The Riverside Group Limited (201911171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911171

The Riverside Group Limited

29 April 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for works he said he carried out to the kitchen, at his own expense, due to the poor quality of workmanship of the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

4. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 21 February 1994.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for replacement of a sink where the damage has not been caused by the resident and the tenant is responsible for sink blockages.  The policy does not specify timescales for repair.
6. The landlord’s compensation procedural guidance states that the landlord may offer compensation by way of financial redress, where a tenant is out of pocket due to a service failure on the part of the landlord.
7. The same procedure states that a resident must first seek authority to undertake any improvements to a property, before carrying them out.
8. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure whereby its aims to investigate and provide an initial response within 10 working days of a complaint being received; there is no obligation for this response to be written unless the complainant requests this.
9. Where a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request a review of the complaint at stage two.  The request for this must be made within 30 days and the landlord aims to provide a response within 10 working days thereafter.
10. In 2016 a new kitchen was fitted at the property.

Summary of events

11. In July 2019 the resident reported leaking pipework, following the installation of a new kitchen.  The landlord has said it attended but no records have been provided to this Service to detail when the visit took place or any works undertaken.
12. On 18 September 2019 the housing officer visited the resident at the property and looked at the sink and having spoken to the repairs team, was advised that no repairs were required to the tap or sink.
13. On 25 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord about the quality of workmanship carried out by the landlord in respect of works to his kitchen.  The landlord has said that it has records of responding to the resident’s concerns at this time by attending the property.  It has provided this investigation with a copy of the operative’s notes which state “Tenant unhappy about pipes under sink being flexi hoses instead of copper and slow draining sink. Cleared blocked sink whilst on site, explained it is tenant responsibility”.
14. Five months later, in December 2019, the resident again reported leaking pipework to the landlord.  The landlord has again stated that it attended the property in response and has provided a copy of the operative’s notes which state “check taps – tenant may have fitted own taps and changed pipework”.
15. On 23 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about his dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship carried out by the landlord. The landlord has advised that during the telephone call the resident stated that “works were done and finally resolved after a number of men visited but now [the resident] is complaining that he never received compensation regarding this”.
16. On 24 August 2020 the resident completed a compensation claim form in respect of works he carried out to resolve the “botched job” by the landlord.  In his claim form, the resident referred to the complaint he made about the issue on 25 October 2019 and said that he was requesting £200 compensation.  The resident listed the items he purchased and said that he could provide some of the receipts to evidence his claim, although no receipts were ever provided. 
17. Around 27 August 2020 the landlord’s repairs company responded to the resident’s compensation form via telephone at its ‘front line’ stage of its complaints procedure. It did not uphold the complaint, explaining that it would not compensate for repair works carried out by the resident himself as it would have carried out the repairs had it been notified.
18. Shortly thereafter, the resident contacted the landlord stating his dissatisfaction with its response to his complaint, specifically, including the fact that its repairs company had responded rather than the landlord itself and that the contact was by telephone. 
19. The resident explained that his complaint was about the quality of workmanship regarding repairs in his kitchen which resulted in four visits being undertaken with the issue remaining unresolved (he said that the pipework was twisted and water was backing up). He stated that the ‘area manager’ had visited the property and witnessed the poor quality of workmanship and that as a result of the poor quality works, he had paid for repairs himself, purchasing pipework, taps and a new sink.  As an outcome to his complaint, he wanted the landlord to compensate him for this.
20. On 3 September 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint in writing at stage two ‘review’ of its complaints procedure, having spoken to the resident on the telephone about the issues, the day before. The complaint was not upheld, with the landlord stating that it only had records of the resident having contacted it only twice since 2016 when the kitchen was fitted, regarding the issue and that no authorisation for him to carry out his own works was granted. The landlord said it would learn lessons from the resident bringing the complaint, however.

Assessment and findings

21. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
22. In this case, the resident first reported an issue with the kitchen in July 2019 which the landlord said it attended.  Although there are no records of when it attended or what, if any, works were carried out, it was confirmed two months later, that no repairs to the kitchen were required.  This was reiterated in October and December that year, with the landlord appropriately explaining in October that the responsibility for draining the sink lay with him. 
23. In the resident’s contact with the landlord in July 2020 the information provided to this Service by the landlord is that the resident was seeking compensation at that time in respect of the quality of workmanship and the amount of visits that had taken place in respect of this, rather than works he had undertaken himself, although it appears to have been noted by the landlord in December 2019 that the resident had undertaken his own works to replace the taps at this time.
24. The landlord has stated that no receipts were ever provided to it to evidence the money spent on items to carry out repairs that the landlord should have done.  Irrespective of this, it has stated that it gave no permission for him to carry out his own works and so would not be offering compensation, adding that it could have and would have undertaken any necessary works itself.
25. No evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that the landlord was notified of a problem with the quality of workmanship and failed to carry out the repairs required.  This is confirmed at repeated visits by the landlord and its repairs team.  Although the resident may not have been entirely happy with the taps or sink or piping, the landlord was not required to replace these, in the absence of a defect.  Furthermore, the resident himself was responsible for a blocked sink, which is explicit in the landlord’s repairs policy.
26. Both the landlord and resident have provided photographs of the sink and piping to this Service; however, it is not the role of this Service to determine whether the works were completed to the required standard.  Instead, it is the role of this Service to investigate and ascertain how the landlord responded to reports made to it and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
27. The landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of a contractor – in this case, its repairs company. It did this and there was more than one visit to the property, with no repairs issues being identified at any point. The resident was entitled to request permission to make improvements to the kitchen; however, he did not do this. The landlord was not required to make improvements.
28. For completeness, the kitchen was fitted in 2016 and the issues were reported three years later in 2019. There is reference in the information provided to this Service of the issue being outside of the defects period and of questions around the quality of workmanship at installation.  It is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider the quality of workmanship at the installation of the kitchen as the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have been brought to the landlord within a reasonable period, usually six months.  Aside from this, it is pertinent to note that the focus on the quality of workmanship at installation misses a key point, that being, that the landlord is required to carry out a repair once on notice; a repair may arise at any time in the lifecycle of fixtures and fittings. Wear and tear will naturally give rise to required repairs, also.
29. No repairs were identified here, however, and so no compensation is due; compensation may be offered where there has been service failure by the landlord, which has not been evidenced here.  Compensation may also be offered at the end of tenancy for qualifying improvements carried out.  However, permission must first be sought and this is also not something that happened in this case.
30. Turning to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it responded to the resident’s compensation request form as a complaint at stage one by telephone, which was in accordance with its complaints policy and procedural guidance. It was responded to by its repairs company, however, which left the resident feeling that the matter had not been taken seriously, with the landlord, who he paid rent to directly, not taking the time to investigate and respond.
31. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedural guidance does not specify that its repairs company may instead respond on its behalf, which means that the response from the repairs company rather than the landlord was unexpected.
32. The landlord did respond within a reasonable period of time at both stages one and two, however; the timeframes being in accordance with the articulated timescales set out in its complaints policy. While not upholding the complaint, the landlord said that it would learn from it, the lessons of which are unclear.  Learning from outcomes is a key part of complaint handling and emphasized in the Ombudsman’s published ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’. 
33. Where a complaint is not upheld, however, there may not be learning to be had.  It is important that the landlord states that it will learn from a complaint where learning has been identified and additionally, that the landlord specifies what learning this is and/or how it will seek to make any changes or improvements. The landlord generically stating that it has learned from the complaint should not be used as a stock phrase as this lacks integrity and specificity, and can dilute complaint outcomes where learning is a fundamental part of it.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for works he carried out to the kitchen.

Reasons

35. There was no maladministration by the landlord insofar as there is no evidence of the landlord having not carried out a repair required of it.  Also, the resident did not seek permission from the landlord to carry out changes or improvements, as was required.

Recommendations

36. The landlord is recommended to review its complaints policy and procedural guidance, in particular:
    1. To look at the ownership around complaints handling and being explicit about the fact that its repairs company may respond where it deems it appropriate (if this remains the case), and;             
    2. For the landlord to ensure it refers to specific learning in its complaints responses, where relevant only.