The Riverside Group Limited (202331736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331736

The Riverside Group Limited

23 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for insulation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom maisonette on an assured tenancy that started in December 1999. The property is a gable end property with a solid brick construction to the front and side. The rear of the property has cavity insulation and there is a cellar below the front room. The entrance door opens directly onto the front room. The landlord has no noted vulnerabilities for the resident although the resident has told us she has Raynaud’s syndrome and has had a knee replacement.
3. The landlord arranged an assessment of the energy efficiency of the resident’s property in April 2023. The resident requested that the landlord install insulation on 4 May 2023 and reported a “draught issue” in her front room. The landlord inspected the resident’s property in June 2023 and September 2023 and found some damp affecting the joists.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 September 2023 about outstanding work to “rotting joists” and the lack of insulation. The landlord sent an undated stage 1 response to the complaint which it said was issued on 26 September 2023 and said:
   1. there was a delay in the joist repair and insulation because it was not a simple repair job, and it needed to complete a property survey and structural assessment.
   2. it agreed to complete the joist repair work on 29 September 2023.
   3. it agreed to assess the front room for insulation.
   4. it agreed to complete a front door and door frame replacement or repair within 3 weeks.
5. The landlord said it completed joist repair work to the resident’s cellar and front room floor joists on 29 September 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 November 2023 as she did not feel the landlord had dealt with her concerns. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023 and said:
   1. it had inspected the resident’s property, and its contractor could not offer external or internal wall insulation.
   2. it was unaware of an internal wall insulation system for the resident’s living room, including ceiling and the flat roof of the bay window.
   3. its contractor could not offer underfloor insulation until later in the year.
   4. the energy performance assessment completed on 24 April 2023 placed the property in Band E with a “SAP score of 53”.
   5. it believed the property would likely achieve a Band D rating if the surveyor had considered the insulation in the rear.
   6. it operated a rolling energy improvement programme, and it was likely it would include the resident’s property in this in future.
   7. it was unable to complete energy improvements outside of this programme unless a property was rated as having a category 1 or 2 hazard due to cold under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
   8. it partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
6. The landlord told us it completed repointing work to the external brickwork in August 2024 to deal with damp it had identified in the property in June 2023. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her request for insulation. She would like the landlord to insulate her front room and offer underfloor insulation to the front room floor above her cellar. The resident said she is concerned about the effect of the cold on her health, and heating the property.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

7. The resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on her health and well-being. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the insulation request

8. There is currently no minimum standard of energy efficiency in social housing in England. In addition, the resident’s tenancy agreement did not require the landlord to provide insulation or provide a property of a certain thermal efficiency. The tenancy required the landlord to keep in repair structural parts of the property, like joists and doors. It is not uncommon for properties to lack insulation, and the lack of insulation is not a repair issue. Therefore, it is reasonable for landlords to deal with insulation requests from residents as requests for an improvement rather than as a repair.
9. In saying this it is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and must manage these responsibly for the benefit of all residents. Therefore, it can be reasonable for landlords to include insulation upgrades as part of planned works, rather than on an ad hoc basis where this is more economical or fairer. This is unless the lack of insulation endangers the resident through exposure to cold temperatures, or if there is evidence the insulation level fails to comply with the standards in place at the time the property was built. There is no evidence the resident’s property failed to comply with these standards. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that its contractors were unable to offer internal or external wall insulation. It added it was likely that it would include the resident’s property in its energy improvement programme for insulation in future. This was a reasonable response as there was no evidence that the lack of insulation endangered the resident.
10. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.9A and 10, landlords are under a duty to make sure their properties are fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (which includes excess cold) was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. The resident may wish to contact her council’s environmental health service (EHS) to request an assessment of the temperatures in the property. The EHS can carry out an assessment and make additional recommendations to the landlord if it finds the property is unable to maintain a reasonable temperature. In cases where landlords have deferred insulation improvement works it is important for them to consider if there are any remedial works that they need to do, and which could improve internal temperatures.
11. We note the landlord referred to a “front door and door frame repair/replacement” in its stage 1 response. However, it is unclear if the landlord completed these. There is also no evidence the landlord completed a heating survey by a qualified surveyor to determine if there were other issues contributing to the internal temperatures in the property. This would have been appropriate as while a lack of insulation may affect internal temperatures or energy efficiency there may be other factors, such as a loss of heat through windows, or radiators being too small for the size of a room. In the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on heating, we recommended landlords signpost residents to advice on energy use. The landlord did not show awareness of the wider context in which the resident may have raised concerns, for example, there is no evidence it asked whether the internal temperatures affected the resident’s heating bills or health.
12. We note the resident requested under floor insulation and complained of cold from her cellar. On 9 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor suggested to the landlord it was not advisable to fit underfloor insulation until the landlord had resolved the damp in the property. This was after having found in June 2023 that the moisture in the joists was above the accepted levels and placed them at risk of decay. Damp can also be a potential hazard to human habitation and is related to cold because damp often arises in cold buildings. As there were significant structural issues with the property which the landlord was responsible for, affecting joists and doors, it was important for the landlord to investigate and resolve the cause of the damp. The landlord said it completed the work to repair the joists on 29 September 2023. It told us it identified the external wall as the cause of the damp and completed repointing brickwork on 20 August 2024. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable action to deal with the damp based on the available evidence. The landlord has since told us that it cannot fit underfloor insulation without a major refit, although it is unclear if it has told the resident this.
13. In summary, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer to improve the resident’s insulation through planned work and to have explained this to her. However, it was unreasonable that it did not carry out a heating survey to see if there were any other issues contributing to the internal property temperatures. The landlord also failed to ask about the background to the resident’s concerns which may have prompted it to offer additional advice or support. While the landlord decided against fitting underfloor insulation it is unclear if it told the resident this during the complaint process. It also has not evidenced there are no outstanding repairs. We have therefore found service failure. We have made orders for the landlord to complete a heating survey.

The landlord’s complaint handling

14. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure at the time stated that on receipt of a complaint it would contact the resident by 5pm the next working day to acknowledge this. The ‘complaint owner’ would agree a resolution timeline with the resident and once it completed an investigation it would communicate a resolution plan with the resident within 5 working days. If it needed further action to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction it would agree a new deadline and complete any actions within 10 working days. Although the procedure said that it was mandatory to provide a written stage 1 response, the procedure had no timescale for the landlord to provide this.
15. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure stated that on a request to escalate the complaint it would contact the customer by 5pm the next working day and communicate its decision within 10 working days. The landlord’s procedure was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time. This required the landlord to log a complaint and acknowledge it within 5 working days of receipt and to respond to it within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
16. The landlord told us it provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 26 September 2023, but the resident told us on 8 December 2023 she never received this. The landlord provided this investigation with an undated stage 1 response and has been unable to offer any evidence to verify when it sent this. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied it acted in line with its procedure. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2023 and while the landlord acknowledged this in line with its procedure it took the landlord 26 working days to respond at stage 2 which was not in line with its procedure or the Code.
17. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response but offered no remedy to acknowledge its failings. Neither did it clearly explain which parts of the complaint it was upholding.
18. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have therefore made an award of compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for a payment of £100 where we have found service failure that has likely caused distress and inconvenience, but which has not had a significant effect on a resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for insulation.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to:
       1. explain its reasons for not offering underfloor insulation and to update her on its energy improvement programme, offering a provisional timeline on when it expects to consider the resident’s property for insulation.
       2. signpost her to advice on energy use.
    2. contact the resident and arrange a date for a heating survey by a qualified surveyor, this should consider if there are any remedial works outstanding and assess the heating levels and sources in the property, making recommendations for any improvement.
    3. pay the resident directly £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling.
22. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. share with the resident and this Service a copy of the heating survey and explain what work it will complete, if any, and by when.
23. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescale set out.