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

The Riverside Group Limited (202318293)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318293

The Riverside Group Limited

28 March 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:
    1. Adaptations to the property.
    2. The resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat. He has lived at the property since October 2018.
  2. In March 2019 the resident was certified severely sight impaired (blind). He told the landlord about his diagnosis and asked that they adapt the property to be more suited to his needs. The landlord instructed an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess the resident in February 2021. The OT completed the assessment in March 2021 and recommended adaptations for the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. On 22 April 2021 the resident highlighted other repairs outstanding in the property. This included issues with the ceiling, which he believed was caused by water ingress. He asked the landlord to complete all the works in one go. He offered to move out temporarily for a couple of months while the works were ongoing. He asked the landlord to help move his belongings into storage and return them on completion.
  4. In August 2021 the landlord identified that the ceiling contained asbestos. It raised orders to replace the ceiling and other works associated with the OT assessment in August 2021. It agreed to move the resident temporarily to another one of its other properties on 12 August 2021.
  5. The landlord began the planned works in September 2021. It informed the resident the works were complete on 25 November 2021. However, the resident inspected the property on 4 December 2021 and identified a list of defects which he shared with the landlord the same day. It replied on 7 December 2021 and arranged to complete the outstanding works. The resident remained in the temporary property.
  6. The resident complained on 8 December 2021. He was unhappy with the time taken to complete the adaptations. He felt the landlord was not complying with the OT’s recommendations in some aspect of the works.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 January 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said the resident was able to return to the property. It agreed to pay for the additional electricity used during the works and paid £200 to the resident’s rent account.
  8. The landlord surveyed the property on 28 February 2022. It found some defects to the kitchen tiling and bathroom floor that it needed to replace. It agreed to make other changes in accordance with the OT recommendations.
  9. The resident complained on 25 March 2022. He was unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding his complaints and the time taken to complete the works. He proposed options to resolve the defects and asked for help to move back into the property once the works were complete. He was concerned the landlord was not complying with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 April 2022. It provided the resident with a single point of contact to manage the works. It responded to his emails from March 2022. It agreed to help the resident move back into the property on completion of the works.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate his complaint on 9 April 2022. He made a further request to escalate his complaint on 4 May 2022. He said the landlord had not responded to his complaints in a suitable format. He wanted clear, full and referenced answers to his complaints.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 6 May 2022. It issued its response on 26 August 2022. It upheld the complaint that it had not complied with his requests for reasonable adjustments in its earlier responses. It apologised for its failures. It explained how it had learned from his complaint. It would consider how it could have responded differently to meet his individual needs. It agreed to:
    1. Arrange for snagging works and sign off of the works to the flat.
    2. Retain his named officer as point of contact who would liaise directly with the resident to:
      1. Help him move back to the property.
      2. Once he was back in the property, compensate him for any reasonable expenses he incurred.
      3. Work with him to identify the failures in its service and conduct a lessons learned exercise.
  13. The landlord confirmed that all works were complete on 23 February 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the time taken to complete the works.
  14. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and he escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 August 2023. In September 2023 he said:
    1. He felt the landlord had not followed its commitments as set out in its stage 2 response on 26 August 2022. He wants it to conduct a lessons learned exercise involving its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion manager.
    2. It had not worked with him to identify its service failures.
    3. It had not offered compensation for disturbance, service failures, distress, and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord investigated and responded to several matters in its internal complaint procedure. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that he only considered the issues defined above to be outstanding. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the above issues.

Adaptations to the property

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that he informed the landlord of his severe visual impairment in 2019. There was no record available to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted any additional assessment of his needs at the time. In the absence of available evidence, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine whether the landlord should have acted sooner to assess the resident’s needs.
  2. However, while assessing the property for a kitchen and bathroom refurbishment in February 2021, the landlord identified the need for an OT assessment. It referred the resident for an OT assessment on 17 February 2021, which they conducted on 8 March 2021. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s needs and in keeping with good practice.
  3. The OT completed their assessment on 8 March 2021 and the recommendations for the landlord were clear. They included major works to the property, that would have caused considerable disruption to the resident. The landlord appropriately assessed the risks to the resident and agreed to temporarily move him while it completed the works. Both the resident and landlord agreed to suspend the commencement of works until August 2021.
  4. The landlord began works on 20 September 2021, which was in keeping with the discussion it had with the resident in March 2021. However, there were unacceptable delays to complete the works. During his inspection of the property on 4 December 2021, the resident found a list of outstanding issues which he highlighted to the landlord. The landlord did not respond promptly to these concerns. It took around 2 weeks to respond to his report, then around 2 months before returning works back to its contractor to begin correcting the snagging issues. These delays and poor communication with the resident contributed to his distress and inconvenience.
  5. Throughout the timeline, the resident frequently sought updates from the landlord. He highlighted his concerns that the works were taking an unusual amount of time to complete. He reported incidents where contractors were abusive to him by phone, or did not show for appointments. His communication with the landlord shows that he became increasingly frustrated by the situation.
  6. The landlord did make some reasonable suggestions to resolve the substantive issues with its communication and oversight of the works in its complaint responses. In its stage 1 response on 5 April 2022, the landlord appropriately offered to assign a single point of contact for the resident. It recognised the need to complete the works within a reasonable timescale. Its offer to help the resident to move back into the property on completion of the works was reasonable.
  7. The landlord kept to some of its commitments as set out in its complaint response. It maintained a single point of contact for the resident after 5 April 2022 (even though the named officers changed). However, there were further delays completing works. Despite this recognition of outstanding issues, the landlord did not complete the works until around February 2023. In total, there were combined delays of 14 months before the resident could return to the property and 16 months before the works were all complete. This is an unacceptable delay and demonstrates a failure by the landlord to have proper oversight of these works.
  8. Within the scope of the works, the landlord’s contractor incorrectly installed colour co-ordinated pull chords, knowing that the resident is blind. It incorrectly installed the wrong shower, that it then took more than 11 months to replace. There were substantial repairs required to the ceiling and heating system.
  9. The landlord was aware that it had installed the incorrect shower fitting in December 2021. Its records show it gave reasons for this decision but agreed to install the correct fitting in February 2022. Despite making this decision in February 2022, it did not replace the shower fitting until 9 November 2022. This was unacceptable and contributed to the overall delay in the resident being able to return to the property.
  10. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint. We consider if the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to ‘be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes’. We also consider our own guidance on remedies. In its stage 2 response, the landlord was fair to retain the single point of contact. Its offer to compensate the resident for his reasonable expenses and help him move back into the property went some way to put things right.
  11. However, the landlord did not follow through with the promises made in its complaint response. Although it did help the resident move back into his property on completion of the works, it did not fully address the delays in completing the adaptations. It did not provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, or the resident’s time and trouble.
  12. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property. The landlord appropriately moved the resident while it completed the works. Making this decision early in the timeline reduced the possibility for a more severe impact on the resident. However, there was an unacceptable delay of nearly 14 months to complete the adaptations.
  13. The resident described living out of boxes for the duration and being uncertain throughout when he would be able to return. The constant delays and conflicting responses by the landlord caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord should pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the higher end of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.

The resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments

  1. Throughout his complaints to the landlord, the resident highlighted his need for the landlord to respond in a clear, numbered format. This would allow him to fully understand the landlord’s response to each of his concerns. He asked for the landlord to respond in this format as a reasonable adjustment and highlighted the Equality Act 2010 for reference.
  2. The landlord did not always comply with the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments. Its records show that in some instances it replied as requested, in others it did not.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 April 2022 was set out in part according to the resident’s requests. It provided a numbered response to each of his points raised by email in March 2022. However, it did not provide the same format for the whole response, causing the resident additional time and trouble to pursue his complaint.
  4. The landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 26 August 2022. Its offer to work with him to review its service failures and conduct a lessons learned exercise would have ensured that it learned from outcomes. Its offer to complete this exercise on the completion of the works was reasonable. Its decision to include its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion manager was appropriate. It showed that it had considered the resident’s concerns, sought to learn from its mistakes, and put things right for the resident.
  5. However, the landlord did not follow through with the commitments set out in its stage 2 response from August 2022. The resident highlighted to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not meet with him after he returned to the property, as agreed. It did not demonstrate that it conducted a lessons learned exercise. If it had followed through with this offer, the Ombudsman may have found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress.
  6. The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of requests for reasonable adjustments. It should pay the resident £100 for his time and trouble. It should follow through with the offer it made in its stage 2 response and meet with the resident to discuss its service failures and conduct a lesson learned exercise.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £700 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property.
      2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a review of its failures in this case. It must include an understanding of the delays in completing the works and its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments. It should meet with the resident as set out in its stage 2 response to support the lessons learned exercise. It should provide a copy of the lessons learned to the resident and the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.