The Riverside Group Limited (202410063)

Decision
Case ID	202410063
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	27 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. She reported that there was damp and mould on her external-facing interior walls. She complained as she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed works to the guttering and the damp and mould continued. She was unhappy that the landlord advised her to make a buildings insurance claim and that it had not completed an internal inspection.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord initially responded to and oversaw external repairs within a reasonable period. However, it did not complete an internal inspection to determine the cause of the damp and mould. This may have impacted its ability to provide correct information and signposting about insurance. It did not respond to the resident’s queries about its inspection and maintenance of the exterior or meaningfully respond to her position that it was responsible for internal damages. The landlord then delayed in responding to the resident’s further reports of external repairs.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not initially recognise that the resident had complained. It acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint outside its complaint policy timescales. It delayed in issuing a stage 2 response. It apologised for its complaint handling delays at stage 1 but not at stage 2. It did not complete the action agreed in its stage 2 response or offer any redress for its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 November 2025
2	Learning order   The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 24 November 2025
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the landlord’s damp and mould policy said it should diagnose the cause of damp, and it agreed to complete an inspection in its complaint responses. The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The landlord must send a copy of the report to the resident. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 24 November 2025
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 24 November 2025
5	Specific action Respond in writing to the resident’s concerns that it had not sufficiently inspected or maintained the exterior of the property and her position that it was responsible for internal works as a result.	No later than 24 November 2025
6	Specific action Following the inspection, the landlord must confirm to the resident in writing whether it is appropriate for it to refer a claim to its liability insurer and/ or signpost the resident to buildings or contents insurance as appropriate.	No later than 24 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 April 2024	The resident reported damp and mould on her internal walls and a damp patch on the external wall.
On or around 22 April 2024	Contractors identified that scaffolding was required to complete external repairs to a gutter leak. They coated the external wall with water repellent.
24 April 2024	The landlord advised the resident to make a buildings insurance claim and provided details about this.
14 May 2024	The resident made a complaint. She asked the landlord to confirm its timescales for completing works. She said the internal damp and mould was ongoing.
16 May 2024	The landlord said it was not responsible for any internal damage or repairs. The resident said she thought it was responsible for the internal works as she said it had not sufficiently inspected or maintained the exterior. She asked it to provide details of its external inspections.
21 May 2024	The resident said was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling delays.
23 May 2024	The resident said she was unhappy the landlord had advised her to make a buildings insurance claim and pay the excess fee. She said she felt the landlord should make a claim.
On or around 11 June 2024	Contractors completed works to the gutters and down pipes.
14 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said: it had not provided the resident with timescales of works. It confirmed external works had been completed. if there was still damp and mould internally, the resident could make a buildings insurance claim. it apologised for the delay in its complaint response and upheld the complaint because of this. it set out learning from the complaint.
14 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint and said she: thought the landlord had not completed sufficient inspections and maintenance of the gutters and pipes since she lived there. wanted it to address the ongoing internal damp and mould.
17 June 2024	The resident reported that gutter works had not resolved the issue. She said the exterior wall was saturated and there was a long crack on the side of the building which could let water in. She said the damp and mould inside the property was spreading.
5 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: it would complete a damp inspection on 14 August 2024. it apologised for the time taken to arrange an inspection and offered a £25 voucher for the inconvenience.  the resident would need to pay the buildings insurance excess fee.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She told us the damp and mould in her property had worsened and the landlord had not completed an internal inspection.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

7. When a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord’s damp and mould policy said it should try to access the property, investigate effectively to identify and diagnose the cause of the damp and mould, and complete any repairs it is responsible for in line with its repairs policy.
8. Within 13 days of the resident reporting damp and mould in her property, contractors applied water repellent to external walls, identified gutter repairs which the landlord was responsible for under the lease, and confirmed scaffolding was required. This response was within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 days for routine repairs. The landlord did not keep the resident updated or provide her with a timescale for repairs. It acknowledged this in its stage 1 response.
9. Contractors did not go inside the property but said that damp and mould was likely caused by a gutter leak. That the landlord did not inspect internally to determine the cause of the damp and mould was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
10. The landlord acted reasonably in relation to arranging follow-on works to complete the external repairs. This included arranging scaffolding works and confirming to the resident that external works would begin on 20 May 2024.
11. The resident asked whether the landlord would repair internal damage. Whether it is appropriate for a landlord to signpost a resident to make a buildings or contents insurance claim or refer a claim to its liability insurer will depend on several factors including the cause of any damp and mould.
12. The landlord’s final redress and compensation procedure (the procedure) said that damage to buildings should be referred to its insurance team if there is damage to the structure, or damage over £2,000. It said if damage to buildings and property is under £2,000 this can be dealt with under its Third-Party Property Damage (TTPD) framework. Under its TPPD claims process, the procedure said damage to buildings claims of all values should go through the buildings insurer.
13. Although the procedure is at times unclear on whether damage to buildings claims should be referred to its insurance team and/or go through the buildings insurer, the landlord was entitled to signpost the resident to make a buildings insurance claim. However, it did not complete an inspection to determine the cause, nature or extent of the damp and mould or the value of any damage. This may have affected its ability to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports that it was responsible for the damp and mould, follow its internal procedures or provide appropriate insurance signposting and information.
14. Under her lease, the resident was responsible for internal repairs. However, given that the landlord had not inspected to confirm the cause of the damp and mould, it may have been misleading for it to say that works to make good any internal damage were not its responsibility.
15. When the resident asked the landlord to explain why she had to make a buildings insurance claim and pay the excess, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain why it had signposted her to make a buildings insurance claim with reference to any relevant policies and procedures.
16. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries about its inspection and maintenance of external parts, which was unreasonable. Nor did it meaningfully respond to her position that internal works were its responsibility as she said it had not sufficiently inspected or maintained the exterior.
17. In its stage 1 response it was helpful for the landlord to confirm that it had completed external works and set out some learning about keeping the resident updated. It did not acknowledge that it had not inspected the damp and mould. Given that it had not determined the cause or extent of the damp and mould, it could not ensure its insurance information and signposting was reasonable.
18. When the resident reported that there were still external repairs that could cause water to enter the property on 17 June 2024, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete an inspection. It did not respond to the resident’s reports until it raised inspection works on 20 August 2024 and completed repairs to the gutters and pipes on 12 September 2024. On 17 June 2024, the landlord suggested the cause of the damp and mould was poor ventilation. It was unreasonable for it to confirm this without having inspected. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its stage 2 response.
19. It was positive that the landlord raised works to inspect the damp and mould on 2 July 2024. It arranged the inspection for 14 August 2024. The resident said she booked time off work for the inspection. She said the landlord did not attend and did not notify her that it had cancelled the appointment. That the landlord did not attend the inspection or rearrange it was unreasonable.
20. The resident said she felt unable to offer respite care for a vulnerable family member who had a respiratory condition due to the ongoing damp and mould. She said she had to clean the walls and apply mould treatment multiple times. The £25 voucher the landlord offered at stage 2 was not proportionate to the failings identified, their impact and the length of time the landlord failed to inspect the damp and mould. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance and to inspect the property. This is also in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

21. The landlord did not recognise that the resident initially raised a complaint on 14 May 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint 7 working days after she raised it. This was not in line with its complaints policy which said complaints must be acknowledged within 2 working days.
22. The landlord issued a stage 1 response 15 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy which said responses should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling delays in its stage 1 response and set out learning.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 17 June 2024, within its complaints policy timescale of 2 working days. It extended its timescale for issuing a stage 2 response until 1 August 2024 in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not issue a stage 2 response until 5 August 2024, 2 working days after it had agreed. It did not acknowledge this delay.
24. The landlord did not acknowledge all its complaint handling failures or offer any redress for them. We have therefore made orders to put things right in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

25. The landlord set out some learning in relation to keeping residents informed and the allocation of complaints in its stage 1 response. It did not show any learning in relation to the delay in completing a damp inspection in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord did not recognise that the resident had complained on 14 May 2024. Its records of the completion dates of repairs are contradictory, which shows a lack of oversight of its contractors or poor record keeping.

Communication

27. The landlord did not always keep the resident updated and informed about works and did not respond to all her queries. We have made an order for the landlord to set out any learning from this complaint.