The Riverside Group Limited (202322978)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322978

The Riverside Group Limited

31 January 2025

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 handling of:
1. Reports about sinking floors in the resident’s property.
2. Reports about sinking paving slabs to the rear of the resident’s property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property was built in 2016.
On 20 April 2022 the resident reported that the ground floor in their property was sinking.
The landlord carried out an initial inspection on 29 April 2022. It then instructed a specialist contractor to carry out a structural survey and provide recommendations for remedial works. The survey was carried out on 1 June 2022 and the contractor provided the report to the landlord on or around 19 July 2022.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2022. They were unhappy that the landlord was not keeping them updated about the repairs to their property. They said whenever they contacted the landlord they were told someone would get back to them within 24 hours, but no-one ever calls them back.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 August 2022. It said it had spoken to the resident on 3 August 2022. The resident had advised they had not heard anything about the repair since the structural survey had been carried out in June 2022. The landlord confirmed it had received the survey report and further investigations were required. The landlord explained it had passed the matter to its Asset Management team who would liaise with the original house builders to put a plan in place and keep the resident updated.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 3 January 2023. They remained unhappy about the landlord not updating them or calling them back whenever they contacted it. They said they had recently had a repair carried out to the flagstones at the rear of their property, but believed this had now led to rainwater now entering their kitchen during heavy rain. They asked the landlord to provide them with a copy of the structural report from 1 June 2022 and let them know when it would be taking action to resolve the repair issues.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 September 2023. It apologised for the delay the resident had experienced. It advised a survey of their property was due to take place on 11 September 2023. It said that once the results of that survey had been received it would arrange to carry out any necessary works.
On 4 October 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to this service. They stated they wanted the landlord to carry out all the recommendations made by the specialist contractor and permanently fix the damage caused by sinking internal floors and external areas.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their contact with this service the resident has referred to:
1. Bugs and pests entering their home through gaps under the front door and the skirting boards.
2. Drafts coming into their home under the front door, leading to increased heating costs.
3. The front door frame and threshold having become loose due to the ground sinking beneath it.
4. Kitchen units becoming ‘wonky’ because the floor had moved.
5. Their carpets having been cut and frequently lifted by the landlord’s contractor to allow them access to monitor the floor.
Within their stage 2 escalation, the resident had stated they had reported bugs and drafts entering their home and that the landlord had attended to seal the gaps. This appears to have been included as background context and there was no indication the resident was unhappy about the landlord’s actions.
There is no clear evidence that the resident had reported any subsequent bug infiltration or any of the other matters to the landlord, either as repair requests or a complaint about the landlord’s failure to carry out appropriate actions.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The matters set out in paragraph 10 will therefore not be considered as part of this investigation.
For the same reason, the Ombudsman is not able to investigate any complaints about the landlord’s ongoing handling of matters after its final response of 8 September 2023. While it is accepted that these would be a continuation of the matters that had exhausted the complaints procedure, the landlord would still need to be given the opportunity to review and respond through its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman could investigate.
The resident has also indicated that the landlord’s actions (or inactions) caused a significant impact to their health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reported matters and an impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent expert reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, they should seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of reports about sinking floors in the resident’s property

The landlord’s repair policy states that it would attend routine repairs within 28 days. Its initial attendance and inspection of the resident’s property was within this timescale and was appropriate.
Evidence from the landlord indicates that, following the inspection, it reviewed the matter and determined that a structural survey would be required. It instructed a specialist contractor on 20 May 2022. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
The available evidence indicates that there was 6 weeks between the survey taking place and the landlord chasing up the results. The landlord has not provided any explanation for why it had not followed up with the contractor sooner. The Ombudsman considers this was an undue delay by the landlord.
The survey report confirmed that the floor was sinking, but that the contractor could not currently confirm the cause. The contractor recommended carrying out further ground investigations as well as installation of equipment to monitor the floor movement in the resident’s home. It advised that no remedial action should take place until the issue had been correctly diagnosed. The landlord was aware from 13 July 2022 of the contractor’s recommendations. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to these until it received the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2022. This was not reasonable.
Between receipt of the resident’s complaint and issuing its stage 1 response, the landlord obtained quotes from the contractor for it to carry out and/or manage the recommended works. It considered whether there were any immediate actions that it could or should take to alleviate any undue suffering, but there does not appear to be any evidence that any actions were necessary at that time. It also contacted the original house builder to share the findings and agree next steps. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
After issuing the stage 1 response there is no evidence of any further actions taking place until the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this. The Ombudsman considers this was not appropriate and was an undue delay.
The resident has provided a log of their contact with the landlord between July 2022 and January 2023. This shows that they had made attempts to get updates from their landlord at least once a month between July and November 2022. Their notes for several attempts include reference to the landlord having promised to call them back within 24 hours and that not taking place. The landlord has not provided any clear evidence that would demonstrate it had taken all reasonable steps to respond to the resident or provide timely updates.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it spoke with the resident on 24 January 2023. It had agreed that it would meet the resident, along with its specialist contractor, at the resident’s home on 3 February 2023 to discuss the issues. Following this meeting it was agreed that the contractor would appoint a company to carry out the ground investigation. The company would contact the resident directly to arrange a suitable date and time to attend.
The ground investigations and installation of monitoring equipment took place on 15 March 2023. This was approximately 8 months after the specialist contractor had made the landlord aware that it recommended those works took place. As the landlord has not provided any information to explain this delay the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it took all reasonable steps to progress the resident’s repair in a timely manner.
Following the March 2023 works, the landlord was following the actions recommended by its specialist contractor. This was a reasonable approach for it to take.
At the time the landlord issued its final response, the recommended 12-month monitoring period was still ongoing. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to not have taken any more substantive remedial action at that time.
The Ombudsman has considered whether this may have been different if the delays described above had not occurred. Evidence from the landlord shows that, when the monitoring period ended in March 2024, the contractor recommended a further 6-month period (as a minimum) of monitoring. This was due to the floor still moving. It would therefore appear likely that had the delays not occurred the recommended action for the landlord, in September 2023, would still have been to carry out monitoring.
Having reviewed all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of sinking floors in the resident’s property. This is because:
1. There were several significant periods of unexplained delay.
2. There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took reasonable steps to keep the resident updated about what was happening.
3. Where the resident did contact the landlord, there is a lack of evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to get back in contact with them.
4. The landlord did not acknowledge or address these failures at either stage of the complaints process.
The landlord did not make any offer of redress to the resident. This was not appropriate. The failures set out above would have been likely to have caused distress and frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This figure is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s handling of reports about sinking paving slabs to the rear of the resident’s property

It is unclear when the resident first reported that the paving slabs were also sinking. The report for the June 2022 survey states that the purpose was to investigate sinking floors in the living room and kitchen. It does, however, note in the background information that the resident told them that the flagstones were sinking and had created a step into the property. The contractor also confirmed there was a difference in height between the flagstone paving and the internal floor level. It stated this would substantiate the information provided by the resident if there had originally been a level access exit.
On this basis, the Ombudsman considers the landlord knew, or reasonably ought to have known, about this issue from or around 19 July 2022 (the date it received the survey report).
There is no evidence that the landlord considered taking any action in relation to the flagstones. This was not appropriate. If it was unclear whether this was a specific issue at that time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified this with both the contractor and the resident.
The resident’s evidence states they reported sunken paving slabs on 4 November 2022. The landlord attended to raise and level them on 8 November 2022. While this was within the landlord’s repair timescales and would appear to be reasonable, the Ombudsman is mindful that the resident’s stage 2 escalation noted that this was not the first time the flagstones had been raised and levelled and that they repeatedly sink. Repeatedly carrying out the same (or similar) repair without addressing the root cause would not be appropriate.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation states they had reported the need for a further repair. They have indicated in their evidence that they were subsequently told by the landlord on 10 January 2023 that it had cancelled the request as a repair had been carried out in November 2022. This was not appropriate. The landlord did appear to take action to resolve this and attended the property on 12 January 2023 (although it was unable to carry out works due to the weather). This was a reasonable step for it to take.
The landlord’s record of the February 2023 meeting (as discussed previously at paragraph 24) indicates that the paving area was discussed and it was agreed that a borehole would also be taken from that location. This took place during the 15 March 2023 works. The contractor’s subsequent report (dated 25 April 2023) recommended that the landlord carry out works to excavate the paving areas to a suitable depth, lay a suitable base, and then re-lay the flagstones. The contractor recommended the landlord undertake those works immediately.
The only evidence of the landlord taking action in relation to this recommendation is an email dated 25 August 2023 which suggests the landlord was seeking quotes. At the time of its final response the works were still outstanding. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the lack of action or the delay in progressing the contractor’s recommendation. This was not appropriate.
Unlike the internal floors, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s delays in progressing the contractor’s recommendations, both from the initial survey and the additional ground investigations, had an impact on the progress of the repair. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this service to demonstrate that it had been unable to complete the repair sooner or that it had attempted to take all reasonable steps to carry out the repair.
For this reason, as well as the reasons set out at paragraph 30.a to 30.d (which are also relevant to this complaint) the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about sinking paving slabs to the rear of the resident’s property.
The resident has advised this service that the landlord carried out the contractor’s recommendation in January 2024. Evidence from the landlord suggests these works took place around 15 January 2024. On this basis, the Ombudsman will not be making an order for the landlord to now carry out the works.
The landlord did not make any offer of redress to the resident. This was not appropriate. As with the previous complaint matter, the landlord’s actions (or lack of) will have been likely to have caused distress and frustration to the resident. In addition, the landlord had not repaired the sinking flagstones at the time of its final response. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 compensation in recognition of its failures and the impact on the resident. This figure is in line with its compensation policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would acknowledge receipt of a stage 1 complaint or stage 2 escalation within one working day. Responses at both stages would be provided within a further 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the policy timescales. This was appropriate.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation within 1 working day. It took approximately 174 working days to issue its final response. This was significantly outside its stated timescale and was not appropriate. The landlord’s final response did not acknowledge or explain this delay. This was also not appropriate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
While there is no evidence of a significant adverse impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, those failures did impact on the resident’s ability to get an early resolution to their issues or escalate the matter to this service. The Ombudsman considers £150 is a reasonable figure to recognise the resident’s time and trouble in having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about sinking floors in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about sinking paving slabs to the rear of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £900 which is comprised of:
  1. £250 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of sinking floors in the resident’s property.
  2. £500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of sinking paving slabs to the rear of the resident’s property.
  3. £150 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.