The Riverside Group Limited (202223082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223082

The Riverside Group Limited

24 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was let to her.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the property, namely the resident has muscular dystrophy which affects her muscles.
3. The resident moved into the property on 14 April 2022. The landlord’s submission to the Service does not provide information about the viewing of the property prior to the resident accepting the tenancy.
4. In May 2022, the resident reported that a number of voids works in the property had not been completed. This included:
   1. Broken plaster and cracks to the walls in multiple rooms;
   2. The previous resident’s belongings remaining in the loft;
   3. The rear-garden was in an unacceptable state, this included previous resident’s belongings, a fallen tree and damaged fencing due to the fallen tree; and
   4. Pins and nails sticking out of the flooring throughout the property.
5. The resident raised a complaint in June 2022, she expressed that she remains unhappy that the property remained in an unacceptable standard. The resident stated that nobody had attended the property to complete the repairs and as a result her child had been injured by nails in the floor and a beam fell narrowly missing her child. The resident stated due to the condition of the property, she had been staying at her parents’ property. The resident requested for the landlord to complete the repairs.
6. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed several repairs in the property. This included:
   1. An inspection of the property which took place on 23 June 2022;
   2. Plastering in the lounge area on 25 June 2022;
   3. A loft clearance completed on 29 June 2022;
   4. Further plastering works in the lounge on 9 July 2022;
   5. Plastering in the hallway, stairs and landing areas on 15 July 2022;
   6. Further areas of property plastered on 22 July 2022;
   7. Bathroom, landing and ceilings plastered on 25 July 2022; and
   8. Garden clearance on 27 July 2022.
7. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the experience moving into the new property. It stated that all works in the property had now been completed and it had reviewed its internal practices to ensure that it took a more active role in the voids process. However, as the resident still had full use of the property a full rent refund would not be considered. It did offer the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 4 January 2023. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the condition of the property upon moving in, and how long it took for the repairs to be completed once being reported. As a resolution, the resident is seeking a rent refund for the first three months of her tenancy as she was unable to live in the property. In addition, the resident would like additional compensation for the time take off from work, the emotional distress caused by the poor state of the property and for an injury to her young child.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s empty homes standard states that upon moving in, the loft areas will be clear of all rubbish; the garden will be cleared of rubbish; any fence panels will be repaired where any section is broken.
10. The repairs policy states that routine repairs should be attended to within 28 working days of being reported.

Assessment

11. Any necessary repairs and alterations should be made before the tenant moves in. Alternatively, the landlord and tenant could formally agree a timeframe in which the tenant could expect works raised during the void period to be completed, which could potentially be following the commencement of the tenancy.
12. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident and landlord had reached an agreement for the repairs to be completed after moving into the property. Therefore, the landlord should have completed the repairs prior to the resident moving into the property.
13. The landlord’s voids policy states that the garden area should be clear of rubbish, and any fence panels should be repaired. In this case, upon moving into the property the garden was not cleaned of the previous resident’s belongings and a fallen tree was present in the garden. This tree has caused damage to the fence panels in the garden. Therefore, upon moving in the garden was not in compliance with the landlord’s voids policy.
14. The resident reported this matter to the landlord on 4 May 2022, as per the repair’s policy the landlord should have attended the property to complete the clearance and fencing repairs within 28 working days; however, it took 60 working days for this to be completed. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy in relation to the garden clearance and repairs.
15. The voids policy further states that the loft should be clear of all rubbish prior to the new resident moving in. Therefore, when the resident notified the landlord that the previous resident’s belongings were in the loft, this again was a failure in the voids policy.
16. Similar to the garden clearance, the landlord should have attended within 28 working days of the items being reported on 4 May 2022; however, this was not completed until 29 June 2022 which was 40 working days after the items in loft were reported, meaning it was in excess of its policy obligations of 12 working days.
17. The landlord’s voids policy does not state what condition the walls and flooring should be in prior to the property being let. However, the tenancy agreement does states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the walls and the floor of the property in repair. While, the landlord would not be responsible for decorating the property, it had a responsibility to ensure that the walls were in an acceptable condition before the resident moved into the property.
18. However, when the resident reported that these repairs were required the landlord should have attended within its policy obligations of 28 working days. The landlord first attended the property to complete a skim of the area 37 working days after the repair was reported and the final skim was completed 60 working days after it was first reported. The plastering took at least six appointments to complete the full repairs. This would have subsequently inconvenienced the resident further, and as such the delays and multiple visits to rectify the plastering was a failure in the landlord’s service.
19. The resident informed the landlord that her child was injured in the property. This was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response. Furthermore, the landlord has not acted in accordance with its financial redress and compensation procedure which states that all insurance claims should be reported to its insurers, however minor. An order is made about this later.
20. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that £200 was the maximum amount of compensation it could offer to the resident. However, this is not the case as its compensation policy allows for up to £500 compensation to be awarded.
21. The landlord awarded £200 compensation as it determined as per its complaint policy that there had been a medium impact on the resident. However, as established above, the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, alongside the delays to the repairs this Service does not deem £200 compensation to be reasonable.
22. This Service deems it more appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in accordance with both the landlord’s compensation policy which states that awards of up to £500 compensation should be awarded if the resident has suffered significant inconvenience or distress. It is also in accordance with this Service’s compensation policy (which can be found on our website).

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled repairs during the voids process.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders

24. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay £500 compensation to the resident for the unacceptable delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the poor handling of the repairs required to the property. This includes the £200 it previously offered in its final complaint response, which it should now pay to the resident if it has not already done so.
    3. Contact the resident to assist her to make an insurance claim for the injury to her daughter.
    4. Review its voids procedure to ensure that a similar incident does not occur again in the future.
25. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.