The Riverside Group Limited (202310549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310549

The Riverside Group Limited

29 August 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of safety concerns with the rear steps of the property.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived at the property since December 1999. There are external communal steps to the rear of the property, which are used by several properties which lead down to the bin store.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 March 2023 to say:
1. She had been assisting her neighbour, who was on dialysis, in taking out the rubbish for him, to the rear bin store. In doing this she had fallen down the cellar stairs, which also acted as a fire escape and landed on her coccyx as the steps were in a hazardous state. She asked the landlord to attend and to clean and clear the area surrounding the steps.
2. The rear intruder light was also broken.
3. She had taken pain medication for the injuries which included scraping her elbow as well as bruises on her body.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 27 March 2023 noted the resident’s complaint. It set out to its contractor that moss needed to be cleared away from the steps as well as anything else which had been making the floor slippery.
The landlord sent a further email to the contractor on 30 March 2023 in which it enclosed more information from the resident who had contacted it again. The resident had explained:
1. On 20 March 2023, the day after her fall she had noted a man in high visibility yellow jacket taking photos of her garden. The man was from the contractor responsible for the maintenance of the communal area. She added that the contractor had disagreed when she had mentioned that all “previous gardeners have always made slippery/dangerous surfaces ….. safe by using a solution to get rid of the moss/algae”.
2. On 23 March 2023 the gardeners had attended and attended the garden but not the cellar steps or footwell.
3. There needed to be a full inspection of the four properties which shared the common cellar steps as the resident felt they were not safe.
4. Due to her ongoing injuries she was no longer able to help her neighbour, whom she added endured eight hours of dialysis each night. Instead her son was taking out the rubbish for the neighbour even though it was not safe.
The contractor sent the landlord an email on 31 March 2023 which explained that the steps were cleared at the last visit. The contractor added it had applied a moss treatment on the hardstanding areas, which would be removed once the chemical had taken effect. The contractor added that it had spoken to the resident on site when it had attended. Whilst the resident had informed it about the rear yard which needed jet washing, it had informed her that this was not part of its maintenance.
The landlord exchanged emails with the contactor on 31 March 2023. It set out that the resident and her housing officer had disputed the contractor’s assertion that the moss and steps had been cleared that week. It added pictures had been sent in by both parties and that it would speak to the resident again about the matter. A further email between the landlord and contractor later the same day explained that it was possible they were both talking about different steps as the resident remained convinced that the steps had not been treated for moss and algae. The contractor replied to confirm that both sets of steps had been cleared of leaves. It did confirm in a further email that it would attend the property on 3 April 2023 to assess.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 5 April 2023. It confirmed that having attended the property “there was a small amount of leaf on steps which they got the team on site to remove and scrap[e] small amount of moss off steps”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 April 2023 stating:
1. She was not sure whether the property was grade listed. She added that irrespective of this there was a duty to make the area safe for tenants.
2. She required information on how often the external areas were inspected. She also requested a copy of the buildings and grounds risk assessments both before and after the accident.
3. She wanted to know the last time the algae had been removed. She added that, as the algae had since been removed after the accident, this indicated it should not have been present.
4. She asked for the specifications for the ground maintenance service as well as attendance records.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 April 2023 to explain it had forwarded the resident’s request for further details concerning the contractor as well as the risk assessments to its environmental team.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it attempted to call the resident on 28 April 2023. As it had not been able to speak to the resident it left a voicemail. It also issued a stage 1 complaint response on this day. The stage 1 response:
1. Accepted that the performance of the grounds maintenance service had not met its expectations. It added that it was working with the contractor to lead to improvements in the service.
2. Noted that it had raised a job for an inspector to look at the rear stairwells. The inspector had advised it that a specialist chemical clean was required as the stairwells were made of sandstone. It added a job had been raised to carry out the chemical clean and it would forward details to the resident once the job had been appointed.
The resident emailed the landlord to request the complaint was escalated to stage 2. The landlord has not been able to confirm when it received this email. The resident stated:
1. She was not sure the situation had been sorted out as the landlord had claimed. She added that all four of the properties (hers and three neighbours) needed to have safe access to the bins and this included the stairs as well as the yards. She stated her neighbour’s stairs had only been partially treated.
2. As a result of her fall which had caused “permanent scarring”, she considered “this meant the steps could be dangerous and not fit for purpose”. She felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to risk assess the steps.
3. Other people had fallen on the steps to the property and not reported it to the landlord.
4. The landlord was aware that accidents were happening and had previously happened. As a result she questioned whether lessons had been learnt.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 9 May 2023. It confirmed that it had passed the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 6 June 2023. It explained that the rear stairs did cause an issue to the property and needed to be cleared of moss as well as being looked at by a member of its health and safety team. The landlord added that “the result of this could be reinstating the stair type or adding a non-slip covering”.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord has confirmed that it is still in discussion with the resident and her representatives in relation to a personal injury claim which has been submitted by her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable period.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the pathways, steps and other means of access.
In relation to common parts, the tenancy agreement added the landlord “shall take reasonable care to keep the common entrance halls, stairways lifts, passageway and other common parts in reasonable repair and to keep the lighting of these areas in working order”.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines a responsive repair as one involving repair work carried out following a request which rectifies, and makes good, a component, element or installation in a property or communal area for which the landlord is responsible, “when it is faulty or in a state of repair”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines emergency repairs as those “which have an immediate health and safety risk to our customers, their homes or their neighbours”. The policy adds that 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. If a temporary repair is carried out the landlord sets out that “we will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair”. The list of emergency repairs includes “any hazard in communal areas, such as slip, trip and fall hazards”.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure sets out that compensation may be payable in the event:
1. The landlord has failed to provide a service or to meet its service standards.
2. When the landlord is legally liable for bodily injury or for damage to property.
In terms of the level of compensation, the policy sets out that this should be based on the impact of the issue on the resident. It sets out the three impact levels as:
1. Low impact for awards of between £25 and £50 – the issue has caused minor inconvenience or distress.
2. Medium impact for awards of between £50 to £200 – the issue has inconvenienced or distressed the resident, and this could be a repeat incident.
3. High impact for awards of up to £500 – the resident has suffered significant inconvenience or distress, and this may also be a repeat incident.
The landlord’s ground maintenance specifications, provided to its contractors, set out in relation to leaf clearance and branch removal that:
1. Leaf clearance should be carried out on every winter visit which is defined as being from November to March. It adds that in addition to this the contractor should also clear leaves in the event of any early or premature autumn fall which falls outside of those months.
2. All areas are to be free from fallen leaves and leaf mulch to ensure that all hard standing areas are free from slip hazards.
The ground maintenance policy set out in terms of the removal of moss, lichen and algae:
1. The contractor should ensure that no hard standing areas have a build up of moss, algae and lichen.
2. A chemical moss prevention treatment shall be regularly applied to hard surfaces throughout the year.
3. In addition to this preventative treatment, the contractor shall physically remove any moss or algae build-up, or any organic residue left by the above chemical treatment, to ensure that hard standing areas are free from organic slip hazards.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the landlord operates a two-stage policy. At stage 1 the landlord will aim to acknowledge the complaint within two working days, in which it provides the timescales for its response. The landlord has stated it aims to provide a response within five working days, but if this is not possible it will provide an explanation and will reply usually within 10 days, unless there was a good reason.
At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the request for escalation within two working days and will provide a response within a maximum of 10 working days from the request of escalation. If the landlord requires an extension it will agree this with the resident.

Scope of Investigation

Whilst the Ombudsman can and will be looking at the landlord’s overall handling following the resident’s reporting of safety concerns, this Service will not be considering the issue of liability. There is a separate process for this and the Ombudsman understands that the resident is actively engaged with the landlord at the present time in terms of a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of safety concerns with the rear steps of the property.

The resident initially contacted the landlord on the day of her fall from the communal rear steps. Whilst the landlord’s contractor was on site the following day, there is no evidence that this was directly related to it being informed about the issue by the landlord and for it to inspect the stairs. This was as the landlord’s initial email to the contractor about the matter was not until 27 March 2023, over a week later. The resident explained that she mentioned the issue of the rear steps which were slippery on 20 March 2023 to the contractor. In addition she added she had informed it of her fall the previous day and that the moss and algae on the steps had always been cleared by previous gardeners. The resident explained the contractor had disagreed with her over whether the rear steps were its responsibility.
The landlord’s notes show that the contractor had attended to the property as part of its maintenance contract for the garden on 23 March 2023. It had initially informed the landlord that it had cleaned the stairs and it reiterated this when asked by the landlord which steps it had been referring to, as the pictures it had sent to the landlord appeared to show a different set of stairs to the ones which the resident had fallen from. Upon being presented with pictures from the resident which disputed the contractor’s assertion that it had cleared the rear steps of leaves on the last visit, the contractor agreed to conduct a further site visit on 3 April 2023 following which it confirmed that the steps were not fully cleared of leaves and the steps had moss on them. Whilst the leaves could have been deposited after the contractor had attended in March 2023, the presence of the moss, in line with the resident and the housing officer’s contemporaneous comments, were directly at odds with the comments of the contractor. The pictures the contractor had sent the landlord of the cleared steps were for a different set of stairs to the ones the resident had been talking about. The resident had provided pictures which showed the steps were not cleared and were slippery in nature and eroding in parts. Given this it would imply that the contractor and the landlord/resident may have been talking about different areas when discussing what action had been taken towards the communal areas.
Irrespective of whether the landlord’s operative had been talking about the correct set of stairs, the landlord’s initial approach upon learning of the fall was not appropriate. Given the nature of the incident and as it was related to an area for which it was responsible as per the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and the tenancy conditions, it should have attended to the matter even if it was to initially apply a temporary repair within 12 hours. It did not do this, instead the landlord’s operative only attended to that part of the property on 3 April 2023, 11 working days later. Whilst the contractor did attend to the property on 23 March 2023 and it had taken photos as part of the monthly inspection of the property on 21 March 2023 this was not linked to the fall or the reporting made by the resident. This response from the landlord was unreasonable and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience at a time that they were still experiencing the after effects of the fall.
Following attending the property on 3 April 2023, whilst the contractor agreed that there were some leaves on the steps and moss which needed to be cleared, the landlord’s notes from 5 April 2023 show that when the contractor had attended the property on that day it was unclear as to what work it was meant to be doing. As a result no work was carried out at that time and the next note by it was only on 21 April 2023, over two weeks later. The notes from that time show that the issue had been passed on to its jet washer and that it would confirm to the landlord when it could next attend. The notes show the job was completed on 29 April 2023. This further delay in attending to the stairs from 5 April 2023 was unreasonable, especially given it was the means of accessing the bin stores at the rear of the property. Overall the landlord did not provide any explanation why the issue of the stairs was not addressed for over a month.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has ended the contract with the contractor because of poor performance. Whilst the landlord has been proactive in taking action, this does not detract from its contractor’s failings here. As the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord, it needs to accept any shortcomings.
Even following the landlord’s visit to the property on 29 April 2023, which was the day after it had issued the stage 1 response, the landlord noted further work was required to the steps. This required a further inspection by its health and safety team. Whilst it would be appropriate for the health and safety team to be involved following an accident, the resident had been asking for details from the landlord of any risk assessments carried out both before and after her accident. The landlord had not responded to her on this issue. It has confirmed to this Service that it does not carry out risk assessments for individual stairs however it did undertake a few building safety inspections of the property. It has provided three such reports between February and April 2023. From these inspections, which were noted to last between 10 to 25 minutes, whilst several issues were addressed including the bin stores, the access to get to the bin stores including the rear stairs was not addressed. This was not appropriate and a failing by the landlord.
The landlord’s main failing in the handling of the resident’s reporting of safety concerns was with the time taken for it to initially attend the property to assess the issues raised by the resident and for it to subsequently undertake the work on the rear stairs. These delays would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family who together with her neighbours continued to use the rear stairs to access the bin store in the intervening period. In addition to this there was a lack of any form of risk assessment undertaken specifically for the rear stairs nor a visit by the landlord’s health and safety team at the time. These issues combined amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident initially contacted the landlord on 19 March 2023, on the day she had injured herself. However at this time the resident’s contact was not to raise a complaint but merely to make the landlord aware of the issue with the stairs. The landlord had noted the complaint initially on 27 March 2023, following further contact with the resident. The landlord has not provided a copy of its initial acknowledgment email to the resident in which it set out the timescales. However the stage 1 response was not issued until 28 April 2023, 23 working days after the initial mention of the complaint. This was more than the timescales contained in its policy and there was no indication that it had updated the resident in the interim about the matter.
Following the resident’s escalation of the complaint to stage 2 the landlord did send the resident an acknowledgment letter on 9 May 2023. In this correspondence it did add it would aim to provide the final response within 10 working days (23 May 2023) however it added that if this was not possible it could extend this by a further 10 days. The landlord added if an extension was required it would contact the resident and advise them of this with an idea of timescales. Whilst the landlord did issue the stage 2 response 20 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation it has not provided any evidence that it had contacted the resident in the intervening period to update her. Whilst there was still outstanding work to be carried out on the stairs, the lack of contact with the resident would have caused her an element of distress and inconvenience.
Neither the landlord’s stage 1 nor stage 2 response contained any form of apology for the delay in it responding, which was outside the normal timescales as set out in the policy. Overall this was a service failure by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of safety concerns with the rear stairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of compensation of £350. This amount comprises:
  1. £250 for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reporting of safety concerns with the rear stairs.
  2. £100 for the failings in its complaints handling.
3. Inspect all stairs for the property used by both the resident and her neighbours and for it to commence any repairs and/or routine maintenance and cleaning on them to ensure they do not pose any slip hazard.
4. Write out to this Service providing an assurance that it is undertaking regular risk assessments at the property.