The Riverside Group Limited (202315925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315925

The Riverside Group Limited

29 April 2025

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 handling of the resident’s responsive repairs, including a paving slab to the front of the property and the rear garden fence.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in December 1984. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues which the landlord is aware of.
3. In January 2023 the resident reported a broken paving slab at the front of the property. In February 2023 the resident reported that the rear garden fence needed repairing due to loose and broken fence panels.
4. On 7 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repairs. The landlord told her it was not responsible for repairing the paving slab. She said the landlord had marked the repair to the fence as completed but it was not. The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had not kept her updated and asked it to log a formal complaint. 
5. On 15 March 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had raised a repair for the broken paving slab and its repair team would contact the resident with an appointment date. In relation to the fence, it said it had inspected this and found the rails were rotten and needed replacing. It explained there was a large tree on the outside of the fence which was growing against it and causing damage. It said the tree was on land owned by the local council. It had arranged for a tree survey and, when the time was right, it would assist with removal of the tree. It would repair the fence when the tree was removed. It explained this would be time consuming and asked the resident to be patient. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
6. On 31 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that no one had attended the appointment on 28 March 2023 to repair the broken paving slab. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
7. On 4 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It confirmed the resident understood the repair to the fence would take time to resolve. The landlord confirmed it had rebooked the repair for the paving slab for 5 April 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
8. The resident has told us the fence repair is outstanding. She said she felt the landlord had washed its hands of the matter and she had not received any update from it. As an outcome, she would like the landlord to complete the repair to the fence so that her garden was secure.

Update from the landlord post ICP

9. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported the rear fence again in August 2023. The landlord inspected the fence and found heavy growth of shrubs, ivy, and a tree in a private rented property which was pushing against the resident’s fence. It noted it needed to ask the property owner to remove the excess growth before it could repair the fence. Following contact from the landlord in April 2025, the property owner instructed a contractor to cut the tree down on 14 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Responsive repairs

10. The resident complained to the landlord about responsive repairs including:
    1. broken paving slab to the front of the property
    2. damaged rear garden fence
11. We have considered the landlord’s handling of these issues (below) separately for clarity.

Paving slab

12. On 28 January 2023 the resident reported a paving slab to her front access path was broken and needed repair.
13. The landlord’s repair policy says it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair pathways and steps (where they are the main means of access to a property). The policy says it will complete routine repairs such as this within 28 days.
14. We can see the landlord initially logged this repair on 28 January 2023 and marked it complete on 2 March 2023. The evidence indicates the landlord did not attend this appointment because the resident contacted it on 7 March 2023 for an update as the repair was outstanding. She said the landlord told her it was not responsible for repairing the paving slab. The broken paving slab was on the driveway of the property, which was a main means of access, it was therefore a repair which the landlord was responsible for. The landlord should ensure that its employees have a clear understanding of what is and what is not the landlord’s responsibility.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord accepted it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the paving slab. It logged a new repair which it arranged for 28 March 2023. On 31 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that no one had attended this appointment.
16. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it had rebooked the repair for 5 April 2023. The landlord completed the repair on 27 April 2023.
17. This was 3 months after the resident first reported the issue. This was especially concerning because the resident had mobility issues and the landlord was aware of this. The landlord should have completed the repair in a timely manner to ensure that it had removed any trip hazard. The landlord’s response to this repair was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or repair timescales.

Rear garden fence

18. On 7 February 2023 the resident reported there were loose or broken fence panels to her rear garden fence.
19. The landlord’s repair policy says it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair boundary and dividing fences. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord logged the repair. The landlord marked this repair complete on 17 February 2023.
20. On 7 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord because it had marked the repair complete on her repair records. The repair was outstanding and the landlord had not provided her with an update. As outlined above, the landlord said it had inspected the fence and found that it needed a repair. However, it was unable to complete this repair until the tree was removed. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged for a tree survey. It is not clear from the records whether the tree survey went ahead or not. However we can see the landlord visited the address on 23 March 2023 and noted that the tree was outside the landlord’s boundary.
21. Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local councils to deal with complaints about high hedges which are having an adverse effect on a resident’s enjoyment of their home and/or its garden or yard. If appropriate, they can order the owner of a high hedge to take action to put right the problem and stop it from happening again. It would have therefore been reasonable of the landlord to signpost the resident to the local council, or to have contacted the council itself, to ask it to investigate this issue and take the appropriate action.
22. Where there is an obligation on a landlord to complete a repair, it can sometimes mean that it needs to do something in addition to its policy to complete it. In this case, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to consider the following actions so that it could complete the repair to the fence in a timely manner: 
    1. Identify who owned the land on which the tree was situated.
    2. Discuss what steps the landowner would take to remove or trim the tree so that the landlord could complete the repair to the fence.
    3. Confirm any discussions or agreements in writing to the landowner with clear timescales.
    4. Consider what action it could take if the landowner refused to act or did not complete any agreed actions.
    5. Signpost the resident to other agencies who may be able to help, such as the local council.
    6. Keep the resident updated on its actions and next steps.
23. There is no evidence that the landlord took the above actions during the resident’s complaint. This meant the repair to the fence remained outstanding from February 2023 until the date of this report, with no date set for completion. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or repair timescales.

Summary and conclusions

24. In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
    1. Unreasonably delayed in repairing the paving slab.
    2. Failed to take steps to identify and speak to the landowner regarding the tree.
    3. Failed to signpost the resident to the local council.
    4. Failed to manage communications with the resident about progress and timescales associated with the repair to the fence which resulted in her having to chase the landlord for updates.
25. We consider these failures to collectively amount to maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her.
26. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delay in completing the repair to the paving slab and the expected time it would take to complete the repair to the fence.
28. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repair to the paving slab in April 2023 and by it inspecting the fence in March 2023. The landlord did not offer any compensation to recognise its failure to meet its service standards and its failure to complete repairs within its published timescales. We have therefore made an order that the landlord pay compensation to the resident to recognise these failures.
29. The landlord failed to recognise any learning from this complaint. We have therefore made a recommendation below to reflect this.
30. The landlord’s redress does not, in our view, recognise the impact on the resident. As set out, the repair to the paving slab was delayed and the repair to the fence remains outstanding. The resident’s enjoyment of her home was affected due to the rear garden being insecure during this time. Based on the period this remained outstanding and the impact, and in accordance with the Remedies Guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the responsive repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this report. The apology must come from a manager.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs.
    3. The payment must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    4. Complete the repair to the rear garden fence.
33. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that the landlord complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take from it.