The Riverside Group Limited (202204127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204127

The Riverside Group Limited

30 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipework.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the 6th floor of a block comprised of similar properties. The block has a communal heating system. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord has provided its communal repair records for the block. The records note that issues of noisy pipework in the building were reported on at least 16 occasions by multiple occupants, including the resident, between September 2020 and March 2022. The landlord has confirmed that the resident had raised complaints regarding noise from the central heating system prior to the one under consideration within this investigation.
The landlord’s records show that the complaint was raised on 7 October 2022 and that a call back was attempted on 10 October 2022, with a voicemail left. However, the resident called the landlord on 14 October 2022 due to no communication. He had complained to his housing officer about a loud noise within the building. During a visit, they had said “you can’t live with that” to another tenant when the noise occurred. There had been no further action for 2 weeks and he had not been contacted. He asked that the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process and that all communication be in writing as he did not own a phone.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaint process on 14 October 2022 and said that it aimed to respond by 28 October 2022. On 17 October 2022, it confirmed that its heating contractor had been asked to investigate the issue. It provided an update via email to the resident on 21 October 2022 and said it had established that the likely cause of the noise was due to aged and damaged radiator valves in another property in the building. It confirmed it would provide a date for the works and asked the resident to monitor the noise levels following the repair to determine whether the issue had been resolved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 November 2022 and expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint handler and lack of progress. He did not feel the matter was being taken seriously and said that the pace at which the work was progressing was detrimental. He asked that the complaint was escalated.
In response, the landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed an appointment had been arranged for 8 November 2022. It extended its response timeframe for the complaint because it wanted to know the outcome of the repair before concluding the complaint and apologised that the complaint had been at stage 2 for 3 weeks. It asked the resident to provide his feedback on the noise experienced on 10 November 2022, following the repair.
The radiator valves repair was completed on 24 November 2022 after a failed appointment on 8 November 2022. The resident was made aware that the initial appointment was not attended at the time. On 25 November 2022, the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether the noise had reduced or improved. It noted that the resident no longer wished to have any involvement with the complaint handler and they confirmed that they were required to produce an outcome letter.
The Ombudsman has also seen evidence that the resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive around this time. He explained:
1. The impact the noise had on his mental wellbeing and sleep since 2020. He noted that he had needed to take many days off work due to not being able to get enough sleep to work safely. He said that the issue caused headaches, migraines, and insomnia, and compared the inescapable noise to torture.
2. That there was no particular pattern to the noise but it was often during the night and early hours. The noise was also loud, sounded like a helicopter, and made the floors, walls and contents of his cupboards vibrate.
3. His housing officer had been aware of the issues since they were first reported but had done nothing, shown a lack of effort in their responsibilities, and was a liability to tenants.
4. He had raised multiple complaints to no avail and was dissatisfied with the actions of the current complaint handler, who he said worked slowly and refused to provide a stage 2 complaint response. Due to their attitude, he was now seeking advice in pursuing a legal disrepair claim.
5. He wanted a meeting with the chief executive or a staff member at a similar level to explain his experience over a number of years, and the overall level of dissatisfaction and distrust among numerous residents. He confirmed that this was a last resort.
On 30 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he would be pursuing a disrepair claim due to the property being uninhabitable as a result of the noise issues. The landlord responded on 2 December 2022 and confirmed that it was seeking advice internally on how best to proceed as the issue remained unresolved and the resident had said he no longer wished to speak with the complaint handler. The resident pursued his request for a stage 2 complaint response on 9 December 2022.
An appointment was scheduled for 20 December 2022 to diagnose the ongoing issue. On 21 December 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had instructed its contractor to order relevant parts and begin work as early as possible in January 2023 to resolve the root cause of the noise issue, which was linked to the regulation of water pressure within the building.
Works then took place between 16 January 2023 and 17 February 2023 and involved new installations for the pressure systems and temperature controls on the communal riser system, plus the valves on the radiators in the property above. The landlord sought feedback from the resident on his experience on 31 January 2023 and he confirmed that the noise had been less frequent but that works were ongoing.
On 1 February 2023, the landlord asked the resident whether he was happy for it to complete the stage 2 review now that the repairs were moving in the right direction. The resident confirmed that he did not want the complaint to be closed while the issues were ongoing and commented on his dissatisfaction with the landlord and its staff, and his lack of faith in them. He also did not believe that it had understood the extent of the impact the noise had on a daily basis and felt he had been ignored.
The landlord asked the resident to provide feedback on the level of noise he was now experiencing on 17 February 2023 to determine whether any further monitoring or works were needed. It also asked for the resident’s expected outcome from the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2023 and explained that:
1. The stage 1 complaint was not responded to within its 5 day target and not investigated by the time the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated. It understood that the initial complaint related to a lack of communication following his reports of a loud noise in the block to a member of staff.
2. The resident had raised complaints regarding this issue in March 2021. Some works were undertaken but the case was closed without the root issue being identified and tackled.
3. In November 2022, it initially instructed its heating contractor to diagnose and complete repairs and their response was to replace thermostatic radiator valves in a neighbouring property. The resident then reported no improvement.
4. It therefore engaged a specialist consultant who made a plan to reduce or resolve the noise. The root cause was found to be water pressure issues and the plan involved upgrading the thermostatic radiator valves in flats and to install pressure control mechanisms to the communal pipework. The agreed works were concluded on 17 February 2023.
5. It had contacted the resident on 17 February 2023 to ask for feedback on the level of noise he was now experiencing (out of 10) to determine if further monitoring or work was needed. It had not received a response to its initial email or additional email on 23 February 2023, asking for him to confirm his desired complaint outcome.
6. It offered him £500 compensation in full and final settlement of all matters. It apologised for the delay in reducing and resolving the water pipe noise issue and the impact this had on him.
7. It had learnt from the complaint, noting that it needed to resolve complaints more quickly and it needed to see repair issues through to completion. It confirmed that it had now replaced its heating contractor and that it was actively improving its complaint handling following a departmental restructure.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, noting that not all of the issues he had raised were responded to. He advised that the issues had been resolved as of April 2023 and said that he was seeking a face-to-face meeting with a senior manager to discuss the complaint and the delays in resolving his concerns.
The resident informed the Ombudsman in October 2023 that the issues involving unbearable noise from the central heating system had not been resolved. The landlord has advised that it attempted to attend the property in October 2023 but there was no access. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the issues have now been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when the resident first reported issues of noisy pipework affecting his property. However, he has advised that the issues had been ongoing since 2020. The evidence provided also suggests that the resident had made previous complaints related to the ongoing noise issues in March 2021. While the historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on the landlord’s actions in responding to the formal complaint made in October 2022, and does not consider any specific events prior to October 2021, 12 months before the complaint was made. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
In his communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has commented on how the noise issues experienced over a number of years have impacted his health and sleep. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports. However, it is beyond the remint of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on pursuing a personal injury claim should he feel that his health has been negatively impacted by the landlord’s actions. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipework.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to installations for space heating and the supply of water, including pipework. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it aims to complete urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days. The Ombudsman acknowledges that some repair issues, where access is required to multiple properties, or wider investigation is needed, may take additional time. The landlord would be expected to communicate effectively with residents and provide regular updates on the steps it is taking to resolve such issues.
The Ombudsman has seen little documentary evidence of the events that occurred prior to the resident’s complaint in October 2022. The landlord has provided repair records which show reported communal repairs affecting the building but these do not provide clear information as to the steps it had taken historically to resolve the issues. In addition, the Ombudsman has not been provided with documentation showing any communication between the landlord and the resident prior to October 2022. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to consider whether the landlord’s actions leading up to the complaint were reasonable or in line with its policy and procedures, or assess the total impact on the resident.
In its communication, the landlord has also advised that members of staff involved in the resident’s case had since left the business, meaning that its records of the works undertaken and communications were limited. The investigation has been able to reach a conclusion based on the evidence provided, however, the omissions indicate poor record keeping practices by the landlord in that it was not able to provide this information.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and to ensure that information is available when individual members of staff leave the business. Where we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The landlord has therefore been ordered to conduct a review of its record keeping processes alongside the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (2023), if it has not already done so, to ensure that its current record keeping practices align with the Ombudsman’s expectations and best practice.
In this case, it is evident that the noise issues affecting the pipework in the building were longstanding. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to adequately identify and resolve the issue following the resident’s initial complaint in March 2021. It apologised for its failure to reduce and resolve the noise, which was found to be caused by water pressure issues, more swiftly. It also offered £500 compensation in view of the impact on him.
The repair records provided by the landlord show that the resident had reported the noisy pipework issue and this was raised in April 2021. At the time, the records show that it believed the issue was due to a radiator in the flat above, however, there is no clear evidence to show that any further investigation took place. The Ombudsman is aware that a further repair, which had been raised to investigate the noise reported by the resident, was suspended around June 2021 due to a “significant repipe” to the building, and that it needed to wait for its commercial works to be completed. It remains unclear as to what happened following this.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that any further repairs in relation to the resident’s reports of noisy pipework were raised until 3 February 2022. While the landlord’s records suggest that it had attempted to attend the property at the time and was unable to gain access, they also show that various other tenants were reporting issues of noisy pipework at the time. The landlord would have been expected to be proactive in its handling of the reports given that noise was reported from various parts of the building. However, there is limited evidence to confirm what, if any, action was taken to diagnose or address the concerns from multiple residents. The landlord has not provided evidence documenting communication received from the resident, nor any replies from it, and it remains unclear as to the extent of the issue or time and trouble he spent pursuing his concerns. It is however noted that he told the landlord in November 2022 that the noise had been a daily occurrence.
Despite the resident advising the landlord that he had raised a complaint to his housing officer regarding the noise in early October 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any repair to investigate his concerns was raised until the complaint was acknowledged at stage 2 on 14 October 2022. Following this, the landlord acted within a reasonable timescale by arranging an inspection of the issue on 18 October 2022 and raising a repair on 21 October 2022. It acted reasonably by providing the resident with an update via email on the same day.
The repair to the radiator valves was initially booked for 8 November 2022, however, this was missed by the contractor due to staffing issues. The landlord again acted reasonably by updating the resident albeit this meant that the repair was not rearranged and completed until 24 November 2022, which was likely to add to the inconvenience experienced by him.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues which affect multiple properties within a block as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset and, in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord and it was entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake. It is, however, noted that the noise issues had been passed to the landlord’s heating contractor on a number of occasions historically and the root cause of the issue had not been adequately identified.
The landlord acted reasonably by asking the resident to confirm whether the noise had been resolved following the repair to the upstairs property on 24 November 2022. In response, the resident advised on 30 November 2022 that he intended to pursue a disrepair claim as the noise issue had impacted his ability to live in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to appoint a specialist contractor to investigate the matter once it was aware that this was ongoing (as its heating contractor had not been able to resolve it). This shows that the landlord had somewhat considered the impact the resident said the issues were having on him. An appointment was arranged for 20 December 2022, which was within a reasonable timescale. It would, however, have been helpful for the landlord to treat the matter with greater urgency given the impact the resident had said the noise was having on his mental health.
It is noted that significant works to the riser heating system and to install valves in individual properties were carried out between 16 January 2023 and 17 February 2023. This was completed within a reasonable timescale following the inspection in December 2022 due to the need to order relevant parts. The landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident to provide feedback on his experience on a number of occasions.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by it 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 in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted reasonably in this case by apologising for its failure to reduce or resolve the water pipe noise issue within an appropriate timescale. It also acknowledged that it had not initially identified or tackled the root cause following his prior complaint in March 2021. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to progress the investigations and work to resolve the issue over the course of the complaint in order to put things right.
The landlord’s offer of £500 is in line with its compensation policy which states that offers of up to this amount can be made where there is found to have been a high impact on the resident and the resident has suffered significant inconvenience or distress. While this goes some way to acknowledge the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman does not find that this amounts to reasonable redress by the landlord due to the lack of available records confirming the extent of the time and trouble experienced by the resident or the impact on him.
The landlord failed to specifically comment on the significant period between March 2021 and November 2022 where the noise issue was outstanding, any limitations it had faced or any specific failings in its handling of the resident’s reports. It also failed to comment or acknowledge its poor communication, which the resident had complained about, the impact he reported the noise had on him on a daily basis or empathise with his experience.
In addition, the lessons the landlord said it had learnt from the resident’s complaint do not align with what it has noted the substantive cause of the delays to be. Its records show that it established that it had not previously explored all of the options available to improve or resolve the issue and the root cause was a lack of investment in a building marked for regeneration.
It was reasonable for the landlord to note that it needed to see things through and use contractors that could fully resolve problems and to highlight that it had changed its heating and hot water contractor. However, it failed to provide transparency within its response and failed to fully explain what it would do in future to resolve issues where repair issues impact residents in buildings due for regeneration. This indicates that the landlord did not fully recognise the measures it would need to take in future to resolve complaints of this type and that it did not therefore take the appropriate learning from the case.
The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipework. While its offer of compensation goes some way to acknowledge the impact on the resident, it failed to demonstrate that it had adequately considered the history of the matter or fully addressed the impact on the resident of the noise over a considerable period of time. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website), compensation amounts between £600-£1000 are considered proportionate in cases where there were failings which had a significant impact, including an emotional impact. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation. In addition, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish appropriate points of learning from its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint in writing within 2 working days and respond within 5 working days. If this is not possible, it would provide an explanation and a date by which the stage 1 response should be issued. This should not exceed a further 10 working days. It the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint at stage 1, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. It aims to acknowledge a complaint escalation within 2 working days and respond within a maximum of 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances where this is not possible, it would contact the resident to agree an extension. The stage 2 review would be conducted by a senior manager who was not involved with the stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code (2022) in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that the landlord must respond at each stage of its complaints process within 10 and 20 working days respectively. If there is likely to be a delay at any stage, the landlord must provide an explanation and a new expected response date.
It further stated that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident, and that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. The landlord’s website suggests that it has since adopted the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Code.
In this case, while the landlord has accepted that it did not respond to the stage 1 complaint by the time the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated, and that it needed to respond to complaints more quickly, it failed to acknowledge any specific failures in its handling of the complaint or offer suitable redress.
The landlord’s records show that a complaint was raised on 7 October 2022, however, the Ombudsman has not seen a clear record as to the content of the complaint. In addition, while the landlord’s records note that a call back attempt was made on 11 October 2022, and a voicemail left, they also indicate that this could not have happened as it did not have phone contact details for the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have commented specifically on this failing and apologised to the resident given that he was aware of the alleged attempted contact to him.
Despite the resident’s specific request for the matter to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 14 October 2022, it is the Ombudsman’s view that a landlord should only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has issued a stage 1 complaint response, and that it should take into account any delay in providing a response within the stage 1 response where relevant. The landlord’s failure to provide a stage 1 complaint response was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Code and ultimately meant that the resident did not have the opportunity to comment further, seek clarity, or challenge the landlord’s position following its only formal response to his complaint.
While the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 14 October 2022, it failed to provide its complaint response until 27 February 2023, over 4 months later. This was an unreasonable timescale and significantly outside of both the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s expected timescales for response. While the landlord acknowledged that it needed to resolve complaints more quickly within its final response, it failed to adequately apologise for the delay or its handling of the matter.
In addition, it is of concern that despite the resident’s request that the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, it said it would wait until the issue was resolved before responding formally. While it is reasonable to ensure that an issue complained about has been resolved, this should not unreasonably delay a landlord from responding to a complaint. In line with the Code as set out above, the landlord should send its response to a complaint when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. In addition, the landlord should have ultimately had systems in place to allow it to track agreed actions from complaints through to completion. It was a failing that the landlord waited to see if the issue was resolved before providing its complaint response.
It is evident that the resident lost faith in the complaint handlers’ ability to address the concerns he had raised and specifically asked that his case was escalated to someone more senior in November 2022. While the complaint handler acted reasonably by apologising to the resident at the time and sought support from other members of staff in the landlord’s complaint team, the landlord failed to pass the complaint to a different member of staff to investigate or confirm why it would not do so. This would have been appropriate in order to ensure that the complaint was handled impartially.
The landlord was evidently aware of an email the resident had sent to its Chief Executive in November 2022 which clearly set out his reasons for dissatisfaction. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either addressed the concerns raised within its response or to have raised his concerns as a new complaint at the time. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity and meant that the resident’s concerns in relation to the lack of action by specific staff members were not adequately addressed. In his communication, the resident also clearly set out how the noise situation was continuing to impact his wellbeing and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s specific circumstances within its handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered £500 compensation within its stage 2 complaint response “without prejudice” and in “full and final settlement” of the whole of the matter. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should avoid using such wording within its responses. A resident will ultimately have the opportunity to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman, or pursue legal action, should they remain dissatisfied with the compensation offered within the landlord’s complaints process or where the issue remains unresolved, regardless of whether they had accepted the compensation offer or not. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review the wording of its compensation acceptance forms, removing reference to the compensation offer being made to “settle” the complaint.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s complaint at stage 1 or provide the resident with the opportunity to challenge its complaint response as a result. There were significant delays in providing its response. While it acknowledged that it needed to respond to complaints more quickly, it failed to suitably apologise to the resident or offer redress for its handling of the complaint. It is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted in view of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing a response. An order has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipework.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. The apology should come from a senior member of staff, and the landlord should ask the resident whether he wishes this to be over the phone, in person, or in writing.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,000, comprised of:
1. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced, and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns related to noise from the central heating system within the building and the impact on him. This includes its previous offer of £500.
2. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble spent, and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is to ensure that the resident’s communication preferences are clearly documented on its systems to inform any future communication with him, if it has not already done so. It should provide evidence to confirm it has done so within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. The review should include, but is not limited to:
1. Considering evidence that was available or may have been available at the time of the complaint.
2. Identifying points of learning that can be taken from the complaint and an explanation as to how it would prevent similar failings occurring in the future.
3. Considering how it identifies and responds to issues affecting multiple properties, and how it manages repair issues impacting residents within buildings marked for regeneration.
4. Considering the failures that occurred in its handling of the complaint and any staff training needs.
The landlord is to complete a self–assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website) within 8 weeks. A copy of its self–assessment should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the wording of its compensation acceptance forms, removing reference to the compensation offer being made without prejudice and to “settle” the complaint.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendation within 4 weeks.