The Riverside Group Limited (202448613)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448613

The Riverside Group Limited

28 July 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 the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs, leaks, damp, mould, and the condition of her property.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2011. The property is a 2 bedroom house where she lives with her 2 children.
3. The landlord carried out repairs at the resident’s property from March 2024, including for leaks, windows, and ventilation. It registered a complaint from her on 22 September 2024. She said that her kitchen was damp and mouldy, and the units in poor repair. She stated that this had damaged her furniture and flooring. She said that her basin was cracked, her bath “rotten”, and despite several repairs, her bathroom toilet still leaked.
4. Over the next 2 days, the landlord sent the resident a claim form for her belongings and advised it had arranged repairs for 1 October 2024. Its stage 1 complaint response, on 30 September 2024, said that it would complete a damp and mould inspection that day and review her damages claim on receipt of the form. It said it would provide a further stage 1 response once the findings of its inspection were known. It raised other internal and external repairs the same day, which it completed from October 2024 to February 2025.
5. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 26 November 2024, when she expressed her continued unhappiness. She highlighted issues with the standard of works so far, the arrival of operatives without notice, and its contractor’s flooding of her kitchen at one of the appointments. She asked for a schedule of the forthcoming works, and for clear communications. She chased this over the following weeks and highlighted the property’s worsening condition.
6. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 17 January 2025, and sent the resident its stage 2 response on 22 January 2025. It apologised for the delay in addressing her property condition, which it said had been caused by a communication breakdown between its repairs and damp and mould teams. It stated its actions to improve its service. It listed 12 repairs that it had booked for February 2025. It explained that it would consider compensation and provide a further “closing response” once the works were completed.
7. During the remainder of January to March 2025, the resident disputed the extent of the landlord’s proposed repairs. The landlord agreed to replace her kitchen. It advised other changes to its proposed works due to scaffolding difficulties. It said that her “complaint remains open”.
8. The landlord told us that, in May 2025, the resident declined its offer of temporary accommodation ahead of its extensive works. The works began on 27 May 2025, which it said it was aiming to complete by 25 July 2025. It said that it intended to discuss her compensation claim with her once the works were complete.
9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. She asked to be compensated and for “accountability” for the “appalling and unsafe conditions” she had lived in for the last year. She expressed uncertainty with the status of her complaint, and concern with how she believes the landlord has labelled her within its records. She raised several concerns with its kitchen works during July 2025, the asbestos removal works that preceded it, and whether the root cause of the damp and mould had been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. Despite the landlord’s contrary advice to the resident that her complaint remained “open”, her complaint concluded on 22 January 2025 with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. Her concerns with the asbestos and kitchen works in July 2025, and the landlord’s records, were not a part of that complaint and occurred after its conclusion.
11. Because of that, these matters have not been considered in this investigation. The resident could consider making a new complaint to the landlord about these issues. A recommendation has been made to the landlord to this regard. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint.

The landlord’s repairs handling

12. On 24 September 2024 the landlord told the resident that, regarding damp and mould, it had “noted repairs logged since January 2023”. The earliest relevant evidence seen shows that it had identified the need for a damp and mould inspection at its repairs attendance in October 2023. No evidence has been seen that the inspection occurred, or that it took any other related actions over the next 5 months.
13. The landlord arranged several repairs between March and May 2024, including for leaks, a ventilation unit, and the resident’s kitchen windows. The evidence shows that it attended the repairs within the 28 days stated in its repairs policy. It raised a further repair for her leaking bathroom toilet in early September 2024, which it also attended in line with its policy.
14. The landlord raised several repairs at its inspection on 30 September 2024, including for a kitchen pipe leak in the resident’s kitchen. It attended the internal repairs, and erected scaffold, between then and mid-December 2024. This included the renewal of the resident’s stop cock on 12 November 2024. It was at this repair that the resident said that the contractor had caused her kitchen to be flooded. The evidence shows it had “found hole in pipe”, and that an emergency repair had been raised with the water isolated at the mains.
15. The resident’s complaint escalation described the impact of her property’s condition, and the damage, trouble, and distress that the flood had caused. She also highlighted frequent repair attendances without prior notice, and the overall poor communications. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 22 January 2025, did not refer to the flood. It addressed her report of a recent unappointed repair attendance, but not her wider communications concerns. It therefore failed to show it had taken them seriously.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the damp and mould had been “the result of a slow leak that had gone undetected for quite some time”. It suggested that this leak was now fixed, which the resident disputed 2 days later. It apologised that an internal communication breakdown had caused delays in addressing the damp and mould.
17. While the landlord did not specifically say, its apology appeared to refer to matters since its inspection on 30 September 2024. However, it failed to comment on its prior handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports, which it had said it had been aware of since early 2023. It committed to consider her claim for damaged belongings, but offered no compensation for its accepted service failings.
18. Overall, there is no evidence that the landlord took action to address the damp and mould it had identified in October 2023, until March 2024. It attended some repairs in a timely manner through the remainder of 2024, but accepted its failings in handling the damp and mould. It did not address the resident’s communication concerns, nor her distress caused by the flood. It committed to consider her claim for damaged belongings following the completion of works (which was reasonable), but made no offer of compensation for the service failings it had already identified and acknowledged. The resident’s complaint was therefore unresolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that final complaint responses must be provided to the resident “when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Code describes its compliance with this.
20. At both stages of its process and beyond, the landlord told the resident that her complaint remained open and that further responses would be provided once its outstanding actions had been completed. The evidence clearly shows that this failure to comply with the Code caused the resident time, trouble, and distress, as well as ongoing confusion over the status of her complaint.
21. This was compounded by the 39 working days that the landlord took to issue it stage 2 response, which was 19 working days beyond the timeframe in its own policy. It apologised for this delay but failed to acknowledge, or even appear to be aware that its explanations about keeping the complaint open was also poor complaint handling. As such, the resident’s complaint was unresolved.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs, leaks, damp, mould, and the condition of her property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to explain its intentions to consider her claim for damaged belongings, via either its compensation or insurance process.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, comprising of:
       1. £400 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of leaks, damp, and mould reports.
       2. £100 in relation to the failures identified with its complaint handling.
24. Within 6 weeks the landlord must complete a post-inspection of its works and write to the resident to provide a breakdown of any outstanding works it identifies including the timescales in which it plans to resolve them.
25. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within their respective deadlines.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should consider proactively contacting the resident to obtain details of her complaint regarding its record keeping, and its handling of her asbestos and kitchen works.