The Riverside Group Limited (202319277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319277

The Riverside Group Limited

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s requests for repairs to the rear garden.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The resident’s concerns regarding the bathroom window.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3–bedroom house. The tenancy began on 11 January 2021.
The landlord’s repair records show that in January 2022 the resident reported concerns regarding the bathroom window and mould behind the bathroom tiles. The evidence shows that remedial works were carried out at the time, including the re-sealing of window frames and re-grouting of tiles.
On 3 January 2023 the resident reported further concerns regarding damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord inspected on 16 January 2023 and concluded that no damp was present. It gave the resident advice on managing condensation.
In April 2023 the resident reported that the paving slabs in his rear garden were uneven and causing a trip hazard. The landlord’s records show that it attended within 2 weeks and offered to repair a section of the paving. The resident was dissatisfied with this proposal and requested that the whole patio be re–laid for safety.
On 31 May 2023 the resident reported that his rear fence was rotten and required attention. The landlord attended on 19 June 2023. The job notes said that all posts were “solid”, however a new rail was needed at the bottom of the fence.
On the same day the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the paving and fence as well as other internal repairs. He said that since moving into the property 2 years earlier he had made numerous calls to the landlord about repairs, many of which remained outstanding or unresolved. These were:
1. External issues
  1. Garden fence was “rotten and unsafe”. The resident was unable to allow his young child into the garden in case the neighbour’s dogs got through.
  2. Garden patio and step uneven and unsafe.
2. Internal issues
  1. Bathroom window was missing beading. As a result there was a draught. This had been ongoing for over 2 years.
  2. Damp and mould in bathroom.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. It said:
1. It had offered to carry out minor repairs to the existing fence, but the resident had refused on the grounds that he wanted a replacement fence. Following a further inspection on 23 June 2023, repairs had been scheduled for 10 July 2023.
2. It would not carry out any further repairs to the patio slabs.
3. The resident had confirmed that the step was no longer an issue.
4. The concerns regarding the bathroom window had been passed to its investment planning team.
5. It had no record of a repair regarding mouldy bathroom tiles. A damp and mould inspection was carried out in January 2023 but no damp was found. A small area of black mould was visible, which was due to condensation and advice was given on how to prevent this happening.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 August 2023. He said that he was:
1. Unhappy with the fencing repairs carried out.
2. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the patio slabs.
3. Still concerned about damp and mould within the bathroom. Despite the tiles being re-grouted the mould kept re-appearing.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 16 August 2023. The outcome of the inspection was detailed in the landlord’s stage 2 response, issued on 21 August 2023. It said that:
1. The existing bamboo covering on the fence would not be removed, but additional panels would be installed on 13 September 2023.
2. It was only responsible for making safe any trip hazards within “its own boundary”, which was “2 flags around the perimeter of the property.”
3. It was unable to re-build the garden step. It would, however, look to install a grab rail.
4. A repair had been raised to install a bathroom extractor fan and re-seal the bath on 30 August 2023.
5. It had no record of the resident being promised a new bathroom window. If it was unable to repair the window on 30 August 2023, it would “explore alternatives”.
Throughout October 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged several emails regarding the patio. The landlord maintained its position that anything outside of a 1-meter perimeter of the building was the resident’s responsibility.
The agreed external repairs were completed on 25 October 2023, but the window repair remained outstanding, and the resident escalated his complaint to this Service.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure

The resident has informed this Service that since escalating his complaint the landlord has carried out an effective repair to the fence, made safe all of the patio flags, and replaced the bathroom window. He says that some work has taken place to address the damp and mould, but the problem is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s requests for repairs to the rear garden

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and the outside of the resident’s home. This includes fencing, pathways and steps if they are “the main means of access to the property”. Within the same policy, the landlord defines ‘responsive repairs’ as minor, ad-hoc or unplanned work that is reported by residents. It does not include cyclical or programmed maintenance such as replacing all fencing. It aims to attend routine repairs within 28 days.
The resident has informed this Service that he raised concerns regarding the condition of the fence at the start of his tenancy in 2021. In the absence of any evidence from the beginning of the tenancy, we are unable to determine if the fencing was secure at that time. However, the evidence shows that following the resident’s report on 31 May 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection within 2 weeks. This was a reasonable timescale and in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
It is noted that, at the time, the resident refused the work as he disagreed with the landlord’s proposal to repair the existing fence. Although it is understandable that the resident was concerned a repair would not be as effective as a replacement, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff. The landlord fulfilled its obligation under its responsive repairs policy to maintain the outside of the resident’s home by offering to repair the fence.
Given that the resident raised concerns about safety, the landlord appropriately carried out a further inspection of the fence in June 2023. Subsequent repairs were completed on 10 July 2023. This was a reasonable response from the landlord in the circumstance and in line with its repair obligations. A landlord has a responsibility to manage its resources and finances appropriately, and in instances where there is high expenditure, it is reasonable for it to consider if a repair would be more cost effective rather than replacement.
While its position on the replacement of the fence was reasonable in the circumstances, it is evident that at least 2 further inspections and subsequent repairs took place between July 2023 and August 2024. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the repair carried out in July 2023 was not sufficient and further works were required. Although the resident has confirmed that the matter is now resolved, the extended timeframe taken to fully resolve the matter caused him inconvenience and distress and amounted to a service failure.
Within the resident’s complaint he also said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to repair all the uneven slabs in his rear garden. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately inspected the slabs in April 2023 and said that it was only responsible for a section of 15 slabs contained within a 1-meter perimeter of the property. The landlord upheld its decision in its complaint responses and said that anything outside of this perimeter was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s response was in line with its repairs policy and there is no express duty placed on the landlord to undertake repairs outside of this. However, it was appropriate that the landlord exercised its discretion and ultimately carried out the work in August 2024, ensuring that the property was safe and free from hazards. Although this was a positive outcome, it is evident that the time taken to resolve the matter had a negative impact upon the resident.
With regards to the garden step, within its stage 2 response the landlord said that it would not re-build the step, but it would install a grab rail to alleviate the issue. The evidence shows that this was completed 2 months later, on 25 October 2023. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and demonstrated a commitment to ‘put things right’.
In summary, the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations. However, there were significant delays in it doing so which constituted a failure in service. Following the landlord’s final complaint response in August 2023, it took a further 12 months for it to resolve the resident’s complaint to a satisfactory outcome. This delay caused inconvenience and distress for the resident.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £100 compensation provides adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50-£100 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the delays did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately agreed a way forward, but its errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repair solutions and improvements to eliminate damp, including managing and controlling condensation. It will respond to all reports of damp and condensation and complete any repair works/measures in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The potential detriment of damp and mould to a resident’s health and wellbeing has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report entitled ‘Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle’, and that the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), damp and mould is classified as a potential hazard.
The evidence shows that the resident first reported signs of damp and mould in his bathroom on 21 January 2022. The landlord appropriately attended within the 28 days set out in its policy and carried out remedial repairs, including a mould wash of the wall, re-sealing the bath and re-grouting the tiles.
In January 2023, the resident made a further report of damp and mould, this time throughout the property. The evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly and inspected the property 13 days later. The job notes say that no damp was found, and the resident was given advice on how to manage condensation. Given that no damp was discovered, this was a reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances.
In summary, it is acknowledged that the damp and mould was concerning for the resident, especially given that members of his family suffer with asthma. However, the landlord appropriately responded to each of his reports in a timely manner. It followed its own policy and carried out investigations and remedial repairs. While it appears that further works were identified after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors at the time. It is, however, noted that the resident continues to experience signs of mould behind the bathroom tiles. A recommendation has been made below in relation to this.

Bathroom window

The evidence shows that the resident began raising concerns about the bathroom window in January 2022. According to the landlord’s repair records, it initially inspected within 7 days, but no follow-on jobs were raised. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an update following the inspection and to arrange any necessary repairs in a timely manner. There is no evidence that this happened.
This poor communication continued following a further inspection in April 2023. The resident was left to chase the landlord to find out what was happening, before being informed in June 2023 that the matter had been passed to the investment planning team. Following the resident’s formal complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have chased a response from the relevant department and provided the resident with an update. There is no evidence that this happened.
A job was then raised for the end of August 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord was unable to repair the window and that a replacement was needed. The window was measured in October 2023, but there is no evidence that the landlord raised a job for the replacement until the resident chased this. This was unsatisfactory.
Throughout October 2023 and November 2023, the resident had to continually chase the landlord to arrange a convenient appointment. The landlord states in correspondence that it made repeated efforts to contact the resident and that there were several no access visits. The resident disputes this and says that appointments were made without his prior knowledge, and that he waited in on 6 November 2023 as agreed but the landlord missed the appointment. The window was subsequently replaced sometime in 2024.
Despite the mitigating circumstances highlighted by the landlord, it was unreasonable that it took more than 2 years to resolve the matter. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout and the resident spent considerable time and effort chasing for an update. The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its repair policy and there is no evidence that it offered any apology to the resident for inconvenience and distress caused by the considerable delays. This amounts to a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for repairs to the rear garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom window.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report. This must include any appropriate learning and how it intends to avoid similar delays in the future.
2. Pay directly to the resident £200, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the delays in resolving the issues in the rear garden.
  2. £100 for the delays in resolving the bathroom window and the inconvenience this caused the resident.
3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that landlord arranges a further inspection of the resident’s bathroom within 4 weeks, to determine if there is a damp and mould problem behind the tiles. If any issues are discovered, the landlord should carry out the appropriate repairs in line with its own policies.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repair policy and considers amending it to clearly state what it is responsible for in relation to paving slabs and rear gardens.