Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202214157)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214157

The Riverside Group Limited

18 September 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the leak which caused damage to the resident kitchen occurred in November 2020. The landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s complaint about this in February 2021. Remedial work to repair damage to the kitchen plastering, lighting, and joinery took place between February 2021 and June 2021. The resident subsequently raised a further stage one complaint on 20 July 2022, which she escalated on 5 August 2022.
  3. In the resident’s complaint from July 2022, she voiced dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of remedial works which occurred in early 2021. As these works took place over a year prior to her raising this complaint, these historical works will not be considered in this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. This is because, with the passage of time, it is not possible to establish the facts of the case and make a reliable determination on the historical events.
  4. This investigation will therefore focus on events from January 2022 onwards; this is six months prior to the resident raising her recent complaint with the landlord. Any reference to historical events is only to provide context to the complaint under investigation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident’s bathroom was replaced in October 2020. She subsequently experienced a leak into her kitchen from the new bathroom, resulting in repair works being required. On 16 June 2021, as part of these repairs, the landlord offered the resident replacement end panels to replace damaged panels in her kitchen units. She declined these as they were not an exact match for the existing kitchen units.
  3. The landlord raised a new job on 24 April 2022 to overhaul the kitchen units. Between 10 May 2022 and 1 July 2022, it visited the property twice and attempted to find matching replacement panels in its warehouse and through other suppliers. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 July 2022 and offered two possible close colour matches, which she declined.
  4. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 20 July 2022. She was unhappy that repair appointments had been unsuccessful in remedying the damage to her kitchen units.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 July 2022. It confirmed that its operative had offered her two choices of replacement panel which she had declined. It said that her remaining options were to choose not to have the panels replaced, as the kitchen showed “minimal signs of wear and tear,” or choose from the panel options available.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 August 2022. She expressed her dissatisfaction with taking time off from work for appointments where the repairs were not completed. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to restore the kitchen to its original condition.
  7. The landlord visited its warehouses again to try to find suitable panels. It attended the resident’s property on 24 August 2022 with alternative panels, which were the closest match available. She declined these as they were not an exact match for her kitchen.
  8. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 8 September 2022. It said that it had made a reasonable attempt to secure matching kitchen panels. It reiterated that her remaining options were to choose the closest matching panels or choose not to have the repair.
  9. The resident and landlord entered into mediation through this service on 25 January 2023. It agreed with her that it would source and fit five end panels and a corner post from a kitchen supplier. When the landlord attended on 14 March 2023 to fit these, the resident declined the panels as they were not an exact match for the existing kitchen.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident and its responsive repairs policy are silent on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the kitchen. However, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the damage caused to the kitchen units caused by the leak. It was therefore required to complete the repairs to the kitchen in accordance with its responsive repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that a routine, non-emergency repair should be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman recognises, however, that repairs may exceed the landlord’s normal timeframes when repairs are complex, or when specialist parts or equipment are required.
  3. In this instance, the repair to the resident’s kitchen units was not completed in this timeframe as she declined the replacement panels offered by the landlord. The delays to this repair would therefore not amount to a service the landlord’s part. It acted reasonably by inspecting the kitchen within a reasonable timeframe, and making a reasonable attempt to repair the kitchen.
  4. While it is best practice for a landlord to seek to match kitchen panels where possible, when parts for fixtures become obsolete or discontinued, it is reasonable for a landlord to replace parts with cosmetically different alternatives, provided that the function of the fixture or fitting is unaffected. The landlord acted fairly by working with the resident to attempt to source panels which met her preferences. It was beyond the landlord’s control that the exact panel was no longer available, and it made a reasonable attempt to source the panel by checking for old stock in its warehouse. Therefore, there was no failure on the landlord’s part in being unable to source parts which were no longer available.
  5. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen as it could not exactly match the existing kitchen unit panels. This would not be proportionate in the circumstances. A landlord has a duty to manage its finite resources to benefit all residents. It would not be expected to replace a kitchen that continued to function correctly due to a cosmetic inconsistency.
  6. There was no evidence that the damage to the kitchen units was significant enough to impair their functionality. Photographs viewed by the Ombudsman supported the landlord’s assertion in its stage one complaint response that the damage was cosmetic and the kitchen was still usable. Therefore, the landlord’s final position that the resident’s options were to accept the closest matching replacement panels or opt to not have these replaced, was reasonable. This is because in either event, the usability of the kitchen was unaffected and minor damage or mismatched panels would not constitute a significant defect. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen units was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no evidence of a failure on its part.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen following a leak.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to reiterate its offer to replace the panels with those it has available.