The Riverside Group Limited (202121237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121237

The Riverside Group Limited

3 June 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 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 concerns:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident request for compensation for personal injury he said he sustained due to the condition of his bathroom floor.
   2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
3. There is no evidence of the resident’s initial repair request that gave rise to the complaint. The landlord said that it attended the resident’s home on 5 October 2021 due to reports that his bathroom floor had lifted. It raised a repair job on that date to replace the flooring. The relevant repair record noted that the flooring was replaced on 1 December 2021.
4. The landlord said that the resident first raised a complaint on 15 November 2021 regarding the work needed to his bathroom floor. On that date, the landlord noted that the resident reported that the bathroom was flooded and he tripped and sustained two black eyes, and that it intended to chase the issue with its contractor. The resident also reported that his granddaughter had tripped on the floor. Following this, the resident requested compensation for personal injury, as he believed that the landlord was liable for his injuries due to the condition of the floor and the length of time the landlord had taken to rectify the situation.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 December 2021. It understood the resident’s complaint to concern the time it had taken to replace the flooring, and apologised for the resident’s experience. It said that its inspector attended the resident’s home on 24 November 2021 to repair a toilet leak, but it did not clarify if this was assessed as being the cause of the flood or leak which is understood to have affected the flooring. It said that its inspector reported that there was water under the flooring, but that it did not pose a trip hazard as the flooring was only lifting behind the toilet, and it view of this it would not offer compensation in relation to the injuries the resident had suffered.
6. The resident wrote to this Service between January and March 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He believed that the landlord had been negligent and that he had a case to sue the landlord, and was dissatisfied that it had not offered him compensation. It was not seen in the evidence provided that the resident contacted the landlord directly prior to this to request for his complaint to be escalated. This Service contacted the landlord in March 2022 and asked it to contact the resident to progress his complaint. The landlord issued an additional stage one response on 10 March 2022. It said that it had tried to contact the resident that day to discuss the complaint but had been unsuccessful. It advised the resident to get in contact to discuss the matter further. It said it would attempt to contact the resident again but if it was unable to contact him by 18 March 2022 it would close the complaint down.
7. Following further correspondence with this Service, the earliest evidence of the resident contacting the landlord to escalate the complaint was in October 2022. The landlord issued it final response on 20 October 2022. It said that it understood from the information the resident provided and from a telephone call it had with the resident that his outstanding issue was that the compensation he requested due to his granddaughter slipping in the bathroom. It said as the resident was looking for compensation for personal injury, it would not be able to deal with this via its normal compensation process and recommended that the resident sought legal advice and pursued a personal injury claim.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he sustained personal injury due to the condition of his bathroom floor

8. The Landlord has a financial redress and compensation procedure. This policy clearly sets out that all injury claims, however minor, should be referred to its insurer. It states that residents should be informed that the claim is a public liability claim dealt with by its insurance company. It states that the landlord’s staff are not in a position to discuss the claim from this point, as this is not permitted by the insurer’s policy. For that reason, it sets out that any claim needs to be removed from the complaints process. It also sets out that residents should be informed that the insurance company will then contact them to obtain any further information in order for it to investigate the claim.
9. In cases where a resident claims that they or a member of their family have sustained personal injurydueto a landlord’s actions or inactions, then only a court can make a legally binding decision as to whether the landlord is liable to pay damages. As such, it is appropriate for a landlord to refer a claim to its insurers or to advise residents to make a personal injury claim or seek independent legal advice.The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements.
10. As such, this investigation is unable to determine whether the landlord is liable for the resident’s injuries, nor to decide if compensation is due in that respect. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Therefore, this report will investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies, in its response to the resident.
11. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that it should have referred the resident’s compensation request for personal injury to its insurance team at the time of the complaint, but that it did not do this. As per its policy, the landlord should have done this in the first instance, as the resident had made clear that he believed it was liable for his injuries. The landlord’s failure to do so was not in line with its own policy or the circumstances of the complaint, and therefore it did not act fairly nor reasonably. This was a failing. It was not seen in the evidence that the landlord communicated its error to the resident, nor provided suitable redress for the inconvenience and time and trouble this will likely have caused him in pursuing the matter. It is also not apparent from the evidence if the landlord has since referred the resident’s claim to its insurer.
12. The above was enough of a failing to amount to maladministration. The landlord’s failure to refer the matter to its insurer at a much earlier time, necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement for the resident in having to contact this Service. This has ultimately caused a significant delay in him to having his claim considered in the most appropriate manner. The landlord’s failure to respond to the issue in accordance with the clear guidelines set out in its own policy, meant that its overall response to the complaint was inappropriate.
13. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to refer the claim to its insurer, and to pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble this will understandably have caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Record Keeping

14. In correspondence with this Service, the resident interchangeably referred to the repair issue that gave rise to the complaint as the landlord’s delay to replace the flooring, and its delay to resolve a flood. This suggests that rectifying the substantive repair issue in this case, may not have solely relied on the landlord replacing the floor, but may have also related to it identifying and remedying the source of the flood/water ingress which would be a separate issue.
15. Although the landlord mentioned a toilet leak it attended its stage one response, it did not clarify to what extent, if any, this related to the condition of the floor. When there are inconsistencies between the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the nature of the complaint, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence to support its actions and responses. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is clear that landlords must keep a full record of the complaint at all stages.
16. The landlord advised this Service that the resident first logged a complaint on 15 November 2021 regarding the works to his bathroom flooring. Although the landlord’s record show that resident contacted it that day and reported that he and his granddaughter fell because the floor was flooded, this was evidence of the resident chasing the repair issue and not a sufficient record of the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord would be expected to make a record of the complaint, detailing its understanding of all aspects of the complaint and the specific outcomes the resident sought as a resolution. It would also be expected to confirm this to the resident in a complaint acknowledgement. There is no evidence of it doing the above, which demonstrates that the landlord failed to keep appropriate records in that regard.
17. Although the landlord set out in its initial response that it understood the complaint to relate to the time it had taken to replace the bathroom flooring, it its response gave no robust assessment of the time it had taken to replace the floor, and whether it believed this was reasonable or not. This was unreasonable. At stage two, the landlord made no reference to the time it had taken to complete any repairs. It said it understood from a telephone conversation it had with the resident, that his outstanding concern was compensation he had requested due to his granddaughter tripping on the floor. However, the landlord advised this Service that it had no evidence of this phone call as the member of staff who took the call left the business. This did not sufficiently explain why it failed to keep the appropriate contact notes.
18. In general, this Service would not consider issues in the resident’s initial complaint, that was not raised in an escalation request, as the landlord needs to be given opportunity to address concerns at both stage of its complaint process. However, given that the landlord has not provided sufficient contemporaneous evidence of the resident’s complaint at each stage of its process, it has not been able to demonstrate that its understanding of the scope of the resident’s complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to robustly assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint and amounts to maladministration.
19. To remedy the above, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for its record keeping, and to review its record keeping practice and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust complaint records going forward.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident request for compensation for personal injury he said he sustained due to the condition of his bathroom floor.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

22. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the service failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Refer the resident’s claim for personal injury to its insurer.
    3. Pay the resident £400 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £200 for its response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal injury.
       2. £200 for its record keeping.
    4. Carry out a review of its record keeping practices and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspection records going forward.
    5. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.