The Riverside Group Limited (202312134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312134

The Riverside Group Limited

17 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to a rear boundary wall.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is owned by the landlord, a housing association.
4. The resident raised concerns about the safety of a brick boundary wall to the rear of the property in November 2022 and the landlord inspected on 9 November 2022. It found the wall to be dangerous and logged a job for its removal and rebuild. The repair records appear to indicate that appointments were attended on 16 and 23 November 2022, although it is not clear what progress, if any, was made on these dates.
5. The landlord scheduled works for 2 December 2022 but this was rearranged, at the resident’s request, to 14 December 2022. The wall was removed that day and the bricks were cleared.
6. The landlord then obtained quotes for the wall to be rebuilt and the work was scheduled to commence on 25 January 2023. When contractors attended that day the rebuild was started with breeze blocks, but not completed due to adverse weather conditions. Contractors attended the following day but were again unable to complete the necessary works.
7. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 January 2023, when he raised concerns about the length of time it was taking to complete the works. During a telephone call with the landlord on 1 February 2023, the resident explained that he was unhappy with the multiple visits that had taken place (he recalled 4 or 5 different appointments) and the fact that he had taken time off work to accommodate these. He said he feared for the property’s safety, including access for vermin, while the wall was incomplete, particularly as there was an infant in the property.
8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 February 2023, it summarised the events surrounding the wall repair since November 2022 and confirmed that the works were now scheduled to be completed on 9 February 2023. It did not address the resident’s comments about the number of repairs appointments, his loss of earnings, or the safety of the property.
9. The landlord’s repair records indicate that further appointments took place on 15 and 22 February 2023 and internal landlord email correspondence showed there was ongoing discussion in March 2023 regarding outstanding coping and rendering works to the wall. The resident continued to chase these works throughout March 2023 and he was told they were being looked into.
10. At that time, the resident also advised that he was still waiting for a response to his request for compensation for loss of wages due to attending repairs appointments. He said he returned a compensation form with details of the missed appointments and his associated claim, but the landlord said it had not received this. There is no evidence that the landlord has provided a substantive response to his claim.
11. There was further contact between the resident and landlord in April 2023 regarding outstanding repairs appointments. The resident particularly expressed his frustration that appointments were being made for days other than Wednesdays, which were the only days he could provide access due to his work.
12. On 27 April 2023 a contractor attended with coping stones for the wall but did not fit them and left. The contractor also confirmed that the wall was not due to be rendered and no further works would be undertaken.
13. The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 April 2023 and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on the basis that there were long delays to the wall being completed, there were several missed appointments during the process, and the new wall had not been rendered. He requested compensation for lost income when he had to wait in for the missed appointments, and for the wall to be rendered.
14. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 15 May 2023, it stated that the wall rebuild had been completed on 16 February 2023. It advised that it would not be rendering the wall as the previous wall was not rendered, and it was for the resident to paint it if he wished. It then offered £50 compensation in recognition of the time taken to rebuild the wall.
15. Following further contact between the parties (the content of which is unclear), the landlord’s contractor inspected the wall on 31 May 2023 to provide a quote to render and install coping stones. The contractor advised the landlord of its quote the following day (£1,990.20), and the landlord confirmed that it would not be proceeding with the works. This was communicated to the resident on 1 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Requests for repairs to rear boundary wall

16. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property (the external walls), including painting and decoration. Its repairs policy says it is responsible for boundary walls although there is no clear distinction as to whether a boundary wall is included as an external wall. In relation to decoration, it says residents are responsible for decorative order within their homes, but when it completes a repair that either results in damage to existing décor, or there is an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and existing décor, it will make good that area, although the nature and extent of the decoration is at its sole discretion.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to carry out routine repairs within 28 days, or 56 days in extreme circumstances, and it aims to offer residents reasonable choice with appointments, with appointments available Monday – Friday 8am to 5pm, plus 5pm to 8pm on a Thursday, and Saturday 8am to 12pm.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the wall was completed on 16 February 2023, meaning the overall timeframe for the actual rebuild was approximately 3 months, from 9 November 2022 to 16 February 2023. Whilst the landlord was not wholly responsible for the delays to remove and rebuild the wall, it took 2 months longer than its expected repair timescale, which caused the resident inconvenience having to take time off work and chase the repair, which was a failing.
19. After that, there were further repairs appointments in February 2023 in relation to follow up works including gate fixings. There was then ongoing correspondence with the resident about further works in March and April 2023, and the landlord did not confirm its position on how it would finish the wall i.e with coping stones, render, or paint, until 27 April 2023, almost 6 months after the issue was first raised. While the landlord arranged for coping stones to be delivered in April 2023 and obtained a quote for rendering in May 2023, it ultimately decided to do neither. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations in this regard, which caused understandable frustration, and its communication with him was inconsistent and poor.
20. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £50 compensation, but did not appear to actually identify what the specific delays were or offer any explanation as to why they occurred. The landlord made no reference to events after mid-February 2023 within its stage 2 response of May 2023. This was a missed opportunity to fully understand the cause of the resident’s dissatisfaction and to understand how its failure to manage his expectations had impacted him.
21. The resident said there were missed appointments, and appointments raised for days other than Wednesdays, when he was available. The tenancy agreement says he must allow access to the landlord so it can carry out repairs. It is not clear from the repair records precisely when these missed appointments took place, but based on the records we do have, there is sufficient evidence of multiple appointments, and no evidence of the resident’s specific availability being considered. The landlord could have considered whether a Thursday evening or Saturday morning appointment could be more appropriate, or ask whether the resident had a trusted relative or friend who could allow access for the work at another time. This was a failing and contributed to delays completing the wall.
22. The landlord’s repairs policy says repairs to external walls includes necessary painting and decoration. The wall was rebuilt using breeze blocks, rather than the Victorian red brick of the original wall which the surrounding properties still had. Whilst the landlord was entitled to make this choice, and there is evidence it did consider rendering the wall, it should have communicated to the resident promptly that it had decided not to render or paint. In light of the resident’s concerns about the aesthetics of the breeze block wall, and in line with its policy for external walls, it would have reasonable for the landlord to have at least painted it, rather than putting the onus on the resident to do this.
23. It is not clear if the landlord ever located the compensation form the resident submitted or made any payment in that regard. Given that the resident is obliged, under the terms of his tenancy, to allow access for repairs, this Service would not generally award compensation for loss of wages for doing so. However, it does consider awards for general distress and inconvenience, particularly where appointments have been missed, causing unnecessary inconvenience. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer up to £250 for issues which have caused minor inconvenience or distress where the service was not of the expected standard.
24. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was made in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
25. Given the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations to carry out repairs in a timely manner, and its failure to finish the wall to a reasonable standard, its offer of £50 for poor customer service was an insufficient remedy. In light of the identified failings, a finding of maladministration is made. The compensation should be increased by a further £50, and the wall should be rendered and painted.
26. While it is accepted that the landlord was not obliged to render the wall when the request was made by the resident, it is considered that this is now an appropriate remedy to address the failings identified in this report and to bring the complaint to a satisfactory conclusion for the resident. This required action is intended to provide redress for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of this complaint.

Complaint handling

27. The resident’s complaints were acknowledged and responded to within reasonable timescales and the landlord clearly explained how to escalate the complaint if he remained unsatisfied.
28. However, the complaint responses themselves did not address all the issues raised including: missed repair appointments; appointments arranged for days the resident was unavailable; requests for compensation for loss of wages; and concerns about the security of the property whilst the wall was incomplete.
29. Further more, the responses did not adequately acknowledge the failings identified in this report or demonstrate how the landlord had learnt from the outcomes to the complaint. It did not, therefore, use the complaints process to fully investigate and resolve issues at the earliest opportunity. As a result, there was maladministration. Having considered the landlord’s policy, alongside the Ombudsman’s internal guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to address the impact its complaint handling failures had on the resident.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for repairs to a rear boundary wall.
    2. Formal complaint

Orders and recommendations

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Render and paint the wall, if this has not been done already.
    3. Pay the resident £200 compensation made up of:
       1. £100 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in relation to the wall. If the £50 previously offered has already been paid, this can be deducted from this sum.
       2. £100 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the complaint.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.