The Riverside Group Limited (202404517)

Decision
Case ID	202404517
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 December 2025

Background

The resident submitted a request for compensation to the landlord in April 2024 following roof leaks at his property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak at his property and his subsequent request for compensation.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the roof leak and the resident’s request for compensation.
We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and his request for compensation

There were delays and confusion in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak at the property and his subsequent request for compensation. However, the matter has been settled via an insurance claim. We therefore consider this to be reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord did not recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint and did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint when it responded. There were delays within the complaints process which would have caused time and trouble to the resident.

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 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid £200 directly to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 07 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

07 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid £200 directly to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

No later than

07 January

2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend a roof contractor inspects the roof to identify the cause of the recurring roof leak and provides a schedule of works to achieve a lasting repair.
We recommend the landlord offers complaint handling refresher training to relevant staff if it has not done so already. The training should focus on recognising all parts of a resident’s complaint to ensure nothing is missed in its complaint response.

Our recommendations

We recommend a roof contractor inspects the roof to identify the cause of the recurring roof leak and provides a schedule of works to achieve a lasting repair.

We recommend the landlord offers complaint handling refresher training to relevant staff if it has not done so already. The training should focus on recognising all parts of a resident’s complaint to ensure nothing is missed in its complaint response.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between April 2024 and June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord on several occasions and expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the time it had taken to resolve the roof leak at his property. He was also unhappy about the delays in its handling of his associated compensation claim.
1 July 2024	The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said the “debacle” of the roof leak had been going on for 8 years. He said there was a “serious communication failure” and the landlord was “avoiding its responsibilities” regarding his compensation claim.
15 August 2024	The resident emailed the landlord, He said he had not had a response to his stage 1 complaint. He said the landlord had “failed repeatedly” to adhere to its complaints policy.
19 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had liaised with its insurance team regarding the claim and it would contact the resident on that day (19 August 2024). It upheld the complaint and apologised for the amount of time it had taken to pass the claim to its insurer.
22 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said its stage 1 complaint response was correct and the matter was “in the hands of its litigation team” who would contact the resident directly.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us. He said the issues with the roof leaking had not been resolved and he wanted to landlord to address the cause of the issues and complete a lasting repair.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of his leaking roof and his request for compensation
Finding	Reasonable redress

Leaking roof

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the roof leak at the property in his complaint on 1 July 2024. However, the landlord did not address this issue in its complaint responses. This was a failing. In line with our scheme, we have therefore made the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the roof leak.
The resident said there had been issues with the roof leaking for the previous 8 years. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult time for the resident. However, we have limited the timeframe of our investigation from April 2023, 12 months prior to when the resident first tried to complain to the landlord, until January 2025 when the roof leak was fixed and the resident received his settlement figure from the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord provided very limited evidence regarding its repairs of the leaking roof at the property. We have seen a list of jobs relating to the roof. The landlord’s contractor attended the property 4 times between April 2023 and May 2024. It is unclear what reports were made by the resident, as the landlord has not provided this evidence. However, it is clear that the landlord was investigating the leak and trying to resolve the issue during this time. Having considered the evidence, there were unexplained delays of up to a few months between appointments which would have been inconvenient for the resident. This was also not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states it will attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy.
On 8 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and said the roof issues were rectified. However the resident emailed the landlord on 2 May 2024 and told it there was internal work outstanding from the repairs which meant he was unable to use the lounge. He said he was concerned about the risk of damage to his electrical equipment. There was no evidence the landlord responded to this concern which was a further failing.
The roof leak was fixed in January 2025 following a further leak in December 2024. It was unclear whether the previous repair had failed but it is acknowledged that the continued problems with the roof would have been a cause for concern for the resident. We acknowledge that repairs to remedy a leak to a roof may take longer than a standard repair as these generally need scaffolding to be put up and may take more than one attempt to resolve. However, the landlord did not demonstrate a sense of urgency regarding the repair and its communication with the resident was poor which led to avoidable delays.
The resident told us that the roof leak returned in September 2025. We are unable to assess this until the landlord has been given a fair opportunity to respond via its internal complaints procedure. However, we have recommended the landlord arranges an inspection of the roof and completes the necessary works in order to achieve a lasting repair.

Request for compensation

On 9 April 2024 the resident submitted a compensation claim to the landlord for expenses and distress and inconvenience which the landlord passed to its insurer. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage such claims and the landlord would not be required to pay a claim itself rather than using insurance. A landlord’s insurer is usually a separate organisation, and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome of any claim made to a liability insurer.
However, the landlord’s internal emails showed confusion regarding how the claim would be managed and whether it should be directed to the landlord’s insurer or the contractor’s insurer. Between April 2024 and December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord on over 10 occasions for information and updates regarding his claim. This caused him time and trouble. We have seen evidence that individual members of landlord staff responded to the resident and tried to help him with his claim. However, the process was unclear and complicated. This was a shortcoming which led to delays and inconvenience for the resident.
In August 2024 the landlord referred the claim back to its litigation team and acknowledged that this should have happened sooner. This was positive as the landlord reflected on its actions and tried to put things right. The landlord told us it did not offer separate compensation for its failings regarding the handling of the roof leak and the resident’s request for compensation because a payment for distress and inconvenience was included within the building insurance claim which was paid in January 2025. This was reasonable because the resident agreed an amount of redress. Given both parties agreed a settlement as a resolution to the issue we consider this to be reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

From April 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord on a number of occasions regarding its handling of the roof leak and his compensation claim. The landlord’s complaints policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction should be recognised as a complaint and responded to accordingly. The landlord failed to do this. This was a complaint handling failing which caused the resident additional time and trouble.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 2 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It says if an extension is required it will inform the resident of the expected timescale for the response and this will be no more than an additional 20 working days. Its complaints policy timescales mirror our complaint handling code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaints handling.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 1 July 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 36 working days later, on 19 August 2024. This was a failing as it was outside of its complaint policy timescales. The landlord told us the delay was because it was waiting for updates from its insurer. However, we did not see any evidence that it communicated this to the resident or requested an extension. This was a failing because it was not compliant with its policy.
The landlord’s lack of communication following the resident’s stage 1 response led him to contact us for advice. This would have caused him time and trouble. On the 15 August 2024 the resident chased the landlord for its stage 1 complaint response. This would have caused him further inconvenience.
The Code sets out, under section 6, that landlords are required to address all points raised in the complaint. The resident, in his original complaint on 1 July 2024 referred to the “debacle” of the roof leak. However, as mentioned above, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not include a response regarding the resident’s complaint about the time taken to repair the leaking roof. This error was also not recognised during stage 2 of the complaints process. This was a further complaint handling failing which would have caused inconvenience to the resident and may have led him to feel the landlord was not listening to his concerns.
The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2024, said it upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time it had taken to pass his claim to its litigation team. However, it did not offer redress for this within the complaints process.
Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation It suggests awards in the range of £100-£600 where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s errors but there has not been a permanent impact. The resident encountered a series of avoidable delays within the complaints process. Furthermore, the landlord did not recognise his original complaint and did not respond fully to all of the concerns he raised. We order the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.

Learning

There was a lack of information regarding the repairs at the property and the resident’s complaint and communication with the landlord The landlord should review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its responsibilities regarding repairs and complaint handling,
The landlord could review how it communicates its insurance and compensation claim procedures to ensure this is clear for staff and residents to follow and understand.