The Riverside Group Limited (202344594)

Background

1. The resident lives in flat in a block. The landlord is the freeholder. He reported intermittent leaks into his home, including one in November 2023 that damaged his belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlords handling of leaks and request for compensation.
3. The landlords handling of the complaint. 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlords handling of the leaks and request for compensation
   2. service failure in the landlords handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the leak and request for compensation

5. The landlord did not make timely contact with the responsible leaseholder or follow up after the resident reported another leak. It did not tell the resident it could make a claim with its insurance company where there was a dispute.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy, as the stage 2 response was delayed.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at 

7. This investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. After the complaint, the landlord shared information about works needed to the block, including leaks. The resident suggested this might mean the landlord was liable for the damage in his home. In the interest of fairness, we have not considered these building issues because the landlord must be given an opportunity to investigate and respond before our involvement. The resident should raise these concerns directly with the landlord.
8. There was a leak in April 2022 from a neighbour’s property caused by an overflow and fixed at the time. The landlord’s notes and repair records show no link between this leak and later leaks reported by the resident, so we have not considered this in our investigation.

What we have looked at

9. On 1 November 2023 the resident reported a leak and believed it came from the property above. The landlord acted promptly by contacting that neighbour a leaseholder, who confirmed the leak was not from their property. It was reasonable that the landlord had early communication with the neighbour.
10. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says it will inspect within 7 calendar days if needed. When the upstairs neighbour disputed responsibility for the leak, the landlord did not arrange an inspection. This was not in line with its policy. By failing to inspect, the landlord missed an opportunity to find the source sooner, which prolonged uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident.
11. On 9 November 2023 the landlord confirmed the leak had stopped and noted it came from a property 2 floors up. It did not provide evidence that it contacted the responsible leaseholder at this stage. In line with its commitment to provide an efficient and effective repairs service, it should have acted earlier to address the issue.
12. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 November 2023, to see if there had been more leaks. The resident said there had been a mild leak the previous weekend. The landlord kept in touch, which was reasonable, but there is no evidence it acted on this leak.
13. On 26 November 2023, the resident reported another, more serious leak. The landlord arranged a track and trace, which was appropriate, but it could have taken this step earlier when the source was unclear. Acting sooner may have prevented the leak from worsening. 
14. On 30 November 2023, the landlord carried out the trace, identified the source, and contacted the leaseholder to arrange repairs. This was appropriate. The leaseholder arranged repairs to be completed by the 15 December 2023.
15. When the resident asked for compensation for his damaged goods, the landlord advised him to claim on his content’s insurance. This was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement.
16. The resident disagreed with making a claim, we cannot decide who is liable for damage. These matters are better resolved through an insurance claim. It would have been fair for the landlord to explain how to make a claim through its own liability insurance. Its Financial Redress and Compensation Procedure recognise the need to investigate whether an insurance claim is appropriate. Doing this would have shown that the landlord recognised the resident’s frustration and offered a way to progress the issue. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to address his concerns and refer him to the appropriate insurer.
17. The landlord has a Third-Party Property Damage Framework which is in place to deal with claims under £2,000 as it can respond to these more quickly itself. There is no evidence it applied this framework. Had it done so and the customer disputed the outcome there is a guide for its staff to refer to insurance to make a final decision. If the landlord had used its own framework in this case, it could have strengthened its response and demonstrated a fair and structured approach to liability. The omission meant the resident missed out on a process designed to clarify responsibility.
18. Overall, the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to manage the leaks. Although it said in its stage 1 response that it attended within timescales where possible and that some factors were outside its control, this was not reasonable. The first leak was reported on 1 November 2023, but the landlord did not attend and confirm who was responsible until 30 November 2023. This was outside its target of 7 working days to arrange an inspection. The landlord relied on contact with leaseholders and the resident rather than assessing the root cause itself. It could have taken proactive steps, such as inspecting the property sooner, to identify the source of the leak. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to resolve the issue earlier. This delay left the resident living with ongoing disruption and uncertainty for almost a month.
19. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request for property damage in line with its own compensation framework. This meant the resident did not have the chance for the landlord’s insurer to assess liability. By not following its process, the landlord denied the resident a clear route to resolve his concerns and added to his frustration. These failings show that the landlord did not act in accordance with its own standards and missed opportunities to reduce the impact on the resident.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. For stage 2, the resident has 30 days to escalate. The landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days, with a maximum extension of 20 working days. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy.
21. The resident asked to escalate to stage 2 on 10 January 2024. This was not acknowledged until 9 February 2024, which was significantly outside the 2‑day target. The stage 2 response was sent on 4 March 2024, which was outside the 20‑day timeframe.
22. The landlord did not recognise or explain these delays in its stage 2 response. It did not manage the stage 2 escalation in line with its policy, which caused unnecessary delay and inconvenience for the resident.

Learning

23. The landlord should review how it applies its Third-Party Property Damage framework and insurer referral process when residents dispute liability for compensation. It should also consider whether earlier inspections could prevent escalation and reduce inconvenience for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not provide evidence that it arranged an inspection after the initial report or that it contacted the responsible leaseholder promptly. Clear and timely records of these actions would have demonstrated compliance with its repairs policy and supported its position on liability.

Communication

25. The landlord kept in touch with the resident and explained its position clearly, which was reasonable. However, delays in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation and lack of clarity about insurer involvement contributed to frustration and uncertainty.