The Riverside Group Limited (202318844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318844

The Riverside Group Limited

25 June 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 concerns regarding:
1. Planned upgrade work to his kitchen.
2. Damage to his washing machine.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 2nd floor of a block. The resident suffers with his mental health and has a number of physical health conditions.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 September 2022. It said:
1. It planned to install a new kitchen before 31 March 2023 as part of its planned kitchen investment programme.
2. It needed to complete a survey before work could begin.

The landlord’s contractor attended the property and completed the survey a few weeks later. However, the resident signed the ‘refusal of works’ form.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 November 2022 to confirm the property had been removed from its kitchen investment programme. The resident complained 5 days later. He said:
1. He was unhappy his kitchen was removed from the investment programme.
2. He acknowledged the landlord left voicemails which said:
  1. He could not keep his kitchen floor.
  2. It would not provide kitchen paint.
3. He had not been provided with a copy of signed paperwork from the survey he requested.
4. The contractor had “ignored his mental ill-health disclosure.”

After no response the resident emailed again on 29 November 2022.

The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2022 and said:
1. It apologised:
  1. For the delayed response.
  2. For the misunderstanding regarding the work refusal.
  3. He felt its contractor had not acknowledged his mental health status.
2. He would not be able to keep his existing flooring as a full ‘rip-out’ takes place of the old kitchen.
3. It could reinstate the kitchen to its planned works, should he wish to proceed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2022. He said:
1. He was told he had to sign the ‘refusal of works’ form. This was because if he changed his mind about having work done, the landlord would already have the paperwork.
2. He was not told he would be removed from the kitchen improvement programme.
The kitchen work started around 6 March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 20 and 30 March 2023. He said:
1. He was unhappy he was not provided dates/times of when the work would be carried out.
2. He had been “left unable to use his cooker and washing machine since the 6 March 2023 [at least 22 days].”
3. He was told the kitchen installation would take 10-12 days.
4. His washing machine had been scratched and dented by contractors.
5. The contractors had taken the kitchen worktop end trims rather than screwing them to the worktops.
The landlord attended on 5 October 2023 to complete the post-inspection of the kitchen. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 October 2023, where it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised the resident felt he had been treated unfairly during the kitchen installation.
2. Further to the inspection of the washing machine, it would not be upholding the complaint relating to the alleged damage.
The resident escalated the complaint 7 days later. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response dated 27 November 2023, where it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It had inspected the washing machine on 5 October 2023 and reviewed photographs provided by the resident. However, the photographs “differed from what was witnessed during the inspection.”
2. The resident signed disclaimers prior to the kitchen installation which agreed the contractor would not be responsible for any damage which may occur while moving appliances.
3. His home contents insurance would cover damage to the washing machine.
4. It had updated the resident’s account with details of his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us the situation had a “negative impact on [his] health.” We do not doubt these comments and empathise with his situation. But we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/lack of action and his health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
The resident also alleged the landlord was “in breach of the Equality Act 2010.” He said he had been discriminated against as he was removed from the kitchen improvement programme without his consent. It is outside our remit to establish whether the landlord’s staff members have discriminated against the resident. Whether or not the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 have been adhered to is a matter that may only be decided by a court of law.
The resident is also seeking compensation for alleged damage caused to his washing machine. It is also beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged belongings. These matters are usually best suited to be dealt with via an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we will investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures in relation to this matter.

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances. When investigating a complaint, we apply our dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from our experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding planned upgrade work to his kitchen.

The landlord’s repairs policy says it carries out planned maintenance on an agreed cycle as part of planned investment.
There is no dispute the resident signed the ‘refusal of works’ form. The survey noted:
1. This was “due to health and work concerns.”
2. The resident wanted to:
  1. Keep his existing floor as he had paid for it.
  2. Provide his own paint but wanted the landlord to pay for it.
The resident said he was told to sign the refusal of work form. However, an internal landlord email dated 4 November 2022 said “as we have not agreed about his floor and paint, [the resident] decided to sign the refusal form.” Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened during an incident and a lack of independent evidence to support either account, we as an impartial service cannot definitively determine what happened. We will, however, consider the landlord’s response and assess whether its actions were reasonable.
Although the resident signed the ‘refusal of works’ form, he had signed 8 other pages which indicated he wanted to proceed with the kitchen upgrade. An internal landlord email dated 7 October 2022 showed the resident called to follow-up on the flooring and paint issues. This was an opportunity for the landlord to contact the resident and clarify whether he wanted the kitchen installed. There was no evidence it did so at this point, which was a failing.
In the resident’s complaint raised on 15 November 2022, he acknowledged the landlord had left voicemail messages in relation to the paint and floor. It was positive the landlord tried to contact him and managed his expectations. However, it was unclear exactly when the voicemails were left or exactly what the landlord said. The voicemails were another opportunity to clarify if the resident wished for the kitchen installation to proceed.
It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and explain its position regarding the flooring in its email sent on 8 December 2022. However, it could have proactively tried to contact the resident to confirm whether he wanted to proceed. The resident then emailed the landlord on 12 December 2022, however it did not reply until 9 January 2023, 28 days later. It was another 8 days before it asked the resident to confirm his kitchen choices. The evidence showed it was slow in its communication with the resident.
After the resident confirmed his kitchen choices, the landlord said it would inform the resident when the kitchen would be installed in an email dated 25 January 2023. However, there was no evidence it did so. This led the resident to chase for an update on 7 February 2023 after not hearing anything, which caused further inconvenience.
Once the kitchen installation had begun, the landlord was better in its communication with the resident. It responded promptly to emails sent 20, 28 and 30 March 2023 and also tried to arrange a visit to the property.
In an email to the landlord on 7 June 2023 the resident said the “completion and signing off of the kitchen was 30 March 2023.” However, he reported minor snags the same day. We acknowledge the kitchen was installed, bar the minor snags, by the date given in the landlord’s initial letter, which was positive. It was unclear whether the kitchen would have been installed earlier had the ‘refusal of works’ form not been signed. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding planned work to his kitchen was poor. There were:
1. Delays in its communication with the resident, particularly in the 6 months following the survey up until the installation began.
2. Delays installing the kitchen. We acknowledge there were delays with the flooring being delivered. However, the resident was told the installation would “take 10-12 days” but it took 24 days (18 working days).
3. Delays resolving the snags. While we acknowledge the landlord was not solely responsible for the delays, 7 months was an unreasonable length of time to resolve them.
In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right during the complaints process. There was therefore maladministration. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it can award up to £250 for low impact issues which caused inconvenience and distress. An order of £250 compensation has been made to reflect the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding planned work.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding damage to his washing machine.

The resident said the washing machine was purchased in July 2022. The survey noted the washing machine to be in “good to ok” condition in September 2022.
As part of the initial survey, the resident signed a kitchen appliances disclaimer which said “we will not be held responsible for any damage that may occur whilst moving… appliances before and after works. The resident will be responsible for any repair needed to any damaged appliance.” And a general disclaimer which said the resident understood the landlord’s contractors “cannot be held responsible for any damage or loss when moving possessions or appliances.”
The resident reported damage to his washing machine on 28 March 2023. The landlord promptly apologised. It emailed the contractor the same day to ask if photos were taken before the work began. This was a reasonable approach to take.
The contractor replied 2 days later and said it did not have any photos prior to the kitchen work starting. It said this was because the property was “down as a refusal due to abusive behaviour from the resident.” However, it had photos from contractors on site but they “could not see any scratches or dents”. A contractor on site said the scratch was “minor” and you “struggle to see it.” After receiving photos and speaking to its contractors, there was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the washing machine until 12 September 2023, over 5.5 months later. This was despite the resident chasing on 7 June and 4 August 2023. This was an unreasonable delay. It was a further 2 weeks before it set out its position in relation to the damage which was another delay.
The landlord took photos of the washing machine during a visit on 5 October 2023. It then used its stage 1 complaints process to outline its position following the inspection, which was reasonable. It reiterated its position in the stage 2 response and also advised home contents insurance would cover damage.
While the landlord’s final position was reasonable, there were delays:
1. Contacting the resident after the initial report of damage.
2. Explaining he could claim on home contents insurance.
3. Highlighting the resident had signed the disclaimers.

The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the delays or take steps to put things right. There was therefore service failure and a further £100 compensation is ordered in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Its policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would respond to complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 and within 10 working days at stage 2. The landlord has since revised its policy and response timescales to bring the timescales in line with our complaint handling code.
The resident complained on 15 November 2022. He said “I wish to start a formal process of complaint”. After no response, he chased on 29 November 2022. It was positive the landlord emailed the resident and addressed the complaint points on 8 December 2022. But the response was not a formal stage 1 complaint response so did it not treat the complaint appropriately. The delayed the resident in escalating the issues as a formal stage 2 complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident received his stage 1 response on 9 October 2023, 11 months after raising his complaint. This was 5 months after he chased for an update on the complaint on 6 June 2023, and was an unacceptable delay. The stage 1 response did not apologise for the delay. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 October 2023. He should have received the stage 2 response within 10 working days. However, the stage 2 response was dated “27/11/23.” It was unclear if this a typo and the landlord meant to type ‘27/10/23’, which would have meant the response was sent in 10 working days. However, assuming the landlord meant to type “27/11/23”, the response was sent 31 working days after the escalation to stage 2. This was outside the landlord’s policy and was a failing.
Neither complaint response considered compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to either complaint point. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s compensation policy and the failings identified. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right in relation to its complaint handling. There was therefore maladministration and an order for a further £150 compensation is made.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding planned work to his kitchen.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding damage to his washing machine.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident.
2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £500 which made up of:
  1. £250 for failings in relation to planned upgrade work to his kitchen.
  2. £100 for failings in relation to damage to his washing machine.
  3. £150 to acknowledge distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider ensuring complaint responses have the month written in full as ‘November’ rather than ‘11’ to avoid possible typos.