The Riverside Group Limited (202321479)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321479

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Requests to replace and repair the front door.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroomed terraced house.
The resident made a service request on 18 April 2023, stating his current front wooden door had draughts coming through it. He requested a replacement unplasticized polyvinyl chloride (UPVC) type front door. The landlord’s contractor attended on 05 May 2023 to assess the door and took photographs of it. The landlord examined the images on the same day and concluded the door was not in a poor state of repair and rejected the request.
The resident made an initial complaint on 07 June 2023 regarding his front door, stating:
1. There was cracking around the door frame, water ingress when raining and a draught at night causing his living room to be cold.
2. He had called several times chasing an update.
3. Someone promised him a call from the landlord’s planning department, but no one had called, and no inspector had arrived.
4. He asked for an investigation of all the above and for his front door to be repaired.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 June 2023, confirming its previous position. It noted in its response that, in a telephone conversation, the resident complained the landlord could not make its decision based on photographs alone. As such, it agreed to have the door further assessed. It advised the resident that it would keep the complaint open, which would allow time to assess the door. It informed the resident it would advise him of its findings.
The landlord’s file suggests it attempted to assess the door on 29 June 2023 (unarranged) and 12 July 2023 (the landlord made an error with the date). Following the resident report about the front door creaking, the landlord’s technical inspector attended on 11 August 2023 and assessed that the door required no repairs. It was, however, sent to planning to consider a possible upgrade.
The landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 25 August 2023. It said:
1. The door would not be replaced as not currently on a programme of works. It had assessed the door to be in good order. The windows and doors were showing for replacement in 2025.
2. It had used its discretion to provide a response at stage 1 to further complaints the resident had made (in a telephone conversation the Service has seen no evidence of) as follows:
  1. The contractor who attended on 29 June 2023 stated that the resident had refused access to the property. However, the resident disagreed with their statement that he had refused entry and considered that he had been treated differently due to his history of complaints and legal action. The landlord advised it would investigate the matter further and any related staff conduct matters identified would be dealt with by its Human Resources (HR) department.
  2. It had recorded the wrong date which led to a missed appointment on 12 July 2023.
  3. It requested more information about his complaint of racial discrimination.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2023 and stated that:
1. He felt the timescale of the stage 1 complaint response was unacceptable.
2. The landlord had emailed him on 21 August 2022 that his property was in an area for replacement doors. This contradicted to the landlord’s statement at stage 1 that he did not qualify for a new door. He was dissatisfied with the lack of written notification. He also complained that the landlord had ignored his concerns about draughts and water ingress to the front door and had not provided the inspector’s report from 11 August 2023.
3. There was confusion around missed appointments.
4. At stage 1, he received advice that the landlord was investigating the contractor’s claim that the resident had refused him entry, yet there was no response.
5. He had no response to his complaint of being racially profiled and discriminated against.
6. He wished for the contractors to wear body cameras when entering his house.
The landlord replied to the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 13 September 2023 and advised it upheld the stage 1 decision not to replace the door. The response referred to a telephone conversation the landlord and resident had the previous day. It provided further context within the stage 2 response:
1. The front door was never on the schedule of works to be replaced. The email he received from the landlord on 21 August 2022 was in relation to the replacement programme of the rear door but was sent in error at a later date. The landlord apologised for this mistake and advised regarding the backdoor replacement timeframes (not part of this investigation).
2. It would only replace doors where they were beyond economical repair, which was not the case with his door. However, it acknowledged errors in the appointment’s arrangement.
3. It had considered the conversation the previous day about the resident’s complaints of racial profiling and discrimination. During the conversation, the landlord had asked for any specific incidents or comments. The resident had advised there were no specific incidents, but he was concerned of the number of issues with staff. The landlord explained that front line workers or contractors did not have access to his account records or made aware of historic issues, complaints, legal proceedings he may have. It confirmed that, for this reason, staff could not prejudge any situation. It reiterated the staff conduct investigation was not part of the complaint process.
4. It offered £100 compensation for the confusion in recognition of the appointment failings and the misunderstandings regarding the replacement of the front door.
The resident replied to the stage 2 response the same day, praising the staff member who completed the investigation for being respectful, courteous, and very professional throughout. He stated that the investigation addressed most of his concerns. He accepted the landlord’s apology; However, did not accept the £100 compensation. He explained he had arranged for a local builder who had identified and resolved, at the resident’s expense, a failed draught excluder and a weather bar.
In bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident requested that the landlord reimbursed him for the work he had arranged.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised in his complaint to the landlord his concerns of discrimination relating to racial profiling and concerns of staff conduct. In line with paragraph 42.f. it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination or whether its staff’s action should lead to disciplinary procedures. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equalities legislation. Actions of its staff are better suited for the landlord’s HR and disciplinary process.
The Service will normally consider the landlord’s response and whether it appropriately investigated and responded to the concerns raised. In this case, the landlord provided a comprehensive response which demonstrated it had discussed and investigated the resident’s concerns of discrimination. It also addressed the staff conduct matter and progressed it through the relevant process with its HR department. In his response to the landlord’s stage 2 investigation, the resident confirmed that those issues were resolved to his satisfaction. As such, we will not investigate these. Our investigation will focus on the outstanding concerns related to the door replacement and repairs.

Requests to replace the front door and repairs

The landlord’s financial redress policy states it may consider paying compensation of up to £350 for an issue that has a low impact on the resident. It defines this as an issue that has caused minor inconvenience or distress.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy provides set times it will attend to a service request. The policy states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in repair outside windows and doors. The policy states for routine repairs it will attend within 28 days.
The landlord acknowledged failures in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the front door, repairs, and missed appointments. We must decide if the landlord’s redress was proportionate to the error identified in our investigation.
When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again.
The Ombudsman has seen repair notes showing:
1. On 18 April 2023 the resident made the initial service request regarding the front door letting in a draught. The landlord examined the situation on 05 May 2023, and decided, based on photographs, not to replace the door.
2. On 29 June 2023, the landlord attempted to inspect further the issues and put a note of “refused access” (the landlord forwarded this matter to its HR in relation to the staff conduct concerns the resident raised).
3. On 12 July 2023 and 08 August 2023, the landlord attempted to assess the door again, however there was an error by the landlord in arranging the appointment.
4. On 08 August 2023 the resident raised a service request as his front door was creaking when opened. The landlord attended 3 days later. The notes state that it identified a plastering repair to the wall but no repairs to the door were identified. It further stated it had sent it to planning for consideration.
The landlord attended to each request within 28 days in line with its responsive repairs policy. The landlord and its contractors did not find any fault with the door as noted in the landlord’s repairs log. The resident reported that following the end of the complaints process he had arranged his own builder to resolve a failed draft excluder and weather bar. However, at the time of the complaint’s responses, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on feedback from contractors and notes in its repairs log. As such, its decision in relation to not offer front door replacement and repair was reasonable.
The resident asked for the landlord to return on a wet day or conduct a test to see any water ingress. The landlord did not do this however asked the resident to obtain photographs or to telephone its call center to have someone attend on a rainy day. We have not seen evidence that the resident did either of the suggested solutions by the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to establish the landlord’s correct process for testing a door. However, the landlord demonstrated that it was flexible to arrange an inspection or consider the resident’s pictures from a rainy day. This was a reasonable and customer-orientated approach.
The resident complained he had previously received a letter to inform him his front door was due to be replaced under a planned programme of work ending in March 2023. He stated that 2 of his neighbours had their front doors replaced. The Ombudsman requested the landlord provide all information regarding this complaint. However, neither the resident nor the landlord provided a copy of any letter as such.
The Ombudsman has seen a separate email of 21 August 2022 from the landlord’s service advisor stating work was ongoing on a planned programme ending in March 2023. However, this email did not specify which door it referred to.
The resident stated this was a confirmation email in relation to a conversation he had with the service advisor about a replacement front door. The Ombudsman does not refute the resident’s statement. However, the Service must base its decision on the evidence available at the time. The landlord explained clearly the confusion had been caused by the replacement of the rear door at the time and its email not being clear as to which door it referred to. The landlord demonstrated that it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about the correspondence in the email and acknowledged its failure. It provided an explanation of the error in its communication and offered compensation.
The resident complained there was confusion around appointments to assess the front door and the overall communication regarding this. The assessment of his door was therefore delayed. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s repair logs and emails showing this occurring on more than 1 occasion and understands the resident’s frustration from the multiple appointments. The landlord however acknowledged issues regarding missed appointments, apologised in its stage 2 response and offered compensation.
Overall, the landlord appropriately considered the door replacement and repair issues raised. While it inspected the door within the timeframes of its policy and was reasonable to rely on those inspections, there was overall confusion as to the appointments it arranged. Due to those errors, the resident was inconvenienced by having to accommodate additional visits. The landlord was also not clear in its communication to the resident from 2022 about the nature of the planned works. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged these failures, apologised and offered £100 compensation.
The landlord demonstrated that in its complaint responses it addressed the failures identified in this report. Additionally, the compensation of £100 was in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the failures related to appointment’s confusion and unclear communication. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord re offers the resident £100.
In its complaint responses the landlord explained the resident’s doors and windows were due for replacement in 2025. However, the landlord was not entirely clear as to its position and the resident’s eligibility and property condition. As such, we have made a further recommendation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At the time of the resident’s complaint, its policy stated it would send a stage 1 response within 10 working days and at stage 2 a response within 10 working days. At each stage, the landlord will agree upon a new deadline if further actions were needed. These actions need to be completed withing 10 working days, the resident informed, and complaint closed.
The landlord’s records show the resident raised a complaint on 20 June 2023, with an initial response issued on 28 June 2023. The resident complained about the photograph-based decision and challenged it. The landlord agreed to have the door assessed and communicated to the resident its intention to keep the complaint open. While the landlord appropriately listened to the resident’s concerns about assessing the door through an inspection, no evidence showed that the resident and the landlord agreed to a new deadline at stage 1. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 25 August 2023 meaning it took 50 working days to provide its final stage 1 response. This is against its own complaint handling policy above of 10 days plus a possible 10-day extension.
While the Ombudsman understands the landlord’s initial action due to the nature of the issue, there was unnecessary delay in completing the additional investigation at stage 1. Additionally, this was not addressed in any of the landlord’s responses. Considering the failings set out above, we have determined there was service failure in relation to the associated complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s requests to replace and repair the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £100 in compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
2. Confirm compliance with this order to this Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident £100 compensation relating to the resident’s requests to replace the front door and repairs.
2. Contact the resident to clarify the position on the 2025 replacement programme as stated above.