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

The Riverside Group Limited (202300886)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300886

The Riverside Group Limited

20 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 request for compensation relating to repair delays, decorating, and flooring costs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bed house owned by the landlord. She is a wheelchair user.
  2. The resident reported damp to the landlord on 3 May 2022. It made an appointment to investigate on 5 May 2022 and it confirmed damp in the living room and kitchen of the property. It raised works, which it completed in October and December 2022. She completed a compensation claim form on 18 November 2022 to request reimbursement for wallpaper, paint, a decorator and laminate flooring at a total of £1,410.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 January 2023 as it had not responded to her request for compensation. She also stated that due to the repairs she had to spend 7 months living in her bedroom. The landlord sent a new compensation form for her to complete and return.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023. It stated that it had not received her completed compensation form. It said if this was not returned by 10 February 2023 it would close the complaint.
  5. The resident explained to the landlord that the dust and damp had affected her asthma causing her to stay in her bedroom for over 7 months. On this basis, she requested escalation of her complaint on 27 April 2023. She said that she had consulted Citizen’s Advice who advised her the landlord would have to put the property back to how it was before it completed the works and she was requesting compensation for this.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2023. It apologised for how long it had taken to complete damp works but stated that this would not result in it paying for decorating or laminate flooring. It advised her to claim on her home contents insurance.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for compensation and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.
  8. After the resident had brought her case to the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed the complaint. On 8 May 2024, it paid the resident compensation totalling £1,165.15, the amount she had originally requested.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported concerns about her health conditions. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination on whether the resident was caused illness or injury by the handling of the damp in her home. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This type of claim is better suited to the courts as a personal injury claim.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to her health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Compensation

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (at the time of the resident’s complaint) states that where it has completed a repair and that repair has resulted in damage to existing décor, or an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it. The nature and extent of the decoration is at its discretion.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also includes a section on assisting customers. It recognises that some of its customers may need help with meeting their repair responsibilities and it may use its discretion to widen the scope of repairs it will complete depending on individual circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy also outlines its approach to third party property damage claims, which are claims that do not exceed £2,000 that it can deal with without involving insurance for a quicker and more positive response for the resident. It is also able to provide payments for service failures up to the value of £500, depending on severity.
  4. In the resident’s compensation claim of 18 November 2022, she stated that the landlord removed all wallpaper in the kitchen and living room so that it could complete damp proofing works. She also said that it removed her existing laminate flooring, beading, and skirting due to rot and mould. In this claim, she advised she required a decorator due to her disability.
  5. The landlord noted in January 2023 that it had not received the claim form. The resident had sent the form to her housing officer and the department dealing with her complaint were part of its subsidiary repairs service, so it is possible that the repairs service did not receive her form. However, there is no evidence that it considered or raised works to make good the areas that had been subject to works in line with its repairs policy.
  6. After the resident raised her complaint on 27 January 2023, the landlord noted internally that it had previously dealt with and closed a complaint from her on 15 December 2022 which it upheld due to poor communication. It stated that it had taken 8 months to complete works after its initial inspection in May 2022. It spoke to her and advised that it would only consider compensation if it identified a service failure. It sent her a new form for completion by 3 February 2023. This gave her 2 full days to complete the form with the third day being the return date. This was not a reasonable amount of time.
  7. In its complaint response of 3 February 2023, the landlord gave the resident an extra week to complete the compensation form it had provided or it would close her complaint. In relation to her concerns about a lack of contact from her housing officer, it confirmed that it had asked them to contact her. This was a more positive and fair response in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord and the resident communicated frequently between the 3 February 2023 and 13 March 2023 to ensure that she submitted her claim for compensation. On 5 April 2023, it wrote to her stating that while damp works took a while to authorise, this would not result in it paying compensation. While these works can often exceed 28 working days, which is the general standard among social landlords for routine repairs, it took around 8 months which exceeds even a standard 60- or 90-day period for complex repairs. Considering this, it ought to have considered compensation for the delays during the complaint procedure.
  9. The landlord also stated in its compensation decision letter that the works to remove asbestos after a leak were separate and it did not accept legal fault for those, so it would not offer compensation, and it would not redecorate as per its policy. While this may have been the case, it showed little regard for the resident’s circumstances and offered little assistance when considering her disability.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 April 2023. It responded at stage 2 on 15 May 2023, confirming its decision not to offer compensation and advising her to contact her home contents insurer. There is no evidence that it provided this advice to her earlier in the process.
  11. On 8 May 2024, the landlord’s complaints team offered the resident compensation totalling £1,165.15 following its review of the case ahead of investigation by this Service. It decided to offer this as under its most recent damp and mould policy, it would decorate, so it agreed to cover the cost of decorating and offered reimbursement of flooring costs as a goodwill gesture.
  12. Importantly, the evidence shows that there was rising damp and the wallpaper needed to be removed to offer damp proofing. The landlord ought to have offered to make good the decorations after it repaired because the damage was caused by the repair works. The landlord’s policy clearly made provision for this. Similarly, the resident’s flooring was rotten due to the lack of damp proofing. It is also the position set out in Bradley v Chorley (1985) and Vukelic v Hammersmith and Fulham [2003]. A resident’s own contents insurance policy would not cover damage caused to the flooring by damp and rot, as this was a gradually operating cause. Therefore, as the landlord had not offered aa full effective and lasting repair during the period – which resulted in the flooring being damaged by mould and rot – it would be fair in all the circumstances for it to have replaced this.
  13. It is not known whether the landlord would have taken this action if the resident had not brought her complaint to this Service. It did not offer this remedy or to complete redecoration as part of its original complaint response despite its repairs and compensation policy supporting these actions as outlined previously. It showed little regard for her personal circumstances and made no efforts to make good the decoration of repaired areas. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. A further order for financial compensation will be made below as the payment already made was a direct reimbursement of receipted decorating costs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation relating to repair delays, decorating, and flooring costs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident the cost of completing the works, subject to her providing invoices to demonstrate the cost if this is higher than the compensation the landlord has offered.
    2. pay the resident compensation totalling £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report and the delay in offering appropriate compensation.
    3. provide Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders.