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

The Riverside Group Limited (202109918)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109918

The Riverside Group Limited

30 August 2022


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 the landlords handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged flooring and increased energy bills.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s complaint was responded to at both stages by the landlord’s contractor, acting on behalf of the landlord. For the purpose of clarity, this report will refer to the complaint responses as being the landlord’s.
  2. The resident’s complaint concerns historical repair works to a back door, windows, and front door in her home. These repair issues featured in a previous complaint (separate to the one concerned in this investigation), for which the landlord issued a final response on 20 March 2020. In that response, the landlord confirmed that work to the back doors and windows were completed at that time. It said it would update the resident regarding outstanding works to the front door, and acknowledged she wished to make a claim for increased energy bills and damaged laminate flooring as a result of water ingress. It provided details for where to send the claim and supporting evidence, and referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. The resident has said she submitted a compensation claim to the landlord in May 2020 (this claim was not seen in the evidence and it is unclear if the landlord received it at that time). Repairs to the front door were completed in November 2020. There is no evidence of further activity until the following year.
  3. The resident submitted a compensation claim to the landlord dated 24 May 2021. She requested £1911.61 to replace the laminate flooring and for her increased energy bill usage.
  4. On 14 July 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident and agreed to investigate her claim as part of a formal complaint. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 July 2022 and told the resident that the photographs she submitted did not show that the floor needed replacing. It also said that there was no evidence to support that the time it had taken to complete the repairs had caused damage to the flooring. It said it could look into the increased heating bills, and requested that she provide evidence of her energy consumption for the relevant time periods. The landlord escalated the complaint on 29 July 2021, as the resident did not agree with its decision.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident during August and September 2021 and asked her to provide statements that demonstrated her energy usage. It issued its stage two response on 13 October 2021. It maintained that it would not pay compensation for flooring. In regards to increased heating, it explained that it required the resident to submit evidence of her energy consumption as opposed to the overall cost. It said once she had obtained the necessary documents, it would be able to consider the claim further. It confirmed its complaints process had been completed, and informed the resident how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied. It is unclear when the resident received this response, either at the time it was issued, or after following it up in 2022.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord’s response contradicted what she had been previously advised, as she said she was told the flooring would be replaced and she would be sent £100 to assist with energy bills, but neither had been done. To resolve the matter, the resident wanted the landlord to replace the flooring, pay compensation for increased energy usage and inconvenience due to the delays to the repairs and to improve its communication.

Assessment and findings

  1. As mentioned above, the substantive repairs issues featured in this complaint were responded to by the landlord in March 2020. Subsequently, work to the front door was completed on 4 November 2020. Under Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider complaints brought to this Service normally no more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure (which was March 2020). The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in late July 2021. Because of that, this investigation cannot consider the landlord’s conduct of the repairs at the start of 2020, but will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation in relation to the complaint she raised in July 2021, and the landlord’s final response in October 2021.
  2. The landlord told the resident, that having assessed her photos of the flooring, it did not find sufficient evidence that damage was caused to her flooring due to the length of time it had taken to repair the windows and doors, and it did not determine the flooring was in such a condition that it required replacing. In the circumstances, this was a reasonable response, considering the availability and reliability of evidence due to the amount of time elapsed since the repairs were completed more than 18 months previously, and nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord’s decision was flawed.
  3. There was a notable delay in the landlord issuing its stage two response. On one occasion, the landlord appropriately apologised for delaying in responding to the resident’s request for an update, explaining the reasons for the delay. The evidence shows that in the period before completing its final complaint response the landlord was actively attempting to gather energy bills from the resident in order to substantiate her increased energy usage; an action agreed to in its stage one response. That was good complaints practice, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out that when escalating a complaint, a landlord should consider what aspect of the complaint can be resolved, what evidence is required, and make attempts to gather reliable information in order for it to reach a fair and appropriate resolution.
  4. The energy bills that the resident gave the landlord were not seen in the evidence for this investigation. In its final response, the landlord said that “[it] required evidence showing [the resident’s] heating usage, rather than the actual cost of the bills.” It explained to the resident that the cost of energy can fluctuate, and it therefore needed to establish if the resident’s usage had increased during the period she was claiming for. That was a reasonable response. Although the cost of an energy bill may increase, it is not automatically due to higher consumption, as the unit price of energy and associated standing charges can vary over time. To make a fair assessment, a landlord would need to see the number of units of energy a resident used for the entire period they were claiming for, and for a comparative period before and after. This would allow it to determine if there was a significant increase in usage during the period claimed for, and a notable decrease in consumption following the completion of repairs. The landlord appropriately told the resident that if she obtained the relevant information, it would consider this aspect further.
  5. The resident explained that following a phone call with the landlord’s contractor in October 2021, it agreed to replace the flooring, as well as offering her £100 towards her gas bill, and that an operative took measurements for her flooring on 18 October 2021. This was after the end of the complaints process. While there are indications that this payment was discussed, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed to it, nor is there evidence of the reasons for an operative measuring the floor. Accordingly, this investigation cannot comment on these issues.


Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.