Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202231624)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231624

The Riverside Group Limited

14 February 2024


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 the resident’s queries about a service charge, and paying for a service that was not being provided.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, and was assigned the tenancy in 2011. The property is a three-bedroom end terrace house in a building of 4 properties. The building is set back from the main road and is accessed by a shared driveway bordered by hedges and shrubs which leads to car parking spaces in front of the properties. 
  2. The resident received a letter dated 19 February 2022 confirming the annual rent adjustment, which included a service charge for communal lighting and grounds maintenance. The resident contacted the landlord to query the service charge, as she did not believe the grounds maintenance service was being provided. 
  3. The exact date is unclear, but the landlord raised a complaint in relation to the service charge query and sent its stage 1 response on 18 March 2022. It said a new contractor would be starting on 1 April 2022 to maintain hedges and shrubs and spray the car park for weeds. It told the resident the contractor’s name and confirmed the figure quoted of £1.13 per week for grounds maintenance was correct.
  4. The exact date is unclear, but a number of weeks later the resident called the contractor directly as she had not seen anyone attend. No evidence of the call has been provided, but the resident submits the contractor said it was unaware of its responsibility for grounds maintenance in the communal areas around the resident’s property. Again the date is unclear, but following the call with the contractor, the resident called the landlord to advise what she had been told. 
  5. On 29 June 2022 the landlord made internal enquiries to find out whether the grounds maintenance had been missed. The next day the resident called to escalate the complaint as the contractor had still not attended.
  6. An internal landlord note said a contract variation had been sent to the contractor to include the communal areas around the resident’s property, however no evidence of this has been provided to this Service. The landlord’s notes say it chased its contractor for a response on 12 July 2022 as to why the grounds maintenance had been missed (no evidence provided). It also escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2022 and said it would contact her once its contractor responded.
  8. It is not clear whether the landlord contacted its contractor, as it has not provided any evidence to this Service. However, the contractor attended the resident’s property on 20 July and 4 August 2022. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 29 July 2022 advising that the contractor had attended to “bring the site up the standard.” 
  9. The landlord called the resident on 1 August 2022 and said:
    1. There had been an issue with the plans drawn up with the contractor, and her development had not been included, which explained why the communal grounds maintenance had not commenced.
    2. A contract variation and plan had been agreed and signed off between the landlord and contractor.
    3. The resident should expect to see 19 visits over the course of the year.
    4. It would call her back to confirm:
      1. The contractor had clear instruction of which areas were to be maintained.
      2. The next visit date.
      3. When weed treatment would take place.
      4. Whether the resident was entitled to a refund of service charge paid for the 17 weeks when no grounds maintenance had taken place.
  10. The landlord’s contact notes show it attempted to call the resident on 3 occasions between the 3 and 9 August 2022 but was unsuccessful.
  11. On 11 August 2022 the contractor refunded the landlord for invoices charged for grounds maintenance from April to June 2022 when it did not attend. The landlord called the resident and said the contractor had now attended twice and brought the site up to standard; a refund for the missed visits had been received, and would be reconciled as part of the year end accounts in line with the tenancy agreement terms. However, the resident was not happy with this to conclude the complaint, and asked:
    1. Why the refund could not be issued directly to her bank account?
    2. Why the service charge had started again?
    3. Why it had taken so long to address the issue?
    4. To speak about her tenancy agreement.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2022. It said:
    1. It would not refund the service charge to her bank account and any over/underspend relating to services would be reconciled as part of the year end account process, and would either be applied as a credit or deficit relating to other services within the annual year end statement. Any credit would be offset against the following year’s annual budget.
    2. A new grounds maintenance contract had started with its contractor, which was to include maintenance of the communal areas outside the resident’s property.
    3. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to address the situation.
    4. It had requested a call back to the resident to discuss the tenancy as she requested.
  13. The resident called the landlord on 22 August 2022 and requested escalation to a panel review. She submitted the panel review form on 6 September 2022 and said she was promised a panel review but it did not take place. She told this Service she received a phone call from a panel member on 17 November 2022 sympathising with her situation and asking her to be patient but had not heard anything else.
  14. The landlord provided a copy of a letter sent to the resident dated 23 February 2023, which said the current service charge was £1.99 per week (including £1.13 for grounds maintenance), but from 3 April 2023 the service charge was increasing to £5.26 (including £2.21 for grounds maintenance).
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 13 March 2023. In an email to the Ombudsman, the landlord said there were challenges around panel availability as members provided their time voluntarily. It said the panel review was not a third stage of its complaints process and was an independent service, which although it initially facilitated, all further communication was between the panel and the resident. It also said the option of a panel review had since been removed from its complaints policy, with residents signposted to this Service instead.
  16. The contractor issued another refund to the landlord for 18 further missed visits from August 2022 to July 2023, on 24 August 2023. It emailed the landlord and said grounds maintenance had not been carried out as the site had not been added to its database. The resident said the contractor attended on 24 August 2023 and said the site had “not been on its map” and it “did not know the properties existed.”
  17. A landlord internal email of 31 August 2023 said grounds maintenance had continued to be missed after the stage 2 complaint up to 24 August 2023 due to contractor oversight. In an email to this Service, the landlord said it had received evidence of ongoing grounds maintenance from its contractor confirming attendance.
  18. The landlord provided a letter sent to the resident dated 22 September 2023, which said no service charge had been paid by her for grounds maintenance from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, and £20.03 would be deducted from the following year’s service charge due to an overpayment on communal electricity.
  19. On 13 November 2023, the landlord sent another letter and said the current cost for grounds maintenance was £2.21 per week, but the landlord proposed from 1 April 2024 to 6 April 2025 the cost would be £0.00, and the communal electricity cost would be reduced from £2.23 a week to £0.75.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about service charges, and paying for a service that was not being provided.

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the exterior of the premises including pathways, and to keep the exterior of the premises and any common parts in reasonable repair. The resident agrees to maintain the garden, and must not remove hedges or fences, or remove or prune any tress without the landlord’s permission.
  2. The landlord’s Estate Management Policy says it will deliver grounds maintenance in communal areas to ensure they are kept tidy and ensure services provide value for money.
  3. The tenancy agreement says the term ‘rent’ is made up of rent and service charge. It says the landlord may increase or decrease the rent by giving notice, and is entitled to charge for services provided to communal areas under the terms of the agreement.
  4. The resident did not receive any grounds maintenance from April 2022, which was a failing. She is sure she was paying a service charge and it included grounds maintenance, however no evidence of how much service charge she was paying has been provided to this Service. The letter dated 22 September 2023 provided by the landlord indicates that, although she was paying a service charge for communal electricity, it did not include the weekly £1.13 due for grounds maintenance. 
  5. The resident raised concerns that no contractor had attended around the end of April 2022 and the evidence shows it was not until 29 June 2022 that the landlord raised the issue with its contractor. Whilst landlords are entitled to contract third parties to provide services which it is responsible for, the landlord is ultimately obliged to ensure the services are provided properly and to a good standard. It is, therefore, expected that landlords will closely monitor and manage those contracts accordingly.
  6. There is no record the landlord was carrying out proactive checks to monitor whether the grounds maintenance was taking place from April 2022. When dealing with service charges, it is important that landlords are as proactive as possible in their approach to monitoring and checking the services are being provided to the required standard. It is not reasonable for residents to pay for services they are not receiving, or to be the primary means of monitoring the effectiveness of a landlord’s contractors or service providers, as in this case. Whilst contacting its contractor was an appropriate reaction in response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord should have been monitoring the site itself, and acted with more urgency contacting the contractor, which was a failing.
  7. The contractor refunded the service charge to the landlord for missed visits between April 2022 and August 2023. The landlord’s website confirms its approach to service charge overpayment being reviewed at the end of the financial year. However this Service has not been provided with any evidence to confirm whether it clearly communicated to the resident that the service charge she was paying did not include grounds maintenance, which was a failing.
  8. In the absence of any grounds maintenance being undertaken, the residents had been doing it themselves which was not reasonable. The resident was told the communal area would be maintained around April/May 2022, and again in August 2022, which did not happen. The site then continued to be missed following the stage 2 response which was a failing and caused her the further inconvenience of chasing for updates.
  9. The landlord’s handling of this issue constitutes maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in it. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer financial redress between £50 and £200 for medium impact failure in service, and causing inconvenience to a resident. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to address the failings, which is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 March 2022. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the complaint was logged, so it is not possible to know whether the response was sent in the timescale outlined in its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord has also said a stage 1 complaint was logged on 31 May 2022, but there is no record of the complaint made, or of the landlord providing a stage 1 response, which indicates poor record keeping relating to complaints (more on this below). Due to the lack of information provided, the Ombudsman is not able to assess whether the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in time.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says a stage 2 response should be sent within 10 working days from receipt of the request to escalate. Its stage 2 response was sent on 17 August 2022, 35 working days after the resident’s request to escalate, and 27 working days after the landlord actually escalated it, which was a failing. This was also in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, which says landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The complaint response placed the blame for the lack of grounds maintenance on its contractor, but failed to acknowledge its own failings and that it could have done more. The evidence also suggests no panel review of the complaint took place, and that the landlord failed to communicate to the resident why this. Instead, it appeared to simply close the complaint and wait for this Service to investigate, which was not reasonable. In light of the identified failings, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  5. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation to recognise distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble incurred chasing for updates or its complaint handling. As stated above, the landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer financial redress between £50 and £200 for its failure in service and inconvenience caused to a resident, but it is not bound by these limits when agreeing compensation and may agree higher amounts. Having considered the landlord’s policy, alongside the Ombudsman’s internal guidance, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to address the impact its complaint handling failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of complete contact notes with the resident or its contractor or dated logs or evidence when the contractor attended the site.
  3. The landlord’s inability to provide these documents demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. The lack of records has also delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation causing further time and trouble to the resident. There was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping as it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s queries about service charges, and paying for a service that was not being provided.
    2. Complaint handling.
    3. Knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation made up of:
      1. £200 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her queries about service charges.
      2. £300 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
      3. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in record keeping.
    3. Produce a full rent/service charge statement showing all payments received from the resident for rent and service charge from 1 April 2022 to 1 February 2024. If after doing this the landlord finds the resident paid service charge for grounds maintenance from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, either refund the resident, or factor this in to proposed service charges for 1 April 2024 to 6 April 2025. 
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.