The Riverside Group Limited (202215835)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202215835
The Riverside Group Limited
7 March 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 handling of:
- the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property and associated repairs.
- the associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated June 2020. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house. However, the resident has now moved out of this property. She has asthma, allergies, and anxiety.
- The landlord’s records show that the resident had been reporting issues with suspected damp and mould in her property since August 2020. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response on 28 April 2021. It said that it had been unable to access the resident’s property and should have offered weekend appointments or appointments on her day off sooner as she worked full time. The landlord also said it had completed all work to repair the roof and interior damp issues and had not received further reports of failed repairs.
- The landlord’s records show that it was unable to access the resident’s property on 27 and 31 May 2022 and 7 June 2022 to inspect for suspected damp and mould.
- The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 June 2022. She said:
- her grandfather had waited in especially for an appointment and left the front door ajar so he could hear the inspector knock on the door.
- he checked after an hour and found a missed appointment card, but nobody had knocked on the door.
- she just wanted the landlord to complete the job correctly as there was suspected damp and mould in the property.
- she had asthma and this issue was affecting her mental health.
- The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 June 2022. It apologised for the inspector leaving a missed appointment card when her grandfather was waiting in. It said it had provided feedback to the relevant people to stop this happening again. It also said that the resident had requested an inspection at 8am on any day that week and as soon as it had confirmed this it would inform the resident and book repairs in from there.
- The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 24 October 2022 and told it to provide a complaint response or explain to the resident why it would not accept her complaint. We then emailed the landlord again on 7 January 2023 and told it to provide its stage 1 complaint response by 13 January 2023. The landlord sent another stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It said:
- it was sorry for the time taken to resolve the issues in the resident’s home and it appreciated the dissatisfaction this had caused.
- now that the scaffold on the private property next door had been removed it could erect its own scaffold and complete the necessary repairs.
- when it had removed its scaffold, it would arrange to complete the plasterwork in the resident’s home.
- the resident had requested that the landlord completed a full damp survey first as she felt that completing internal repairs would not resolve the issue.
- the resident had told the landlord that she was still experiencing damp and mould in her home. This was damaging her personal items, and her walls were constantly wet.
- she had said this was affecting her kitchen, bathroom and dining room and the wall in the centre of the property was crumbling. This could not be related to issues with the neighbouring property.
- it had passed her comments to the relevant people in the business.
- it was considering a disrepair case, and it had requested an update on the resident’s request to be rehoused for the duration of the work as agreed.
- the landlord’s head of repairs had offered £100 compensation in full and final settlement. The resident had refused this as more of her personal belongings had been damaged and this would not cover the cost to replace them.
- the resident had asked to escalate her complaint. It was sorry it was unable to find a satisfactory resolution for her. It had arranged for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
- The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 20 February 2023 as she disagreed with the landlord refusing a damp survey and the landlord not replacing kitchen units. The resident also disagreed with the landlord’s diagnosis that the issues related to the neighbouring private property, and she was unhappy with the compensation offered.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 April 2023. It apologised as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and said:
- the resident had escalated her complaint as she was unhappy that damp and mould had returned to the kitchen, and it felt like there was damp and mould in other rooms of the property.
- it had completed a full damp assessment of the property on 24 February 2023 which had found high readings in the ground floor rooms including the bathroom, living room, anti-space, dining room and airing cupboards.
- it needed to complete a damp course as soon as possible, and the kitchen and bathroom ceilings needed thermal boarding to prevent mould.
- it would follow that up with a mould wash in the bathroom, kitchen, and rear bedroom. It had arranged to complete this on 24 March 2023.
- it had decanted the resident from her property on 24 February 2023 until it had completed the work.
- roofers attended the property on 27 February 2023 and capped the chimney stack and replaced the flashings around it.
- the landlord’s contractor started the dampcourse on 28 February 2023, and it completed this on 16 March 2023.
- it would then paint the ground floor and chimney breast upstairs which it hoped to complete by 16 March 2023.
- the landlord would then adjust the back door, replace the bathroom fan and replace the kitchen.
- it had completed all repairs relating to the damp course and offered £600 as a goodwill gesture, for increased energy bills and for damp to household items. The resident had been unable to provide receipts so it could not offer the full amount.
- When the resident initially contacted the Ombudsman, she wanted the landlord to contact her to arrange appointments to address the damp and mould and not just schedule appointments without notification. However, she has since moved to another property. She is now seeking compensation for the time taken to complete the repairs and the stress and inconvenience caused.
Assessment and findings
The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation
- The resident has been reporting issues with damp and mould in her property since August 2020 and the landlord had provided a stage 2 complaint response on 28 April 2021. The resident did not contact the Ombudsman until 19 October 2022. Therefore, we have determined that the resident did not bring her initial complaint to us within a reasonable time which is normally 12 months. As such the Ombudsman will not investigate the issues from 2020 and 2021 and will consider the issues from when the landlord’s records show they restarted in May 2022.
- The resident has requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. While the Ombudsman can consider the impact the issues reported have had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability, or award damages like an insurer or court can. The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel that the landlord is liable for the damage to her belongings.
- As part of her complaint the resident has raised that the issues have impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property and associated repairs
- The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home.
- The landlord’s repairs policy supports this. Its repairs policy also says that:
- it seeks to offer its customers reasonable choice in making a repairs appointment.
- if it needs to change agreed arrangements it will contact resident’s as far in advance as possible and it will always communicate clearly with residents.
- appointments are available on Thursday evenings from 5pm to 8pm and Saturday mornings from 8am to 12pm.
- it will repair or make safe emergency repairs within 12 hours. This could include visible mould on internal plastered surfaces such as ceilings or walls.
- it will attend to urgent repairs within 5 days.
- it will attend to routine repairs within 28 days.
- The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard and to be fit for human habitation.
- The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
- adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
- ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
- ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
- ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
- identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
- The landlord attempted to inspect for damp and mould in the resident’s property on 27 and 31 May 2022 and 7 and 10 June 2022. Its records show that there was suspected damp and mould mainly in the kitchen and throughout the property and an inspector had waited until 5:40pm on 10 June 2022 but the resident did not return home. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it notified the resident of these appointments.
- Given that the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will offer residents a reasonable choice in making repairs appointments and communicate clearly with them. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to provide evidence of it confirming these appointments with the resident. Additionally, considering the previous issues it had with accessing the resident’s property due to her work commitments the landlord not notifying the resident of appointments or offering a weekend or evening appointment was unreasonable.
- Although it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould. It has not provided any evidence of when the resident first raised this issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately and responded in a timely manner.
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Including when the resident raised the issue when it completed any work and any action taken.
- The landlord raised a further job to inspect for damp and mould on 23 June 2022. It attended the resident’s property the following day, but she refused access as she was on her way out. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the resident’s property in this timeframe in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident of this. Again, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with notice of this appointment because its repairs policy says it will communicate clearly with residents.
- There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to inspect the resident’s property again. However, the landlord raised a job on 25 July 2022 as the main roof was leaking although it is unclear how it categorised this job. It attempted to attend the resident’s property on 2 August 2022 but was unable to gain access. The landlord did not agree the appointment with the resident. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not attempt to attend the resident’s property again to repair the roof at this point. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not attend within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
- The landlord raised a job to remove part of a wall and replaster on 24 August 2022. It completed this job on 20 September 2022. The landlord’s records show that it removed the kitchen, removed a fitting membrane, replastered, refitted the kitchen and fitted new skirting. It also completed a damp course to the kitchen and living room under the same job number. It arranged to replace tiles on 29 September 2022 but was unable access the resident’s property.
- Again, it is unclear how this job was categorised although it is reasonable to conclude that it was a routine repair to be attended within 28 days. Therefore, the landlord completed this work within an appropriate time in line with the time scales stated in its repairs policy. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it notified the resident of the follow up appointment on 29 September 2022. Again, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this considering its repairs policy says it will communicate clearly with residents.
- The landlord raised further jobs on 9 November 2022 to complete the tiling in the kitchen, mould wash the kitchen ceiling, plaster small areas in the living room. It also raised a job on 18 November 2022 to install draft proofing. It is unclear how the landlord categorised these jobs.
- The landlord’s records show that it attended the resident’s property on 7 December 2022 to start the work raised on 9 November 2022 but could not gain access. It is reasonable to conclude that this work could be categorised as a routine repair. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to attend on this date in line with the timescales stated in its repairs policy. However, the landlord has not provided any record of it notifying the resident of this appointment. It would have been reasonable for it to do so in line with its repairs policy.
- Due to the scale of the works and resources required, installation of draft proofing could not reasonably be considered a routine repair which could be completed within 28 days in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 January 2023 and completed some of this work.
- It also attended the resident’s property the same day and on 11 and 12 January 2023 to continue the work raised on 9 November 2023. This was beyond the 28 days stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy. Although, it was unable to access the resident’s property on 7 December 2022. It has not provided any evidence that it attempted to return before this date or that this was the earliest date the resident was available. This was not appropriate in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
- The landlord raised a job to inspect the chimney in the resident’s property on 11 January 2023 and bricked the fireplace up the following day. However, it was unable to access the rear of the resident’s property to take photographs in preparation of it erecting scaffolding. The landlord continued work to install draft proofing in the resident’s property on 18 January 2023. Its records show that it needed to trim 1 window on the inside of the property, but the resident did not want this work to be done until it had completed the plaster work.
- However, when the landlord attended the resident’s property on 6 February 2023 to continue the plaster work raised on 9 November 2022 she refused access although it is not noted why. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it notified the resident of this appointment. It would have been reasonable for it to do so. Additionally, this work had gone well beyond the 28 days to complete routine repairs outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. This was not appropriate.
- The landlord emailed its facilities manager on 21 February 2023 and said it had confirmed with the resident that she would be available on 24 February 2023, and it was trying to organise all trades to attend on this date. It also said it would undertake work on 27 February 2023, the resident had confirmed this appointment and that someone would be in her property. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it will communicate clearly with residents. In the email the landlord said:
- a roofing supervisor would attend and inspect the loft space and insulation on 24 February 2023 to ensure it is watertight. Scaffolding would also be erected.
- a joiner would attend on 24 February 2023 to remove 2 kitchen units as the resident said she suspected there was damp in them.
- a damp and mould supervisor would inspect the ground floor of the resident’s property on 24 February 2023 as she had said further work was required because there was damp in several places.
- the resident saying that the damp was more widespread than the chimney breast and 2 kitchen units had only just been brought to its attention.
- it would complete work to block the chimney stack up on 27 February 2023.
- once it had repaired the roof it would plan remedial work to plaster the chimney breast.
- if the damp inspection identified any further work required in the kitchen it would arrange appointments and confirm them with the resident.
- The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 24 February 2023. Its records show that:
- there was black mould in the bathroom on the ground floor and the extractor fan was broken.
- there was black mould on the kitchen ceiling, and there was no insulation on the outrigger of the roof void.
- lateral penetration was 1.5 metres high to the rear left corner of the back living room due to an abutting boundary wall.
- there was rising damp to 90% of the ground floor walls.
- there was black mould on the ceiling, wall section and window reveal of the rear bedroom.
- there was penetrating damp on a ceiling on the first floor around a defective chimney stack which was to be repaired.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake an inspection in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. However, although it has not provided any record of when the resident first reported damp and mould. The landlord’s records show it was aware there was suspected damp and mould throughout the resident’s property in May 2022. It is unclear why it had not inspected for this sooner. This was not appropriate as the spotlight report recommends that landlords ensured their responses to reports of damp and mould were timely and they identified complex cases at an early stage.
- There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the outcome of this inspection. This was not appropriate because the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommended that landlords shared the results of inspections with residents.
- The landlord’s records indicate that it decanted the resident into a hotel from 24 February 2023 until 31 March 2023. Its records also show that it arranged to put her furniture into storage. Considering the scale of work to be completed and the disruption this would cause it was reasonable for the landlord to do this.
- Due to the scale of the work and the resources required the work to repair the resident’s property could not reasonably be considered a routine repair to be completed within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, although it is unclear how they were categorised between 24 February and 13 April 2023 the landlord and its contractors completed several individual jobs. The landlord’s contractor’s also provided dehumidifiers to lessen the impact of the damp in the property which was reasonable. The completed jobs included:
- a full damp course to kitchen, anti-space, living room and dining room.
- a mould wash in the kitchen and bathroom.
- replastering and decorating the living room, dining room including cupboard, hallway, kitchen, rear anti space and cupboards.
- replastering the chimney in the bedroom.
- opening up the fireplaces in the living room and dining room, cleaning them out and bricking them back up.
- renewing all skirting boards.
- tiling the kitchen splash back.
- installing insulated board to the kitchen, anti-space and bathroom ceilings.
- electrical work to install sockets and replace extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
- cleaning the resident’s property including clearing rubbish away from the front.
- The landlord’s records from this period show that it had not fitted a new kitchen as it would take a few weeks to order. Therefore, the delays were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord agreed with the resident to refit the old kitchen until the new one replaced it which was reasonable. However, it has not provided any record of when it fitted the new kitchen.
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs published in March 2019 states that the landlord and its contractor’s should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair, and its responses, including details of appointments, inspections, surveyors’ reports work carried out and completion dates. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on KIM recommended that landlords had a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support wider business processes.
- There was a clear failure in this case to demonstrate how jobs had been categorised, when inspections had been conducted and when contractors had attended the resident’s property. It is also unclear if appointments have been missed as the resident says or if the landlord notified the resident of some of the appointments it made. The landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate in this case.
- In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had completed all repairs relating to the damp course. However, its records show that between 21 April 2023 and 28 March 2024 it completed several jobs relating to damp and mould in the resident’s property. This included the damp course failing in the dining room and kitchen and contractors having to revisit to do this again in March 2024. The landlord fitted a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit on 8 March 2024 and its records show that it was due to complete an inspection on 13 August 2024. The resident has moved out of this property although it is unclear when.
Summary and Conclusions
- In summary:
- the landlord was unable to access the resident’s property on several occasions which led to delays and meant it did not always complete repairs within the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it notified the resident of appointments it had made when it was unable to access her property.
- the landlord delayed by 9 months in completing full inspection of the resident’s property in February 2023 after it was aware that there was suspected damp and mould throughout it in May 2022.
- the landlord failed to maintain adequate records to demonstrate when the resident first reported damp and mould in her property, when it completed inspections and how it categorised jobs.
- Although the landlord offered £600 compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process. This was for increased energy costs, damage to the resident’s property and a goodwill gesture. The landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted her.
- The resident has explained the inconvenience the damp and mould caused her and the impact this had on her mental health when she first raised her complaint on 7 June 2022. The landlord also noted her frustrations when it escalated her complaint on 20 February 2023. However, the landlord did not consider its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 given that the resident had told it that she had asthma.
- Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies a fair level of compensation would be £600 in addition to the amount offered by the landlord. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property and associated repairs.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
- acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
- respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1.
- provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
- The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the code.
- The resident raised her complaint by telephone on 7 June 2022. Although there is no evidence that the landlord sent written acknowledgement of this, it sent its stage 1 response on 13 June 2022. This was appropriate because it was in line with the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
- However, the landlord has not provided any record of correspondence with the resident until it sent another stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. During this period the resident contacted the Ombudsman 6 times between 19 October 2022 and 10 January 2023 and said the landlord was not responding to her and she had unfinished jobs and visible damp and mould in her property. It is apparent that the landlord was in contact with the resident during this time as it raised work items. Additionally, in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had told it that she was still experiencing damp and mould and had requested a full damp survey.
- This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman draws attention to the Code which says a full record must be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys.
- The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 24 October 2022 and told it to provide a stage 1 response by 7 November 2022 or respond within 20 days of the escalation request if at stage 2. We then emailed the landlord again 7 January 2023 and told it to provide a stage 1 response by 13 January 2023. It failed to do so. This was not appropriate. The Code sets out that the landlord should be able to identify and respond to complaints without the involvement of the Ombudsman. The landlord’s second stage 1 response was unreasonable as it did not apologise or provide an explanation for the delay.
- The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2023. Therefore, it had until 17 March 2023 to provide its response. The landlord did not send this response until 18 April 2023 which was 41 working days after it had been escalated. This was an unreasonable delay. Additionally, the response provided did not acknowledge or apologise for the landlord’s previous complaint failings. This was unreasonable.
- The landlord has not produced any evidence to show that the delays were outside its control or necessary in order to answer the complaint. There is no evidence that it agreed an extension of time to respond with the resident. On this basis the landlord clearly failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. The landlord also failed to provide records of its correspondence with the resident before it sent its second stage 1 response.
- The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint responses, which delayed the resident in seeking redress through this Service.
- Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property and associated repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
- write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
- pay the resident the £600 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
- pay the resident £800, which must not be offset against arrears, consisting of:
- £600 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
- £200 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
- The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the letter of apology and evidence of the payments being made within 28 days of the date of this determination.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
- undertake a review of this complaint to:
- identify lessons learnt.
- consider how it manages residents’ complaints in future.
- undertake a review of this complaint to: