immediate offer of another property – a show home on the estate – was reasonable. It was reasonable because it was not obliged to immediately offer the resident the other property but did so in an attempt to make amends for the error it made and in recognition of the inconvenience and disappointment that caused.
26. There is no evidence of the second property having an issue with damp.  Although the resident has said that it had damp two or three years ago when she previously viewed it, a substantial period of time had since passed and it had been turned into a show home which would by the very nature of it, unlikely have damp. 
27. In the event that there was a problem with damp, the landlord would be responsible for carrying out works to resolve this within a reasonable period of time and indeed, it confirmed that it would carry out any repair works (including if there was an issue with damp) prior to the resident moving in.  Nonetheless, it was the resident’s right to refuse the offer of the property.
28. In terms of the property having a wet room and the resident’s wish for a bathtub, the resident and her daughter did not require the adaptation.  It is also understandable that she would prefer to retain the use of a bathtub.  However, she did not have an identified need for a bathtub, and a bathtub would constitute an improvement to that property, rather than a repair, for which the landlord was not obligated to carry out. The landlord was not obliged to alter the room and provide this and this is explicitly stated in its transfer policy. 
29. Additionally, costly works were not being undertaken in properties on the estate due to their impending demolition as part of the regeneration project. Social landlords have a responsibility to allocate and use funds prudently and installing a bathtub in the property would not only be in contradiction with the landlord’s own policy but not economically responsible.  This is particularly the case in a property marked for demolition and where the resident would be provided with a brand new two-bedroom flat thereafter.
30. For completeness, there is no dispute that the resident is living in overcrowded conditions and has a need for a two-bedroom property, rather than a bedsit.  This Service cannot investigate the award of points or priority banding, as this is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit by virtue of the paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, which states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. 
31. In this case, the other Ombudsman is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).  This is because it is the LGSCO who investigate complaints about housing allocations in accordance with Part 6 of The Housing Act 1996, including the award of points and banding decisions.
32. Notwithstanding this, the allocation and banding is not the substance of the complaint; the complaint is about the landlord’s retracting of its property offer and its subsequent offer of a property that the resident did not wish to take. This investigation nor can comment on how the landlord deemed the other family to be more in need and whether its decision in allocation was correct as similarly, this is not a matter for this Service, for the reasons already described. 
33. What this Service can explain, is that the landlord is obliged to house residents according to priority need and it has said that this is what it has done albeit with the initial error which impacted the resident.  The resident is upset that her expectations were raised then dashed and they were dashed following a period of waiting and chasing which was unacceptable.  The landlord has recognised that its communication was poor and there was a lack of ownership of the issue.
34. The situation was undoubtedly difficult and inconvenient. The resident was understandably excited about the move the property, having been waiting for a long time.  Having packed belongings and then not heard from the landlord until her chasers led to it explaining it had retraced the offer was no doubt upsetting and disappointing. The landlord has, however, done enough to put things right, take proportionate and appropriate actions to resolve the situation and complaint. It missed an opportunity to review its processes, however, having recognised the lack of ownership and therefore, a recommendation has been made in this regard.

Determination

35. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.”

36. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

37. The landlord has offered reasonable redress insofar as it recognised its error and failings and apologised for this, additionally sending a bouquet in further recognition.  Further, the landlord reasonably offered the resident an alternative property, which it was not obliged to do.  The landlord was not obliged to install a bathtub in the offered property.

Recommendation

38. The landlord is recommended to carry out a root cause analysis of the communication and lack of ownership issues identified and it to put together an action plan to address these, helping to prevent a future recurrence.