The Riverside Group Limited (202207502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207502

Riverside Housing Co-operative (Redditch) Limited

25 January 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 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 reports of poor quality work and damage caused by contractors when replacing her kitchen and bathroom, and the compensation offered for this.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house.
3. During November 2021, the resident’s bathroom underwent a replacement as part of the landlord’s cyclical maintenance programme. The works were completed in February 2022, when an operative returned to replace the bathroom extractor fan and fill in a hole around this. The box for the fan was left on the resident’s kitchen counter, however, and so she reported her dissatisfaction with this to the landlord, but no damage was caused to the counter.
4. The landlord subsequently returned to repaint the resident’s bathroom ceiling, as the paint had started to flake from this, and so this was done by it as a goodwill gesture. She also expressed dissatisfaction that water had escaped onto her bathroom floor during the replacement process, although it noted that its operatives had cleared this up.
5. During March 2022, the resident’s kitchen was also replaced as part of the landlord’s cyclical maintenance programme. This started on 10 March 2022, when the old kitchen was removed, and she reported that it had told her that it expected to complete this following ten days of works on 23 March 2022. During this programme, the resident reported that an appointment with her was missed without notice by the landlord’s operative on 17 March 2022, and that, on 18 March 2022, another operative had arrived at her property without prior notice.
6. The resident therefore raised a stage one complaint on 24 March 2022, because she was dissatisfied that the kitchen replacement works were not yet complete. The works were then completed on 29 March 2022, and the landlord attributed the delay to an issue with the flooring being delivered, which had been due on 23 March 2022, but that it had informed her had been delayed on 22 March 2022.
7. The resident also complained about poor communication from the landlord when the replacement works were not completed by the planned date. Moreover, she was not happy that, during the works, damage had occurred to her front door and washing machine, when a protective sheet had been removed from the latter, and she reported that its operatives had behaved unprofessionally during the works. The resident therefore requested compensation for her inconvenience, due to poor service from the landlord during the bathroom and kitchen replacement works, which it inspected on 30 March 2022 and she reported that it had passed and found that bumps in the flooring would settle, that she sought another inspection for.
8. In its stage one complaint response of 5 April 2022, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint acknowledging that she was inconvenienced by it returning after two months to compete the works to her bathroom. It did not uphold her complaint that it had damaged the washing machine, however, and it advised her that a mark on this was a result of the manufacturing, but it agreed that its operatives had placed their tools on the appliance, and it apologised for the inconvenience caused by their handling of this. The landlord also agreed that its operatives had damaged her front door, and therefore it apologised that this had not been discovered sooner and arranged for this to be repaired.
9. In light of these failings, the landlord offered the resident £40 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused by it returning two months later to complete the work in her bathroom, and for the overall inconvenience for the delay in the kitchen being completed. Although it did not did address her concerns about its poor communication, it confirmed that no damage had been caused by its operatives putting her bathroom extractor fan box on her kitchen counter. The landlord also gave feedback to its contractors regarding her complaint.
10. The resident then escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 8 April 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the stage one complaint response and the £40 compensation offered to her. She reported that, during its quality inspection of 30 March 2022, her concerns were not explored by it. The resident was also dissatisfied with the quality of the replacement works, including bumps in the flooring, scratches on the sink, poorly installed threshold strips, and the overall finish.
11. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 12 May 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint that it was responsible for the damage caused to her front door, and for the late completion of the bathroom replacement works. It apologised for the delay to the latter, and it explained that the bathroom ceiling had been repainted by it as a goodwill gesture in recognition of this, but that there was naturally an escape of water when bathroom components were taken out that its operatives had cleared. The landlord also maintained its earlier position that it had found no damage to the resident’s washing machine or kitchen counter. It upheld its previous goodwill gesture of £40 for her inconvenience, but declined to offer her compensation for her reported stress.
12. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of the damaged washing machine, and the poor levels of workmanship, including bumps in the floor, poorly laid tiles, and a lack of adequate caulking. She attributed the events to a negative impact on her mental health, and reported that this had also affected her physically.
13. The resident therefore sought an increased level of compensation to reflect the damage to her front door and washing machine, and her reported stress, as a result of the landlord’s handling of the complaint. She explained that she also wanted a further inspection of the property, as she said that the quality assurance inspection of 30 March 2022 felt rushed and was a “tick-box exercise”.
14. Following the complaint’s referral to this Service, the landlord organised a further inspection of the kitchen and bathroom on 24 August 2022. It found that there were some minor issues with polishing, touching up paint, resealing, filling, lifting flooring, and painting and adjusting doors that it needed to rectify, and so it offered to complete these.
15. The landlord also increased its offer of compensation to £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused, with the resident having provided it with a daily diary of the works and issues that she had experienced that it responded to and apologised for. This included that its missed appointment of 17 March 2022 without notice had been caused by its operative being sick, and its attendance without notice on the next day was for an audit for it to rectify the issues that she had reported. Furthermore, the resident agreed to have some of the rectifying works in the bathroom, but declined the landlord’s offer of works in the kitchen, although it subsequently increased its compensation offer again to £200 at her request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

16. It is of concern that the resident has reported ill-health as a result of the property’s kitchen and bathroom replacement, and of the landlord’s handling of this. While we do not doubt her comments about the effect of the case on her health, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident, and we have recommended below that she receive the landlord’s public liability insurance details to enable her to make a claim for her ill-health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor quality work and damage caused by contractors when replacing her kitchen and bathroom, and the compensation offered for this

17. On 24 March 2022, the resident reported that damage had been caused to her washing machine. The landlord investigated this report and found that there was a manufacturing mould on the washing machine, which was the same as on the opposite side of the appliance, and so it determined that this was not damaged. It also took photographs of the reported scratch on the appliance, and again determined that there was no damage.
18. As per its financial redress and compensation procedure, the landlord will not offer compensation for claims of damage to residents’ belongings if it does not accept responsibility for the damage, and it states that residents can consider legal channels to pursue this. This meant that it was reasonable of it to investigate the resident’s claims for damage to her washing machine, and to communicate its findings to her. It was also appropriate for the landlord to apologise to her for the inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the washing machine. It therefore suitably provided feedback to its contractors regarding this, showing that it took reasonable steps to try and prevent similar issues from occurring again in the future.
19. It was additionally appropriate that the landlord organised the repair of the resident’s front door, following her report of 24 March 2022 that this too had been damaged by its contractors. This was completed on 21 April 2022, 28 days after this was reported, which was in line with its responsive repairs policy that made it responsible for repairing external doors, and its website that states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. The landlord also apologised to the resident in its stage one complaint response that the damage to the front door was not picked up while the work was taking place. The steps that it took to address the issue were therefore reasonable, and in line with its policies.
20. The resident additionally reported being dissatisfied that water had escaped onto her bathroom floor during the replacement works there, and with the ongoing issues with the paintwork on the bathroom ceiling. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord explained in its final stage complaint response that, when bathroom components were taken out, there was naturally an escape of water, and it confirmed that its contractors had cleared this up themselves.
21. The landlord’s complaint responses further clarified that, during the follow-on works to install the bathroom extractor fan, the fan box left on the resident’s kitchen counter had caused no damage. It was reasonable of it, however, to repaint her bathroom ceiling as a gesture of goodwill, once this had started to flake, as it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it returning after two months to complete the works to the bathroom, for which it also offered her £40 compensation.
22. During the programmed kitchen replacement, the landlord should have kept the resident up to date and communicated with her regarding when contractors were attending her property, and if there would be any missed appointments. On 17 March 2022, she reported that she was expecting an operative to arrive at her property, and that she was given no communication by it before this was missed. Following the final stage complaint response, the landlord appropriately explained that the operative had been ill, for which it apologised. It is reasonable that it offered this explanation to the resident, however it should have also communicated this to her at the time.
23. Furthermore, on 18 March 2022, another operative from the landlord arrived at the resident’s property to perform an audit, which she had not been informed about in advance, that it again subsequently apologised to her for, and explained had been in response to the issues that she had raised there, which was suitable. Although it would also have been more appropriate for it to have provided her with advance notice of this visit too.
24. The resident reported that the kitchen replacement was originally scheduled to last for ten days, and that this was due to be completed on 23 March 2022. Due to an issue with the delivery of the replacement flooring, however, the flooring was unable to be installed on this day, and was later installed on 29 March 2022. The resident was informed of the delay by an operative of the landlord on 22 March 2022, which was not unreasonable as it gave her notice of this in advance. Moreover, the delay was outside of its control, however it would have been preferable if it had kept her informed about this until the flooring was installed, which it did not.
25. The landlord acknowledged that its communication needed to improve in its emails to the resident following the final stage complaint response, and it also apologised to her for this and subsequently offered her another £160 compensation in recognition of her inconvenience. However, it failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes, other than mentioning that it had given feedback to its contractors regarding her complaint. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs to ensure that they communicate promptly, clearly and accurately with its residents at the earliest opportunity regarding additional or missed appointments, and repair delays, to minimise inconvenience to residents.
26. The landlord’s inspection on 30 March 2022 reportedly found that the bathroom and kitchen replacement works had passed the inspection. The resident nevertheless reported to its operative that she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work, including a scratch in the sink, poorly installed threshold strips, a lack of adequate caulking, poorly laid tiles, the overall finish, and bumps in the flooring.
27. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s operative reportedly concluded that the bumps in the flooring would settle in time, and that there were no issues with the overall standard of the work completed.
28. Following the resident requesting a further inspection, it was nevertheless appropriate that another operative from the landlord carried out a second inspection on 24 August 2022. It found that there was additional work required for polishing, touching up paint, resealing, filling, lifting flooring, and painting and adjusting doors.
29. The landlord therefore appropriately offered to complete to rectify these mistakes, and increased its offer of compensation from £40 to £200 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced from this. As she accepted its offer to perform minor finishing work in her bathroom, but declined its offer to perform additional works in the kitchen, it has been recommended below to re-offer her the completion of all of the repairs identified during its inspection of 24 August 2022.
30. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure outlines that compensation is awarded as an apology when it accepts that its service has not achieved the expected standard. The level of impact and inconvenience or distress to the resident is considered when awarding compensation from £25 when this is low, from £50 when this is medium, and from £200 when this is high.
31. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £40 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused to her, which she rejected. It subsequently increased this offer to £200 compensation following the second post-work inspection on 24 August 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord offered increased compensation in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and of the additional outstanding issues that its second inspection found at her property.
32. This offer of compensation therefore amounted to reasonable redress for its above failings in the circumstances, as this was proportionate to recognise the inconvenience experienced by the resident, as requested by her. This is because this was in line with the landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure’s recommendations to do so with the above amounts for a high level of impact, inconvenience and distress to her, and with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommended band of compensation from £100 for failures which adversely affected her.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £200 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Provide the resident with details to enable her to make a public liability insurance claim to its insurers for damages for the personal injury that she reported to her health as a result of her case.
    3. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs to ensure that they communicate promptly, clearly and accurately with its residents at the earliest opportunity regarding additional or missed appointments, and repair delays, to minimise inconvenience to residents.
    4. Re-offer the resident the completion of all of the repairs identified during its inspection of 24 August 2022.