The Riverside Group Limited (202317327)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317327

The Riverside Group Limited

26 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 7 January 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of independent living accommodation for people over 55 years.
The evidence shows that the resident was diagnosed with heart failure, bronchiectasis, type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy and dementia. She used walking aids and had difficulty with fine motor skills and a reduced level of concentration.
The resident passed away on 9 May 2024. Her son has been granted probate and is therefore authorised to act as her representative. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’
During 2021 the landlord relocated the waste bins from the rear of the building to further down the garden, approximately 60 metres away. This was because they were a fire risk. Around December 2021 the landlord installed electric mobility scooter charging sockets in the area behind the building where the bins were originally stored.
On 26 May 2022 the resident instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf on the basis that she was placed at “substantial disadvantage” in comparison with nondisabled persons. This was because she was no longer able to walk to the bins due to the increased distance. She had to rely on her son or carers to take rubbish out.
On 27 May 2022 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord and requested 3 reasonable adjustments, as follows:
1. The front door was fitted with a strong door closer and due to its size and weight she found it difficult to open. Due to issues with the door entry system it could take her several attempts to access the property. She requested a power door opener be fitted to the door.
2. The relocating of the bins made it difficult for the resident because the extra distance made it difficult for her to carry her rubbish in one hand while using a walking aid. She requested that the landlord move the bins closer to the rear of the building in a fireproof container or reinstate the old bin room.
3. She was concerned about long call waiting times. Due to age and/or health of the residents living in the accommodation they may not have the means to use the internet as an alternative. When her light needed replacing in her bathroom she asked her son to report it because she could not use the internet and did not want to incur costs of a long call to the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2022, as follows:
1. Works to the front door had been approved. It needed to seek planning permission but work would start “as soon as possible.”
2. The reasonable adjustment request made in relation to the bins was being addressed by its solicitor.
3. There had been longer call waiting times because it was operating at 50% capacity. It was now fully staffed so did not envisage this being an issue going forwards.
On 4 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding reporting systems. She also requested a timescale for when it would submit the planning application for the front door and acknowledged that the bins were being addressed by her solicitor.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2022. It confirmed that works to the door had been approved and that they would commence in January 2023. Its solicitor was dealing with the remaining reasonable adjustments and would provide a response in January 2023.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 April 2023 to request that we investigate the complaint because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The complaint became one we could investigate on 8 January 2025.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident to provide a response regarding its reporting systems.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response dated 14 June 2023 regarding the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction about the relocation of the bins. It also confirmed that parts for the door had been ordered and works would start “as soon as possible.”
On 17 January 2025 the resident emailed this Service to advise that works to the front door were completed during December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says:
1. It is committed to ensuring its communal areas are safe and well–maintained.
2. Its building safety inspectors check all shared spaces regularly in accordance with its ‘communal area risk management inspection procedure’ to ensure they are clear and safe.
3. It ensures any safety concerns from these inspections are reported and actioned as quickly as possible.
4. It carries out fire risk assessments in its buildings and follows up any concerns to reduce risks.
Its fire safety management policy says that it will identify and deal with any hazards or lack of suitable fire management controls found, by taking corrective and remedial actions as appropriate.
Its equality, diversity and inclusion policy says it will:
1. Provide a range of ways for customers to access its services and contact it, shaped to customers’ requirements, including effective use of digital services.
2. Ensure it makes reasonable adjustments to the way it delivers services to customers based on their protected characteristics.
Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days from receipt of the request to escalate.
Its financial redress and compensation procedure (compensation procedure) says that a gesture of goodwill may be paid by way of apology considering the circumstances of the case.

Scope of the investigation.

The evidence provided for the purposes of this investigation includes correspondence between the party’s solicitors about a possible breach of the Equality Act 2010. It is outside the scope of this Service to determine if discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The purpose of this Service is to investigate a specific allegation of failure of service and the impact on the resident. It is outside the scope of this Service to investigate a resident’s observations about a landlord’s general service provision. Therefore, the assessment of the landlord’s response to the complaint about its reporting systems will be limited to the resident’s own experience.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

On 30 September 2021 the local authority emailed the landlord to advise that the resident contacted it because they were concerned that the new location of the bins was a breach of building regulations. It suggested they carry out a joint site visit. It is unclear when the visit took place or what was discussed which is a record keeping failure.
On 26 May 2022 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. The bins were previously located at the rear of the building and were “easily accessible.”
2. Approximately 12 months ago they were moved 20 metres away due to an alleged fire risk. Not only were they further away but the resident now had to go down a ramp, through gate and across the car park to access them.
3. 6 months ago it installed sockets for residents to charge their mobility scooters in the area where the bins were previously kept.
4. The resident had previously submitted complaints on 27 and 29 September 2021. On 1 December 2021 the landlord advised that the fire risk posed by the sockets was lower than by the bins being close to the building.
5. The resident was placed at a “substantial disadvantage” in comparison with nondisabled persons. She was no longer able to walk to the bins and had to rely on her son or carers to take the rubbish out.
6. It asked the landlord to move the bins 6 metres away from the building. This was in line with fire regulations which would allow disabled residents to access them.
The resident emailed the landlord the following day, 27 May 2022, to reiterate her concerns about the bins and to make requests for additional reasonable adjustments.
The landlord emailed the resident’s solicitor on 8 June 2022 to confirm that it had carried out a site visit with the local authority which had advised “all bins were within the required vicinity of the building” and that no further action was required.
However, its response failed to address the problems this caused the resident due to her disability. This was inappropriate because it demonstrated a lack of regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 and understanding of its equality, diversity and inclusion policy.
The resident’s frustration was evident when the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on 17 June 2022 to request “a more comprehensive response.” The landlord replied on 1 July to acknowledge the request and confirmed it had referred the matter to its solicitor. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
On 4 July 2022 the local authority emailed the landlord a copy of its response to the resident following is site visit. It confirmed that residents in flats should not have to move waste more than 30metres to any designated storage area within the boundaries of property. However, during the joint inspection it could see that the “only real viable option” of relocation was where they were placed. It confirmed that in any event, if the landlord considered there to be a fire risk caused by the bins being in their original location then this would supersede building regulation requirements.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident’s solicitor, the main points were:
1. It denied that the landlord had discriminated against the resident and that “it was committed to supporting the resident however they feasibly can and hers and other residents’ safety is of utmost priority to our client.”
2. The landlord moved the bins to ensure residents’ safety and it was not “practically possible” to move them 6 metres away from the building due to availability of space.
3. The landlord was willing to offer the resident a property closer to the bins should one become available. In the meantime it would ensure the pathway to the bins was kept in good order.
4. It noted that the resident’s son and carers were assisting with taking the resident’s rubbish out.
5. It considered the offer of a move was suitable alternative provision in the circumstances.
The resident’s solicitor replied to the landlord on 31 October 2022, as follows:
1. The landlord’s actions amounted to indirect discrimination. The resident alleged that the landlord could not demonstrate this treatment was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
2. It failed to make reasonable adjustments because it failed to move all the bins within 6 metres of the property or consider alternative options such as placing them in a fireproof container nearer the building.
3. It maintained that the offer to move the resident was not reasonable in the circumstances due to her mobility problems and dementia.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the reasons for its decision making in relation to the bins which it said was carried out by its compliance department based on its dynamic risk assessments.
The electric scooters were being charged in the lounge next to the meter cupboard which was a fire hazard. The risk was “far less” to have the external socket installed as scooters were being charged outside. The bins were moved to reduce the risk of fire spreading to the building should one occur in a bin because they were placed next to the building and close to the communal lounge windows.
The landlord’s explanation was reasonable and in line with its neighbourhood and estate management policy and its fire safety management policy.
The resident’s email of 27 May 2022 requested reasonable adjustments in respect of not only the bins but also the front door and reporting systems. While it was positive that the landlord had engaged in correspondence in relation to the bins, there is no evidence that it provided a response on the other 2 issues.
It was positive that the landlord addressed these issues in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 November 2022. However, this was over 5 months after the resident first raised the issue was inappropriate. In relation to the front door the delay was further evidence of a lack of regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 and understanding of its equality, diversity and inclusion policy.
Its response referred the resident to its solicitor’s letter as its response to the issue of the bins which was appropriate. It said that work to the front door had been approved but that it would need to apply for planning permission because the building was listed. While this was reasonable, it failed to provide any kind of timescale to manage the resident’s expectation which was inappropriate. It was positive that the landlord had reduced its call waiting times. However, its response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about reporting her repair.
The landlord’s response caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord on 27 November 2022 to seek an update on the front door and reporting systems. The landlord’s reply of 1 December directed the resident to its stage 1 complaint response. It failed to take an open minded approach to the ongoing complaint to see if it could learn from the process. This compounded the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident who emailed the landlord again on 4 December to repeat her request.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident’s solicitor, the main points were:
1. The landlord’s decision to move the bins was not in breach of the Equality Act 2010. The decision was made to ensure the safety of residents. The resident’s rubbish was being removed by relatives and/or carers. It could not make any adjustments which might jeopardise the safety of its residents.
2. The charging points had been installed where the bins once were. This was because residents had been charging scooters indoors which was a high fire risk. The landlord was not able to identify another suitable location for the charging points.
3. The landlord had offered to move the resident (subject to availability) to make the distance shorter but this had been declined. There was no other alternative location for bins and they could not be moved back to where they were for safety reasons.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 December 2022 confirmed that works to the door would start in January 2023. It confirmed it had referred the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in relation to reporting systems to its solicitor. Its solicitor provided its response on 13 March. This was a positive step however, it was almost 10 months after the resident first raised the issue on 27 May 2022. The reasons for the delay are unclear therefore it was inappropriate.
The solicitor’s letter appropriately set out the reporting methods available to residents which were in line with its equality, diversity and inclusion policy. While this Service sympathises with the resident’s concerns about long waiting times it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on contact by telephone as a main method of communication. Furthermore, it demonstrated it had taken reasonable steps to address the issue by reducing call waiting times and introducing a call back system.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) says that any remedy must be followed through to completion. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 December 2022 advised that works to the door would commence in January 2023. However, its second stage 1 complaint response of 14 June 2023 confirmed that the work remained outstanding over a year after the reasonable adjustment was first requested.
In an email to this Service dated 20 February 2025 the landlord confirmed that the job was logged on 16 March 2023 but did not reach the portal where job tickets were obtained until 17 May. Works took place between 26 June and 18 July. However, there was an outstanding job to install a fuse spur to connect a “new operator” which had been fitted. This was never resolved and the new systems were never connected together.
This investigation acknowledges that the resident unfortunately passed away in May 2024. The delay in carrying out works to the door continued to have an adverse effect on her 2 years after her request was made which was inappropriate. The landlord failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 and failed to comply with its equality, diversity and inclusion policy.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 27 May 2022. The landlord provided its response on 10 November 2022 which was 116 working days later and significantly outside of its target response time.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s complaint response appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it failed to consider how it could try to put things right in line with its compensation policy. It also failed to set out the reasons for the delay and what it would do differently.
The resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint on 4 December 2022. The landlord provided its response on 22 December 2022 which was 13 working days later and 3 working days over its target. This investigation acknowledges that the detriment caused to the resident was of short duration. However, the stage 2 response failed to recognise the delay which was inappropriate.
The Code says that landlords’ complaint responses must communicate the decision on the complaint in clear and plain language. The landlord failed to do so at both stages at the process which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures set out in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.