The Riverside Group Limited (202232510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232510

The Riverside Group Limited

30 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:
1. response to the resident’s report that she had been burgled, and the level of support it offered.
2. handling of repairs to the resident’s front door and communal rear door following the burglary.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident lived in a 1–bed, first floor flat and was an assured tenant of the landlord from August 2017 to March 2023. She is a survivor of domestic abuse.
On or around 13 January 222 the resident told the landlord that she had been burgled. The landlord carried out emergency repairs to the resident’s front door and the communal rear door.
The landlord also emailed the police during this time. It explained that the resident had reported that she was being targeted and requested to be moved. It asked the police whether it “knew anything about” her and the number of break-ins that she had experienced. The police responded and explained that the resident had left an abusive relationship and asked for her to be moved urgently.
At the end of January 2022 the local authority placed the resident on its highest band within its housing register. It is unclear what transpired over the following months; however, it is noted that during this period the resident left the property to stay with family as she did not feel safe.
On 15 July 2022 Victim Support contacted the landlord. It stated that the resident’s front door was still not repaired. The landlord replied and stated that it had attended on 4 July 2022 but the resident was not in. It asked that the resident contact it to book an appointment.
On 30 August 2022 the police carried out a security assessment of the resident’s home because the resident reported that she did not feel safe. It asked the landlord to carry out the following actions:
1. add a bolt to the rear garden to restrict garden access.
2. add self-closures to both the main entrance and rear communal doors to help security.
In early September 2022 the resident raised concerns that although she was told that the landlord would replace the rear communal door and her flat front door, it had not. In response, the landlord carried out an inspection of the doors on 13 September. It subsequently raised orders to replace both doors.
At the end of September 2022 the police informed the landlord that the resident was a potential victim of witness intimidation which was linked to the January 2022 burglary. It also provided the landlord with a summary of its safeguarding report. It explained that the resident had requested to move because the alleged perpetrators were linked to her ex-partner and knew where she lived. It stated it welcomed support from the landlord, such as help with moving the resident and installing security equipment.
Around the same time, the resident asked the landlord to install other security measures such as cameras or an alarm at the back of the building. While it is unclear, the evidence suggested that the resident also raised her concerns as a formal complaint. However, the landlord has not provided us with the original complaint.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it did not complete a safeguarding report because it was a police matter, therefore the police should have completed one. It had emailed the police on 17 January 2022 and the local authority placed the resident on the highest band on its housing register.
2. the police had not suggested that the property was insecure and, as there was a gap between January and June 2022 where it did not receive any further reports from the resident other tenants, it was “fair to say” that it considered that the repairs were completed satisfactorily.
3. it had attended on 13 September 2022 and raised several repairs. The replacement of the rear communal door and the resident’s flat front door were on order.
4. other work, including the bolt to the top gate would take place at the same time as the replacement of the resident’s front door, as it was unable to carry out the work the previous day due to the weather conditions.
5. it was apparent that there was work required to improve the security of the building following the recent inspection. It said that it would have expected its contractor to advise of them accordingly when it had completed repairs in January 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she was told that the doors would be replaced, which explained the gap in records between January and June 2022. The landlord at the time was “fully” aware of the situation and it had carried out two inspections where she was told that the doors needed to be replaced. She was concerned that the landlord had not taken any action following its inspections.
2. her housing officer was unaware of the safeguarding process. She was concerned that although the landlord had told her that the police had already completed a safeguarding report, the landlord had not requested a copy of it sooner. By not doing so it may have delayed her moving.
3. she was concerned that the landlord did not refer her to a vulnerable support housing officer, as she would have met the criteria for such support.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. there was miscommunication between it and its contractors which in part delayed the repairs to the doors. It was waiting for the new front door to come in stock.
2. it did not complete a safeguarding referral because the police had told it that it would do so. It said that the housing officer should have been aware of the safeguarding process and how it operated. It said that it asked that the individual was made aware of the safeguarding process and safeguarding training was undertaken annually.
3. it did not employ vulnerable support housing officers, therefore it was unable for refer the resident to such an officer.
4. it offered the resident £200 for delays and poor standard of communication that it had identified as a good will gesture.
The communal rear door was replaced on or around 25 January 2023. While the resident’s front door was replaced after this, the landlord has not provided the date that this was completed.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint the landlord’s management transfer policy stated that additional priority may be given in circumstances such as harassment provided that a transfer is likely to resolve the presenting problem and that suitable accommodation is likely to be available.
Its safeguarding policy stated that it:
1. worked actively with agencies such as Social Services, health professionals and the police to prevent, assess and investigate allegations of abuse or neglect.
2. ensured that there were processes in place in relation to the recording and reporting of allegations or concerns about abuse across the business.
3. worked in line with local safeguarding procedures, ensuring that safeguarding concerns were reported in line with local arrangements.
Its responsive repairs policy stated:
1. an emergency repair included unsafe, insecure or broken doors including front, back and communal doors.
2. it would proactively consult with customers when required and deliver a customer focused service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response and level of support it offered the resident when she was burgled

We have not been provided with a contemporaneous record of the contact between the resident and the landlord when she reported that she had been burgled in January 2022. However, the evidence available demonstrates that she explained that she was being targeted. Upon hearing this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment. There is no evidence that it did so. The landlord’s safeguarding policy stated that it should be read in conjunction with its risk assessment policy. We do not have a copy of that policy. However, risk assessments are an essential tool in prompting landlords to gather important information directly from its residents when they are faced with a situation that presents as a potential risk to their safety. They also allow the resident to tell the landlord their current circumstances and vulnerabilities. In this case, the landlord’s failure to carry out such an assessment meant that it missed an opportunity to take appropriate steps to support the resident. The evidence available also does not demonstrate that the landlord considered signposting her to other supporting agencies.
It is noted that the landlord contacted the police about the incident in a timely manner, which was appropriate. As a result the police requested an urgent move for the resident, and the local authority placed her on its highest band in its housing waiting list at the end of January 2022. The evidence suggests that the police and the local authority made those decisions, in part, because the resident was of risk of domestic abuse. It is unclear whether the burglary and the resident’s concerns that she was being targeted were also a factor in their decision. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ascertained such information for its own records. This would have informed its next steps and ensured that it had provided the resident with the relevant level of support while she was awaiting to be moved. The evidence available demonstrates that it did not. This is a failing.
The landlord also did not complete a safeguarding referral at this time. It stated in its stage 2 response that it did not complete one because the police had told it that it would do so. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence to corroborate this. The landlord also told us that it was unable to confirm that the police’s referral was “fully sufficient”. Additionally, its safeguarding policy states that it actively works with other agencies, such as the police to prevent, assess and investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. The evidence provided demonstrates that it failed to do this. While the burglary was a criminal offence and so a police matter; the landlord should have given the circumstances wider consideration given the resident’s history of domestic abuse and that she was vulnerable. The evidence available demonstrates that it did not follow up on the outcome of the referral at any time. Nor did it report the safeguarding concerns within its own records, which was not in line with its safeguarding policy that stated that it recorded concerns of abuse. This is a further failing.
Furthermore it is an indication of poor record keeping. Our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report stated ‘The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.’ In this case, its failure to record and monitor the outcome of the safeguarding referral meant that the landlord missed another opportunity to ensure that it had or could take additional reasonable steps to support the resident. It is also noted that the resident was concerned that the landlord’s failure to obtain the safeguarding report in a timely manner may have negatively affected her housing. The landlord cannot definitively say whether that would have been the case. Nonetheless, the resident’s concerns highlight that it is important that landlords take reasonable steps to communicate with their residents on such matters such as safeguarding referrals, irrespective of which agency made the referral. This would have provided the resident with an understanding of the landlord’s role in the matter and managed her expectations.
Around the same time Victim Support told the landlord that the resident was “terrified” therefore she was staying at a relative’s home for a few days. It explained that it was not a long term solution and asked whether the landlord could help her with temporary accommodation. While it is unclear, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord replied or took reasonable steps to look into the matter.
On 25 January 2022 while carrying out repairs, the landlord’s contractor recorded that extra security measures, including repairs to the external gate were needed “to help the customer feel safe”. This should have prompted the landlord into taking reasonable action. Such as contacting the resident to discuss her concerns further and carrying out a meaningful estate inspection of her building. This would have demonstrated to the resident and satisfied itself that it had listened to her concerns and was taken proactive steps to support her.
Given the information that it received from external agencies and its own contractor during this time, it is clear that the landlord missed several opportunities to reasonably support the resident. There is also no evidence to suggest that it considered other options that may have supported the resident, such as a management transfer.
It is noted that between the end of January and June 2022 there was no contact between the landlord and the resident. The evidence suggests that this was because the resident was staying with relatives during this period. At the end of August 2022 the police assessed the security of the resident’s home and asked the landlord whether it could put in place additional security measures. The landlord responded and raised the relevant work orders in a timely manner. It is noted that the landlord had to reschedule some of these works due to poor weather conditions on the day of the works. However, due to the absence of contemporaneous records, the date when the landlord completed the works such as adding bolts to the rear back gate, is unknown.
The police informed the landlord in September 2022 that the resident was involved in an incident where she was a victim of witness intimidation in relation to the January 2022 burglary. This was also linked to her ex-partner who was the perpetrator of the domestic violence. Given that the police provided this information, the landlord should reasonably have carried out its own safeguarding risk assessment to determine whether it needed to offer any additional support for the resident. There is no evidence that it had done so, which is a further failing.
Around the same time, the resident also asked the landlord to install cameras or an alarm at the back of the building. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to these specific requests. It is noted that the landlord confirmed that it would fit the resident’s building with an intercom so visitors had to announce themselves before being permitted entry the building. This provided some suggestion that it had taken her concerns seriously.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained to the resident that it was unable to refer her to a vulnerable support officer. While this may have been the case, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord missed the underlying issue that the resident did not feel supported. Therefore, as part of lessons learnt, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed what actions it had taken during the case, given the circumstances and that the resident was a domestic abuse survivor. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it was committed to resolving her complaint. This investigation has highlighted that the landlord missed opportunities to reasonably support the resident following the burglary. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to carry out a case review.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s report that she was being targeted following the burglary.
2. carry out a meaningful inspection of the resident’s building following its contractors notes where it identified additional security measures were needed.
3. demonstrate that it took steps to ensure that it was proactively working with partnering agencies, such as the police to ensure a safeguarding referral was submitted and recorded.
4. consider the resident’s circumstances as a domestic abuse survivor meant that she may have needed additional and tailored support.
Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s response and level of support it offered the resident after she was burgled.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her front door and communal rear door following the burglary

The landlord failed to provide us with requested key information and documents to support the position that it outlined in its complaint responses. This included contemporaneous repair records and call logs. This is information that should reasonably have been located and taken into account in its own consideration of the complaint, and it is unsatisfactory that it was not able to provide this information. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
There is no dispute that the landlord carried out emergency repairs to secure the resident’s front door and the communal rear door on or around 13 January. The evidence suggests that the landlord then raised an order for follow up works to a door on or around 31 January. Due to the absence of contemporaneous records, it is unclear what door the landlord was referring to. Furthermore, it is unclear whether those repairs were completed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that although it attended and completed the work, it should have carried out a further visit to ensure that the repairs were fully attended. As we do not have evidence to corroborate the landlord’s recount that the works were completed, we cannot say with confidence that its position is accurate. Therefore the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to repair and carry out appropriate follow up works on both doors.
There is also no dispute that the landlord’s contractor told the resident around the same time that both doors would be replaced. The contractor’s notes stated the doors needed some “extra security” measures. It is noted that the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and not replace. However, given the resident’s circumstances it would have been appropriate for it to have reasonably followed up on the contractor’s notes. This may have included contacting the resident and/or support agencies to ascertain whether additional measures were needed. This is because although, the doors may have been repairable, they may have no longer been suitable for the resident’s needs given that she was at risk of potential harm. This would have given it an opportunity to address the resident’s security concerns in line with its responsive repair policy that stated that it would consult with the residents when required.
Furthermore, the resident was left with the impression that the doors were going to be replaced. It is noted that the landlord went some way to address this failure when it acknowledged that there was miscommunication between it and its contractor in its stage 2 response at that time.
The resident had to chase the landlord for an update around the end of June 2022. It is noted that the landlord subsequently booked an appointment for 4 July but was unable to gain access. The resident also explained later in September 2022 that she was told that both doors were going to be replaced
In response the landlord carried out an inspection on 13 September 2022 and decided to replace them. The reason for its decision to replace the resident’s front door is unknown. However, the landlord noted that there was a safety concern with the rear communal door and it was not fit for purpose and noted that there had been burglaries. In the absence of contemporaneous records, while the inspection was appropriate, the delay of it is concerning, given that the landlord’s contractor recommended additional works to security measures for the communal rear door in January. This also highlighted that while it is understandable that a landlord encourage residents to report communal repairs and concerns, it should also proactively carry out its own inspections. This is because the landlord has a repair obligation to ensure its buildings and individual homes are secure, and should not rely solely on residents reporting communal issues. In this case, the evidence available suggests that the communal rear door remained insecure after the burglary for approximately 8 months before the landlord carried out a meaningful inspection. That was a failing and it is understandable that the resident may not have felt secure in her home.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there was some miscommunication between itself and its contractor which in part contributed to the delays. It offered the resident £200 as a “goodwill gesture”. However, taking into consideration the impact its failure had on the resident, the level of compensation is not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused over a protracted time. Therefore a further award of compensation has been ordered in recognition of this in line with Ombudsman remedies guidance.
The communal rear door was replaced on or around 25 January 2023. This was approximately a year after the landlord’s contractor had noted that doors needed extra security. It is noted that there were issues with the supply of the doors later on in the case which added to the overall delays. However, the overall delay could reasonably have been mitigated if the landlord had taken appropriate timely steps to investigate the matter earlier.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it completed the relevant follow up works to the doors in January 2022.
2. follow up on its contractors’ January notes that recommended extra security measures, which meant it did not carry out a meaningful inspection until approximately 4 months after the burglary.
3. consider the resident’s specific circumstances which warranted a tailored and proactive approach in line with its policy that stated that it would take a customer focus approach and consult with resident’s when required.
4. consider the impact its failures had on the resident within its offer of redress.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her front door and communal rear door following the burglary.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s response and level of support it offered the resident when she was burgled.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reported repairs of her front door and communal rear door following the burglary.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its poor response and level of support it offered the resident when she was burgled.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its poor handling of her reported repairs to her front door and communal rear door following the burglary.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint response, if it has not already done so.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should carry out a case review, taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report:
1. review its partnership working practices in relation to its safeguarding process. In particular there should be clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure all matters are recorded and monitored when a referral is made by another agency.
2. ensure staff are trained/retrained on its risk assessment policy and procedures. In particular, it should ensure that staff are aware when the policy and procedure should be followed.
3. review its record keeping practices in line with our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report. In particular, ensuring that all contact with its residents, such as visits and calls are logged on its system, in relation to repairs and safeguarding process.