The Riverside Group Limited (202115892)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115892

The Riverside Group Limited

2 February 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of fire safety works.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of communal areas of the building.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about reports of problems with the back door at the property.
4. Response to the resident’s queries concerning installing CCTV cameras at the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a two bedroom flat in a seven storey building of which the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The building is over 18 meters tall.
Under the terms of the lease the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the exterior and common parts of the building.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that for emergency repairs it will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 12 hours of the repair being reported. Emergency repairs may include unsafe or broken doors, including back, communal and fire doors.
Advice Note 14 was issued by the Government in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
The Government’s guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act”. Paragraph 1.5 of the guidance notes that “the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height”.
In response to the guidance some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the Government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a value of £0.
In January 2020 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Building Societies Association (BSA), and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 meters (six storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says that it will carry out patch walks in key neighbourhoods to identify current issues and agree actions for follow up and resolution. These are arranged on a frequency determined locally depending on factors such as the extent of communal areas, the level of reported complaints, anti-social behaviour and other customer feedback.
Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 says that landlords must consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying work at a property where the contribution from any one leaseholder exceeds £250. This replaced the previous consultation procedure set out in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but the old title ‘section 20’ is still used. The consultation process has three stages: First stage – a notice of intention to do the works: Second stage – notification of estimates obtained by the landlord, Third stage – notification of award of contract.
Paragraph 5.16 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code says that the landlord must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage two of the complaint: the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right and details of any outstanding actions.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord wrote to residents in the building concerning delays in starting the 2019/2020 cyclical decoration programme. The landlord said that it had written to residents in November 2018 advising them of its intention to procure the services for decoration. However, due to a number of factors, it had chosen to delay the works and because of the delay it had opted to commence the Section 20 process from the start. It would send the section 20 letters within a fortnight. The landlord confirmed that it was committed to delivering the works within the current financial year, in line with the terms of the lease, the collection cycle and the promises it had made. The landlord also acknowledge a failing in not communicating this sooner, causing residents to have to contact it for updates.
On 27 January 2020 the landlord sent residents in the building a Section 20 letter with its notice of intention to proceed with the cyclical works.
On 2 July 2020, following instructions from the landlord, engineers carried out an intrusive inspection on the building. The engineers recommend various works including replacing cladding on the building.
In October 2020 the landlord wrote to residents in the building saying that it was submitting an application for a grant from the Government’s Building Safety Fund, to cover costs of the remedial fire safety works needed to the building.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord wrote to all the residents in the building saying that its application for government funding had been successful and that it would write to residents again with more details, including a timescale of when the works were likely to start and be completed.
On 27 May 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. In his letter the resident said that:
1. Three weeks previously the landlord had left him a message saying that he would be receiving an update concerning the provision of the fire safety certificate for the building. He had not heard anything further and wanted a likely timetable for the completion of any fire safety works and the provision of the fire certificate as he wanted to sell the property.
2. He wanted clarification around how to sell the property.
3. The back door had been reported as broken due to vandalism on 24 May 2021.
4. The back door was consistently being unlocked from the inside and the building was therefore accessible to non-residents. He wanted the landlord to ensure the “unlock option” was removed from the lock.
5. Decorating of the communal areas of the building had been planned for 2019 but had still not been carried out. He wanted to know when this would take place.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 1 June 2021. In it’s the response the landlord :
1. Enclosed a letter that it had sent to all leaseholders and shared owners in the building dated 20 May 2021 updating them about the provision of the fire safety certificate for the building. This Service has not seen a copy of this letter. The landlord also confirmed that the EWS1 form would be produced after the cladding was replaced. It enclosed a draft copy of the outline programme for the works required to the building and said that it was likely that the works wouldn’t be completed before the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022.
2. Provided details about how the resident could sell his property.
3. Said that concerning the resident’s request for the latch to be removed on the inside of the back door, it was aware that this was a security issue. It had raised the matter with its fire compliance team to ensure the building would be fire compliant if the latch were removed. It would update the resident once it received a response.
4. Said that the cyclical decorating works had been delayed due to the cladding works and it anticipated they would be carried out in the 2022/2023 programme.
The landlord’s repair records show that the back door was repaired on 7 June 2021.
Also on 7 June 2021 the landlord wrote to all the residents in the building saying that the rear door to the building had been vandalised, and was repeatedly being left open. The landlord said that this was a security breach and put everybody at risk. If this were to continue, it would look into removing the lock from the inside, providing this met current fire regulations. If the lock couldn’t be removed, it would look to change the door to a fire exit door.
On 8 June 2021 the resident raised some queries with the landlord about its response to his complaint. In his letter the resident said that:
1. Whilst it had received the landlord’s letter dated 20 May 2021 on 2 June 2021 the letter did not indicate a timeframe for the completion of the fire safety works, despite a letter from the landlord the previous year indicating that the works would take approximately 12 months. As the landlord had secured a grant to carry out the works, it was not clear why they might now possibly take an additional 12 months. He wanted to know when the works would commence and what was causing the delay.
2. He noted the landlord’s comments about how he could sell the property. However, given that the works were to take longer than expected, he wanted the landlord to consider giving him permission to rent out the property.
3. The back door had been repaired but he was still concerned that non-residents were accessing the building via the door. He suggested treating the door as an emergency exit door with no access possible from the outside and the installation of security cameras.
4. The last time the communal areas were decorated was around 2014 the downstairs entrance and ground floor was in need of urgent redecoration. He asked the landlord to at the least consider decorating the ground floor until the full works could be carried out.
The landlord responded to the resident’s queries on 10 June 2021 saying that:
1. It repeated that it anticipated that cladding works would be completed at the end of December 2021. At that stage form EWS1 would be made available.
2. In order to consider allowing the resident to rent out the property it needed further clarification about the resident’s circumstances.
3. To install CCTV, it would need all leaseholders to agree due to the increase in service charge for its installation. Monitoring the CCTV would increase the service charge significantly, and there was nowhere safe in the building to store the equipment. Therefore the landlord would not look to install CCTV.
4. It had sent letters on 7 June 2021 to residents reminding them not to leave the rear door unlocked. It was awaiting a response from its compliance team about removing the lock or replacing the door.
5. Its plan had been to carry out cyclical decorations that year along with the rest of the delayed 2019 program. However, it would not be looking to do any cyclical decorations until the cladding works have been finalised, therefore it expected this to be now done in the 2022/2023 program.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to its fire compliance team concerning the rear door in the building. The landlord explained that door “remains a security risk” as it often broke and needed repair but in recent weeks it had been vandalised and residents had found rough sleepers in the bin store. Some residents who were using the door were leaving it open on the latch. The landlord wanted to know whether if it removed the lock the door would remain fire compliant and whether it could change the door to fob access like the front door.
On 7 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the following issues to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process:
1. He wanted details on the timetable for the fire safety works as given that the works hadn’t started he felt it was unlikely they would be completed by December 2021.
2. He understood the landlord’s questions about subletting the property but had decided he wanted to ensure that he could sell the property as soon as possible.
3. He thought residents should be asked if they wished CCTV to be installed.
4. Whilst the back door had been fixed it could still be left open. He wanted to know why it had taken from 24 May 2021 (when the broken back door had been reported to the landlord) until 7 June 2021 for it to be fixed, during which time it had been left fully open.
5. The date of 2022/2023 for decorating the communal parts was way beyond the cyclical timescale set out in the leaseholders guide. He wanted an explanation as to why this was being now being delivered late as the fire safety works would be carried out outside the building and were unrelated to the work needed internally.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord’s fire compliance team sent an internal email to the landlord saying that the rear door was “not fit for purpose.” It did not want to encourage use of the door by fitting a fob or key code because of the current vandalism and rough sleepers. It recommend replacing the door with an outward opening door, with a push bar to open in case of emergency, linked to the fire alarm system. The landlord replied the same day asking if, in the meantime it could make the door safe and stop residents from using it altogether until it was replaced. The fire compliance team replied the same day saying that it could raise a job to make the door safe, but not for the inside lock to be removed.
Also on 9 July 2021 the landlord raised a job for one of its contractors to quote for replacing the rear door.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. In its response the landlord said:
1. The fire safety works needed to be completed by a specialist fire engineer consultant and the demand for such engineers’ services was very high. The current anticipated date for completion of the works was the end of 2021 or early 2022.
2. It had raised a job on 27 May 2021 to repair the door and an appointment had been set for 3 June 2021. There was nothing in its records to indicate that residents had chased the matter up between the job being raised and it being carried out.
3. It had requested a quote for a new replacement door that would be sufficient enough to keep the building secure and stop potential trespassers coming in and out of the building and it would update the resident further on this in due course.
4. Its home ownership officer would be visiting the building on 20 July 2021. It had experienced delays in its cyclical works timetable because of the Covid 19 pandemic. Due to the cladding issues affecting the building the decision had been taken to exclude the building form the cyclical works programme as any redecoration would almost certainly require remedial works once the cladding works were complete.
5. However, its assets surveyor had advised that internal decoration could precede. It was in early stages of procuring a contractor to carry out all cyclical decoration works for the next three years and the resident was likely to receive Section 20 Consultation notices within the next 3 months giving further details.
6. It apologised for any trouble or inconvenience these matters had been causing the resident.
7. It understood the resident’s outstanding concerns to include the issue of its response to his queries about CCTV. However, the landlord did not provide any response to this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord’s letter dated 19 July 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
On 24 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it was providing an update on its actions from its stage two complaint response. In the email the landlord said that it had requested two quotes for CCTV and it would be writing to the leaseholders in the building concerning this.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a section 20 consultation letter concerning the cyclical internal decoration works and these works were completed in March 2022.
The landlord carried out a consultation of leaseholders in the building concerning the installation of CCTV. The consultation closed at end of November 2021 and CCTV was installed in the building in the Spring of 2022.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord sent a letter to the resident apologising for the length of time since its last update on progress with the fire safety works and saying that it was looking to start the works early in 2022. The landlord said it would write to residents again before the end of December 2021 to provide a more precise start date for the works. On 16 January 2022 and 31 January 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the start date for the works.
The landlord responded to the resident on 1 February 2022 saying that it was in ongoing communications with various contractors, but it was not able to confirm a start date. The landlord said that it would send an update to residents on or before 11 February 2022.
In February 2022 the landlord sent residents its Building Safety Customer Engagement Strategy for the building.
The resident and other residents in the building continued to make reports to the landlord throughout 2021 and 2022 about non-residents gaining access to the building through the rear door. The residents also reported non-residents threatening them in the building and taking drugs and sleeping in the communal bin room inside the building.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord received a quote for replacing the rear exit door to an outward opening door with a push bar fitted for egress. The landlord then instructed another contractor to investigate and quote on the possibility of extending the door entry system from the front door to the rear door. A quote was received on 4 April 2022. The landlord informed this Service that it would begin the section 20 consultation on replacing the door in the week commencing 18 April 2022. During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that the door has still not been replaced.
On 27 April 2022, in response to a further complaint from the resident, the landlord informed him that it was targeting a start date for the cladding works of early 2023.
Sometime following May 2022 the landlord created a dedicated web page concerning the fire safety works to provide live updates. At the time of this report the website does not appear to have been recently updated but says that “scaffolding will be finished shortly after the new year and the new start date for investigations will be 9 January 2023.”
In September 2022 the resident moved out of the property as he had accepted a job elsewhere. Although the landlord had given him permission to rent out the property his mortgage company refused him permission. The resident says that he asked the landlord to buy back the property but it refused.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of fire safety works.

During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that the landlord has now told residents that the fire safety works should be completed by November 2023.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s current situation is difficult and that he is in this position through no fault of his own. This is because until the landlord is able to provide certification, in line with the Government’s guidance, the resident is effectively in limbo as he is unable to staircase or sell the property as lenders will not lend on the building because of the potential fire safety issue. The resident is also not able to rent out the property, despite permission to do this from the landlord, because of his mortgage company’s refusal.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints published in May 2021 says:
1. It is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map, with timescales, to all residents.
2. Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced and proactive.
3. Landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint.
As the Government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety are only detailed in guidance there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply with it.
It is clear from the landlord’s correspondence with the resident that the landlord intends to comply with the Government’s guidance in respect of the building and to obtain form EWS1. This is because the landlord has inspected the building and has said that it will be completing the remedial works identified in the inspection and then providing residents with form EWS1. This is appropriate as, while the guidance is not a legal requirement, it has been established as best practice in relation to building safety and form EWS1 is required by lenders.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints says that “Landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every three months even where there is little or no change.”
The landlord’s communication about the fire safety works was unreasonable as:
1. The landlord carried out the intrusive inspection on 2 July 2020 but the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of communication to residents about the necessary fire safety works until October 2020.
2. The landlord did not update the resident between 28 January 2021 and 20 May 2021.
3. The landlord did not update the resident between 20 May 2021 and 1 December 2021.
4. On 1 December 2021 the landlord said that it would provide a further update by the end of December 2021, which it did not do.
5. On 16 January 2022 and 31 January 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the start date for the works. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 February 2022.
6. The landlord did not provide the resident with a clear road map, with timescales, concerning the necessary works.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on dealing with Cladding Complaints says that whilst it is not the Ombudsman’s expectation that landlords automatically offer options to buy back properties “we do expect landlords to have considered whether this is an option they can accommodate in exceptional circumstances. Landlords should have considered what those exceptional circumstances may be, adopting a holistic and empathetic approach to the range of circumstances that may impact residents.” The resident’s individual circumstances were such that he had moved from the property for his job but was unable to either sell the property or rent it out. The Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence concerning the resident’s request that the landlord buy back the property and is therefore not able to consider whether there is any evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s individual circumstances in refusing the request.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on dealing with Cladding Complaints also says that landlords should ensure that their policies and procedures are sufficiently flexible to allow them to respond to an individual’s situation and consider all the possible options that might help. That should include the landlord’s position on reverse staircasing, sub-letting and buy-back and landlords should develop or amend policies where they do not exist. The landlord acted reasonably in allowing the resident permission to sublet the property. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord has a policy on when it will consider buying back shared ownership properties, and there are no details on its website concerning its position on reverse staircasing and buying back properties.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the fire safety works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal areas of the building.

Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the exterior and common parts of the building.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal areas of the building as:
1. The landlord acknowledged in its letter to residents dated 8 November 2019 that the cyclical works at the building had been due to be carried out in the 2019/2020. It also acknowledged that its failure to update residents about the works since November 2018 had been unreasonable.
2. In its letter to residents dated 8 November 2019 the landlord said that it would be sending the Section 20 letters to residents within a fortnight. Having already apologised for its delays it was unreasonable that the landlord didn’t send the letter until 27 January 2020, some 11 weeks later and nine weeks later than the timescale it had set out in its letter dated 8 November 2019.
3. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to have delayed the cyclical works programme because of the Corvid 19 pandemic restrictions it was not reasonable that it did not provide any update to the resident about the cyclical works until 1 June 2021 and then only in response to the resident’s complaint.
4. Whilst it was reasonable that the landlord delayed carrying out the cyclical works to the exterior of the building until the completion of the cladding works, there is no evidence that it considered whether the internal decoration works could be carried out until July 2021 and then only in response to the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about reports of problems with the back door at the property.

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the back door at the property as:
1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that emergency repairs may include unsafe or broken doors, including back, communal and fire doors. For emergency repairs the landlord will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 12 hours of the repair being reported. The back door had been reported as broken on 24 May 2021 and the landlord carried out the repair on 7 June 2021, 14 days later and 13 ½ days outside the 12 hour timescale set out in its responsive repair policy for emergency repairs.
2. The landlord has still not replaced the back door despite:
  1. Informing the resident in its final response to the complaint dated 19 July 2021 that it had requested a quote for a new replacement door and that it would update the resident further on this in due course.
  2. Identifying in internal emails in July 2021 that the back door was a security risk and “not fit for purpose” .
  3. Informing this Service that it would begin the section 20 consultation on replacing the door in the week commencing 18 April 2022.
3. The landlord raised a job for one of its contractors to quote for replacing the back door on 9 July 2021. The quote was not received until 23 March 2022, over eight months later. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord chased the contractor to provide the quote sooner, or considered requesting quotes from other contractors, despite it being aware that the door was “not fit for purpose” and a security risk.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries concerning installing CCTV cameras at the property.

In Spring 2022 the landlord installed CCTV in the building.
The Ombudsman has not seen any lease or policy obligation that the landlord is required to install CCTV if requested to do so by residents and therefore there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of fire safety works.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of communal areas of the building.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about reports of problems with the back door at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries concerning installing CCTV cameras at the property.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide the resident with a clear road map, with timescales, for the fire safety works. The landlord did not provide the resident with regular appropriate and timely updates. The landlord’s policies and procedures were not sufficiently flexible to allow it to respond to the resident’s individual’s situation and consider all the possible options that might help.
The landlord did not provide timely updates to the resident about the cyclical works to the communal areas and did not consider whether the internal decorating could be carried out without waiting for the completion of the fire safety works.
The landlord delayed in providing the emergency repair to the door. Despite being aware from July 2021 that the door needed replacing the landlord has still not replaced the door.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries concerning installing CCTV.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £1000. This is comprised of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the fire safety works in relation to the resident’s property.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of communal areas of the building.
3. £450 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays in repairing and replacing the back door at the property.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to write to all the residents in the building:
1. Providing an update on the fire safety works being undertaken to remedy the deficiencies identified in the building.
2. Providing a timetable for when it expects the various remedial works to commence and be completed.
3. Setting out a clear timetable detailing how and when the landlord will communicate with residents going forward about the progress of the remedial works, with updates being provided at least every three months.
The landlord is ordered within three months of the date of this report to draft a policy concerning reverse staircasing and include in the policy details of:
1. The process whereby residents can apply for reverse staircasing and the process the landlord will follow in considering such an application.
2. The circumstances under which the landlord will buy back a property.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to contact the resident to discuss whether he still wishes the landlord to buy back the property and if he does to consider the resident’s individual circumstances in its response to the resident’s request.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to replace the back door at the property.