The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Riverside Group Limited (202306137)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306137

The Riverside Group Limited

18 March 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 decision not to upgrade the resident’s bathroom ceiling following installation of a ground level shower and wet room.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the property since November 2014. He resides in the property with his wife who is a joint tenant, and their 3 children. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.
  2. On 19 January 2021, the local authority’s home improvement service proposed a schedule of works for a ground floor wet room in the property, with a level access shower, following an assessment by the social care team. This had been requested by the resident for his son, who was registered disabled. On 18 February 2022, an asbestos survey was completed at the property and no issues were found. The specification for works was provided to the landlord on 28 February 2022 and the local council agreed to provide a disability grant to part fund the works, with the remainder funded by the landlord.
  3. The wet room was installed in July 2022, with a post installation inspection completed on 20 July 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 to ask when PVC cladding would be fitted to his ceiling, as he was under the impression it was part of the works however the attending operatives had informed him it was not the responsibility of the landlord to install this. He reported that paint was flaking from his ceiling due to damp. On 22 March 2023, an inspector attended the property on behalf of the landlord and confirmed there were no damp issues.
  4. On 19 April 2023, he contacted the landlord again to ask when cladding would be installed on his bathroom ceiling, as he said an operative had advised it would be done. The landlord discussed the matter with its ‘Aids and Adaptations Team’ (A&A) who confirmed that, as a PVC ceiling was not part of the specification for the wet room, it was not installed. It advised that the work was out of scope and would be the responsibility of the resident. The landlord maintained that the issue of flaking paint was decorative, and as there was sufficient ventilation in the room to prevent damp there would be no concerns with the ceiling being re-painted. The resident was unhappy with this response and raised a complaint.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and issued a stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. It stated that while the wet room was installed by A&A, the ceiling was not painted as part of the works and so it would not be responsible for any issues with paint. It reiterated that painting and decorating was the responsibility of the resident, and it was not prepared to add cladding as there were no issues with the ceiling functionally.
  6. Between 26 and 28 April 2023, there were a number of conversations between the resident and the landlord as he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The A&A department confirmed that it would only paint or replace a ceiling if it was in poor condition, and this was assessed on a case-by-case basis. It had not done any works to the ceiling in this property and therefore would not complete any works moving forward.
  7. On 5 May 2023, a local MP contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, requesting the cladding be installed. The landlord responded citing that the responsibility for decorating was with the resident, and it had completed the wet room installation in line with the specification from the local council. It also informed the MP that it was the resident’s own decorator who recommended the cladding, not its own operatives. The same day, the landlord sent an acknowledgment to the resident that it had progressed the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process.
  8. On 16 May 2023, there were further discussions between the landlord and the resident as he felt the landlord had misled the MP by saying that his own decorator had recommended the works. He also stated that the social care team within the local council had visited and told him the ceiling needed cladding and told him to ask the landlord to complete this.
  9. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 18 May 2023, which found that the complaint was not upheld. It stated that this was due to the ceiling cladding not being part of the specification provided by the local council, and that any decoration or additional changes would be the responsibility of the resident. It noted that a technical inspector assessed the wet room on 22 March 2023 and advised that there were no damp issues, and that PVC cladding was not a responsive repair.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the schedule of works for the wet room installation, along with the post-installation inspection photographs and details of the grant. While extensive works were ordered to convert the bathroom into a wet room, there was no instruction listed for changes to the ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s position that he was informed by an operative during the works that the ceiling would be upgraded to PVC. The landlord has denied this, stating that this was not within the scope of works. Based on the evidence available, we cannot say with reasonable confidence as to what exactly the resident was told. However, and whilst we understand that any such conversation would have given the resident a reasonable expectation that the work would be done, ultimately the landlord was required to deliver works as set out in the agreed specification and this is what it did.
  3. It is reasonable, that during the wet room installation, the landlord would not have made any changes to the ceiling if it was in good condition, as the bathroom upgrade works were strictly budgeted for following a grant being approved. Social landlords are required to manage budgets tightly and priority must be given to the most urgent adaptations and repairs. From internal case notes, there were lengthy discussions between departments with regards to whether it could paint the ceiling. The A&A team confirmed that flaking paint was not a responsive repair but was decorative and therefore not its responsibility, particularly as it had not completed any work to the ceiling.
  4. Repair records provided by the landlord confirm that the flaking paint was reported approximately 8 months after the wet room was installed. Following the report, the landlord inspected the bathroom to confirm whether there was evidence of damp. It confirmed that there were no damp issues in the bathroom and the ventilation was effective. In May 2023 further damp inspections were completed at the property and, while damp works were completed on the ground floor, no issues were found in the bathroom. Aside from photographs of flaking paint, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any disrepair to the ceiling, or of any wider issues other than normal wear and tear. It is therefore our opinion that painting the ceiling would be defined as decoration. If the resident wished to install PVC cladding to the ceiling, this would be his responsibility. Before commencing any works, he would need to inform the landlord as he may need permission in line with its home improvement policy.
  5. The resident stated to the landlord that the social care team had inspected the wet room, found that the ceiling needed cladding and instructed him to inform the landlord. Given this work was commissioned by the local council with input from the social care team, we would expect that cladding would have been listed on the schedule of works. There is no evidence that social care contacted the landlord to raise any concerns. Although disrepair would fall under the landlord’s obligations, it is reasonable that the landlord would ask for input from social care for any works relating to A&A upgrades as the original wet room installation was directed by social care. The landlord could have contacted social care to verify the information provided by the resident, as this would have shown that it was taking his concerns seriously.
  6. Taking into account the above evidence, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to upgrade the ceiling. The decision to follow the specification of the works approved by social care was fair, although it could have followed up on the resident’s assertion that social care had inspected and advised cladding was required. When the paint issue was reported the landlord attended to check for damp, and found no issues. The landlord is entitled to rely on a damp inspection when determining whether there are any disrepair issues, and the completion of additional damp inspections in the property in the following months suggests that the findings of the inspection were accurate. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to upgrade the resident’s bathroom ceiling following installation of a ground level shower and wet room.