Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Riverside Group Limited (202234246)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234246

The Riverside Group Limited

22 November 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 reports that patio doors were not properly fitted.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident. 
  2. The landlord’s records show that it fitted patio doors in the property on 11 December 2019 and a certificate of completion was signed off on 28 February 2020. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended the property on 12 December 2022 to inspect a weather board that was letting rain in. A further appointment was raised, and it attended on 4 January 2023. The landlord said that its operative found the door was fitted correctly. On 1 February 2023, a further repair was logged, and the landlord arranged an appointment for a supervisor to survey the door on 20 February 2023. The landlord failed to keep this appointment.
  3. On 21 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy because the supervisor did not attend the appointment to repair her patio doors. The landlord’s records show that she cancelled the appointment, but she said that this was not the case. She said the seal of the door was on her carpet and not the floor which caused a draft.
  4. On 22 February 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised that it had missed an appointment to survey the patio doors on 20 February 2023. As a resolution to the complaint, it arranged another appointment to survey the doors.  
  5. On 7 March 2023, the resident escalated the complaint. She said that the landlord did not check the patio door properly. She was unhappy that the door was not as it should be and there was trim laid down on the carpet.
  6. On 27 March 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in surveying the patio doors. It confirmed that a supervisor surveyed the door on 20 March 2023 and found that there was nothing wrong with the fitting of the door. It said that the trim on the floor was decorative and if the resident changed her flooring, the trim could be removed. It apologised to the resident for any distress caused by the delays. 
  7. When the resident initially brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy because the door was not properly sealed which caused a draught and cold conditions in the property. She said that the surveyor had recommended a further repair, but the landlord did not raise a further repair order. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to repair the issue.
  8. On 14 February 2024, the resident advised the Ombudsman that she is using dehumidifiers because the property has damp and mould around the patio doors. As part of this investigation, the resident advised the Ombudsman that damp and mould remains an issue but she has not reported it to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the doors and door frames in the property. Where a repair is raised, the law states that a landlord must inspect to determine if it is responsible to repair.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp including, managing, and controlling condensation. It will respond to all reports of damp and condensation and complete any repair works/measures in line with its responsive repairs policy.
  3. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, it is evident that the landlord appropriately surveyed the door and concluded that it was properly fitted and, as such, it held no responsibility to carry out further repairs. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not carry out further investigations was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. When investigating the complaint, the landlord found that there was service failure as it missed an appointment to survey the door which caused delay in providing a response to the resident. It apologised for this service failure which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the surveyor told her that he would recommend a further repair, but the landlord failed to follow up with a repair order. Although the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s statement, we cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided.
  6. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence to establish what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the surveyor reported to the landlord that he found no issue with the door.
  7. This investigation found that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report’s that patio doors were not properly fitted. This is because it apologised to the resident when it found a service failure while investigating the complaint.
  8. The potential detriment of damp and mould to a resident’s health and wellbeing has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report entitled ‘Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle’, and that the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould is classified as a hazard.
  9. It is acknowledged that the landlord had not been made aware of the damp and mould in the property and this investigation found no failing in that regard. However, on receipt of this investigation report, it is strongly recommended that the landlord treats this as a report of damp and mould and applies its policy accordingly.   

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in the form of an apology, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord, on receipt of this report, contact the resident and apply its damp and mould policy.