The Riverside Group Limited (202209742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209742

The Riverside Group Limited

8 March 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

The landlord’s handling of the plastering repairs to the kitchen and living room celling, and its subsequent offer of compensation.
The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has a mental health vulnerability, which the landlord is aware of, but did not evidence to this Service.
The resident was advised, following a discussion with the landlord in April 2022, that her living room and kitchen ceilings required re-boarding and plastering.
The landlord attended the property on 12 May 2022, where its contractors advised they would not be able to complete all works on this date, due to having limited capacity. The landlord’s contractors exited the property following an altercation with the resident on the same day, leaving the works outstanding.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2022 regarding these delays and the contractor’s refusal to complete the repairs.
The landlord had re-raised the works, but ultimately found that its contractors refused to re-attend the property, citing the resident’s and her household’s behaviour. The landlord subsequently assigned the works to an external contractor, and explained in its stage one response, dated 18 July 2022, that due to previous incidents, it would only agree to progress the works under the condition that the resident, and all members of her household, would vacate the property during the repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this outcome escalating her complaint on 22 July 2022 as she wished to remain at her property while works commenced. She had requested a date for when the works would be completed by and compensation of £1,200 for the distress, inconvenience, and effect this had on her mental and physical health.
The landlord issued its final complaint outcome on 11 August 2022. It offered the resident an apology, and £50 compensation (which was paid toward rent arrears) for the delays in attending to the repairs for the kitchen and living room ceilings.
The resident remained dissatisfied due to the ceiling re-boarding and plastering remaining outstanding and with the level of compensation, escalating her complaint to this Service on 18 August 2022. She reiterated her view that the landlord should compensate her £1,200 for the distress, inconvenience, and the effect the landlord’s handling of the repairs and her complaint had on both her mental and physical health. The landlord completed the repairs on 7 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair, and maintain the internal walls, ceilings, and plasterwork of the property.
In accordance with the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord should complete routine repairs within 28 working days. In exceptional circumstances, it will aim to complete repairs within 56 working days, communicating any delays.
In line with its complaint handling policy, the landlord is to contact the resident and formally reply within ten working days. Upon escalation of a complaint, it is required to contact the resident within 24 hours and issue its stage two complaint reply within an additional ten working days.
In line with the contractor’sViolence and Aggression Policy, if a resident has shown unacceptable behaviour towardsmembers of its staff, the contractor is required to log and record the incident within 48 hours. Under the landlord’s Unacceptable Behaviour Procedure, the matter should be discussed with a senior staff member and if any further action is required, the resident is to be contacted. It describes unacceptable behaviour as anything aggressive, abusive, or unreasonable towards its staff.
The Financial Redress and Compensation policy confirms that residents qualify for the Right to Repair which states “For certain qualifying repairs which, if not carried out within a specified period are likely to jeopardise your health, safety or security, you have the right to compensation up to a maximum of £50 if we fail to carry out the work required within the prescribed time limits.” The policy further states that the landlord can make an offer of compensation where a service failing has been identified. It stipulates that compensation is based on the impact to the resident. In cases where the resident has suffered significant inconvenience or distress it is able to offer up to £500 redress.

Scope of investigation

It is noted the resident attributed the aggravation and deterioration of her mental and physical health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical condition, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. An assessment on the impact on the resident’s mental and physical health may be carried out through a personal injury claim. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, this Service can consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and living room ceiling, and its subsequent offer of compensation.

It is not disputed by either party that the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the resident’s ceiling in her living room and kitchen, as per its repair obligations outlined within the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. However, in accordance with its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord was required to complete the repairs within 28 working days. The landlord had agreed to conduct the repairs to the living room and kitchen ceilings following its attendance in April 2022, though the exact date was not provided. According to its records, the works were completed on 7 September 2022. Therefore, while the landlord initially attended the following month after the discussion of April 2022, on 12 May 2022, it ultimately took approximately five months to find a permanent solution which is well outside the required timeframe.
The landlord attributed these delays to the resident’s and members of her household’s behaviour towards its contractors, and its struggle to assign the works to an alternative contractor given that its own contractors and sub-contractors’ refused to attend the property any further.
The landlord has a duty of care to protect the welfare of its staff members and to treat any report its staff make about unreasonable behaviour in the workplace seriously. The landlord and its contractor had policies which provides guidance on dealing with unreasonable behaviour, and under this the contractor was required to have logged and reported any incidents of unacceptable behaviour towards its staff within 48 hours. Once received, the landlord’s staff was to attend the property and inform the resident of any verbal or written warnings, including further conditions or actions moving forwards. This would allow the resident to amend their behaviour if possible and to be aware of possible consequences. In this case, the landlord’s contractor, upon leaving the property on 12 May 2022, did not record details of the altercation that led it to leave as required by its policy, nor did it report the incident to the landlord so that it could raise the incident with the resident at the time, in line with its procedure.
Aside from the resident’s behaviour, the landlord’s obligation to carry out repairs remained. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord, with its contractors, to explore alternative conditions or remedies to facilitate the repair, before refusing to attend due to the resident’s or her household’s behaviour. It is not evident that the landlord explored such options to expedite the works.
According to the landlord’s records, the alleged behaviour had taken place during the landlord’s visit on 12 May 2022. It is not disputed that upon attending, the contractor was not aware of the extent of the works, advising the resident that it would be unable to complete the works on this date. This indicates that there was a failure between the landlord and its contractor in recording and communicating the specification of the works order, and that generally there was inadequate oversight of the works.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord referred to previous incidents in its Stage 1 response. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord had recorded any prior accounts of unacceptable behaviour or offered any mediation, visits, talks or any written or verbal warnings from the landlord to the resident, despite this Service requesting this information on 11 and 18 January 2023.
Therefore, while it is reasonable for the landlord to consider the safety of its staff, there was insufficient and substantive evidence to support its decision not to carry out works if the resident was present. Although the resident did not dispute the reported behaviour, the landlord had a responsibility to maintain records of this behaviour in line with the need to keep an audit trail of its actions and decisions, and to meet its obligations within its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy.
It is further noted, that the resident had informed the landlord on 28 July 2022 that she had a mental health vulnerability. The landlord as a provider of social housing would be expected to accurately log this, and look to make suitable provisions or accommodations surrounding the nature of the resident’s vulnerability. Indeed the Unacceptable Behaviour Policy states that the landlord should take into account any mental health issue and consider each case on the individual circumstances; however, no records have been evidenced to this Service which show this took place. Furthermore, it is of concern that the resident’s vulnerability was not provided in the landlord’s evidence upon request from this Service as this demonstrates an unawareness of her situation.
In summary, landlords and its contractors are expected to keep accurate, robust, and contemporaneous records. As the landlord has not evidenced records of any unacceptable behaviour from the resident, or provided any records of its actions taken to help mediate this, the landlord’s request for the resident, and all members of her household to be absent to compete the repairs, was not a fair response given the circumstances.
According to its records, the landlord had re-raised the repairs on 13 May 2022, following its contractor’s exit of the property. Following this, the resident had received several text messages confirming appointments for the 13 and 14 June 2022. However, no contractor was assigned to the works. Despite the resident contacting the landlord on 12 June 2022 for clarity on the booked appointments the landlord failed to advise her that no contractor would attend which further inconvenienced the resident.
The resident did not receive any further contact until 8 July 2022, yet no repair date was provided to the resident throughout this period until the landlord’s stage two response, dated 11 August 2022, where it specified the repairs were booked for 5 to 8 September 2022.
It would be reasonable to expect some delays to the resident’s repairs due to the landlord’s provisions in finding an alternative contractor, following its own contractor’s refusal to attend the property. However, this Service would expect the landlord to have communicated these delays, and clearly set out a repair timescale to manage the resident’s expectations moving forwards. In this case, there was a lack of contact from the landlord in communicating delays and providing timeframes which resulted in the resident chasing her repair on multiple occasions throughout June and July 2022. This caused her further frustration, distress as well as time and trouble spent pursuing her repairs.
When failings are identified, the role of this Service considers whether any redress offered by the landlord has put things rights and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from the outcomes.
In this case, the landlord had looked to put things right by acknowledging its repair delays, apologising to the resident, and offering the resident £50 compensation for the delays in its stage two complaint response.
The amount of compensation the landlord offered was awarded as a qualifying repair with a maximum payment of £50. The landlord fettered its discretion by solely relying on the Right to Repair and its offer did not reflect its failings in regard to its repair obligations, its lack of communication and its contractor’s failure to evidence any unacceptable behaviour. The landlord did not acknowledge the missed appointments on 13 and 14 June 2022. It also did not reasonably consider the frustration, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident over a period of several months that resulted from the outstanding repairs. Nor did the landlord show how it had learned from the outcome of the resident’s complaint to prevent these issues from reoccurring. Taken altogether, the offer of £50 compensation was proportionately low, especially as it did not take into consideration all the circumstances of the case
The landlord’s Financial Redress and Compensation Procedure allows it to make a discretionary payment of up to £500 for issues which have significantly impacted a resident where a service failure occurred. However, the landlord did not offer compensation on the basis that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the landlord did not apply its policy proactively or fairly so as to resolve the complaint.
Considering the above identified failings, the Ombudsman makes an overall decision of maladministration on the landlord’s handling of the issue. This Service agrees that an offer of £450 redress would be appropriate given the service failures identified. This has been calculated in line with the landlord’s Financial Redress and Compensation Policy, and this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Landlord’s complaint handling

In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord was required to acknowledge a stage one complaint escalation within 24 hours, and respond with its stage one complaint response within a further ten working days.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident had first raised a complaint on 13 May 2022, as she remained unhappy with the progress of the repairs. The landlord had issued its stage one complaint response on 18 July 2022, some 44 working days later.
The resident had escalated her complaint on 22 July 2022, which the landlord was obligated to respond to within a further ten working days. According to its records, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 11 August 2022, some 14 working days later.
In total, the resident had experienced a complaint response delay of 58 working days, some 38 working days later than its policy stipulated timescales allowed for. Furthermore, it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalations within 24 hours as per its obligations.
Where there are delays, this Service would except a member landlord to communicate at the earliest opportunity with residents, giving clear communication as to the reasoning for the delay and when they can expect a response by setting clear next steps and expectations.
In this case it was clear that the landlord had not communicated any delays to the resident, and neither had it managed her expectations by issuing clear response timeframes. Furthermore, it had not acknowledged its complaint handling delays in either its stage one or stage two complaint response.
As a result, the Ombudsman makes an overall finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, and finds that an award of £150 compensation is sufficient redress, given the identified failures above. This amount has been calculated using this Service’s Remedies Guidance, which suggests offers of redress where a service failure has adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has not acknowledged or looked to put right its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen and living room celling and its subsequent offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within the next four weeks, to:
1. Pay £600 compensation directly to the resident broken down as follows:
  1. £450 compensation in respect of its handling to the kitchen and living room ceilings.
  2. £150 in respect of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered, within the next eight weeks, to:
1. Carry out a case review, taking into account the failures identified in this report. This should include the failings of it and its contractors to maintain records, the failings in dealing with repairs, the failings in its application of its unacceptable behaviour policy and the failings in its communication and complaint handling. The landlord should share the findings of this review with the resident and this Service, making clear what lessons have been learnt. The review is to be carried out within eight weeks of the date of this decision.
The landlord shall contact this Service with evidence that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ascertain any mental and physical health issues in her household so that it can take into account these issues when delivering services to her.