The Riverside Group Limited (202309219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309219

The Riverside Group Limited

31 July 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 response to the resident’s request to remove woodchip wallpaper from the living room ceiling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is an assured joint tenant of the landlord, she lives in a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy began on 21 June 2022. The landlord has noted that the resident has a heart condition but has no other vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
4. The resident has stated she reported repairs soon after moving into the property. The resident has stated coving was removed, although it is not clear when, from the living room, leaving damaged wallpaper. On 14 November 2022, trunking was removed which left “strips” of damaged wallpaper visible. The landlord reportedly refused to repair the wallpaper as it said this would be the resident’s responsibility.
5. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint on 14 March 2023, following a phone call. The landlord noted the resident complained about “ongoing issues at the property”. Its notes stated the “current” repair issue to be the ceiling.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 March 2023. In this response it said the ceiling had not been reported as a repair. As it had been unable to successfully contact the resident, it requested she call to arrange an inspection.
7. The resident requested her complaint be escalated over the phone on 29 March 2023. The landlords note from this call state the resident felt it was “not fair” the work was all due to the house not being ready to let.
8. The landlord acknowledged the residents request on 4 April 2023 and said a stage 2 response could be expected by 19 April 2023. The landlord issued its response on this date. Within its final response, it said:
   1. An inspector attended on 28 September 2022 and advised that a section of the ceiling required re-plastering.
   2. As the resident had requested the woodchip wallpaper be removed first, which was the resident’s responsibility, the plastering had not been completed.
   3. It could replaster the section of the ceiling that requires attention but would not remove the woodchip wallpaper from the entire ceiling.
   4. As a gesture of goodwill, if the resident removed the wallpaper, the landlord would skim the whole ceiling.
9. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 14 June 2023, she said she would like the landlord to remove the wallpaper and reskim the ceiling as a resolution as she wanted her home completed and to “an acceptable standard”.
10. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman the ceiling was “over boarded” on 18 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove woodchip wallpaper from the living room ceiling.

11. The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord to be responsible for Internal walls, floors, ceilings and plasterwork, but not the decoration of these. The policy says it is the resident’s responsibility to decorate the inside of their home and keep it in a reasonable state of decoration. Therefore, in this case, the landlord followed its policy and advised the resident that the decorating of the ceiling, which would include removing wallpaper was her responsibility.
12. The same policy does also state that although decoration is the resident’s responsibility, if a repair has resulted in damage to existing décor, or an “obvious and significant contrast” between the repaired area and existing décor the landlord will make good and decorate it at its discretion.
13. The Ombudsman does not see the landlord’s response in this case to be unreasonable. The landlord agreed part of the ceiling required replastering, the dispute was whether this was a “significant contrast” to the existing woodchip wallpaper. The landlord had offered, as a gesture of goodwill in its final complaint response to skim to whole ceiling if the wallpaper was removed which was fair. This went beyond its repair obligations and demonstrated it sought to put things right for the resident. Further to this, the ceiling was over boarded in March 2024. 
14. The Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove the woodchip wallpaper from the living room ceiling. It followed the dispute resolution principles and its offer to reskim the ceiling was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords record keeping.

15. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlords housing management and repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of its customers and its property. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
16. In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on the repair records to offer clarity and it would be expected that these are sufficiently detailed enough to show what repairs took place and when, or in this case why a repair would not be completed. However, in an update to the Ombudsman when asked for required information the landlord provided a table that stated, “multiple repairs following poor void work” and advised this was not related to the complaint, it later provided its repair records. Within the information provided and its final complaint response it referenced an inspection taking place on 28 September 2022, but provided no inspection report to evidence what was agreed or discussed. Within an internal email provided, which was not dated, the landlord stated the “notes” would not have been recorded on its system as it wasn’t a repair but just a “discussion” that was had with the resident about decoration.
17. In addition, the landlord did not provide evidence of its contact records for this investigation, it referenced attempts to call the resident within its complaint responses, however provided no evidence of this. It is also difficult to establish from the notes provided the detail of the resident’s complaint as the landlord provided a ‘brief’ note of its record of the complaint.
18. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord communicated clearly and satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. This has also hindered the Ombudsman from fully and accurately determining whether the alleged time and trouble spent by the resident was unreasonably extensive and therefore likely to have caused further avoidable inconvenience to the resident. Based upon the records provided to the Service, the quality of record keeping and communication standards exhibited in this case by the landlord cannot but have caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
19. Taking the above into account there has been service failure by the landlord in its record keeping.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s request to remove woodchip wallpaper from the living room ceiling.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders

22. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its poor record keeping.
23. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out a strategic review of the record keeping in this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
    1. Its record keeping processes for contact, void and repair records.
    2. How agreements made at the outset of a tenancy are recorded.
    3. Its intention and timescale to ensure its staff are fully aware of the record management policy and procedures.
    4. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) throughout its review.
24. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within the specified timescales.