The Riverside Group Limited (202218341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218341

The Riverside Group Limited

22 April 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:
1. Reports of damage to items in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2019. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
Planned works to the landlord’s properties are undertaken by a facilities management company, which is one of its contractors. As the landlord has ultimate responsibility, the contractor will be referred to as the landlord for the purposes of this report.
Planned works to the resident’s kitchen began on 26 July 2022 and continued through August 2022.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord had started work while the resident was not at home. When she arrived back at the house, she found the operatives had damaged her kitchen sink and sofa. The sink had been damaged when it was being removed. The gas operative who had been working in the living room had caught a part of his clothing on the sofa, which broke a piece off the arm.
The resident advised that the operatives had fitted the fridge/freezer into an alcove. The kitchen units and worktop had then been built tight to the edge of it. She states that the operatives had measured the fridge/freezer incorrectly, which meant it was jammed into the space and could not be moved. In addition, there was a radiator on the wall that prevented the door of the fridge/freezer from opening fully. The landlord attended on 12 August 2022 to fit the flooring. To do this it was necessary to remove the fridge/freezer from its current position. The resident confirmed the floor fitter was aware they had to wait for a plumber to take the radiator off before they could safely remove the fridge. The floor fitter had not waited, they pulled the fridge/freezer out causing a large scrape along the side.
The resident called the landlord on 23 August 2022 to make a complaint. She said:
1. Her living room sofa had been damaged. The gas operative had caught his clothing on it which broke a piece of wood off the side.
2. The operatives damaged the sink when they removed it. The sink belonged to her, she wanted to retain it and use it in the new kitchen.
3. She had informed the floor fitter that a gas pipe needed to be cut away and a radiator had to be taken off before the fridge/freezer could be removed. The floor fitter disregarded this advice and pulled the fridge/freezer out causing damage to all sides.
4. The painter had got paint on the blinds.
5. She was unhappy with the conduct of the contractor’s staff. An operative had used a derogatory name towards her in front of her children, and another had been smoking in the doorway of her house.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 August 2022. She told it the gas engineer had admitted they had damaged her sofa. She had recorded the conversation on her doorbell camera. She said she wanted the sofa repaired and the fridge/freezer replaced. The landlord accepted it had agreed to try and reuse the sink if it was possible, but the difficulty it had removing it had caused too much damage.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 August 2022. It listed the following complaint points:
1. Alleged damage to the resident’s fridge/freezer and sofa.
2. Alleged unprofessional conduct by its operative.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 September 2022. Its operatives advised the fridge was already damaged. It said it had not agreed to save the sink and she had not provided the evidence to show its operative had damaged the sofa. It told her it would not be offering compensation for the damage to the fridge/freezer sink or sofa.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 September 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had shared a video and photographs of the sofa. It listed the following points:
1. The gas engineer said he must have caught his jumper on a nail protruding from the sofa. The photographs show that the part of the sofa that was loose had since been pulled further down. It had attempted to send a joiner to her property to repair the sofa, but she had refused the appointment.
2. It apologised for the operative’s behaviour. It advised that it had reported the matter to management, to be dealt with according to its conduct policy.
3. It had received further evidence in relation to the damage to the fridge/freezer. It would review this evidence and then get back in contact with her on 9 September 2022 to inform her of its decision.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 September 2022. It said:
1. It understood the resident wanted compensation for the damage caused to her items. It had previously refused compensation for the sink and fridge/freezer in its stage 1 response.
2. It had offered to have one of its joiners repair her sofa, but she had refused. It advised that the offer remained open to her.
3. It would not offer compensation for the fridge/freezer, it felt that the damage was present before it had started the work. Also, it was a resident’s responsibility to remove appliances. If a resident requested that the contractor remove appliances, it could not be held responsible for any damage caused. It had attached the disclaimer she had signed which explained this point.
4. It had acknowledged in its disclaimer that it would try to reuse the sink. When it was being removed it became apparent that it was missing clips and a lot of silicone had been used to fix it in place. The operatives had to use additional force in the removal process that damaged it beyond use. It refused to offer compensation for damaging the sink.
Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When the resident brought her complaint to us, she advised the operatives had entered her house on the morning of 1 August 2022 when only her 16-year-old son was present. She had to make an emergency trip to the vet and had asked her son to tell the contractors to wait until she got back before coming into the house. She said her son had felt too shy when they arrived and permitted them entry. She believed the contractors should not have entered without an adult present.
The resident did not bring this part of her complaint to the attention of the landlord during the complaint process. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) paragraph 42a, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. We have not investigated or commented on this issue within this investigation. However, we have made a recommendation at the end of the report for the landlord in relation to the allegation. This is to help support effective dispute resolution.
Both the landlord and the resident have submitted photographs showing the layout of the kitchen and the damage to the fridge/freezer as part of their evidence.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to items in the resident’s property.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
Before the works had begun, the resident signed a planned disclaimer form provided by the landlord. It had only partially completed the form, it had not entered its own signature in any of the required sections. It had also failed to include relevant detail in certain parts of the form. We would have expected the landlord to have comprehensively and diligently completed it with the resident, had it intended to rely on it as evidence.
The only notes on the disclaimer form, other than the resident’s signature and address, was a note asking if she could have her own sink left in. When she arrived back at her property on 1 August 2022 the operative had already removed the sink and had damaged it beyond further use. Given that the planned disclaimer made a specific request to re-use the sink, the operative should have been aware that it was important to the resident. Based on the evidence available we cannot say whether or not it would have been possible to remove the sink without damaging it. However, once the operative realised that they were not going to be able to fulfil the resident’s request, it would have been appropriate to stall that piece of work until she returned. This would have provided the opportunity to show the resident the situation and discuss what options she had. Not doing so was unreasonable and caused her considerable frustration.
After discovering the damage to the sink, she found that her sofa had also been damaged. The gas engineer said they had caught their jumper on it which had broken a piece of wood off the side and pulled the arm of the sofa away. The landlord’s internal notes on the sofa dated 24 August 2022 state the following: “our operative noticed a screw sticking out and advised the customer that this may be dangerous to her children. He states the customer then came into the room saying he had damaged the sofa. The operative refutes this allegation.”
The landlord held this position in a call with the resident on 1 September 2022 when it told her it would not be paying compensation for the sofa. The resident was upset by the landlord’s approach, which was the opposite of what the engineer’s attitude had been at the time. She said they had been genuinely apologetic for causing the damage. The resident then submitted video footage from her doorbell camera. In the footage the operative acknowledged they damaged the sofa and advised the resident they would speak to their manager about it. It is clear from the different positions that initially there was a discrepancy between the operative’s and landlord’s account and the actual events. This is disappointing and calls into question the reliability of the landlord’s evidence.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the engineer must have caught their clothing on a nail which damaged the sofa. It offered to have one of its joiners attend and undertake a repair. This resident refused the offer as she wanted an upholsterer to repair it. We recognise that the resident wanted an upholsterer, but given the damage caused the offer of a joiner was reasonable. If the joiner had thought an upholsterer was required, then we would have expected the landlord to arrange this.
The landlord has said that the resident was rude and abusive to its operatives after the incidents with the sink and sofa. This required them to leave site and contact the housing officer. The resident admitted in her call with the landlord on 24 August 2022 that she swore at the operatives. The video footage she submitted shows this, which is unacceptable. When asked about it by the Ombudsman, the resident advised she had felt hurt and angry due to the damage that had been caused, however she recognised she was wrong. In instances where a landlord’s operatives are faced with unreasonable conduct it should follow the steps in its policy. In this instance the operatives returned to the property after the intervention by the housing officer.
The landlord submitted photographs of the fridge/freezer prior to the start of the works. In the picture it is sitting out in the corner of the kitchen. Both sides and front were accessible. The resident stated that she had told the operatives she wanted it moved to a recess on the other side of the kitchen. They moved it to the requested location and built the kitchen units tight to its edge. The resident has stated that the operatives measured the fridge/freezer incorrectly which meant it had to be “jammed” into the space. They had also not accounted for the radiator which prevented the fridge/freezer door opening fully. The resident said the landlord had agreed to move the radiator allowing the fridge/freezer door to open. The floor fitter attended on 12 August 2022 to lay the new flooring. To floor the area where the fridge/freezer was located it had to be removed. The resident states the floor fitter was aware that a plumber was due to attend and remove the radiator. She said she asked him not to remove the fridge/freezer until this had happened, to prevent it being damaged. She said she left the room and then heard a loud noise, she returned to find the floor fitter had pulled the fridge/freezer out causing a deep scratch down the side.
If the contractors were aware the flooring was being laid, the reason why they jammed the fridge/freezer into the space that they would have to later remove it from is unknown. It would have been reasonable to leave the fridge/freezer in a position where they could easily manoeuvre it to lay the new floor when the time came. The sequence of events surrounding the location of the fridge/freezer indicate poor planning of the works.
The landlord’s internal records state that the operatives had pictures from before the works, showing that the fridge/freezer was damaged. These pictures have date stamps and show they were taken on 29 June 2022. The before photographs show a laminate type floor whilst the after photographs show the new lino type floor. As previously mentioned, the pictures show the front of the fridge/freezer only, there is no evidence of damage. The pictures do not show the sides even though they were fully visible. The pictures taken after the fridge/freezer had a large deep scratch the same height as the worktop. If the purpose of the pictures was to provide evidence of the condition of goods before and after the work taking place, it is unreasonable to think the operatives would have missed such a large and deep scratch along the side of the fridge/freezer. The evidence indicates the damage was caused when the fridge/freezer was moved by the operative on 12 August 2022.
The landlord has relied heavily on the use of its disclaimer to absolve it of responsibility for any damage that it may have caused. Not once in its evidence has it acknowledged that it located the fridge/freezer in the position it then had to pull it out of. The resident stated the floor fitter was aware he had to wait for a plumber but that it was a Friday, and he was in a rush to get finished and therefore proceeded aware of the consequences. Whilst we understand the need for a disclaimer, it does not mean that operatives can dispense with all care and attention. They would be expected to take all reasonable steps to ensure they prevented damage. The situation caused the resident significant distress.
In its complaint response the landlord did not acknowledge that the gas engineer’s version of events had changed. Even though the engineer, and eventually the landlord, acknowledged they had damaged the sofa, it never offered an apology. It stated it had photographs showing damage to the fridge/freezer prior to the work beginning, however the photographs submitted to this Service do not show this, which was unacceptable. It sought to shift responsibility for the damage to the resident without ever acknowledging its role in the outcomes. The landlord’s responses to the actions of its operatives and the resident’s reports have lacked empathy and understanding. It failed to put things right for the resident. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her items.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The landlord’s code of conduct states that its operatives must be courteous, polite and considerate at all times and must never use coarse or foul language. The resident reported that an operative called her a derogatory name in front of her children. As previously mentioned, she admitted swearing at the operatives, this is not condoned or considered acceptable by the Ombudsman. However, faced with such behaviour, operatives should not retaliate or drop their standards of professionalism.
This service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the behaviour of the staff member and indicated it would be dealt with in line with its internal conduct policy. This was the correct course of action, however the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to share its overall feedback and the learning it had taken from investigation, whilst respecting the need for confidentiality. It did not do this which was shortcoming. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of staff conduct.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to items in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £450. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. The sum is comprised of:
1. £450 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged items.
2. If the sofa has not been repaired the landlord should offer the resident the option to have a joiner visit and repair it. If the joiner cannot fix the sofa, then the landlord should arrange for an upholsterer to repair it.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

In all future instances the landlord should ensure that its disclaimer forms are comprehensively completed with all required detail, if it intends to rely on them as evidence.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the contractors entering her property in the presence of her son. It should then review the visit with the contractors and decide if it needs to change its practice.