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

The Riverside Group Limited (202318297)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318297

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request about a named operative attending his property.
    2. A warning marker on the resident’s records.
    3. A disclaimer form it asked the resident to sign before repairs commenced.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. On 29 March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that a tread on his staircase was loose and needed repairing. Two operatives attended his property on 19 April. They said the resident would need to sign a disclaimer form regarding the removing of the carpet from the stairs before they could begin works. The resident declined to sign the form because there were no details about the work on it.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 April 2023, which was the same day the operatives had been to his property. He complained that 1 of the operatives who attended was a named person whom he had previously requested did not come. He also raised his dissatisfaction about 2 operatives coming to his property. He said they explained this was because there was a warning marker on his records. His other complaint was that he said the landlord had not explained that he needed to sign a disclaimer form prior to works beginning.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint formally on 20 April 2023. It said it would request that the operative did not attend his property again. It explained the reason for the disclaimer, and that the resident had the option of removing the carpet himself. It confirmed there was a warning marker for the resident on its system which it said was due to past behaviour. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 April, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
  5. In its final complaint response on 22 May 2023 the landlord confirmed the operative would not attend again. It acknowledged the warning marker had been placed in error and had been removed. It apologised for that, and also  for its operatives attending his property again on 16 May with a blank disclaimer form. It assured the resident that when it returned on 14 June, the disclaimer form would be filled in and ready for him to sign.  
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the form. In a follow up email he reported that operatives had again attended with a blank disclaimer form. He said he signed this one and the operatives fixed the stairs.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to the Service seeking compensation for the landlord’s handling of the issues in his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised in his complaint to the Ombudsman his concerns of discrimination relating to his race and his human rights being breached. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.

The resident’s request about a named operative attending his property.

  1. When the resident complained to the landlord on 19 April 2023, he said that one of its operatives whom he had previously asked not to visit him had attended his property. The landlord’s records show that it called the resident the same day to apologise for this, and it said that it would request that the operative did not attend again. That was a reasonable and prompt response.
  2. The landlord called the resident on 25 April 2023 and confirmed again that it would not send the named operative to his property, and it apologised. In its final complaint response on 22 May 2023, it confirmed its actions and gave a written apology. The resident’s email the following day shows he accepted the landlord’s assurance that the named operative would not reattend his property.  
  3. The landlord’s actions in responding to this element of the complaint were reasonable and proportionate to its failing. It listened to the resident’s concerns, apologised, and took action to prevent the issue from reoccurring.

A ‘warning marker’ on the resident’s records.

  1. In his complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2023, the resident complained that the landlord was treating him differently and unfairly. He said the operatives at the April visit told him their records suggested he could be abusive, aggressive and can be difficult.”
  2. In its first response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed there was a marker on his account which had been added due to his “previous behaviour when operatives were on site which was deemed aggressive”. It did not offer further detail to support this, which would have been reasonable due to the allegations being made. The resident denied the claims in his response to the landlord on 25 April 2023. He said he had “never been rude abrupt or aggressive to any operative staff at any given occasion.” He also said that he believed that he was “being treated differently to other tenants.
  3. In its final complaint response the landlord said that it had added the warning marker due to previous “welfare concerns.” However its operatives had misinterpreted this, and “were attending in pairs due to aggressive behaviour, but we now understand that this is incorrect.” It apologised to the resident and said it had removed the marker. Its actions went in some way to offering a resolution to this element of the complaint, with one exception. This being its failure to compensate the resident for its service failure.    
  4. In this case, it is clear that that the landlord’s misinterpretation of the warning marker has been upsetting for the resident as he had expressed concerns of alleged differential treatment. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and confirming that it had removed the marker to avoid any repeat failures. However, its financial redress and compensation procedure says it may make a goodwill payment where its service has failed which has caused distress to the customer”. The landlord did not offer to compensate the resident for the service failure in line with its policy, which leaves this element of the complaint unremedied. 

The landlord’s handling of a disclaimer form it asked the resident to sign before repairs commenced.

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint was that he said that the landlord had told him it would carry out repair works to his stairs on 19 April 2023. He said he had provided a detailed explanation of exactly what needed to be done. Instead, when the landlord attended the property, it said it would be inspecting the repair first and would start works another day. We have not seen any evidence of what the landlord advised the resident so cannot substantiate his claim. However it was not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out its own inspection prior to carrying out works, as that is a standard part of most repair work, even when a tenant has provided detailed information about the problem.
  2. The resident’s main concern was that the landlord had asked him to sign a disclaimer form prior to starting works. The form is a basic letter with blank fields allowing for the relevant address details and the reason for the disclaimer to be added, either typed or by hand. It requires a name and signature confirming that the landlord is not liable for damage or loss in relation to whatever work has been added to the form. Nothing in the form indicates it must be completed prior to attending the property for the intended work. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide any guidance on how and when it should be used.
  3. The carpets belong to the resident, so it was not unreasonable for the landlord to use a disclaimer form given it would be working with his carpets and damage could potentially be caused in lifting or replacing them. There is also no evidence suggesting the form should have been filled in before the visit in April 2023. Because of that, the landlord’s initial handling of the matter was reasonable.
  4. In its first response to the resident’s complaint about the matter, the landlord explained the reasons why the disclaimer was being used. However when it attended again on 16 May 2023 its operatives produced a blank form. This led to the resident escalating his complaint.
  5. In its final complaint response, the landlord assured the resident that it would fill in the disclaimer form prior to its next visit scheduled for 14 June 2023, and would escalate the issue to the operatives’ manager. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused which went some way into remedying the complaint.
  6. However, despite its promise the next time the contractors visited they again presented an incomplete form. The resident said that he signed this as he wanted the landlord do the work.
  7. While the request to complete the form was not in itself unreasonable, it is clear from the evidence that the matter has caused considerable distress to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that and agree to amend the form prior to its next visit. However it then failed to do so, which undermined its complaint response and left the issue unremedied.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request about a named operative attending his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in landlord’s handling of:
    1. A ‘warning marker’ on the resident’s records.
    2. A disclaimer form it asked the resident to sign before repairs commenced.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £350 which includes:
    1. £200 for its handling of the warning marker’.
    2. £150 for its handling of a disclaimer form.
  2. The resident has expressed concerns about his relationship he has with the landlord following this, and his previous complaints. He has told this Service that he would welcome a face-to-face meeting with the landlord to discuss these concerns. In light of the circumstances of this complaint and the findings in this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident within 8 weeks of this report. The meeting should be held by appropriately senior officers, and its agenda should include a discussion of the resident’s views and requirements and of the services and adjustments the landlord can realistically make.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service by their respective deadlines.