Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Riverside Group Limited (202313288)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313288

The Riverside Group Limited

31 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident about his right to buy application.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident about repairs and his concerns that it was forcing him out of the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. In 2020, the landlord identified that the property required safety checks and modernisation. On several occasions, it offered to move the resident while work was done, which he declined.
  3. In March 2020, the resident submitted a Right to Buy (‘RTB’) application. In May 2020, the landlord sent a letter denying the RTB. It said this was because it had serious health and safety concerns about the property and needed to complete electrical and gas safety checks. When these were completed, he could reapply and it could progress the RTB application.
  4. In February 2021, the landlord responded to correspondence from the resident about the RTB and its offers to move him. It said that staff did not intend to make him feel they were trying to remove him from his home, and had wanted to ensure his home was safe. It noted that checks were completed and said new RTB application forms had been sent to him.
  5. In May 2023, the resident complained. He raised dissatisfaction about the refusal of his RTB application, being told he needed to move out of the property for works, and the handling of repairs issues.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 June 2023. It noted that it declined the resident’s RTB application in 2020. It said he needed to complete a new application form and would send this to him. It said it had wanted to give him the option to temporarily move while it completed works to his kitchen and bathroom. It apologised if he felt that its intention was to try to remove him from home.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 11 July 2023. It noted that in 2020 it had identified that safety checks were required. It noted that it had consequently denied the RTB and said the resident could reapply when these were completed. It noted that the property now had safety certificates so it was able to progress a new application. It noted it had sent a new form in January 2023 but had not received a completed form. It said he needed to complete a new form, so that the application could be processed in line with statutory timescales, and the valuation could have the same date as the application. It noted it had sent a new form for him to complete.
  8. The same month, there was further correspondence between the resident and the landlord. The resident disputed being originally notified that his RTB had been refused. He said that as far as he was concerned his application still stood. The landlord referred to evidence the RTB refusal was sent in 2020. It restated that he needed to complete a new form, as the previous application was out of date and the RTB process had prescribed timescales. It said that staff could visit and support him to complete a new application.
  9. The landlord says that to date it has not received a new RTB application from the resident.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has been informed that the focus of the investigation is on the 12 months prior to when he raised his complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme that we may not investigate complaints “not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.” This means that our investigation focuses on the landlord’s complaint responses in 2023 rather than investigating historical events in detail.

The landlord’s response to the resident about his right to buy application

  1. The resident is unhappy that the landlord refused his RTB because of unnecessary works it wanted to do. He says that the application should be backdated to 2020 when he originally applied.
  2. The landlord had concerns in 2020 about the property condition and meeting its health and safety obligations to the resident. The Housing Act 1985 is the legislation behind the RTB. Part 5 and Schedule 5 explain the circumstances where the RTB may not be applicable. The Ombudsman understands that landlords may suspend repairs that impact the property value. However, it is not evident a landlord can deny the RTB to do urgent repairs. Nor is it evident that a landlord cannot do such repairs while progressing a RTB application.
  3. The landlord discussed the case with its solicitors in 2020. This was an opportunity for it to clarify how to correctly handle the application and meet its health and safety obligations. However, it is not evident that it reasonably established this or that it could deny the RTB. The landlord’s handling of the refusal of the RTB was therefore not appropriate.
  4. The landlord told the resident that he could reapply for the RTB after it did the health and safety works. It restated this in February 2021 and in its June and July 2023 complaint responses. Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 says that where a landlord has mistakenly denied the RTB, the parties shall, as soon as practicable after they become aware of the mistake, take necessary steps to ensure all parties are, as nearly as may be, in the same position as they would have been if the mistake had not been made.
  5. The resident said he did not receive the landlord’s original RTB refusal, but we cannot say if he did or did not receive this. On the evidence, he has been reasonably aware since February 2021 that he could reapply for the RTB.
  6. The landlord has therefore offered a solution since February 2021 that put the resident back in the position he would have been in, to a large extent, in line with its obligations in the Housing Act 1985. However, aspects of the landlord’s response was not entirely satisfactory.
  7. The resident repeatedly asked for his 2020 application to be progressed and has clearly had an ongoing reluctance to reapply. This is understood to be because he is concerned he could be financially worse off than in 2020 if he made a new RTB application. The landlord seems reasonable to ask the resident to reapply again since his previous application is out of date. However, it should have shown it considered if there was a wider detriment and set out its position to the resident on aspects that could have financial implications.
  8. The resident may believe that he should be able to buy the property at its 2020 value. We cannot say that the landlord should use a 2020 valuation if he reapplies in the circumstances here. The courts ultimately have jurisdiction to make definitive decisions on such matters. However, if the resident was to complete the RTB for more than he may have paid in 2020, it would be understandable if he felt this was unfair. It would have been helpful for the landlord to set out a position on whether it would consider using a 2020 valuation if he reapplied and completed the RTB. The landlord did a valuation exercise to establish the property value in 2020, but it is not evident that it has communicated its intentions about this to the resident.
  9. The resident may also think he may be eligible for reimbursement of rent he has paid since his 2020 application. We cannot say that the landlord should refund rent since 2020 in the circumstances here. The courts ultimately have jurisdiction to make definitive decisions on such matters. However, it could also have been helpful if the landlord had set out its position on this.
  10. The Ombudsman is unable to say on the evidence whether the resident would have bought his home if he had progressed his 2020 application. He also had the option to seek independent advice. We are therefore unable to say that the landlord’s handling has resulted in wider detriment.
  11. However, it is not satisfactory the landlord did not clearly acknowledge issues with its handling of the RTB refusal in 2020, tell the resident what its position was on some aspects, and identify learning to prevent similar issues. It is understandable if its handling led the resident to feel an ongoing injustice and led to an ongoing reluctance to reapply. This leads us to find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about his right to buy application.
  12. The Ombudsman is unable to make a definitive decision in this case about whether the landlord should backdate the resident’s application, use a 2020 valuation or reimburse him rent he has paid since 2020. However, we do order the landlord to set out its position on these aspects. We also order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling. This is in line with amounts considered applicable in our remedies guidance where there has been maladministration, a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and there has been no permanent impact.

The landlord’s response to the resident about repairs and his concerns that it was forcing him out of the property

  1. The resident says the landlord has tried to force him out of his home by saying he needed to move for repairs and improvement works. He says it tried to frighten him by incorrectly saying there was asbestos in the property. He also questions the length of time some works would take. The landlord told the resident that it did not intend to make him feel it was trying to remove him from his home.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy sets out its approach to the temporary or permanent move of tenants. It may temporarily move a tenant out of their home while it does repairs, if it considers this necessary due to the work and impact on a tenant. It may permanently move a tenant if it intends to demolish, redevelop or sell the property. It will pay home loss and disturbance payments if it permanently moves a tenant, but not if it intends to return them to their home.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord has offered to move the resident temporarily while it does works. This is not an unusual practice for landlords. The landlord’s offers to temporarily move the resident shows it has considered relevant works and the impact on him in line with its policy. It is not evident to the Ombudsman that it has ever intended to permanently move him. The resident questions aspects of the landlord’s approach, but our view is that a landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff about aspects such as works logistics and how long will take.
  4. We cannot say on the evidence what the landlord specifically said about asbestos, so we cannot say if it tried to frighten the resident about asbestos. The landlord is obligated to consider the safety of its properties, so it was appropriate for it to consider the possibility of asbestos at the property. Its arrangement of an asbestos check was in line with its obligation to be a responsible landlord, even if no asbestos was later found.
  5. Overall, it is evident that the landlord’s offers to move the resident have been for temporary and not permanent moves. It is also evident that its repairs actions, such as for asbestos, have been line with its obligations to ensure the resident lives in a safe home. We therefore see no evidence to find a significant failing in its response about repairs and the resident’s concerns about these.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about his right to buy application.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about repairs and his concerns that it was forcing him out of the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to pay the resident £300 compensation.
  2. The landlord is ordered, within 6 weeks, to:
    1. seek legal advice and then set out its position to the resident on:
      1. whether it would consider using a 2020 valuation of the property if he reapplied and completed the right to buy.
      2. whether it would consider reimbursing any rent he has paid since 2020 if he reapplied and completed the right to buy.
  3. The landlord is recommended to review any staff training needs and learning to try to ensure mistaken denial of RTB does not occur, particularly where it seeks to deny applications outside of exact criteria in legislation and relevant guidance.