The Riverside Group Limited (202301822)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301822

The Riverside Group Limited

25 October 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 of repair issues in her property.

Background

2. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property was a flat within a block of flats. The flat has high ceilings and sash windows. The landlord was aware that the resident is affected by mobility issues.
3. In or around January 2023, the resident reported water pooling in her kitchen near her balcony door. She also noted draughts coming through her windows, which was making it hard to heat the property effectively.
4. The landlord’s repair records note that an inspection took place on 26 January 2023. The landlord noted condensation in the property and raised a damp survey. However, the records do not note the outcome of any such survey.
5. The resident made a formal complaint about her concerns on 15 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 February 2023, which included the following:
   1. It noted it had completed a further inspection on 15 February 2023 but had not detected any draughts from the windows.
   2. It advised that it had arranged a roof inspection for 28 February 2023 and a further internal inspection on 1 March 2023. It would keep the resident updated about the outcome of its inspection.
   3. Finally, it noted there was some mould in the property and that it had arranged a mould wash for 9 March 2023. It advised that it considered the cause of this mould to have been condensation. It advised the resident to increase the use of heating and ventilation in the property to address this, although it noted the resident’s concerns about the cost of heating the property.
6. Following the landlord’s attendance on 1 March 2023, its surveyor’s internal communications noted that the windows did not have any repair requirements but could be improved by adding a Perspex window cover. The landlord also discussed internally whether there were any upcoming planned programmes of works to replace windows; however, there were none.
7. The surveyor also noted that the patio doors could be replaced with better insulated doors and that ventilation improvements, such as an extractor fan, could be added. The landlord did not pursue these recommendations, and based on the evidence provided, it is not clear on what basis it decided not to take any action.
8. Further to the resident’s concerns about fuel costs, it is evident that the landlord provided the resident with £147 in fuel vouchers.
9. On 28 March 2023, the landlord provided its promised update and confirmed that it did not consider there to be any repair issues. As such, it would not take any further action.
10. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on the same date and noted both the draughts and water ingress were ongoing. She also reported that the windows did not close properly and were blown.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2023, which included the following:
    1. It repeated its position that there was no evidence of a draught or leak and that its surveyor had not identified any repairs to the windows or doors.
    2. It further noted there were no upcoming planned programmes of works to the windows.
    3. It also noted it had provided payment help to assist the resident with the cost of heating. It finally noted that it had discussed the option of relocation but that the resident had declined.
12. The resident continued to report window draughts leaks under her door in July 2023. The landlord subsequently attended and completed some works to seal the edges of the windows. The landlord’s surveyor completed a further inspection in August 2023 and once again identified improvements to ventilation to address condensation, but it is not evident that these were pursued by the landlord.
13. The landlord’s records show it sought to replace the glass in the windows in October 2023 but had difficulty obtaining the replacement glass. The glass was subsequently replaced in November 2023. At this time, the landlord’s surveyor noted again that there was excessive condensation on the patio doors and recommended an additional ventilation unit.
14. A further inspection was completed in December 2023. The landlord’s surveyor identified that the bathroom extractor fan was not fit for purpose and that there was evidence of water pooling above the patio door. The resident subsequently engaged a legal representative, and some works were completed to her neighbour’s roof with the aim of solving the possible door leak. It is not evident if the works were successful, and the resident chose not to pursue any legal action.
15. The resident has advised this Service that she moved out of the property in August 2024 but remains concerned with the landlord’s service delivery throughout the period of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery, may have impacted her physical and mental health.
17. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
18. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord’s approach should have considered the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.

Policies and procedures

19. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes the following:
    1. The landlord will seek to address routine repairs within 28 days.
    2. Regarding mould, residents should address this by adequately heating their homes and ensuring that ventilation units are switched on. If this is unsuccessful, the landlord will arrange an inspection to assess the underlying cause.
    3. The landlord will keep installations relating to ventilation in good working order.

Repairs

20. Following the resident’s initial reports in January 2023, the landlord attended the property within a few days. Given that there was no evidence of any emergency concerns, this was an appropriate response time and well within the policy timeframes for a routine repair.
21. The Ombudsman understands that it can take multiple inspections and tests to determine the cause of any leaks or damp. Following its initial inspection, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that a damp survey would be completed. The resident would also reasonably expect to be informed of the outcome of such an inspection. However, the landlord’s records do not indicate that any further inspection was completed or that any further updates were provided to the resident. This would have been distressing for the resident, as she continued to experience the issues but had no proposed resolution. She also had to expend time and effort chasing updates and raising a formal complaint.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided its position that it had not detected a draught from the windows. While this was contrary to the resident’s position, the landlord was relying on the report from its appropriately qualified surveyor, and so it was reasonable for it to have reached this position based on the evidence available. It also appropriately committed to complete further inspections to try and trace the cause of the leak near the patio doors and keep the resident updated.
23. Regarding mould detected in the property, it appropriately arranged for a mould wash within a reasonable timeframe. It also gave appropriate advice to address condensation in the property, which was in line with its policy. It would have been helpful, however, had it noted that it would continue to monitor the situation if these steps were ineffective. This would have reassured the resident that it was committed to resolving the issue permanently. However, it did not do this.
24. Regarding heating the property, the landlord identified in its stage 1 response that the resident was concerned about the cost of heating. While it later contacted her and provided appropriate assistance with the costs, it would have been helpful to have set out in the stage 1 response what support it could offer.
25. The Ombudsman understands that there is a difference between an improvement and a repair. The landlord has an obligation to complete repairs; however, it also has an obligation to manage its funds appropriately and so may not be able to offer improvements in all circumstances.
26. In this case, the landlord’s surveyor made recommendations about an improvement to the windows to reduce the draught. The landlord’s internal communications noted that the windows had heritage protection, which made it difficult to add improvements. While this may have caused a hurdle to approving improvements, the landlord’s internal communications did not specifically consider the surveyor’s recommendation. Instead, the landlord informed the resident only that no repairs were necessary. It did not provide any explanation as to why it could not consider improvements or otherwise seek to measure her expectations. The Ombudsman notes that one member of the landlord’s staff even questioned if this response was appropriate given the resident’s distress; however, the landlord nevertheless proceeded with this response.
27. The landlord’s inspections were also unable to detect a leak near the patio doors. Instead, it questioned whether the pooling water was caused by excessive condensation. While it initially gave advice to increase the heating in the property, its policy notes that if increasing heating is unsuccessful, it will consider further inspections to assess an underlying cause. To that end, the landlord’s surveyor made multiple recommendations about how to improve the ventilation in the property, including replacing the patio doors and adding extractor fans. It is not evident that the landlord considered these proposals or otherwise sought to complete further inspections.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord simply repeated that there were no repair issues. This approach was not in line with its policy to reconsider the issues given that previous steps had been unsuccessful. It was also contrary to the advice given by its surveyor. Similarly, while it reiterated its position that there were no draughts, it failed to address the resident’s reports that the windows could not be shut and had blown. Given that these issues had not been part of the stage one investigation, it may have been reasonable to open a new stage one response to address them; however, the landlord’s failure to provide any kind of position or advice would have been frustrating for the resident. Its failure to either raise a new complaint or new repairs at this time demonstrated a failing in the landlord’s approach to both repairs and complaint handling.
29. Given the ongoing reports of the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord completed further inspections; however, it once again chose not to follow the recommendations of its surveyor. The landlord’s policy specifically notes that it will keep ventilation installations in a state of good repair; however, it is not evident it addressed the bathroom vent despite the surveyor’s report that it may not be fit for purpose.
30. Additionally, while it is evident that it completed some works to the windows (for which there were some reasonable delays due to the glass not being available), it failed to reappraise the patio door leak despite the report from its surveyor that “a bucket full of water” would spill from above the door when opened. This was a further missed opportunity to complete additional inspections and works based on new evidence. Its failure to do so added to the distress experienced by the resident.
31. In summary, at the beginning of the period of the complaint, the landlord was timely in its inspections and gave some relevant advice about managing heating and ventilation. It also appropriately provided assistance with heating costs. It further provided some reasonable positions based on the evidence it had available at the time. It failed, however, to consider all of the proposals of its surveyor and communicate its reasoning to the resident, which was contrary to the requirements of its policy. It also failed to reappraise its position based on new information following further inspections. Given the resident’s clear distress, its failure to fully articulate its position would have been particularly distressing and ultimately informed the resident’s decision to leave the property.
32. Given the above failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for compensation of £250 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration where the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in her property.

Orders

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in her property.
35. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.