Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202209646)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209646

The Riverside Group Limited

15 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her shower cubicle to be replaced.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in February 2022. The resident has advised that she suffers from asthma and had informed the landlord that she experiences difficulties with her mental health.
  2. The resident initially reported issues with water coming through the shower door in March 2022. Work to seal the inside of the shower cubicle and fit a plastic trim was completed in April 2022. The evidence shows that an inspection of the property was carried out in May 2022 to inspect several repair issues the resident had reported including concerns regarding the condition of the shower cubicle and doors.
  3. The resident initially raised a complaint in May 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the outcome of a previous inspection and delays in follow-on work being raised. She added that there were numerous repair issues, which included mould within the shower cubicle. The evidence shows that the landlord completed a further inspection of the property on 1 June 2022 and confirmed that the shower cubicle and doors were in good working order. It raised work orders for other repair issues which had been identified including work to the bannister, plastering in the porch and above an external door and installation of a draught excluder.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied that her shower cubicle would not be replaced. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had inspected the shower cubicle twice and the advice provided by its staff on both occasions was that the shower cubicle and doors were not in need of replacement. It further advised that a shower replacement would be considered an upgrade rather than a repair and that it would not be replaced.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in August 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said that she wanted her shower cubicle to be replaced. The evidence shows that following the complaint, the landlord arranged for the shower doors to be replaced in September 2022 and the shower cubicle was replaced in October 2022.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that installations for the supply of water (including the shower) are kept in repair and working order.  The landlord’s website confirms that non-emergency repairs should be attended to within 28 days. The landlord would also be responsible for replacing elements of the property such as doors, windows and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works over any given financial year dependent on the condition of the element and its age. It should be noted that the landlord would not be obliged to make improvements to the property but should ensure that it meets its repair obligations by inspecting the property, where required, to determine whether repairs are needed.
  2. In this case, the resident asked for her shower cubicle and doors to be replaced as she was concerned that they were not hygienic and some mould would not come off despite her efforts to clean them. The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the shower unit on two occasions, determining that the cubicle and doors were not in need of repair or replacement.
  3. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As such, it can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as bathrooms or individual components such as shower units, as part of a planned programme of works carried out over a given financial year rather than on an ad-hoc basis – unless the item in question is beyond economical repair and poses an immediate danger to the resident.
  4. In this case, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that there were no repair issues and that the  shower cubicle and doors were not yet in a condition that warranted replacement. Overall, the landlord’s decision not to replace the shower cubicle or doors at this stage was reasonable given that there was no evidence to suggest that it was not in working order or unusable. However, given the resident’s concerns that she had not been able to satisfactorily clean mould from areas of the shower, it would have been appropriate for the landlord  to consider whether any other measures, such as a professional clean, could have been carried out in an attempt to improve the appearance of the shower and to resolve the complaint more fully given its decision not to carry out a replacement.
  5. Despite its decision not to replace the shower cubicle and doors within its complaint responses, it appears that the landlord completed this work in September and October 2022. It is unclear as to why the landlord changed its decision at this stage, however, it was reasonable for it to do so and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for her shower cubicle to be replaced.