The Riverside Group Limited (202415005)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415005

The Riverside Group Limited

26 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the shared boiler flue system.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a converted building. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
The resident has a non-condensing boiler that is connected to a shared flue system – a communal flue that serves multiple flats in the building and is designed to safely vent gases from individual boilers to the outside.
In July 2022, the landlord appointed a specialist gas safety contractor to survey the shared flue after receiving reports from residents that their boilers were not compatible with the system. The landlord asked the contractor to find out whether any improvements were needed to the shared flue, and what leaseholders would need to consider when replacing their boilers. The contractor also inspected 2 properties in the building and made the following recommendations:
1. Leaseholders could change their boilers to electric combi boilers, which would not require a flue or gas supply
2. Leaseholders could relocate gas boilers to the kitchen or lounge area of their flat and have the individual flue from their boiler terminate through an external wall
3. The landlord could install a plant room in the cellar with commercial boilers supplying individual heat interface units (HIUs) to each flat
4. Leaseholders could install air source heat pumps serving their individual properties mounted on external walls
5. The landlord could install a communal biomass boiler.
In March 2024, the resident told the landlord she had learnt from other leaseholders in the building that the boilers in their flats were being switched off by gas engineers, as they were no longer compatible with the shared flue system. She said she had not been aware that, under current regulations, replacement boilers needed to be condensing models and shared flue systems needed to be lined for safe use with this type of boiler. She said she was surprised there had not already been a carbon monoxide incident.
The resident also asked the landlord to clarify whether the shared flue system was compliant with building regulations, and if not, whether this was something the landlord was legally responsible for addressing. She also asked whether the boilers in individual flats were compatible with the shared flue, and if compliant, whether leaseholders could replace boilers with like-for-like models when required.
In the same month, the landlord issued a notice to all leaseholders in the building. It said that if leaseholders needed to replace their boilers, they would need to submit a home improvement form. It presented boiler replacement options (a) and (b) from the surveyor’s report and said that leaseholders choosing option (b) would need to check with the local authority whether any planning restrictions applied to relocating their flue through an external wall.
In April 2024, the landlord explained to the resident that condensing boilers produced a type of wastewater called condensate, which was corrosive and could damage the flue. It said that only non-condensing boilers could be used with the shared flue but highlighted these were no longer available to buy. It said that the shared flue could not be lined or fan-assisted due to its design but that it would ask a specialist contractor to check whether the shared flue could be modified. It said once the survey was complete, it would share the results with leaseholders and consult them on the options and costs.
In the same month, the resident told the landlord she had arranged a gas safety check on her boiler. She said the gas engineer gave her a warning notice because they were unable to inspect the shared flue.
In June 2024, the landlord told the resident that the contractor it had consulted about the shared flue system had advised that no modifications could be made. However, it said it had been given the details of another contractor to assess the system.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 July 2024. She said she was still waiting for an update on the outcome of the landlord’s further assessment of the shared flue system. She asked the landlord to look for a wider range of contractors who could either upgrade or adapt the shared flue for modern use (sometimes known as retrofitting) or relocate it outside. She said the current shared flue system was illegal and was the landlord’s responsibility to address.
The resident’s complaint also said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s advice for leaseholders to either switch to electric boilers or reroute their flue through an external wall. She believed the landlord was waiting for each boiler to break down, leaving leaseholders with no choice but to use unaffordable alternatives. She said the landlord had known about the change in boiler regulations for 14 years but had not passed this information on to leaseholders. She complained that the landlord did not share the surveyor’s report when the survey took place and only did so after she asked for it. She also questioned why the landlord had not offered financial support from the sinking fund for the building to help leaseholders replace their boilers.
On 30 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, as she had not yet received a response to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and said this was due to staff shortages. It also told the resident that it could not escalate the complaint because it did not have a solution to offer. The resident then brought her complaint to our service.
On 15 November 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said the regulatory changes did not apply to buildings that already had shared flue systems, and that it was still servicing and maintaining the system. The landlord said it remained the resident’s responsibility to replace her boiler and reiterated the recommendations it had given her previously. It explained that the sinking fund was intended for planned works such as roof and window repairs, and that the shared flue was not included in this. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
On 3 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to appoint a specialist contractor to assess what modifications could be made to the shared flue system. She said that based on her own research, she understood that retrofitting a new flue lining was possible. She also raised concerns that the landlord’s earlier survey was based on just 1 flat and had not involved a full assessment of the building. The resident said the landlord should have proactively informed leaseholders about the changes in regulations and what those changes meant. She asked the landlord to share full information with leaseholders about the shared flue system, its regulatory compliance, and any health and safety risks.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 February 2025. It confirmed that the shared flue system was compliant with flue regulations. It repeated some of its earlier points about how leaseholders could go about changing their boilers. It clarified that because new boilers would not be compatible with the shared flue, any modifications to the system would be rechargeable to leaseholders. The landlord said it was still looking for quotes for a specialist survey and, it could not yet commit to a specific timeframe. It accepted that the previous survey should have been shared with leaseholders at the time it was carried out. It said this had been fed back to its leaseholder asset manager to help ensure leaseholders were better informed in the future.
In March 2025, the resident told us she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns. She said she did not understand why the cost of a survey on the shared flue system would fall on leaseholders when the flue itself was the landlord’s responsibility. She said the landlord had provided misleading information about whether the shared flue could be lined. She said she was concerned about the impact on her flat’s EPC rating if she replaced the boiler with an electric one, as this could reduce the rating and affect her ability to rent the flat out.
The resident also sent us a copy of the gas safety check carried out on her boiler that month. It showed that the gas engineer had rated the flue and ventilation as unsafe and switched off the boiler because they were unable to inspect the shared flue system.

Assessment and findings

Legal policy and framework

The resident’s lease agreement shows that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the main structure of the building and shared systems such as pipes, drains, and gas installations. This would include the shared flue system, as it sits outside the resident’s flat and serves more than 1 property.
The lease allows the landlord to collect service charges from leaseholders to cover the cost of maintaining the building, including a reserve, or sinking fund for future major works. The lease gives the landlord discretion to decide what to include in the reserve fund.
The lease requires the resident to keep the fixtures and fittings belonging to the flat clean, well maintained, and in good repair. While the lease does not refer to boilers specifically, this obligation would typically include internal systems such as an individual boiler, unless these are part of a shared or communal system managed by the landlord.
Since 2005, under changes to the Building Regulations (now consolidated under the Building Regulations 2010, Part L), any new or replacement gas boiler installed in a domestic property must be a condensing model, unless an exemption applies. This requirement is based on energy efficiency standards and is applied at the point of boiler replacement. It does not apply retrospectively or require changes to systems that remain safe and in working order.
The regulations do not place a duty on landlords or leaseholders to replace boilers or adapt flue systems unless a new boiler is being installed. Responsibility for checking compatibility typically arises at the time of replacement, based on current safety standards and building regulations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the shared flue system

The evidence shows that in July 2022, the landlord commissioned a survey of the shared flue system. This was a proportionate and reasonable step to understand why leaseholder boilers were being declared incompatible with the system. This also showed that the landlord recognised a potential risk to the safe operation of boilers connected to the shared flue and acted to clarify the situation.
The landlord did not share the findings of the survey with the resident because she had not reported a boiler issue at the time. It should have shared the findings with all leaseholders, regardless of whether they had raised concerns. This would have given the resident the opportunity to understand compatibility issues earlier than she did. More broadly, it would have ensured that all leaseholders relying on the shared flue were aware of emerging limitations that could affect future boiler replacements.
The failure to share the survey report in 2022 meant that the resident was left unaware of technical information that would later directly affect her. It also likely added to her confusion and frustration when she later learned about the compatibility limitations through other channels.
That said, it was positive that the landlord later acknowledged this oversight in its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted that it should have communicated the survey results more widely and said it would take this learning forward. This showed the landlord recognised its earlier shortfall and was open to improving how it shared information in the future.
The resident said that the landlord should have informed leaseholders about the change in building regulations at the time they were introduced. We acknowledge the resident’s position. However, the regulations do not place that duty on landlords. Instead, they place the responsibility on anyone replacing a boiler, to ensure the new system meets current safety and building standards.
We would generally expect landlords to notify leaseholders where a change in regulation creates an immediate safety concern or impacts the safe use of existing installations. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the regulation made the shared flue unsafe or non-compliant in its current use. It only affected the type of boilers available for future replacements.
The landlord’s notice to leaseholders in March 2024, set out 2 options for replacing their boilers. We understand the resident’s concerns about the cost and the limited nature of those options, but the landlord was entitled to rely on its contractor’s professional advice when selecting which options to present to leaseholders. However, the landlord should have gone further in explaining why the other recommendations from the survey were not viable – both in the notice itself and when the resident later asked about possible modifications to the flue.
It should also have clarified that system-wide changes may only have benefited some leaseholders and would have been unfair to those who had already paid to replace their boilers, who would not gain any benefit from the new system. Providing this context early and in detail, may have given the resident a clearer understanding of the reasons behind the landlord’s position, reducing her need to piece together technical advice herself.
In March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to clarify several queries about the shared flue system. The evidence shows she chased the landlord for an update on 3 occasions that month and received no response. The landlord then provided a full reply 1 month later. It explained the delay to respond was because it lacked the technical expertise to answer her questions directly and needed external advice. This was a reasonable explanation, but the landlord should have told the resident this sooner. Setting a timeframe for response or providing a simple update would have helped manage the resident’s expectations, reduced the likelihood of her chasing for progress, and reassured her that her concerns were being taken seriously.
The landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for funding the replacement of her boiler. This position was accurate and aligned with the terms of the resident’s lease. If the shared flue had not been maintained properly and this had directly caused the resident’s boiler to become unsafe or unusable, there may have been grounds to consider whether the landlord had some responsibility. However, this was not the case here. We have seen no evidence to indicate the shared flue was faulty, and the compatibility issue only arose because of changes in regulation that made condensing boilers mandatory.
While the resident believed that a modified flue might offer more affordable options, this did not create an obligation for the landlord to alter a functioning system. The resident remained responsible for replacing her boiler under the lease, and the fact that some models were more expensive due to regulation did not shift that responsibility.
It was therefore good practice that the landlord agreed to consult a contractor to explore whether any modifications could be made to the shared flue. This showed it was engaging constructively with the resident’s concerns, although it was under no obligation to alter a working system. When 1 contractor advised that the flue could not be lined or fan-assisted due to its design, the landlord said it would seek a second opinion to explore any remaining alternatives. This was a reasonable step and aligned with our expectations for landlords to provide clear, evidence-based explanations when addressing complex technical matters.
However, the evidence shows that it took the landlord until March 2025 to update the resident on the outcome of its additional enquiries. This left an 8-month gap where she received no meaningful update, despite asking for progress reports during that time. By stating that it would seek further advice, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations and should have fulfilled this commitment within a reasonable timeframe. Even if the delay was due to waiting on responses from external contractors, the landlord should have provided regular check-ins to explain what was happening. This would have shown the matter was still active and reassured the resident that her concerns had not been overlooked.
The landlord must now confirm to the resident in writing whether it still intends to commission further specialist advice about the shared flue system. If so, it must provide a clear timescale and details of the next steps. If it no longer plans to obtain further advice, it must confirm this and explain why.
Regarding the cost of a further survey, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that this would be recharged to leaseholders. Although the landlord had agreed to explore further options, it did so in response to leaseholder requests rather than because of any failure in how it had maintained the shared flue. In such circumstances, it would typically be appropriate for landlords to recover costs through service charges, as they would for other services or works provided for the collective benefit of leaseholders.
The resident also asked why the landlord had not considered using the sinking fund to put towards replacing all boilers in the building or modifying the flue system. The landlord explained that the sinking fund was reserved for planned or budgeted works, and no such works had been agreed in relation to these facilities. This was a reasonable response and consistent with the resident’s lease.
Even if the landlord had exercised discretion, using the sinking fund in this way would have required formal consultation with all leaseholders, as the cost would ultimately be recovered through service charges. It would not have been appropriate to commit sinking fund resources to works that may not benefit all leaseholders equally or represent fair value for their contribution.
The landlord has shared internal guidance with us which explains that the type of flue system serving the resident’s building does not require individual flats to have an inspection hatch (an access panel that allows parts of the flue to be checked). However, boilers connected to this type of flue should display a sticker confirming the arrangement. This is likely to help gas engineers identify the flue type and prevent boilers being wrongly condemned.
This guidance appears reasonable, but we have seen no evidence that the landlord shared it with the resident. That was a missed opportunity – particularly as the resident told the landlord that her boiler had been rated unsafe because the flue could not be inspected. The landlord should have recognised the significance of this and ensured she had accurate information about the system in her building.
The landlord must now write to the resident to confirm the type of flue serving the building. It should explain why her flat does not need an inspection hatch and what information should be visible on her boiler. It should also set out the source of its information to help reassure her that her boiler is operating safely with the shared flue.
The resident mentioned throughout her complaint that the landlord needed to share information with all leaseholders – not just respond to her directly. The landlord’s records show that it told the resident it had not issued wider communication because it did not want to give out information prematurely, and that its March 2024 notice remained the most up–to–date advice on boiler replacement options. While this was a logical position in principle, it likely placed an unfair burden on the resident to chase updates and question whether her concerns were being addressed alongside others. Issuing a general progress update would have shown transparency and supported trust in how the matter was being managed.
The resident also raised concerns that replacing her boiler with an electric model could reduce her flat’s EPC rating and affect her ability to let the property in future. We acknowledge that this was a genuine concern for her. However, decisions about which heating system to install remain the leaseholder’s responsibility, and the landlord is not required to consider or mitigate the potential EPC impact of leaseholders’ choices. While we recognise that energy efficiency is an important consideration, it does not alter the landlord’s obligations under the lease or give rise to a requirement to fund or facilitate alternative boiler options.
Finally, we must highlight that if the landlord were to agree to modify the shared flu system, this would be chargeable to all leaseholders through the service charge, in line with the terms of the lease. The Ombudsman cannot make orders which would result in a financial cost to other leaseholders, because we do not have consent from those leaseholders to investigate a complaint on their behalf. Therefore, we would not order the landlord to modify or replace the flue.
However, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the shared flue system. This is because it failed to share key information about the flue over a 2-year period, took 8 months to update the resident on its commitment to a further specialist opinion, and did not respond to her report that her boiler had been rated unsafe because the flue could not be inspected. Collectively, these failings caused the resident avoidable confusion and prolonged uncertainty about the safety and compatibility of her boiler and the flue system.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 2 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 July 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 88 working days later, significantly exceeding the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord said the delay was due to staff shortages, which we accept can sometimes be outside its control. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, is clear that landlords must still manage complaints effectively during periods of operational difficulty. This includes keeping resident’s informed, explaining delays, and providing revised timeframes.
In this case, the landlord gave no meaningful updates during the delay. This left the resident uncertain about whether her complaint was being progressed and she escalated her concerns to our service prematurely, likely causing additional time and trouble.
Still, it was reasonable that in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay. By awarding compensation, the landlord accepted accountability for its service failure and took steps to put things right.
Overall, we are satisfied that the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances and broadly in line with what we would have ordered it to pay the resident if it had not already done so. We therefore find that the landlord has provided reasonable redress in response to concerns about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the shared flue system.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Confirm to the resident in writing whether it still intends to commission further specialist advice about the shared flue system. If so, it must provide a clear timescale and details of the next steps. If it no longer plans to obtain further advice, it must confirm this and explain why
2. Write to the resident to confirm the type of flue serving the building. It should explain why her flat does not need an inspection hatch and what information should be visible on her boiler. It should also set out the source of its information to help reassure her that her boiler is operating safely with the shared flue
3. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her concerns about the shared flue system
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should also share any future updates about the flue system and boiler inspections that it provides to the resident with all leaseholders, where appropriate. Doing so will ensure consistent messaging, reduce confusion, and support leaseholders to make informed decisions.
The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it already offered in its stage 1 complaint response if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.