The Riverside Group Limited (202007063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007063

The Riverside Group Limited

18 May 2021

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns that were raised about staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a retirement block.

Summary of events

The resident has advised that on 6 July 2020, she raised the issue of cracks within her property with the caretaker. The resident says that the caretaker “begrudgingly” inspected the property, and asked if she wished for him to report the matter. The resident says that she confirmed that she did.
The resident says that she saw the caretaker again two days later when he advised that he had reported the issue. However, she says that he made a remark along the lines of “they’ll probably say the same as me”.
On 22 July 2020, the landlord logged a complaint following phone call from resident. During a conversation with the resident’s daughter the following day (Mrs G), the landlord noted that the resident’s specific concerns were as follows:
1. She believed the repair issue had been logged two weeks before.
2. She was unhappy that she had been asked to take photographs of the damage.
3. She found the matter distressing, and wished for the landlord to correspond with her daughter.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 28 July 2020; it said:
1. It noted that the complaint was about the level of service the resident had received over the previous three weeks when trying to report damp in her property.
2. It had spoken to the caretaker who said that he had not meant to come across as condescending but accepted this was how it appeared.
3. The caretaker said he had offered to log the job but thought the resident had advised that she would prefer to report the repair herself, so there was some confusion.
4. It had since informed the caretaker that the correct thing to do would have been to report the issue to the call centre. The caretaker understood this, and would ensure he adopted this approach in the future.
5. It understood that the resident was unhappy at being asked to take photographs, and it apologised for this. However, it explained that the photographs were so the asset team could carry out an initial assessment prior to visiting.
6. A surveyor had been asked to attend the property as soon as possible and an appointment had been made for 4 August 2020.
Meanwhile, the caretaker visited the resident to apologise in person, and the landlord’s Home Ownership Officer (HOO) did the same by phone.
On 29 July, Mrs G emailed the landlord to express dissatisfaction with the complaint response. In her email, she said:
1. She had previously explained that communication regarding the complaint was to go through her; however, her mother had received two phone calls from the landlord the previous day. Mrs G said she wished to know why this was.
2. In the complaint response, the caretaker had claimed “miscommunication”; however, if that was the case, why had he informed her mother that “they would probably say the same” as him.

In response, the HOO said:
1. He understood that Mrs G had requested direct contact; however, as the resident was the leaseholder, it needed her authority for Mrs G to be the point of contact. Such authority had been provided the day before during a telephone call; and it was on that basis that the complaint response had been forwarded to Mrs G.
2. Although he was not privy to the conversation between the resident and the caretaker, it was clear that the service provided fell below its expected standards – and the caretaker had acknowledged this too.
Mrs G said that it had been agreed with another member of staff the previous week that she would be the point of contact. Furthermore, the landlord had not provided a response to why the caretaker had later informed the resident that he had logged the job.
The resident emailed the landlord herself on 30 July, and asked to be provided with a copy of its complaints procedure. The resident added that she did not appreciate being called a liar; and that Mrs G was present during the second conversation she had with the caretaker. She asked that all further communication be sent to both her email address, and Mrs G’s.
Correspondence continued; and the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to inspect the cracks that had been reported. The landlord and resident entered into discussion about the inspection at the beginning of August alongside the complaint escalation. The stage two response to the complaint was issued on 13 August. Within this, the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated as she felt that because of her age, her memory was being called into question. Furthermore, she did not consider that she had been treated with respect.
2. It was sorry that the conversations that had taken place with the caretaker were the cause of upset.
3. There was no suggestion that the resident’s recollection of events was inaccurate; and there were lessons to be learnt from the complaint. In particular, the immediate reporting of repairs from customers direct to the caretakers.
4. It understood that the resident was happy with the actions the landlord had taken to date; however, it noted that the resident was reluctant to converse with the caretakers on matters relating to the scheme. It hoped that this would lessen over time; but in the interim, the resident was welcome to contact its 24-hour customer service centre.
5. With regards to being treated with respect, it was aware that the caretaker had apologised personally; and that he was keen to rebuild the trust that had been marred. It also hoped that the complaint interactions had gone some way to changing the resident’s viewpoint.
6. It wished to assure the resident that it had learnt lessons from the complaint and that it would strive to improve its service in the future.
On the same day that the stage two response was issued, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the inspection. In the email, it said as follows:
1. When the resident and staff had discussed the matter earlier in the week, the information which had been relayed internally was that the internal cracking was owing to settlement – and not a structural issue. It therefore followed that the cracks were not part of the external demise, and the repair was not the landlord’s responsibility.
2. The resident had shared that the surveyor who had attended the property suggested that the landlord may carry out the repair – which included removing the coving and filling the cracks. It therefore agreed to make further enquiries with the surveyor, and revert back.
3. The surveyor had reiterated his view that the issue was not a structural problem; but he did disclose that his comments on the day were likely to have led the resident to believe that a repair would be carried out.
4. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the internal facings were the responsibility of the leaseholder; and as the landlord, it could not undertake the repair.
5. It was sorry that the surveyor’s comments suggested otherwise. He had advised that he did not appreciate that there was a difference in terms of repair obligations for leaseholders; and acknowledged that he should have been more cautious with his comments.
6. It acknowledged that the resident was likely to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s position; but hoped that she would take some comfort from knowing that the cracks were not part of a “larger structural concern”.
On 14 August 2020, Mrs G emailed the landlord with regards to the inspection. She said:
1. She was present at the time, and the surveyor had advised that the coving would be removed, so the area behind it could be inspected.
2. They had also mentioned that there was an issue behind the fireplace with “grey particles” appearing – and the sound of particles falling. Mrs G added that the surveyor had offered to remove the fireplace for further inspection.
3. She did not consider that an inspection from the ground floor could determine whether the rendering was starting to be compromised from the second floor and up.
4. She expected what was agreed during the survey to be carried out within an agreed timescale.
The landlord agreed to make enquiries with the surveyor. On 14 August, it confirmed with Mrs G that the surveyor’s response was as follows – “Following my visit it was determined that the cracking within the property was usual for the age and type. All remedial works are classed as cosmetic. I was unable to investigate the issue with the fire as I did not want to remove it from the wall.”
The landlord said that ‘based on the surveyor’s findings, the matter was not a building structural issue, and remedial works to the fireplace would not be its responsibility under the terms of the lease. It added that its position regarding this matter remained unchanged.
Mrs G expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, stating that this was not what had been said at the visit. She asked for a final response on the matter so that the complaint could be referred to this Service. Further correspondence was exchanged; and on 25 August, the landlord confirmed that it had already provided its final response – and that the resident’s next steps had been outlined in the stage two response letter.
The resident approached this Service on 12 October 2020. She said that she felt her integrity had been called into question. She wanted a full written apology detailing that the landlord was in the wrong and that the caretaker had lied to avoid disciplinary action for not actioning the initial request. In further correspondence to this Service, the resident said that the caretaker had failed to report the issue, and the surveyor then denied the comments he made whilst at the property. She said that as a result her memory was being questioned. To put things right, the resident said that in addition to a full written apology, she wanted an explanation as to why staff though it was acceptable to “disrespect a vulnerable tenant”, and she wanted a formal warning to be issued to the caretaker.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised:
1. When the resident initially reported the issue to the caretaker, he had informed her that it was likely to be for her to resolve, and at that point there was confusion over the actions agreed. The caretaker did have some knowledge of the resident’s obligations under the lease agreement and was therefore aware that it was not a repair the landlord would undertake.
2. It considered the complaint in line with its disciplinary procedures and was satisfied that the incident caused “no significant risk to the resident”. It therefore took the decision to deal with the matter informally. It added that the caretaker wished to apologise for any confusion or upset caused, and the resident had advised she was satisfied at this both at stage one and two of the formal resolution conversations.
3. The resident said she did not want to approach or speak to the caretaker again although the HOO was keen to ease future interactions and not limit the resident’s options in reporting issues.
4. The landlord said the caretaker was quick to apologise for the initial confusion over whether a job should have been logged and he has remained courteous to the resident whilst respecting she does not wish to engage with him particularly on matters.
5. The caretaker lives in one of the apartments and provides largely domestic or environmental services Monday through to Friday for his neighbours. It added that he was aware of how delicate a situation could become if a resident is dissatisfied with any element of the service he provides; and that this can directly impact on his own home life and wellbeing as much as theirs.

Assessment and findings

The resident raised concerns that the caretaker had failed to log the repair issue which she had reported to him. To investigate the matter further, the landlord discussed the matter with the caretaker to obtain his version of events so that the resident’s concerns could be considered in full. In doing so, the landlord reached the conclusion that there had been some confusion as to what was going to happen following their initial conversation. It noted that the resident believed the caretaker would be reporting the matter; however, it said that he was of the understanding that the resident wished to notify the landlord herself.
It is acknowledged that the resident disputes this – and her reasons as to why are noted, and not disputed by the Ombudsman. However, there is an absence of contemporaneous evidence to corroborate both the resident’s and the caretaker’s comments. On that basis, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding as to what transpired at the time; however, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord investigated the matter and whether its response was appropriate in the circumstances. This Service has also assessed whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with the Ombudsman’s ‘dispute resolution principles’, that is to have a process that seeks to put things right for residents, is fair, and that learns from outcomes.
It was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the caretaker to gain further insight into what was discussed. The caretaker appropriately acknowledged that service standards had not been met in that instance and apologised to the resident accordingly. During the course of the complaint investigation, the landlord identified that the caretaker had not taken appropriate action in the circumstances – and that the repair should have been reported to the call centre, irrespective of whether he had believed that the resident wished to report the repair herself. The landlord relayed this to the caretaker, and detailed as such within its complaint response.
It was appropriate for the landlord acknowledge the failing in this instance – and it took proportionate action in terms of ensuring that the caretaker was reminded of the procedure that is to be followed when repairs are flagged by residents. The landlord apologised to the resident for the upset that was caused. It is also noted that the caretaker apologised to the resident in person. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Whilst the resident has referred to disciplinary action for the caretaker as a desired outcome to the complaint, this is a matter that falls outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about individual members of staff. Any employment action is a separate matter for the landlord to consider, taking into consideration its internal policies. As detailed above, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with an explanation about the steps that it took, and why it did not consider that any employment action was warranted.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its service standards, and duties and obligations as a landlord.
Once the repair had been reported, the landlord arranged for an inspection to take place. It is noted that the resident and Mrs G dispute the landlord’s comments about the surveyor’s findings; and that they believe the comments to be at odds with what was discussed during the inspection. Given the absence of any other contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding about what may have been discussed during the inspection. However, in response to the concerns that were raised by Mrs G, the landlord appropriately referred the matter back to the surveyor and sought clarification. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident and Mrs G may still dispute the surveyor’s conclusion, the landlord was entitled to rely on this when reaching a decision as to whether further investigations – or works – were required to the structure of the building.
During the inspection, the surveyor incorrectly advised that the repairs to the internal walls may be carried out by the landlord – and that the resident would not have to make any arrangements herself. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this failing when it responded to Mrs G. However, from the evidence that is available, it does not appear that the landlord fully acknowledged the resident was left with certain expectations following the visit; and that to learn that the surveyor had made a mistake about the repair obligations would have been the cause of confusion and disappointment. In the circumstances, the landlord should reasonably have taken further steps to try to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns that were raised about staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately and proportionately investigated the concerns that were raised by the resident about the repair she had flagged with the caretaker. As a result of its findings, the landlord reminded the caretaker that repairs should be raised with its call centre; and an apology was offered to the resident for the confusion that was caused. The caretaker also apologised to the resident in person.
Following the inspection at the property, the landlord confirmed the surveyor’s findings with Mrs G. Although it is noted that the resident and Mrs G dispute the conclusions, the landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s comments. However, during the inspection the surveyor had advised that the internal repairs would be completed by the landlord. This was incorrect; and the landlord subsequently informed the resident that these repairs were her responsibility. While the landlord offered an apology for the incorrect advice, it should reasonably have considered a further remedy for the disappointment to the resident, and the confusion that was caused as a result of the failing.

Order

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £50 for the disappointment and confusion that was caused by the advice provided by its surveyor.