The Riverside Group Limited (202110871)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110871

The Riverside Group Limited

24 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:
   1. The landlord’s attempts to access the resident’s property to carry out an inspection.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom property.
3. The resident raised a repair job with the landlord, and advised it that rainwater had penetrated the exterior brickwork and caused damp. When the landlord’s contractor attended, they were not able to access the property to carry out an internal inspection, and so did not carry out a repair at that time.
4. The resident raised a complaint about this with the landlord. He said that he had advised the landlord it would not need access to the property when he had raised the repair job. He was unhappy that the landlord’s contractor had not repaired the exterior damage.
5. The landlord and the resident then spoke over the phone about the resident’s concerns, and the landlord followed this up with its stage one complaint response. It explained the repair job had been abandoned as its contractor had not been able to gain access. It said the resident had confirmed he was at home, but did not answer the door as he did not think the contractor needed to gain access to inspect the issue from the inside. The landlord said it needed to make its own assessment on this. The landlord noted that the resident had said he would complete the work himself and send it an invoice, but it confirmed that payment for such an invoice would not be honoured. The landlord said that if the resident wanted the landlord to return to carry out the internal and external inspection, he should let it know. The resident was unhappy with some of the comments in the landlord’s stage one response, and said he would accept a formal apology from the staff member as a conclusion to his complaint.
6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It understood the resident was unhappy that it had stated in its stage one response that he had been home when its contractor had attended for the repair. The landlord apologised for any misunderstanding which had led it to say this. It confirmed the necessity of conducting a thorough investigation before diagnosing the problem, and said it had to follow its own policies and procedures. The landlord maintained that it needed to conduct an internal and external inspection to establish the issue and determine the appropriate course of treatment. It confirmed it had rescheduled the inspection for a date when the resident had said he was available.
7. The resident did not receive the landlord’s stage two complaint response, and contacted the landlord on four separate occasions to try and find out what was happening with his complaint. The resident then escalated his complaint to a Tenant Panel. They concluded that the landlord had been within its rights to insist on access to the resident’s property. However, they thought the resident’s frustration had been exacerbated by the complaints process. They said they would highlight delays to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Access to the property

8. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property. This includes internal walls, floors and ceilings. The tenancy agreement makes it clear that the resident is required to allow the landlord access to the property to inspect the condition, and also carry out repairs.
9. Although the resident advised the landlord that the water ingress had caused damp to the exterior of the property, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to want to also inspect the interior of the property. This Service expects landlords to take a proactive approach to damp, and extend the scope of their diagnosis to ensure the response early on is as effective as possible.
10. By inspecting the interior of the property, as well as the exterior, the landlord could determine if the problem was indeed damp and, if so, it could establish whether water had entered the property and caused any damp or other issues internally. This could also help prevent any further issues from arising in the future.
11. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to require access to the property to complete its own inspection, rather than rely on the resident’s opinion on the matter. The resident ought to have allowed the landlord access to his property, in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It is not known whether an exterior ‘fix’ of the issue would have fully resolved the issue and the landlord was entitled to require access to the interior of the property so that it could assess the matter.
12. The resident said that he would complete the repair to the exterior of the property himself, and invoice the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm to the resident that any invoice it received from him would not be paid. The landlord has its own contractors to carry out repairs, with its own agreed standards of work as well as costs. The landlord had acknowledged its repair responsibility and taken reasonable steps to fulfil its obligations.
13. The landlord was responsible for the repairs, and did not give the resident permission to carry out those works on its behalf. Therefore, whilst it is understood the resident has since carried out the repairs himself (as advised to this Service), the landlord is not required to compensate him for any costs he incurred in doing so, or his labour. Additionally, if it has not already done so, the landlord will likely require further access to the property in order to ascertain whether the completed works meet a sufficient standard.

Complaint handling

14. The resident stated his unhappiness at the landlord’s stage one response, as it had said (following a phone call with the resident) that he had been at home when its contractor had initially attended the repair job. It is reasonable to conclude from the landlord’s stage two response that it acknowledged that this was not accurate. The landlord apologised for any confusion caused by this in the stage two response, which was both in accordance with the resident’s desired outcome for this aspect of the complaint and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a proportionate response in the circumstances.
15. The resident advised the landlord he was dissatisfied with its stage one response on 31 March 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that on receiving the complaint, the complaints team should reallocate it to the most appropriate senior manager. The complaint owner should then contact the resident by 5pm the next working day to discuss resolution of the complaint. The decision should then be communicated to the resident within 10 working days of the request.
16. The information provided to this Service by the landlord does not show that it contacted the resident by phone after receiving his response to the stage one complaint. Though it was correctly escalated it to stage two, and the stage two response was sent to the resident within the 10-working day time-frame.
17. However, it seems the resident did not receive the stage-two response, which had been sent to him by the landlord via email. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2021 questioning why he had been sent a text message saying his complaint had been closed. He then contacted the landlord on three further occasions (22 April, 30 April, and 7 May 2021) to question why he had not received a response to his complaint.
18. There were four opportunities here for the landlord to explain that its stage two response had already been sent to the resident, and for it to provide him with a copy of this. It is considered that its failure to do so caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. This was also recognised by the Tenant’s Panel.
19. It is important for a landlord to follow its complaints process, because if it had contacted the resident to discuss his concerns as it ought to have done, it could have advised him of the timeframes under its complaints process. The resident would have then known when to expect the stage two response and the subsequent communication issues may not have materialised. Instead, when he apparently did not receive the response from the landlord, he continued to question when he would receive the response.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s requirement to access the resident’s property to carry out inspection.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Order

22. The landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified.
23. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above order within 28 days of the report.

Recommendation

24. The landlord to review the communication issues highlighted following its stage two response and consider whether staff training or a change to process be implemented.