From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Riverside Group Limited (202332422)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332422

The Riverside Group Limited

18 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould in the property.
    2. A missing cooker connection.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom house. She has an allergy to mould, and the landlord is aware of this.
  2. The resident’s tenancy began on 5 December 2022. On 8 December 2022, she reported to the landlord that the cooker fitting in the property needed checking.
  3. In May 2023, the resident told the landlord she suspected damp in the property. She raised further concerns in July 2023, reporting more signs of damp and suspected water damage.
  4. On 18 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord she could not live in the property due to her mould allergy. She said she would stay with her mother until the landlord completed repairs.
  5. Between 7 August and 30 August 2023, the landlord carried out the following repairs in the living room, kitchen, and outside area:
    1. Hacked off the chimney breast wall and replastered it using damp-proof plaster
    2. Fitted an air vent to the chimney breast
    3. Removed and repointed bricks
  6. During this period, the landlord also carried out a damp and mould inspection. It found mould behind the radiators in the living room and bedroom. The resident moved back into the property around the end of August 2023.
  7. Between 8 September and 12 September 2023, the landlord carried out further repairs. These included sealing the leaking guttering and installing extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
  8. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 20 September 2023. She said the property was in poor condition when she moved in and that she had no cooker connection for 6 months. She said that within a few months of moving in, she began to feel unwell and noticed mould patches on the living room walls. She said she left the property because the damp and mould were affecting her breathing.
  9. The resident said the landlord paid her a £600 disturbance allowance for the period she stayed with her mother. However, when she returned to the property, she could still smell damp even after the landlord had completed repairs. She said water damage in the bedroom had not been resolved and she was currently living with her mother again as a result. The resident asked the landlord to refund rent for the periods she had not been able to live in the property.
  10. Between 25 September and 4 October 2023, the landlord completed the following works:
    1. Hacked off plaster from the front wall in the bedroom
    2. Removed and refitted the radiators in the living room and bedroom
    3. Stain-blocked the front bedroom window
    4. Installed vents above the cupboard doors in the living room
  11. On 2 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had already resolved the issue with the cooker fitting. It also said it had offered the resident a temporary hotel stay during the repairs to address the damp and mould, but she had chosen to stay with her mother because she had a dog.
  12. The landlord said it had completed repairs, and the resident could return home, but she had decided not to, due to her mould allergy. It said it was still waiting for medical evidence of the allergy and could not uphold her complaint that the property was unfit to live in without this. It confirmed it had already provided a £600 disturbance allowance payment and a £100 decoration voucher and would not offer any further compensation.
  13. On 2 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process as she did not agree with the outcome of her complaint. On 6 November 2023, she provided the landlord with medical evidence of her mould allergy. On 24 November 2023, she reported a smell of damp coming from the kitchen units.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 December 2023. It confirmed it had added the resident’s medical evidence to her tenant file, that all repairs were now completed, and that the resident was now back in the property. The landlord said it had paid £685 to carpet the property and repeated that it had already awarded a disturbance payment and decoration voucher. It also confirmed it would reimburse the resident £49 for additional electricity she was using on a dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom. It said its financial support exceeded £1600 and that it would not offer anything further.
  15. On 5 December 2023, the landlord replaced the back panels of the kitchen units. On 8 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that she could not use the fuel voucher it had issued because she paid for her electricity by monthly direct debit. She also said the landlord had carpeted the property before she moved in, so this did not relate to the issues raised in her complaint. She added that the decoration voucher had been issued because of the poor condition of the property and was unrelated to her current concerns.
  16. On 13 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
  17. In March 2025, the resident confirmed to us that all repairs to address the damp and mould in the property were completed and she had not experienced any further issues.

Assessment and findings

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the gutters, internal walls, chimneys, and plasterwork. The landlord must also maintain any installations it provides for gas and electricity supply.
  2. The landlord classifies repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be made safe within 12 hours
    2. Urgent repairs – situations that need attention to avoid future damage to the property. These repairs should be completed within 5 days
    3. Routine repairs – standard repairs that do not need urgent attention. These should be completed within 28 days
  3. The landlord’s decant policy confirms that an emergency decant may be offered where the condition of the property means a resident cannot remain in their home. The landlord will first seek to place residents with friends or family, followed by hotel accommodation if needed. Where a resident stays with family or friends, the landlord will contribute towards living expenses until they can return to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The resident first reported concerns about damp in May 2023, around 5 months after moving into the property. We consider it reasonable that signs of damp may only have become visible after she had lived in the home for a period of time, as some issues are only revealed through day-to-day use and changing weather conditions. While the landlord raised a job for an initial inspection, it did not follow this through. When we asked for clarification, the landlord said it was unsure why no further action was taken. This lack of follow-up was a missed opportunity to investigate and address the damp at an early stage.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, highlights the importance of early intervention and warns that failures to act promptly can lead to worsening conditions and unnecessary stress for residents. In this case, the missed opportunity likely prolonged the presence of damp in the property and contributed to the resident’s health concerns and eventual need to leave the home.
  3. The resident reported further signs of damp and water damage on 13 July 2023 and said shortly afterwards that she could no longer remain in the property due to her health. The landlord’s records show it scheduled works to begin on 4 August 2023, 23 days later. While this was not an urgent response, we accept the scale of the planned works justified the timeframe. Given the resident’s health concerns, we would have expected the landlord to treat the matter with urgency, but it was reasonable to allow time to coordinate extensive repairs. It was also appropriate that the landlord agreed to alternative accommodation during this period, in line with its decant policy, as the property was not suitable to occupy because of the resident’s health concerns.
  4. The landlord completed repairs in August 2023 over a 3-week period, including works in the living room, kitchen, and outside area. This was a reasonable timeframe given the scale of the issues. During this period, it also inspected the property and identified further damp behind the radiators in the bedroom and living room. In some cases, it may be appropriate for residents to return home while minor follow-on works are arranged. However, in this case, the landlord was aware of the resident’s mould allergy, so it should have ensured the additional issues in the bedroom and living room were resolved before allowing her to return.
  5. Instead, it let her move back in at the end of August 2023 while those problems remained. We have not seen any surveyor report or risk assessment confirming how the landlord reached its decision. In the absence of that evidence, we cannot be satisfied the landlord properly considered whether the property was suitable for the resident to return to at that stage.
  6. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights that landlords must fully resolve damp issues before allowing a resident to return – particularly where health risks are involved. The landlord’s failure to do so, increased the likelihood of ongoing harm to the property and to the resident.
  7. The resident moved out again shortly after returning at the end of August 2023, due to a persistent smell of damp and ongoing water damage in the bedroom. The landlord then carried out further repairs throughout September and October 2023 to address the outstanding issues in the living room and bedroom. The Ombudsman’s ‘Repairing Trust’ spotlight report, published in 2025, highlights the harm caused by poorly coordinated or repeated repairs, particularly where the resident is already displaced. In this case, the landlord’s failure to complete all necessary works earlier meant the resident remained unable to live safely in her home for much longer than necessary.
  8. Regarding the resident’s living arrangements during repair works, the landlord told us it did not record the exact dates she moved out and returned because she stayed with her mother and it did not open a formal decant case. This explanation is not satisfactory. The landlord’s decant policy includes stays with friends or family as part of its decant arrangements. It should have recorded these key dates. The lack of accurate records demonstrates poor oversight and weak record-keeping, which limits accountability and undermines confidence in how the decant process was managed.
  9. The landlord awarded the resident a £600 disturbance payment to cover the periods she was unable to live in the property. There is no evidence showing how this amount was calculated, but the landlord’s records confirm it agreed to refund rent for the time the resident stayed with her mother.
  10. At the time, the resident’s rent was £88.20 per week. As the landlord did not keep clear records of when she moved out and returned, we have based our calculation on the available evidence. The resident confirmed on 18 July 2023 that she would stay with her mother, and records show repairs were completed by 30 August 2023 – a 6-week period totalling £529.20. In her stage 1 complaint dated 20 September 2023, she said she had moved out again, and records show the second set of works were completed by 4 October 2023 – a further 2 weeks, or £176.40. This totals £705.60.
  11. As the evidence suggests the resident was displaced for 8 weeks, the landlord’s £600 payment falls short of the agreed rent refund. It must pay the resident a further £105.60 to cover the full disturbance period.
  12. The landlord also offered the resident a £100 decoration voucher. Alongside the disturbance payment agreement, this showed the landlord took reasonable steps to recognise the resident had lost use of her home during the periods she could not stay there and put right the physical impact of the damp and mould. However, it should have also recognised that these forms of redress were intended to restore her to the position she would have been in if its errors had not happened and were separate from any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  13. The landlord also referred to paying for carpets throughout the property as part of its response to the complaint. However, its records show this was agreed before the resident moved in, several months before she raised any concerns. We do not consider this to be a valid contribution towards redress for the complaint issues in this case. It was inappropriate for the landlord to include this in its complaint response, as it risked giving the impression that it had provided more compensation that it actually had. This likely caused confusion and undermined the resident’s confidence in the fairness and transparency of the landlord’s handling of her concerns.
  14. Finally, the landlord provided the resident with a fuel voucher to help cover the additional electricity costs from using a dehumidifier. The resident told the landlord she could not use the voucher because she paid for energy by monthly direct debit. The landlord’s records show it said it would offer a food voucher instead. While the original offer was a reasonable way of offsetting the cost of running the dehumidifier, it was appropriate for the landlord to change this when the resident said she could not use it. We consider the offer of a food voucher to be an acceptable alternative in the circumstances. The landlord must issue the resident with the £50 food voucher, if it has not already done so.
  15. Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord failed to act on early signs of disrepair, allowed the resident to return while known issues remained, and did not maintain accurate records of her decant periods. Although it provided some appropriate redress through a rent refund, decoration voucher, and utility support, this did not go far enough. It failed to acknowledge the avoidable stress and inconvenience caused by prolonged disruption and repeated works.
  16. 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, the landlord should offer the resident 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 delays to repairs, poor communication, and prolonged disruption while she was unable to live safely in her home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missing cooker connection

  1. A few days after moving into the property, the resident told the landlord the cooker fitting needed checking. There is no evidence the landlord attended to this. The resident raised the issue again in March 2023, and the landlord’s records show the job was marked as resolved. However, there are no notes explaining what the problem was or what the landlord did to resolve it. This indicates the landlord failed to respond to the initial report and did not keep adequate records when the issue was raised again. This fell short of the landlord’s obligations under the occupancy agreement to maintain installations it provides for gas or electricity.
  2. The landlord should have inspected the issue promptly when first notified and recorded its findings and actions. Its failure to do so left the resident without a working cooker connection for a prolonged period and meant she could not prepare meals normally. This likely caused disruption and affected her daily life. The lack of records also prevented the landlord from providing a meaningful response to the resident’s later complaint.
  3. Overall, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missing cooker connection.
  4. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation to put things right. While the resident said she was without a cooker connection for 6 months, the landlord’s records only support a 4-month period. As an impartial service, we can only base decisions on the available evidence. The award is therefore, not an exact calculation but a fair attempt to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

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

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It responded to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 September 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 32 working days later. This exceeded its complaints policy timescales. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay, nor did it offer redress for any inconvenience the delay may have caused. This showed poor complaint handling and a failure to take accountability for the service shortfall.
  3. Given the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and its failure to acknowledge the delay, we have determined service failure in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
  4. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined service failure by a landlord that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord should offer the resident a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to respond to her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a missing cooker connection.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the following:
      1. An extra £105.60 disturbance payment to cover the full period of disturbance when she moved out and stayed with her mother
      2. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs, poor communication, and prolonged disruption while she was unable to live safely in her home
      3. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate and resolve her reports of a missing cooker connection
      4. £100 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to respond to her complaint
  2. These amounts are separate from and in addition to the landlord’s previous offers of compensation which should also be paid, unless the landlord has paid these amounts already.
  3. The landlord must ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.
  4. The landlord must issue the resident with the £50 food voucher it agreed to provide instead of the fuel voucher, if it has not already done so.
  5. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.