The Riverside Group Limited (202212964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212964

The Riverside Group Limited

28 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The level of service charges.
2. Cracks in the brickwork of the property.
3. The upkeep of communal benches.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. The building is set within a complex (‘the complex’) of 72 leasehold apartments over 12 brick buildings of similar size. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The wheelie bins within the complex used to be housed in purpose-built wooden sheds. In 2017, the landlord decided to remove the shed’s doors due to the cost of repairing the door latches. The resident stated that the lack of maintenance caused the wood to break.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 July 2022. He said that over the years, the development had “deteriorated to an almost unrecognisable state”. He said the landlord became “resident-led,” which, in practice, meant it no longer inspected its properties, which amounted to a “dereliction of duties”. He said this was particularly concerning given the level of charges that the landlord charged for the communal upkeep, which had significantly increased year-on-year. He asked the landlord to respond to several issues, including:
1. Overgrown trees and bushes were ‘neglected’.
2. The bin area was “dilapidated”. The bins were removed without consultation with residents.
3. The wooden benches had been left to rot, causing ‘irreparable damage’ to the wood, which caused the benches to disintegrate.
4. ‘Subsidence cracks’ in the buildings, which the landlord had not addressed since 2011.
The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 5 August 2022 and said:
1. It was working with its ground maintenance contractor to address issues with attendance and performance. It was pleased with the progress so far.
2. It would not rebuild the bin storage area as the cost was estimated between £1,417.88 and £5,874.24, depending on the size. It said it may revisit this in the future.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate his complaint on 10 August 2022.
The landlord sent its final complaint response letter on 7 September 2022 and said:
1. It was getting a quote from the contractor to install expansion joints for the cracks. Section 20 consultation may be required, starting once the quote is received.
1. It was not looking to replace the bin stores as they were safe, stable, and fit for purpose. However, it agreed that aesthetically, some improvements could be made. It said the redecoration of the bin area would be included in the next cyclical work program, which it would like to start within a year.
1. The benches were in a “severe state of deterioration”. It was in the process of obtaining a quote from its contractor to remove and replace the remaining benches. It would share these with the resident once the information is received.
The resident asked this service to investigate the complaint on 1 September 2023. He said:
1. The sheds and slate roof had been removed without consulting residents.
2. The benches were removed and not replaced.
3. The landlord promised to investigate the subsidence cracks over a year ago, but it has not been done.
4. Day-to-day repairs fund in the service charge accounts has increased from £8,000 per year to £12,000 per year outside of cyclical works and contracted repairs, but no evidence was given as to what the increase relates to.
During this investigation, the resident advised the service in August 2024 that the landlord charged the estate £800 for an inspection and advice on removing the benches, excluding removal costs. It did not make good the grass or replace the benches, and it did not consult residents. He said the landlord informed him it would not be improving the bins area, and it had not taken action to repair the cracks in the brickwork.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must first consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. Under paragraph 42(a), the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
2. Under paragraph 42(d), the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that ‘concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase’.
3. Under paragraph 42 (f), the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
On 1 September 2023, the resident said he was concerned that, in his opinion, the landlord had not provided information to support the increase in service charges. This was not put through to the landlord as a formal complaint.
On 4 July 2022, the resident was concerned about the level of service charge, and this was made a formal complaint to the landlord. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is the appropriate body to determine the reasonableness of service charges and whether there is evidence to support an increase in charges. As such, this investigation will not comment on this aspect of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate individual complaints that have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process, and on which the landlord has already provided its final response letter. The final response was issued on 7 September 2022. Therefore, this service will not investigate events or complaints that took place after this date. Additionally, some aspects of the original complaint were excluded from this investigation based on the resident’s summary of the remaining points in dispute.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cracks in the brickwork of the property

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The resident’s building is a 3-storey brick block of apartments built in 1995. The building is set within a complex of 12 buildings of similar size and built. The front elevation of a typical building has 4 bays. In 2011, the landlord’s structural engineer found that each of these bays had “vertical cracks running straight through whole bricks from ground floor level up to at least second-floor level and up to roof level in some cases. In some locations, the crack returns around the corner to run through the mortar perpend joints”. The report said the cracks were due to “moisture changes and required the rebuilding of the corners and the installation of additional vertical movement joints”. It concluded that to “maintain the stability of the structure, further investigations into the provision of existing ties and restraints to the brickwork should be carried out”.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a duty to repair and keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The 2011 structural engineering report said to “maintain the stability of the structure, further investigations into the provision of existing ties and restraints to the brickwork should be carried out”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have followed its expert’s advice. The landlord informed this service that following the 2011 report, it had started some investigative work in 2015, which has not been concluded due to staff changes. It said its asset team was unaware of the structural issues until 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord implemented the report’s recommendations, and the brickwork remains in disrepair. This was not appropriate.
In May 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update. The landlord responded that the issue was “being assessed”. The resident raised the issue as a formal complaint in June 2022, to which the landlord replied in its August 2022 stage 1 response that it had “Instructed a structural survey and was awaiting information”. It added that it had been chasing this up ‘as a priority’. In its September 2022 final complaint response letter, the landlord said it had been “looking to obtain a quote from its contractor” and would commence the works at the earliest opportunity. The assurances given to the resident failed to materialise, compounding the resident’s distress. The landlord confirmed to this service in August 2024, that it did not have a quote for the works. This was inappropriate.
It is recognised that complex repair issues, such as cracks in brickwork, may take several months or years to resolve fully. Such repairs are often characterised by investigative and diagnostic works and periods of monitoring to identify the root cause of the issue. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain effective communication with residents at set intervals, even if there is no news to report. Throughout this period of delay, there is no evidence that the landlord provided information to its residents, setting out the nature of the delay and reaffirming its intentions to do the repairs and whether the time for implementation would be pushed back. This was not appropriate.
It should be noted that the landlord told this service in March 2024 that the cracks resulted from thermal expansion and were simply a cosmetic matter. However, there was no indication of how it arrived at this conclusion, given its asset team was unaware of this issue until 2022, and there is no evidence it had inspected the building since. Further, in its section 20 consultation with residents in September 2023, it explained that this issue could have greater implications other than purely cosmetic.
Overall, the failure to keep the brickwork of the dwelling house in repair was not appropriate. Moreover, the landlord also failed to carry out investigative work since 2011. Several assurances given to the resident did not materialise, which caused the resident frustration and uncertainty for an extended period. The failure to deliver on promises and the lack of formal communication undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord and damaged the relationship between the resident and the landlord. This was not appropriate and amounted to maladministration.
The resident reported to this service that he was trying to sell the property. He had shown the property to prospective buyers. Feedback from the buyers indicated concerns about the structural integrity of the building. Whether there was an issue with the bricks or the structure’s integrity, would have no impact on the landlord’s repairs covenant. Therefore, this service finds that the failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, orders have been made below for the landlord to put it right.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord identified learning in this case. Further orders have been made below for it to do so.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the upkeep of communal benches

The resident’s lease says the landlord shall supply, provide, purchase, redecorate, paint, maintain, renew, replace, repair, treat and keep in good and serviceable condition all appurtenances, fixtures, fittings, bins, receptacles, tools, appliances, materials, furniture and equipment in the common area which are enjoyed or intended to be enjoyed by the leaseholder, in common with occupiers of other apartments.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says how it manages its neighbourhoods directly affects its residents’ quality of life and environment. It recognises that the involvement of residents is essential to maintaining safe, attractive neighbourhoods and schemes. It says customers’ local knowledge and feedback is invaluable. It would consult customers when planning any improvements to communal spaces and, where possible, prioritise the improvements which residents request.
The landlord leasehold management policy says it would:
1. Regularly review services with leaseholders to maintain quality standards and ensure value for money.
2. Provide the opportunity for leaseholder involvement in managing their homes as individuals and group members.
3. Develop effective communication methods that are sensitive to the leaseholders’ needs.
In his July 2022 complaint, the resident stated that the lack of maintenance had caused ‘irreparable damage’ to the wooden benches, which rotted and gave way, causing the benches to break. He said this was also the case with the bin sheds. In the resident’s opinion, this was a further example that the landlord’s ‘lack of maintenance’ meant that, with time, the communal parts deteriorated, and that the landlord removed these from the common parts without consulting residents. The landlord did not challenge the resident’s assertions. In its final response letter, it accepted that the benches were in a “severe state of deterioration”.
According to the resident’s lease, the landlord was obliged to repair and keep in repair, maintain, paint, and treat the fixtures, fittings, bins, furniture, and equipment within the common parts. The landlord accepted that the benches fell into a state of disrepair and became unusable. Public benches within the communal garden were an amenity that was open to residents to enjoy. The landlord was under obligation to repair and to keep the benches in repair. It was not appropriate that the landlord allowed these to fall into disrepair. While the lease gave the landlord the power to “alter the arrangement of the common areas”, it could not change it in a way that would deny the resident access to an amenity that had previously been open for him to enjoy.
In his July 2022 formal complaint, the resident said that the benches had been removed without resident consultation. The landlord did not dispute this, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says that how it manages its neighbourhoods directly affects its residents’ quality of life and environment. The policy says the landlord would consult customers when planning any improvements to communal spaces, irrespective of tenure types. There is no evidence the landlord consulted the residents when making decisions such as removing the sheds or communal benches. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s leasehold management policy says it would provide the opportunity for leaseholder involvement in managing their homes, both as individuals and group members. There is no evidence that the landlord asked its leaseholders for their views or considered their views when they had been shared with it. Therefore, there is no evidence it followed its policy here.
The landlord told this service that it believed a leaseholder had installed the benches. The landlord did not keep records of its estate inspections, and as a result, its estate management lacked continuity. It is reasonable to assume that if this had been the case, the landlord would have been alerted to it during the following estate inspection it had conducted. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that a Tort notice was issued before removing the benches, which was required if it believed it was not the owner of the benches.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord here. Further orders have been made below for the landlord to put it right and to learn from the outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the level of service charge is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about cracks in the brickwork of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of resident’s concerns about the upkeep of communal benches.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about cracks in the brickwork.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the upkeep of communal benches.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must instruct a qualified structural engineer to inspect the cracks in the brickwork. Within a further 2 weeks, it must write to residents setting out its action plan to implement the report’s recommendations in full, with times to be adhered to. A copy of the report and the plan must be shared with the resident and this service.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to offer a meeting with residents. The landlord is to agree with residents a suitable, date, time and location for the meeting. A suitably qualified senior manager of its homeownership team must facilitate the meeting. During the meeting, the landlord would consult residents on the key issues that are important to them in line with its policies, as summarised in paragraphs 25 and 26 of this report. Within a further 2 weeks after the meeting, the landlord would write to all residents setting out its action plan in response to the points agreed in the meeting (with times to be adhered to). A copy of its action plan must be sent to this service.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must create a refresher training program for all staff within its homeownership team, and its complaint handling team. The training would focus on the implementation, in practice, of its neighbourhood and estate management policy; and its leasehold management policy (as summarised in paragraphs 25 and 26 of this report). The training must include case studies of where the policy was implemented well and where it could have done better.
2. Within a further 6 weeks, it must ensure staff within its homeownership and complaint handling teams have completed the training.
3. Within a further 2 weeks, it must send this service the training presentation and the list of staff who had completed the training along with the date of completion.