We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

The Riverside Group Limited (202423021)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423021

The Riverside Group Limited

30 July 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 report of a leak and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 14 March 2022. The property is a 2-bed flat in a converted house.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint prior to 4 June 2024, which this Service has not sight of, relating to damp and mould. In response, the landlord attended the property several times in July 2024 to treat the damp and mould and to identify the cause of any leak.
  3. On 13 September 2024, following a further inspection, the landlord raised a works order as there was a leak to a bedroom ceiling when it rained. The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint as the problem continued despite the previous works. The resident also requested compensation for damaged belongings.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 30 September 2024 and upheld the complaint. It said it had been unsuccessful in setting up scaffolding for roof works due to a lack of parking. The landlord advised it had scheduled a new scaffolding appointment for 3 October 2024, and it would monitor repairs following the complaint.
  5. On 17 October 2024, the resident reported that the bedroom ceiling had collapsed (the landlord noted that there were just cracks but an area of ceiling was removed). The landlord erected scaffolding at the property on 24 October 2024 and completed pointing and roofing works by 27 October 2024. It agreed to redecorate the bedroom and offered to store items for the resident while it completed those works.
  6. On 4 December 2024, the landlord recorded that the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This Service has not had sight of the escalation request.
  7. The landlord recorded the completion of all repair and decoration works on 23 December 2024. It asked for the return of the resident’s compensation request form and extended the complaint response date by 20 days to allow receipt and review of the form.
  8. On 13 January 2025, the landlord provided a stage 2 response which upheld the complaint. It offered compensation of £486 for the repair issues. The landlord said that as the claim for damages exceeded £2,000, its litigation team would decide on it.
  9. The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 15 April 2025. It said the litigation team had returned the claim to ‘a local level’ as it included a rent rebate request. It decided that it would not offer any rent rebate or compensation for belongings due to “discrepancies in the evidence”. The landlord increased the compensation offer to £586.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should attend cases of mould within 28 calendar days or severe cases within 5 days. The works order raised on 4 June 2024 did not specify the priority applied to it, but the landlord does not dispute that it failed to meet the required timeframe for this order. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  2. Following its visit on 5 July 2024, the landlord arranged further inspections and related works at the property. Although it completed these in a reasonable timeframe, it did not identify the cause of the leak. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that as of 9 August 2024, there were no issues found.
  3. On 13 September 2024, the landlord raised a works order for a leak coming through the ceiling into a child’s bedroom. It attended the same day and completed a temporary repair. The landlord then ordered a further inspection of the roof, which required the use of scaffolding. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.
  4. Despite the urgency of this work, the landlord failed to install the scaffolding until 24 October 2024. Although the landlord explained that this was due to access issues, the length of time taken was unreasonable. This was another service failing on the part of the landlord, contributing to an unnecessary delay in diagnosing the cause of the leak.
  5. On 17 October 2024, while still awaiting the scaffolding, the resident reported that the “ceiling nearly came through”. The landlord noted in its investigation that it failed to act accordingly in this instance. It found that it did not carry out an emergency make safe visit. Instead, it just added notes to an outstanding works order. This was a significant service failing on the part of the landlord given the potential safety concerns for the resident and her child.
  6. Nevertheless, the landlord attended on 21 October 2024 and noted that the ceiling had not collapsed but it took part of the ceiling down due to safety concerns. The relevant work order notes show that a decant was not needed. The landlord completed several works over the next 6 days to treat the damp and address other potential causes of damp and mould. It was reasonable for the landlord to check the property was habitable in the meantime.
  7. On 1 November 2024, the landlord said it would redecorate the bedroom and provide new carpets. This was reasonable given the damage caused by the leaks. The landlord also noted that it offered a temporary move for the resident despite previously noting that it could complete the works without one. The notes show that the resident said she would stay with family during the works instead. It was resolution-focused for the landlord to offer temporary accommodation even though this was not strictly necessary.
  8. There were delays in the promised decoration works due to a dispute over the storage of items from the bedroom. The landlord said it had offered to place the items in storage for the resident, but she declined this offer. The landlord’s offer was reasonable as there was no obligation for it to empty the room or store the items during the works.
  9. The landlord first attended to complete the decoration works on 27 November 2024, following on from plastering works on 12 November 2024. The dispute over storage of items from the bedroom also delayed completion of the decoration works and the installation of a carpet in early December 2024.
  10. The resident agreed for items to be stored on 13 December 2024 and the landlord completed the decoration and carpet works shortly after. It noted that it completed the bedroom redecoration by 23 December 2024. Overall, there was a delay in the remedial works to the bedroom but this was partly due to arrangements required to store items and it was positive that the landlord did works that were outside its obligations.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately manage repairs linked to reports of leaks, damp and mould between June and October 2024. It failed to carry out the initial assessment in line with its repair policy and delayed identifying the source of the reported leak.
  12. The landlord raised works orders to address a further leak in September 2024 – this was a month after it deemed there were no issues causing a leak.
  13. After the September 2024 inspection, the landlord identified further necessary works. However, it did not install the required scaffolding in a timely manner, taking over a month to do so – albeit, some of this delay was for reasons outside its control. During this time, the leak became worse, likely causing further damage and distress and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman is of the view that once the scaffolding was installed, the landlord acted appropriately in carrying out the required works and that it completed them in a reasonable timeframe.
  14. During the complaint process, the resident claimed for damages to her belongings and for a rent rebate. After receiving details of the resident’s claim, the landlord passed this to its litigation team for review. The litigation team later passed this back to the complaint team as a large part of the claim was for a rent rebate between 16 October 2024 and 13 December 2024.
  15. The landlord’s evidence shows that it considered the condition of the property on 21 October 2024. The landlord did not assess that the property was uninhabitable based on the damage to that point. The resident decided to leave the property during this period anyway. Nevertheless, the landlord was under no obligation to offer a rent rebate given it established the property could be lived in.
  16. Despite not finding the property uninhabitable, the landlord still offered to provide the resident with temporary accommodation. It is unclear exactly when the landlord made this offer. However, this demonstrated a resolution-focused approach by the landlord which considered the resident’s situation and the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the earlier leaks.
  17. In response to the repairs service failings, the landlord offered total compensation of £586 (including its final stage 2 follow-on letter). This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failings that had an adverse impact on a resident. This was the case here given the errors and delays by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over several weeks. The level of compensation was therefore appropriate given the circumstances of the case alongside the apology and the landlord’s commitment to learn lessons in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  18. Given the failings identified in this report and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. The finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs, or the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which it acknowledged and offered compensation for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  19. After the end of the complaints process, the landlord did a follow-on response which included a rejection of the resident’s claim for damaged belongings. It said it rejected it due to “discrepancies in evidence”. We have not seen this evidence. However, the landlord did not provide a full explanation of what the discrepancies were, how the resident could appeal the decision or any details of next steps available to her. This decision was made after the end of the complaints process so is outside the scope of our investigation but the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord should provide clarity to the resident on this point – a recommendation is made below in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and associated repairs.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the previously offered compensation of £586 for the failings linked to the repairs. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should provide a full explanation of its reason for rejecting the resident’s claim for damaged belongings and signpost her as to how she can appeal this decision.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intention in regard to these recommendations.