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

The Riverside Group Limited (202221892)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221892

The Riverside Group Of Companies Ltd

5 February 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s queries about her service charge.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is within a block that consists of 7 flats.
  2. Costs for the communal maintenance of the block are levied via a service charge.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about her service charge. The original complaint has not been provided to the Ombudsman. The earliest evidence of actions from the landlord relating to this complaint are on 17 October 2022. The resident was unhappy about two charges which had been added to her service charge statement. The first of these was for pest control. The second was for auto-access door maintenance and servicing. The resident queried what both of these related to, adding that she felt the door had never been serviced.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2022. It upheld the complaint, providing an apology for providing incorrect information on the statement. It informed the resident that the pest control charge was incorrectly named and this charge in fact covered all maintenance and health and safety checks for the block. It also confirmed that she had not been charged for any auto-door maintenance as it had not been listed on its previous charge and that it had no plans in place to recuperate any expenditure for this work. Its stage 1 complaint letter did not provide the resident with any referral rights to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  5. Following this, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 December 2022. She said that she was unhappy that the landlord had renamed services and added new features such as water hygiene testing to her bill. The resident advised that, since there was no communal water, this should not have been added to her bill. She also mentioned that she had previously requested inspection of service receipts but that the landlord had failed to provide these. As the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had not provided the resident with escalation rights, the Ombudsman considered the internal complaints procedure completed following the stage 1 complaint response. 
  6. The landlord has said that, following its stage 1 complaint response, it contacted the resident, informing her of its error and asking if she wished to escalate to stage 2 which she confirmed she would. The landlord has not provided evidence of this contact. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2023. It advised that that it had now removed the communal water tap that required water hygiene testing. It said however that the monthly charges relating to the communal inspections would remain the same. The landlord did not refer to the auto-door maintenance charges in its stage 2 response. To resolve her complaint, the resident said she would like the landlord to provide accurate billing or receipt slips for the services provided.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the fairness of the cost or liability to pay a service charge. This would fall under the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal. This investigation will instead focus on the way in which the landlord considered and investigated the resident’s queries and the information it provided regarding these.
  2. The landlord commented that it believed issues with auto-access door maintenance and servicing charge had not been through stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure. Due to a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considered that its internal complaints procedure was completed following its stage 1 complaint response. As the landlord has failed to provide evidence this was not mentioned as part of the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2, this issue has been considered as part of this investigation.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about her service charge

  1. The resident first raised issues with auto-access door maintenance and servicing being added to her service charge due to the fact she did not believe the door had ever been serviced. After raising her concerns, the landlord investigated the charge by speaking with the relevant team to understand why this was added to the bill. Whilst the charge refers to servicing in name, it discovered that the actual cost on the bill related to repairs which have been completed to the door.
  2. The landlord confirmed the resident was not charged for the repairs as there was no ‘property income’ listed on her service charge statement. The landlord also confirmed there would be no charge to the resident for this service the following year. The landlord’s actions in investigating the matter, and its subsequent, explanation were fair and reasonable in this regard.
  3. The resident also raised issues with the pest control charge listed on the service charge statement. The landlord confirmed to the resident that this was a mistake and apologised in its stage 1 response. This charge in fact covered what the landlord referred to as MHANDS (Maintenance, Health and Safety) services. This had several aspects to it, including communal area inspectors, water hygiene testing and pest control. In its explanation, the landlord provided the cost breakdown of its expenditure in relation to this charge.
  4. The landlord advised that, due to uncertainty from residents in the past, it had changed how it displayed this charge. On the statement the resident received, this was mistakenly listed as ‘pest control’ due to a system error. The landlord’s explanation, and apology, was a fair way of dealing with the resident’s concerns. This apology represented reasonable redress from the landlord.
  5. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the water hygiene testing aspect of the ‘pest control’ charge. She felt that as there was no communal water, the landlord should not be charging her for this. The communal tap in the building had previously been covered with a cage and was inaccessible to residents.
  6. Prior to its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord worked with the resident and contractors in order to have the communal tap removed. This means that water hygiene testing no longer needs to be carried out at the site. However, it also informed the resident that, although this no longer forms part of the inspections which take place, the monthly building safety and inspection cost remains the same. The landlord said this was due to the water hygiene testing not being portioned for the monthly building safety and inspection checks. The landlord’s explanation and actions in dealing with this matter were fair.
  7. Overall, the landlord investigated the issues the resident raised and provided clear explanations about these within its complaint responses. The landlord’s apology to the resident for the error on her service charge statement represented reasonable redress.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she has requested receipts for the items in her service charge. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this request. The Ombudsman requested additional information from the landlord about the contact between itself and the resident, however the landlord failed to provide this information. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss what charges she wishes to see the receipts for, and to provide information to her on what its legal requirements to provide this information are. 
  9. The landlord should also write to the resident to explain what part of the tenancy agreement allows for it to add variable charges for costs incurred by it in maintaining the block and the process by which she can appeal against the reasonableness of those charges.
  10. The landlord is also recommended to review its record-keeping policies to ensure that it has, and is able to provide, the necessary information that the Ombudsman requires.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint being made. At stage 2, it says it will provide its response within 20 working days. It says that at times it may require additional time, however in these instances it will inform residents of this.
  2. The landlord’s earliest evidence of dealing with the complaint is on 17 October 2022. It provided its response on 20 October 2022. As the Ombudsman is unaware of when the complaint was made, the Ombudsman is unable to say if this was inside the policy timescales.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1 represented maladministration. This was due to its failure to provide the resident with the necessary referral rights to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This failure represented an unnecessary obstacle from the landlord in the resident being able to access the complaints procedure. As stated previously, the landlord has said it called the resident to inform her of its error, but it has failed to evidence this call.
  4. From the landlord’s internal communication, it appears that it was aware of the complaint being escalated to stage 2 as early as 16 November 2022. However, the landlord took until 1 February 2023 to provide its final complaint response. This was outside of the timescales provided in its complaint handling policy. This delay again represented maladministration from the landlord.
  5. For its maladministration at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range for failures which adversely affect a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about her service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to handle her complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident to explain what part of the tenancy agreement allows for it to add variable charges for costs incurred by it in maintaining the block and the process by which she can appeal against the reasonableness of those charges.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss what charges she wishes to see the receipts for, and to provide information to her on what its legal requirements to provide this information are. 
  3. The landlord should review its record-keeping processes to ensure that, on request, it is able to provide the Ombudsman with a full audit trail of a complaint and its contact with residents throughout the complaint.