The Riverside Group Limited (202343088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343088

The Riverside Group Limited

23 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of leaks which caused damp and mould.
2. Issues with electrics at the property due to the leak.
3. The resident’s request for pebbledash to be removed from the property.
4. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house. He lives there with his partner and young children.
The resident had a new roof installed in 2022, due to a previous leak. He experienced further leaks in 2023, into his daughter’s bedroom. On 21 November 2023, the resident raised a complaint regarding the issues with the new leak.
On 27 December 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that the electrics had tripped on several occasions, which he believed was due to the water leak. The landlord emailed on 28 December 2023 to offer an emergency appointment. The resident declined this at that time, as he had taken steps to prevent the electrics from tripping.
On 14 January 2024, the resident emailed as he said he had not heard from the landlord for more than 2 weeks. He said as a resolution to his complaint he wanted the landlord to fix the leak, check his electrics, redecorate where there was water damage and remove pebbledash from the exterior of his home. He also requested compensation.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 15 January 2024. It said a roofing contractor had visited the resident’s property on 5 December 2024, and there had been a further appointment for 11 December 2024. It said it spoke with the resident on 20 December 2024 who advised of the electrics tripping. The landlord said it upheld the complaint as the repairs were not complete, and there had been poor communication. It apologised for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2024. He reiterated what he wanted as a resolution. He also noted that there were multiple holes on the exterior of his property, due to scaffolding. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 May 2024. It acknowledged that there had been water ingress to the property which had also affected the electrics. It said it believed a repair, scheduled for 21 May 2024, would resolve the issue. This repair was to fill holes where scaffolding had been and to seal cladding beneath a window. The landlord also said it would get a quote to remove the pebbledash, and it would then consider if it should carry this work out. It offered £400 for the delays to repairs and £100 for the complaint handling.
The resident has continued to report issues with leaks which affect an area under a bay window and his daughter’s bedroom. At the time of writing this report he has advised the leak is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The final complaints response was issued on 21 May 2024. The repairs were ongoing at this time. We note that since the stage 2 response several further repairs have happened. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, we have considered events up until 21 May 2024. We have also considered whether the landlord met any commitments it made in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. We are aware that the resident has raised further concerns since this time. Any new concerns would need to be raised in a new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks which caused damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will normally attend responsive repairs within 28 calendar days. The repairs records note that on 25 October 2023 the resident reported a leak. The stage 2 response said that the landlord visited on 6 November 2023 and identified that the work needed to go to the planned works team due to it being an issue with a newly installed roof. The landlord responded to the repair within the timescales in its policy, although it was unable to fix it on the initial appointment.
The stage 1 response said that the resident told the landlord on 7 December 2023 that he thought the leak had stopped. However, the next day he advised this was incorrect. The landlord subsequently attended on 11 December 2023. The landlord said it attempted to call the resident on 13 December 2023 to discuss the appointment. It said it spoke to the resident on 20 December 2023, and following this conversation, it contacted the roofing company again to arrange a further visit. The landlord has demonstrated that it was actively trying to resolve the repair at this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 and 14 January 2024 and expressed his frustration that the landlord had not contacted him regarding the repair. He advised that the leak was ongoing. We would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated, given the active leak, however we cannot see evidence that it did this. The next correspondence from the landlord was the stage 1 response, however this did not offer any information on how the landlord intended to resolve the leak. This is likely to have caused frustration and resulted in the resident escalating the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response noted that it attended the property on 22 January 2024 and on 29 January 2024. The first repair was to seal a bay window, and the second record did not have any information. We have not seen correspondence with the resident regarding these appointments, or information as to how these visits impacted the repair. We would encourage the landlord to keep accurate records of repairs visits. We would also expect a landlord to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair.
We have not seen a further update from the landlord until 13 March 2024 when it had internal discussions about how to progress the repair. On 15 March 2024, the landlord said it had arranged a further appointment for 19 March 2024 to inspect the roof. It was appropriate for the landlord to send someone to carry out a further inspection, however, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took too long to do this. We also note that the landlord had inspected the property several times, without the underlying cause being identified. We recognise that identifying a leak can be complex, however, we would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated as to why repeat inspections were required. It did not do this, and the resident has expressed frustration that the landlord was not making progress by repeating inspections.
The landlord noted from this appointment that the main roof was not causing the leak. It said there were issues with the bay window roof, external wall insulation and brick work. It said it needed to arrange appointments for this. The landlord booked these appointments in and contacted the resident on 5 April 2024 to advise him of the appointments. The landlord responded appropriately by booking in necessary repairs.
On 25 April 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that a bricklayer attended but the appointment was “a waste of time”. This was because there was no scaffolding and the bricklayer was alone, which meant he could not inspect the area properly. The landlord’s repairs records said that water was getting on to brickwork and that it needed a 2-man job to seal cladding under the gutter. We would have expected the landlord to respond to the residents concerns and provide an update on the bricklayers visit. We have not seen that the landlord contacted the resident regarding this, and this resulted in the resident contacting the landlord again on 9 May 2024.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it was confident that once the cladding under the window had been sealed and it had filled in holes left by scaffolding, this would stop the issue. This appointment was scheduled for the same day as the complaint response, 21 May 2024. Previous internal emails had suggested that the brickwork was one possible solution but that it would need to explore removing the pebbledash from the property, if sealing the brickwork did not resolve the matter. We have not seen any evidence that supports why the landlord was confident sealing the brickwork would definitely resolve the matter. Given this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to commit to following up on the repair with the resident, and to commit to following the matter through till resolution. It did not make this commitment in its stage 2 response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2024 to advise the most recent repair had not resolved the matter. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this email. We have seen several subsequent emails from the resident, advising he was still experiencing a leak, and at the time of writing this report, the resident has confirmed there are ongoing issues. We note the landlord has made further attempts to resolve the leak and that it is still working with the resident. Whilst we recognise that resolving a leak can be complex, particularly when the source is unknown, we consider that the length of time to resolve the matter is unreasonable.
We note that the resident did not get regular updates, despite several requests from him. In both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses the landlord acknowledged that poor communication was one of the reasons for upholding the complaint. However, it did not identify how it would improve this, and we note that issues with delayed responses continued.
The resident has frequently made the landlord aware that damp was in a child’s bedroom due to the leak. He has also informed the landlord on more than one occasion that his child was experiencing respiratory issues and was receiving medical attention for this. Damp is considered a potential risk under the Housing Health and Safety Risk Register (HHSRH), particularly for those with respiratory issues. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make any findings on causation of health conditions, however, we would expect the landlord to assess any potential risk when it becomes aware of them. We have not seen evidence that the landlord has done this.
The landlord initially responded to the resident’s concerns regarding a leak, in the appropriate timeframes. However, when the initial attempts to resolve the leak failed, the landlord has not demonstrated that it acted with urgency to repair the leak. We recognise that finding the source may have been complicated, however the landlord has not demonstrated that it regularly updated the resident. The landlord offered £400 for the delays to repairs in stage 2 and advised of a further repair which it felt would resolve the leak. However, the leak remains outstanding, and we have not seen evidence that the landlord has used any learning from the complaint to keep the resident updated. Further, the resident made the landlord aware of a potential risk, and it has not demonstrated that it assessed this. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
The Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment. This should include identifying any vulnerability from residents in the property.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has done further works to the property, and as per the scoping paragraph, if the resident remains unhappy with these works, a new complaint is appropriate. We will therefore make an order for the landlord to provide the resident with an update of all works done since the stage 2 complaint, and to confirm what is outstanding. If the resident has any concerns regarding this, the landlord should open a new stage 1 complaint.
We recognise that the communication has not improved. We have also made an order for a senior member of staff to review the communication with the resident. It should allocate a single point of contact for the resident and agree how often and in what manner it will update the resident moving forward.
Finally, we have considered the compensation. Due to the length of time the matter has been ongoing, the number of failings and the failure to take learning from the complaint we have increased the compensation to £950. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been a significant impact and the matter has not been resolved. We have broken this down as:
1. £400 for delays
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience
3. £250 for poor communication

The landlord’s handling of issues with the electrics at the property following the leak

In the stage 1 response the landlord said it spoke to the resident on 20 December 2023 and that he had advised the electrics kept tripping in his property. The landlord’s complaints policy states that damage or failing electrical wiring is an emergency. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to send an emergency engineer. However, we note the landlord opted to speak to the relevant contractor regarding the roof repairs, as it was understood that the electrics were tripping due to the leak. Based on all the information, this is a reasonable response from the landlord.
At 9pm on 27 December 2023 the resident sent an email to the landlord advising that the electrics were tripping on a regular basis. He sent a second email on 28 December 2023 to advise there had been further incidents of the electric tripping. He advised this had caused the house to be cold, and he had small children in the property. As the resident had now reported several occasions of his electrics tripping, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider an emergency appointment. The timescales for this within the landlord’s repairs policy are to attend within 12 hours.
We note that the email sent on 27 December 2023 was sent to the complaints team at 9pm. Due to working hours, it is unlikely the complaints team would have seen the email at that time. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 December 2023 and asked if he wanted an emergency appointment for the electrics. On balance, we consider the response time to be appropriate.
The resident emailed on the same day to advise that by removing all plugs from his front wall the electrics had stopped tripping, and that he would contact the landlord for an emergency appointment if he experienced further tripping. It was reasonable for the landlord not to raise an emergency appointment at that time, however as there was still a fault, we would have expected them to email the resident with an update and confirm how it would resolve the electrical issues. There is no evidence the landlord did this, despite 2 further emails from the resident advising of the fault, sent on 3 and 14 January 2024.
The landlord repairs records stated that on 16 January 2024 it fixed a double socket in a bedroom which had been damaged due to water. It was reasonable that the landlord attended the property to complete a repair. However, records from 14 March 2024 stated that the electrics were still tripping. We would have expected the landlord to continue updating the resident. We have not seen that it did this.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the electrics would need to be resolved once the leak had stopped. This was reasonable, as any fix to the electrics would likely be damaged by further water ingress. We have already made findings on the delays in resolving the leak, and as such any finding for the landlord’s handling of electrical issues is not based on this delay. However, we recognise that the electrical issue has caused further distress and inconvenience. As the landlord has not confirmed the leak is resolved, it is possible that the electrical fault remains outstanding.
Initially the landlord reasonably addressed the fault with the electrics. However, it did not respond to the resident between January and March, despite knowing there was a fault and the resident sending emails to follow up on the matter. We have considered the overall impact, and due to the ongoing leak, we consider any repairs are unlikely to have resolved the issue. However, failing to keep the resident updated is likely to have caused frustration. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of electrical issues following the leak.
We will make an order for the landlord to provide the resident with an update on the electrical repairs. If the repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should confirm how and when it will resolve this.
We have also recognised the delays in communication regarding the electrics and awarded £100 compensation for this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy for service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it pebbledash to be removed from the property

On the 13 March 2024, the landlord internally discussed how to address the leak. The complaint handler suggested that from previous records it had been identified the pebbledash needed removed from the front of the property. There was confusion from internal departments as to who would be responsible for this work. The landlord recommended that it obtained a quote for the removal of the pebbledash, however, we have not seen that it did this at this time. We have not seen any reason as to why the landlord did not obtain the quote. The landlord should ensure that when multiple departments are involved in a repair, ownership is assigned to specific tasks, to prevent them being missed.
On 25 March 2024, the roofer confirmed that some brickwork needed repointing. It said if this did not resolve the matter that the pebbledash was the problem. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether alternative factors were causing the leak, as removing pebbledash would likely comprise of much larger works.
In the stage 2 response the landlord committed to obtaining a quote for it to remove the pebbledash from the front of the property. It said it would then consider if it needed to complete this work. On 4 July 2024, the landlord obtained a quote. We have not seen evidence that it considered whether it needed to remove the pebbledash, or that it updated the resident as to the outcome of the pebbledash removal.
A roofer mentioned the pebbledash as a possible issue causing the leak. The resident has also raised concerns about this himself on more than one occasion. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the pebbledash is a cause of a leak. However, we would expect the landlord to show it has considered this and to communicate with the resident as to why it did or did not feel this was a cause. We have not seen that it did this. We note that this has caused frustration to the resident as he has been told on more than one occasion that the pebbledash is the cause of the leak. Due to this, and the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it completed the commitments it made in the stage 2 response, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the removal of pebbledash from the property.
The Ombudsman has considered compensation in the section of the complaint which focused on the landlord’s delays in resolving the leak. As the impact of not considering the pebbledash is linked to resolving the leak, we have not considered further compensation in this section. Instead, we will make an order for the landlord to provide a response to the resident on whether it is still considering pebbledash removal as part of the resolution. If it is not, the landlord must provide the reasons for this. If it is considering this as a resolution the landlord must provide a timetable of when it intends to complete this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 36 working days, and as such its response was outside the timescales in its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response detailed what had happened to date. It also acknowledged there had been poor communication and that repairs remained outstanding. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will track any outstanding updates for the complaint and provide the resident regular updates. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with any resolution and it did not advise how it would keep the resident updated moving forward.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 88 working days to respond. This is significantly outside the complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered some solutions, including dates of future appointments. However, it acknowledged poor communication as a factor of the complaint being upheld. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will learn from complaints however we have not seen evidence that it gave any assurance to the resident on how it would improve communication moving forward.
Due to the delays in the complaint handling, the failure to provide any resolution at stage 1 and the failure to take necessary learning from the complaint, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident has expressed that the complaint handling caused him frustration. The landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 2 for complaint handling failures. However due to additional complaint handling failures identified in this report, and the impact the complaint handling had on the resident, we have increased the compensation. In line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded £150. This is in consideration that the responses were delayed, and that the complaints process did not provide a full resolution.
We will also make an order for the landlord to review the complaints responses and to advise how it will take learning from failings identified moving forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of leaks which caused damp and mould.
2. The resident’s request for pebbledash to be removed from the property.
3. The complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of electrical issues due to the leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £1300 compensation. This is broken down as:
1. £1050 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property which caused damp and mould.
2. £100 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of electrical issues due to the leak.
3. £150 for complaint handling failures.

The landlord may deduct the £500 it offered at stage 2 of the complaints process if it has already paid this.

The landlord is ordered to provide an update on:
1. The repairs to resolve the leak.
2. The electrical repairs.

The update should confirm what repairs have been completed, what remains outstanding and the timescales for any repairs to be completed. If the resident is unhappy with repairs since the stage 2 response the landlord should raise a new stage 1 complaint.

The landlord is ordered to complete a risk assessment for the property. This should consider any vulnerabilities and any potential risk due to the outstanding repairs. If there are outstanding risks, it should confirm how it will address these.
The landlord is ordered to confirm whether it is still considering the pebbledash removal. If it is it should confirm when it expects to complete this. If it is not, the landlord should provide reasons for this and confirm why it is satisfied this is not the cause of the leak.
The landlord is ordered for a senior member of staff to review the communication failures identified in this report. It should provide the resident with a point of contact until the repairs are complete and agree on how frequently it will update the resident.
The landlord should consider the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It should consider whether there is any learning and provide an update on how it will take this learning forward,
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the resident and the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks of this report being issued.