The Riverside Group Limited (202336456)

Decision
Case ID	202336456
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

In May 2023 the resident complained about damp and mould caused by a leak, the landlord completed repairs, however the problem remained. She complained to the landlord again in January 2024 following a damp inspection, which took place in November 2023.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
1. In the knowledge that damp was present, failed to make reasonable access attempts or follow-up the required repairs.
2. Took too long to arrange the damp inspection and asbestos survey following its stage 2 response.
3. Has failed to complete the relevant repairs in a timely manner to stop the leak and provide a lasting repair.
4. Did not acknowledge complaint handling failures or manage its complaints process in line with the code.

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 17 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,075 made up as follows:  £975 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.  £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment to us by the due date.	No later than 17 December 2025
3	Inspection order 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 inspection must be completed by an independent and 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 independent surveyor: Inspects the on-going damp issue on the lower ground floor. The surveyor must identify the source of the leak and produce a written report with photographs The survey report must include: The most likely cause of the damp A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue The likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 5 January 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the repairs are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale or explain why it cannot.	No later than 26 January 2026
5	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works.	No later than 9 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 January 2024	The resident raised a complaint, she said she had not heard from the landlord since a damp inspection on 14 November 2023. She said the surveyor found damp walls to a room located on the ground floor caused by a roof leak.
31 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said an intrusive asbestos survey was needed before starting remedial works. On 29 November 2023 the surveyor attended but could not access the property. The landlord called the resident on 17, 25, and 30 January 2024, leaving voicemails to rebook the survey. It closed the case after receiving no contact.
6 February 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said: closing her complaint was unacceptable asbestos surveys in 2019 and April 2023 showed no asbestos she had told the landlord she was uncontactable by phone and was unaware of the asbestos surveyors visit in November 2023 they cannot continue to live in the damp conditions, the leak required fixing and the walls repairing
10 and 12 February 2024	The resident contacted the landlord and asked it to include additional points in her complaint.
1 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the April 2023 asbestos check had limited access because of stored items and a person unwell in a bedroom. It confirmed it knew the resident could not take calls and asked her to contact directly to arrange a damp and mould inspection. Following the inspection, the asbestos team would take samples, but full and clear access was required.
12 March 2024	The resident told the landlord that the stage 2 response did not address all her complaint points and she asked for a further reply.
15 March 2024	The landlord sent an updated stage 2 response. In addition to its response on 1 March 2024, it: apologised for not adding the resident’s contact requests to the complaint notes confirmed repairs were needed but could not start works until an asbestos survey was completed said an update would be provided from the contractor about roofing works on 18 March 2024
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us because she said she could not continue to live in damp conditions. She wanted the landlord to complete the works required and provide compensation for the time and trouble caused.

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 has 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	Resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp
Finding	Maladministration

Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says a landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation.
The landlord completed a damp inspection on 14 November 2023, it confirmed that damp was present and most likely caused by a roof leak. It said an asbestos survey was required before repairs could start. The landlord has a legal duty to manage asbestos, which requires it to take reasonable steps to identify, record, and prevent exposure. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to ensure a completed and recent survey was held on record.
The resident said she did not hear from the landlord after the inspection until she complained in January 2024. The landlord said its asbestos surveyor attempted access on 29 November 2023, but the resident said she was unaware that a survey was required nor did she receive an appointment. The tenancy agreement states that 24 hours’ notice is provided for access and although the contractor called following the failed access, there is no evidence it notified the resident before the visit. If it had written to her in line with its damp policy, following the failed access, this may have resolved the issue sooner.
After the resident complained in January 2024, the landlord tried to rebook the asbestos survey and called her on 17, 25, and 30 January 2024. The resident’s preferred method of contact was email. It should not have taken the resident to raise a complaint for the landlord to act, given the confirmed damp in the property.
The resident raised concerns regarding the asbestos survey because it had been completed in April 2023. The resident and landlord had differing views regarding if a completed asbestos survey was held on record. Nonetheless, the landlord should have addressed the issue in April 2023 and explained that another survey would be necessary. Further, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and assured her that while the repeated visits caused inconvenience, they were required for the works to commence.
On 14 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to complete the asbestos survey. The landlord also suggested a further damp inspection. The resident said it “felt like a complete re-set of the process” and was disappointed regarding the continued delay. Although the resident’s frustration is understandable, due to the time elapsed and considering the winter period, a re-inspection was a reasonable response from the landlord to understand the extent of the works.
The landlord said that it would provide an update regarding the roof repair by 18 March 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident or attended the resident’s property again to repair the roof until September 2024. This was not appropriate as while works to the inside of the property were delayed, the external works to identify and fix the roof leak could have progressed. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay.
With the landlord’s stage 2 response in mind, the resident asked the landlord to complete the damp inspection and asbestos survey. It provided a date for the inspection of 1 May 2024, which was 49 days after the resident’s request. The landlords damp policy suggests it will complete repair works or measures in line with the responsive repairs policy and that the severity and urgency of the problem would be considered. In this case, the landlord failed to apply a reasonable timeframe, consider the urgency or that the resident had with an active leak and damp since November 2023. The landlord should have done more to resolve the issue sooner.
On 22 May 2024 the resident chased the landlord for a date for the asbestos survey. As the landlord was aware that this was required before works could commence, it is disappointing to note that it was not scheduled along with the required damp inspection. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident and timely progress with the inspection and survey delayed the resolution of the issue and negatively impacted the resident.
The resident told us that despite repeated inspections and remedial repairs, the leak remains on-going and the affected walls remain damp. She said the repeated inspections and time taken of work for repairs over 2 years, which has not fixed the leak is frustrating. The landlord confirmed that in March 2025, a further inspection was required. Given the number of inspections, repairs, and the length of time the leak has remained outstanding, an order has been made for the landlord to instruct a specialist independent surveyor to attend the property, assess the issue and provide recommendations for a resolution.
The resident said she told the landlord that she was unable to take calls during the working day. The landlord confirmed it was aware of this on 7 February 2024, yet it continued to phone the resident. The landlord apologised and explained that the request had been missed by the stage 1 complaint handler. It was reasonable of the landlord to apologise within the complaints process where it also took the opportunity to explain its failings and future learning points.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate. Initially, the landlord failed to make reasonable access attempts or follow-up in line with its policy in the knowledge that a damp hazard was present. The landlord took too long to schedule the required asbestos survey and damp inspection, which resulted in a substantial delay to the remedial repairs. Further, the resident continues to experience damp conditions within her property, which has been on-going since November 2023. The delay is unreasonable and indicates a lack of understanding by the landlord of its statutory repair obligations.
The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp amount to maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there have been a failure, which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no offer to put things right.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £975. This can be broken down as £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the resident continuing to live with outstanding damp and mould and £475 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
On 17 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and on 31 January 2024 it provided its stage 1 complaint response, this was delayed by 3 days.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate to a stage 2 complaint on 6 February 2024, the landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on the 9 February 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 1 March 2024. This was within the 5-working day and 20-working day timeframe, respectively.
The resident requested to add additional information to her stage 2 complaint on 10 and 17 February 2024. The code states if residents raise additional related complaints these must be incorporated into the response. While some points raised concerned a different complaint from 2023, the landlord failed to address others, which were related. Therefore, the resident experienced further time and trouble requesting the landlord provide an updated and comprehensive stage 2 response.
We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord failed to respond fully to the resident’s complaint, which caused the resident further time and trouble. Further, although the delay to the stage 1 complaint was unlikely to have any significant impact on the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord failed to provide a full and complete complaint response to the resident at stage 2, which led to further time and trouble for the resident in explaining the missing complaint points.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s preferred communication method, yet it continued to contact by phone. The landlord failed to update its records with this information. This did not demonstrate effective record keeping.

Communication

The landlord appeared to communicate with the resident initially by phone. In this case, using only 1 method of communication affected the outcome of this case. The landlord should have recognised that the resident only contacted via email therefore it should have considered reflecting the resident’s preference of communication.