The Riverside Group Limited (202111905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111905

The Riverside Group Limited

12 July 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:

1. The time taken for the landlord to amend the resident’s service charge.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. This Service is unable to determine whether the level of service charge is correct. This is in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in which it is stated that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge increase”. However, this Service is able to investigate the time taken for the landlord to amend admitted failings, and as well as its complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident, who is an assured tenant, raised a formal complaint (17 May 2021), in which she advised that her service charge invoice showed that she had been incorrectly charged for certain services that were not applicable to her home. The landlord acknowledged the error and advised that it would take the required steps to adjust the resident’s account.
4. The landlord’s stage one response (14 June 2021) advised that due to the error being part of a wider issue that had affected several properties in its locality, there was a process that it needed to follow in order to rectify the problem. It advised that the timescale for a full resolution would be by September 2021. It also recognised that the resident had experienced difficulties with Universal Credit due to the error. As such, it provided a letter for the resident to provide which outlined the issue.
5. Although the resident’s stage two escalation request has not been provided, the landlord confirmed that the resident requested escalation on 15 June 2021. However, the landlord failed to respond. Resultingly, the resident contacted this Service on 23 August 2021. Following two requests for action from this Service, the landlord provided its final response on 6 October 2021.
6. The landlord highlighted that it had made attempts to ensure that the errors identified would be rectified. However, it acknowledged that these attempts had not achieved the desired outcome of correcting the error. It advised that it had missed opportunities to make corrections earlier on, and that it was the landlord’s processes and training that had prevented the situation from being resolved. The landlord also advised that it would ensure that the correct and relevant changes were made, and that residents would be informed of the change as well as being updated regarding expected timescales for the changes to be made. Additionally, the landlord explained that if this was not achievable within a reasonable timeframe, it would apply credit to the resident’s account (£192.40) that would be the difference between the actual service charge, and what the resident had been asked to pay.
7. In addition to this, the landlord also confirmed that it would pay £100 compensation as an apology, in recognition of the time taken to provide its final response.
8. On 3 March 2022, the resident advised this Service that even though she had received the £100 offered by the landlord, she was dissatisfied as the core issue had not yet been resolved. She advised that the rent was due to increase, along with the Service charge, and that the landlord had presented her with incorrect figures again. The landlord acknowledged this and authorised a total of £291 to be paid into the resident’s account. This was in recognition of errors made in 2021/22 and the new errors for 2022/23. The landlord also advised this Service that the correct adjustment would be processed in September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

9. Section 7.3 of the landlord’s customer feedback procedure states that the landlord must “communicate the decision to the [resident] within 10 working days of the request to move to stage 2”.
10. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy advises that a payment of £50 to £200 would be reasonable for failures that resulted in a “medium impact” on the resident.
11. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy defines a “medium impact” as an issue that has “inconvenienced or distressed the customer, this may also be a repeat incident”.

The time taken for the landlord to amend the resident’s service charge

12. Following a failure in appointing the correct service charge, the landlord should acknowledge the failing, apologise, and outline its plan to amend the failure. Additionally, the landlord should inform the resident as to what timeframe they could expect the resolution, and ensure that it resolves the issue within the timeframe provided.
13. The landlord did not dispute the error, and acknowledged it with a letter to the resident on 27 May 2021. The letter outlined the discrepancies and advised that it would take the steps to amend the resident’s account. The landlord also acknowledged (in its stage one response) that the error had caused the resident to experience difficulties with her Universal Credit account. With this in mind, the landlord exercised reasonable discretion by providing a letter for the resident to give to Universal Credit for their attention.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the error and to take responsibility. The landlord’s willingness to do so may have had a positive effect on the landlord tenant relationship, as it demonstrated an openness and willingness to admit its failings. Additionally, it was appropriate for the landlord to show the resident that it was taking the steps to fix the issue.
15. In its stage one response, the landlord advised the resident that it was a much wider issue than having just affected the resident, and that because of this, it would take a significant amount of time to resolve. The landlord explained that the resolution would be completed in September 2021.
16. It was right of the landlord to demonstrate a timeframe in which the resident could expect a resolution, as this would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. Managing expectations is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery as it demonstrates to the resident an understanding of the progress of the issue.
17. However, when managing expectations, it is important to ensure that the timeframes given are adhered to. If unable to adhere to the given timeframes, the landlord should have provided further updates explaining why the given expectations could not be met, and what new timeframes the resident could expect.
18. The landlord failed to amend the issue by September 2021, and it also failed to keep the resident updated to advise that this would be the case. The failure to complete the resolution by September 2021 was not too severe a failure in itself, however, it was exacerbated by the failure to communicate this to the resident.
19. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that it was responsible for failings that led to the failure to resolve the issue by September 2021. It identified that its own training and processes that caused this. It also acknowledged its lack of communication, and advised the resident that it would maintain weekly contact going forward in order to keep the resident updated with the progress of the issue.
20. Although it did not go into detail as to what extent its training and processes were responsible for the failure, it was positive that the landlord recognised its further failings, and at no point did it dispute that its service had not been to the required standard. It was also appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it would maintain regular contact with the resident, given that it had identified the failure to do so previously. The resident confirmed with this Service that the landlord had maintained this effort to communicate weekly.
21. Following the landlord’s final response in October 2021, the amendments to the service charges had still not been completed. Because of this, the landlord authorised a payment to the resident’s rent account of £291. This was the sum that the resident had been wrongly charged in 2021/22 and 2022/23.
22. Although this was not the initial plan that the landlord had devised to resolve the issue (the initial plan to was to provide credit for the wrong service charge from 2021/22, and amend the issue before 2022/23), it was appropriate that the landlord came to a resolution, and eased the resident’s concerns that she would continue to be charged the wrong amount. The landlord also confirmed that it was still attempting to resolve the core issue of the service charge, which it expected to do by September 2022.
23. The landlord, for the most part, was supportive of the resident and demonstrated that it was continuously taking steps to attempt to resolve the issue. It also apologised for the failure and showed that it had learned from its mistakes by trying to implement new measures of communication during the continuation of the issue. However, whilst these aspects of the landlord’s handling of the issue were positive, there is maladministration in the fact that it has taken over 2 years to resolve this matter.
24. The landlord provided 2 timeframes of when this issue would be resolved, namely the period of September 2021 and September 2022, and neither of them were adhered to. Furthermore, the fact that this issue has been ongoing for so long has caused a great level of distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as there is no foresight of when this issue will be resolved. As such, this Service considers that a payment of £400 should be made to the resident. This amount is a proportionate and reasonable amount that accurately reflects the level of failings of the landlord, the length of time the matter has been outstanding, and the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. Failure to adhere to timeframes and responses is a service failure. This Service acknowledges that on occasions, there will be circumstances in which a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation was required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe of providing its final response.
26. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 15 June 2021. This was confirmed by the landlord. Following this, and two requests for action from this Service on 27 August 2021 and 30 September 2021, the final response was provided on 6 October 2021. This was almost four months after the escalation request. During this period, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, nor provide any reasoning for failing to provide its response.
27. Section 7.3 of the landlord’s customer feedback procedure states that the landlord must “communicate the decision to the [resident] within 10 working days of the request to move to stage 2”. Therefore, the delay of almost four months was significant and warranted a payment of compensation.
28. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that its response was overdue and offered compensation in recognition of this. It offered a total of £100 for the delay in providing the response. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy advises that a payment of £50 to £200 would be reasonable for failures that resulted in a “medium impact” on the resident. The policy defines a “medium impact” as an issue that has “inconvenienced or distressed the customer, this may also be a repeat incident”.
29. It is the opinion of this Service that the landlord’s complaint handling failure fairly falls within the description outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy as a “medium impact” failure. Additionally, this Service’s remedies guidance advises that for instances in which there was a failure which may have caused “inconvenience” but “may have not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident”, a payment of £100 would be appropriate. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service, that the landlord’s offer of £100 for its complaint handling failure constitutes reasonable redress.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the time taken for the landlord to amend the resident’s service charge.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

32. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of the report:

•  Pay £400 in compensation to the resident for the failings identified in relation to the time taken for the landlord to amend the resident’s service charge.
• Contact the resident and provide a reasonable timeframe of when the issue regarding the service charge will be resolved.
• Evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service by the deadline detailed.

Recommendation

33.  It is recommended that the landlord:

• Pay the £100 offered in its complaint response for the delay in its complaint handling.
• Provide the universal credit letter to the resident detailing the fact that the resident should not be paying the water charge bill outlined in the April 2023 letter, if it has not already done so.