The Riverside Group Limited (202210938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210938

The Riverside Group Limited

16 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be moved to supported housing.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. He has lived at the property which is a 1 bedroom, top floor flat since 2015. The resident has autism and has learning difficulties.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. Residents should allow its staff, agents and contractors access to the property to carry out repairs and should treat contractors with respect.
2. It asks residents to ensure that ventilation units are switched on to eradicate the possibility of condensation and mould occurring. Residents should clear mould spots as soon as they appear. If the mould continues to come back the landlord will arrange for it to be inspected and assess the underlying cause.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 5 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 10 working days. If further time is required at either stage it will let the resident know.

Summary of events

On 17 March 2021 the landlord noted internally that the resident had requested that his bathroom fan be moved.
That same day the landlord issued the resident with a formal warning about his “unreasonable behaviour” which consisted of excessive contact and his behaviour towards its staff. (This Service has not been provided with records of the behaviour described). The landlord advised the resident that further instances would result in him being referred to the Community Safety Team for advice and the landlord would consider taking appropriate legal action.
The following month, in April 2021, the landlord inspected the property as the resident had requested the following jobs:
1. The bathroom extractor fan be moved.
2. A new (acrylic rather than wooden) bath panel.
3. A new bathroom radiator.
The landlord was able to replace the bathroom radiator (the date of this has not been provided to this Service) but noted internally that the resident had cancelled the other jobs.
There is a gap in the correspondence provided to this Service until 10 March 2022, when the landlord inspected the resident’s property. It noted internally that the resident was unhappy with the position of the bathroom fan and he requested the wooden bath panel be changed to acrylic.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord noted that some bathroom tiles were cracked and booked an appointment for these to be replaced on 14 April 2022.
On 21 July 2022 a roofer attended the property following the resident’s query about the bathroom ventilation. The roofer inspected the bathroom roof to see if it was suitable to have a Velux window installed but advised the landlord that there was no space for this to be installed.
That same day the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He wanted to move to supported living accommodation but did not feel he had been given support to do so by the landlord.
2. The bathroom extractor fan not did not work.
3. Bathroom tiles had replaced but they were not the same size as the other tiles and had not been grouted.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. It had spoken to the resident about him moving to supported living in June 2022 following a report from the Police about an incident involving the resident.
2. It had previously contacted Social Services and had signposted the resident to a local support group. Its Intensive Intervention Officer had tried to contact the resident to offer support but he had failed to engage with this.
3. It advised the resident to let it know if he wished to move to supported living and it would see what support it could offer. It was willing to provide advice and support to help him with such a move but only if there were no further reports of his unacceptable behaviour. It concluded that this aspect of complaint was not upheld.
4. It confirmed that its bathroom contractor would make contact to arrange an inspection of the bathroom.
5. It advised the resident to make contact within 30 days if he wished to escalate the complaint.
On 28 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he could not remember the landlord signposting him to support and that he had not spoken to its Intensive Intervention Officer. He stated the staff members may have said this to “protect their jobs”. The landlord responded that same day that it would see if its Intensive Intervention Officer had capacity to support him. It advised that if not, it was in the process of recruiting more officers.
On 16 August 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. A contractor had replaced his cracked bathroom tiles but had not grouted around the outside so they were still cracked. The contractor had said that the resident had damaged them which he said was “a load of nonsense”. He asked for the tiles to be replaced.
2. The landlord had said it would change his bath panel from plywood to plastic. He asked for this be done.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord noted internally the resident’s request for re-tiling in the bathroom. It asked for the work to be done as the resident would “escalate to the Ombudsman otherwise” and it would “end up doing the work”. The landlord advised the resident that it had asked for the tiling to be arranged. The resident responded that the landlord was “wasting his time” and that he would submit a complaint about the staff member.
The resident contacted this Service that same day and outlined his complaint as follows:
1. Issues with the bathroom tiles and ventilation.
2. The landlord’s handling of his request to be moved into supported housing.
On 24 August 2022 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 by 21 September 2022. The landlord advised the resident that same day that his complaint had been escalated for review at stage 2.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Since the warning in 2021 the volume of enquiries and “verbal abuse” from the resident had significantly decreased.
2. There had been an open community safety case running for “the duration”. The resident had been assessed “a few times” and was deemed not suitable for supported living.
3. The latest assessment had been carried out by Social Services on 13 May 2022. The Social Worker had advised that the resident may need to be assessed for a support worker and that weekly meetings and support would be beneficial. The Social Worker would confirm this to the landlord in October 2022.
4. If the resident required supported housing, he would need to be assessed by Adult Social Care who would be responsible for sourcing appropriate accommodation for him.
5. All of the landlord’s supported accommodation was for homeless residents. It was liaising to see if there were any “floating support options”.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. Its contractor had tried to match the existing bathroom tiles but had not been able to. It had therefore agreed to replace all of the bathroom tiles. It had provisionally booked this for 8 and 9 September 2022.
2. It had inspected the bathroom on 12 separate occasions following the resident’s concerns about condensation. No visible signs of black spot mould had been found and it confirmed that no further action was required.
3. It had inspected the bathroom extractor fan and found it needed to be cleaned. It had discussed this with the resident at the time who had “insisted” that the fan needed to be replaced. It agreed to do so as a goodwill gesture. The resident however declined the “like for like” replacement and requested an alternative fan, which the landlord did not stock. It recommended that the resident accept its offer of the replacement fan or for the existing fan to be cleaned.
4. It had investigated whether a Velux roof window could be installed in the bathroom but the roof structure would not accommodate this.
5. It had replaced the bath panel as requested and had not charged the resident for this.
6. It signposted the resident to this Service.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord arranged for the works to “overhaul” the bathroom fan to be carried out, however the resident cancelled this appointment and stated he did not want the contractors at his property.
On 15 September 2022 the resident advised this Service that he was not happy with the landlord’s response. He stated as follows:
1. The bathroom extractor fan did not work as well as the landlord said it did. He felt the fan should be moved or a pipe fitted through the ceiling to extract steam.
2. He did not want the bathroom tiles to be replaced until the bathroom ventilation was addressed.
3. He had asked the landlord to address his request to be moved to supported accommodation at stage 2. The landlord’s stage 1 response on this aspect was “false” as it had not offered him advice and support.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 18 October 2022 the resident advised this Service that there had been black mould in the bathroom contrary to what the landlord had stated.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord responded to the aspects of complaint again at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It had advised him in August 2022 that the bathroom fan could not be relocated.
2. Contractors and its electrical manager had both confirmed that the position of the bathroom fan was correct to enable it to work sufficiently. The resident had declined for the fan to be overhauled.
3. It had agreed to carry out repairs that would assist with any potential condensation issues in property but these had been declined by the resident.
4. It had arranged for the bathroom tiles to be fully replaced, however the resident had declined this.
The landlord arranged appointments to investigate the reports of damp in the bathroom in November and December 2022 however these were cancelled by the resident. The landlord arranged another appointment for January 2023. Its internal notes state that this appointment was cancelled as the resident was “abusive” to office staff.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord gave the resident a formal warning for using “offensive and aggressive language” towards a staff member. It advised that it would be considered legal action (in respect of his tenancy).
On 16 March 2023 the landlord advised this Service that since January 2023 the resident had not expressed a wish to move or asked for assistance with looking for a move.
On 22 June 2023 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had done a “botched job” but the extractor fan was still not working.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concern about the bathroom fan. Between 2021 and 2022 the landlord took the following action:
1. It inspected the bathroom fan on a number of occasions. It concluded that the fan was working but that it required cleaning.
2. When the resident declined for the fan to be cleaned, the landlord offered to replace the fan at no cost to the resident, on a like for like basis. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident requested a different type of fan, it was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its contractors that the current fan type was suitable.
3. It noted the resident’s queries about whether a Velux window could be installed in the roof. It arranged for a roofer to investigate this and subsequently explained to the resident why the structure of the roof could not accommodate this. This demonstrated a customer–focused approach by the landlord.
The landlord’s actions in investigating the bathroom fan and offering solutions to the resident were appropriate and reasonable. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately and investigated the reports despite having responded to similar issues previously. The landlord was clear in its correspondence with the resident what solutions it was suggesting and took steps to try to arrange for the recommended works to be carried out.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns that the replacement bathroom tiles did not match and some were still cracked. The landlord went above its obligation to replace the damaged tiles and offered for the full area to be re-tiled so that it would match. Although the resident declined this, the landlord’s offer was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to reoffer this re-tiling to the resident.
In conclusion the landlord acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s concerns about his bathroom. It offered solutions to the issues raised by the resident and considered his request for a Velux window despite the fan having been confirmed as sufficient. There was no maladministration in respect of this aspect of the complaint.

Response to the resident’s request to be moved to supported housing

It is not clear from the records of correspondence when the resident first raised his desire to move to supported accommodation with the landlord, however it is clear from the complaint correspondence available that the landlord took the following action in respect of this request:
1. It spoke to the resident about him moving to supported living.
2. It confirmed that it had liaised with Social Services to see if they could support the resident.
3. It signposted the resident to a local support group.
4. Its Intensive Intervention Officer had tried to contact the resident to offer support but he had failed to engage with this.
As the resident had been assessed as not suitable for supported living these were reasonable, supportive actions for the landlord to have taken. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to external agencies.
It was not reasonable however for the landlord to only offer its further advice and support to the resident on the condition that he not display any further unacceptable behaviour. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident that he should treat its staff with respect, it was not appropriate for it to say it would withhold support if it received reports of such behaviour. In doing so, the landlord did not act in a customer focussed way and it failed to demonstrate an understanding or appreciation of the resident’s individual needs, his known vulnerabilities and disclosed mental health issues.
Linking the resident’s possible future behaviour to his right to support was confusing and potentially discriminatory. Whilst the Ombudsman does not have the authority to conclude that the landlord acted in breach of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, there is scope within the Ombudsman’s investigatory powers to identify that a landlord has not demonstrated that it has responded effectively and clearly to known vulnerabilities in its management of housing related issues. In this case a determination of maladministration has been identified on account of the landlord acting in a heavy handed manner when it said that it would only continue to offer support on the condition that his behaviour remained acceptable. In order to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failing had on the resident, in light of his vulnerabilities and the distress caused to him of feeling unsupported, compensation of £200 has been ordered.

Complaint handling

It is noted that the landlord’s complaint response times as set out in its complaints policy are shorter than those recommended in the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its policy in light of the code to ensure that it is allowing sufficient time for a thorough consideration and review of complaints it receives.
Despite outlining his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response two days after receiving it (28 July 2022) and by submitting another complaint (on 16 August 2022) about the issues addressed at stage 1, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 until the involvement of this Serve on 24 August 2022. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints procedure
When the landlord did respond at stage 2 it did not address the aspect of complaint about the resident’s request to move to supported housing despite this having been included in the escalation request provided by this Service. This was not appropriate as all aspects of complaint should be responded to at both stages of the internal complaints procedure. It is noted that the landlord provided a second stage 2 response in October 2022. It is it not clear why as no new information was provided and the outstanding aspect of complaint (the supported move) was still not addressed.
It has been noted by this Service that the rationale for the landlord offering to re–tile the resident’s bathroom was because, if the complaint was referred to this Service, then the landlord would be requested to carry out the work. Whilst it is reasonable for landlords to consider what this Service may consider to be reasonable in respect of how it handles repair issues, landlord’s are expected to act appropriately in putting things right for residents, not just to try to prevent complaints being escalated.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident and need for him to involve this Service before the landlord responded at stage 2, compensation of £200 has been ordered. In addition, an order has been made for the landlord to provide staff training on appropriate complaint handling and a recommendation has been made for the internal complaint response timeframes to be considered alongside the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to supported housing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom. It sought the advice of its contractors and appropriately relied on this. It offered a number of appropriate solutions to the resident.
The landlord offered support to the resident in respect of his request to move to supported accommodation, however it acted inappropriately in making its offer of further support conditional on his behaviour. This was not appropriate in light of the resident’s disclosed mental health issues and vulnerability. It did not demonstrate a customer–focused approach.
The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its own accord and only did so following the involvement of this Service. It failed to address all aspects of complaint at stage 2.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified.
2. Pay compensation of £400. This is made up as follows:
  1. £200 to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failing had, in respect of its consideration of supported housing, on the resident in light of his vulnerabilities.
  2. £200 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident.
3. Provide staff training on complaint handling.
4. Provide staff training on support which can be offered to resident’s with a focus on the inappropriateness of conditional support.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to re-offer to re-tile the bathroom.
It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints procedure alongside the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.