The Riverside Group Limited (202207613)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207613

The Riverside Group Limited

 3 January 2023


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 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding his door, and his subsequent request to be reimbursed for the cost of additional energy usage due to the resulting draughts.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. On 20 July 2020, the resident reported that his front door was bowing and would not lock. On the same date, the landlord attended the property and carried out works to rectify the issue.
  3. On 10 September 2020, the resident made a further report that it was difficult to close the front door. On 24 September 2020, it was established that a new front door was required and the property was added to the landlord’s door replacement programme.
  4. A survey was completed on 16 October 2020 and the landlord’s records indicate that a replacement door arrived on 13 January 2021. Installation was delayed, however, as the landlord was awaiting the result of an asbestos survey, which was still outstanding as of 9 February 2021.
  5. The installation, scheduled for June 2021, was cancelled as it was established that the replacement door was missing parts. It is unclear when the cancellation was communicated to the resident; however, the landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2021 and discussed reordering the items. The landlord’s records show that a second asbestos survey was also raised in November 2021.
  6. On 4 January 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the faulty door was causing a draught in his hallway, which meant that his thermostat was heating the property unnecessarily. He reported that this was costing an additional £40 per week in utility bills.
  7. A complaint was initially raised on 23 March 2022 as the resident was dissatisfied that he had not yet received a replacement door and sought an explanation for the delay. He escalated his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the delay and sought compensation for the increased utility bills he experienced due to the delay in repair.
  8. The landlord installed the replacement door on 26 May 2022. In response to the resident’s complaint, it apologised for the delay in replacing the door and explained that this was due to communication delays between its team as a result of COVID-19, delays in receiving the door, and needing to re-order missing parts. Furthermore, it offered the resident £200 for the delay in its service.
  9. It also requested copies of the resident’s utility bills before and during the time the door was faulty, so it could consider offering additional financial redress for the increased utility bills. The resident was unable to provide these documents, so the landlord did not offer any additional compensation for this.
  10. The resident referred the complaint to this service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlords response and was seeking compensation of £2,000 for his increased electricity bills. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord attributed the delay to the repair to COVID-19, as its contractors had attended his property during this time.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the replacement of individual elements such as doors would be carried out under an agreed cycle as planned maintenance, which usually occurs over any given financial year. The landlord’s website confirms that the landlord would ensure that all tenants are kept informed at each of the key stages of the process, and would be advised of how long the works would take to be completed. The Ombudsman also considers it best practice for landlords to explain the reasons for any delays and provide an expected completion date in order to manage a resident’s expectations effectively.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as doors as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis – unless the item in question was beyond economical repair and posed an immediate danger to the resident.
  3. It is not disputed that there was a delay in replacing the resident’s door between September 2020 and May 2022. In this instance, the landlord sought to include the resident’s door in its scheduled planned works, placing it on the replacement door programme on 25 September 2020. However, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively by confirming when the replacement would take place or provide regular updates on the progress of the replacement.
  4. The evidence suggests that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing updates from the landlord on several occasions, including 19 October 2021 and 4 January 2022. Prior to him contacting the landlord on these dates, the evidence suggests there had been a period of time where he received no communication from the landlord about the status of the repair. In accordance with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it should have proactively consulted with, and kept him informed of any delays and managed his expectations accordingly, setting clear timescales in which he was likely to receive a repair.
  5. The landlord failed in its obligation to communicate with clarity to the resident on the status with the repair, and provide the resident with updates, and this is a failing of its service provision, which it failed to acknowledge or apologise for in its complaint responses. It has been recommended below that the landlord review its staff training needs in regards to communicating to residents clearly on the status of their repairs.
  6. The evidence shows that there were several causes for the delay in replacing the door as agreed. It is noted that some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control, including any delays in supply or as the result of staffing issues due to the impact of COVID-19. However, some of the delay could have been prevented had the landlord acted proactively in order to progress the works. It is unclear from the evidence provided why an asbestos survey was raised on 6 January 2021 and whether the results of the initial asbestos survey were provided to the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord did not communicate to the resident why an asbestos survey was necessary and the time frame required for this to be completed and for the repair works to continue.
  7. It appears that the landlord re-raised an asbestos survey in November 2021, sometime after the initial planned installation date. There is no suggestion that it explained to the resident the reasons why a second asbestos survey was required and how this would impact the subsequent repair. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated these reasons to him and raised the survey sooner once it was aware that the information had not been provided in order to progress the works at an earlier date.
  8. The landlord has not taken steps to explain the six-month delay between receiving the replacement door and arranging its installation. The evidence shows that the replacement door was delivered on 13 January 2021. Following this, the installation planned for 21 June 2021 needed to be cancelled due to missing or damaged parts. In addition, there is no evidence to account for why the missing or damaged parts were not identified and re-ordered at an earlier date. This was a missed opportunity of the landlord to provide the resident with the repair, and for the landlord to meet its repair responsibilities.
  9. Once the landlord reordered the part, it should have provided an updated installation date to the resident. Instead the resident had to chase the landlord on 19 October 2021, which led to the landlord chasing the parts. There was no additional contact until 4 January 2022 when the resident called a further time to chase the landlord. The evidence provided to this service does not suggest a cause for the delay after June 2021, nor does it show evidence of the landlord actively trying to progress the replacement during this time, which this service would have expected it to do. It is a failing in its communication that the landlord did not provide updates to the resident or explain the cause of the delays.
  10. The resident reported that due to the draught from the door, his hallway has been cooler than the rest of the property, which had caused his thermostat to turn on the central heating inappropriately and cost him an additional £40 per week. It is noted that the resident first informed the landlord of this on 4 January 2022 but had advised it that the issue had been ongoing since his initial report of a faulty door. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to supply evidence of his increased energy usage during this period in the form of energy statements for it to review. This was in line with its financial redress and compensation procedure which states that it should ensure that a resident is not ‘out of pocket as a result of our failure in service’.
  11. The resident reported he was unable to obtain utility bills from before 29 December 2020 from the utility company. He informed the landlord of this, and it advised him that it could not consider his claim without any evidence. It was reasonable of the landlord to require his bills in order to process his claims, however once he said he was unable the provide these, it did not offer any other solutions on the matter. It could have instead asked for bills during the time the door was faulty and after the repair of the door, alongside current statements, to compare usage and whether the door had an impact on this, but this option was not explored by the landlord.
  12. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure states that it should report any claim over £2,000 to its liability insurer. Given the resident has claimed the excess heating bills exceeded this amount, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with its public liability insurance details, so that he could explore this option, however, it did not do so. A recommendation has been made bellow that the landlord provide the resident with its liability insurers details. It is also recommended that the landlord review its staff training needs with regards to their application of its financial redress and compensation procedure in respect of considering compensation for a high impact on vulnerable residents, to prevent reoccurrence of a similar situation.
  13. The door replacement was completed on 26 May 2022, and the landlord then provided a final complaint response which included an apology for the delay and an offer of £200 for the delays. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident, and acknowledging a failure in its service provision. It also showed it had taken learning points to improve its service provision in the future.
  14. While the landlord has taken some steps to remedy its failings, there was nevertheless considerable impact caused to the resident from the length of time it has taken the landlord to resolve the issue, along with multiple instances of poor communication. Due to the length of the delay, the dissatisfactory communication from the landlord, its handling of the reported financial loss and the general distress and inconvenience the resident has reported, there has been maladministration by the landlord for which an additional £150 compensation is appropriate (being £350 total). This is amount is within the range of compensation recommended by this service’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports regarding his door, and his subsequent request to be reimbursed for the cost of additional energy usage due to the resulting draughts.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £350, for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to the replacement of his door.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Contact the resident to provide details of its liability insurer in relation to his claim regarding the increased energy bills.
    2. Review its staff training needs with regards to the application of its financial redress and compensation procedure in respect of considering compensation for a high impact on vulnerable residents and making referrals to its liability insurer for claims of over £2,000 by residents.
    3. Review its staff training needs in regards to communicating to residents clearly on the status of their repairs.