The Riverside Group Limited (202406793)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord dealt with her reports that kitchen laminate was peeling and sharp.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. service failure in its handling of kitchen repairs
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Kitchen repairs

5. The landlord did not establish whether the kitchen laminate was its responsibility to repair and gave inconsistent information about whether the issue was cosmetic, needed repair, or a safety risk.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s complaint responses were issued within its policy timeframes.

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 did not investigate

7. The resident said the issue with the kitchen affected her mental health and caused injury. It is more appropriate for her to bring any personal injury claim through the courts, which can consider medical evidence on cause and impact. We have not investigated mental health or injury further. We can, however, consider compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord told us the property and kitchen were built in 2009. It expects the kitchen to last until 2039. The resident has been the only occupier throughout.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it should:
   1. keep the home and fixtures it provided in good repair
   2. check if a repair issue could be a health and safety risk
   3. act quickly where something may be unsafe
   4. consider the resident’s individual needs and circumstances
10. The landlord visited the property several times in August 2023. Its contractor noted peeling laminate on several kitchen units and said it could be a manufacturing fault consistent with wear and tear. On 30 August 2023 the contractor told the resident the issue was only visual and not a repair issue. She complained the same day, saying the landlord had visited many times but refused to carry out works.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the kitchen units did not need replacing because they were still functional. It offered to cut back loose laminate and apply glue where possible.
12. The tenancy agreement said the landlord was not responsible for repairs to anything the resident installed herself. The repairs policy said the resident should look after any fixtures they fitted themselves. Internal emails from September 2023 showed the landlord had not clarified who installed the laminate beforesending itscomplaintresponses. One email said the laminate must be original because the resident had lived in the property since 2009. Another email said the resident might have installed it herself, and she could remove it using a heat gun.The landlord later confirmed with us that the laminate was fitted when the property was built, and was not installed by the resident.The landlord’s communication created confusion because it did not explain who installed the laminate, or why it believed it was not responsible for repairs.
13. In its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023, the landlord said the units did not need replacing and again offered only to cut away loose or sharp laminate. It also said that full laminate removal was the resident’s responsibility, even though it formed part of the original fixtures. This was inconsistent with both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy. This inconsistency made it hard for the resident to follow the landlord’s reasoning and to understand which responsibilities applied to her and which applied to the landlord.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to cut back and glue the laminate. No work took place after the resident refused the offer. It is important for residents to work with landlords so repairs can be completed, especially when there is a safety risk. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the reason this was the only solution it offered, and to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about how the kitchen would look if the laminate were cut back and glued.
15. Contractor notes said the kitchen was in a “bad state of repair”. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider these notes or arrange another inspection. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered all of the information available to it before making decisions.
16. The landlord gave us telephone records for calls made between 8 August and 27 September 2023. These records included limited detail about what the resident reported. The resident told us that both her and her support worker made the landlord aware of the impact of the situation on her mental health. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities. We have not seen evidence which confirms the landlord was aware of this at the time of the complaint. Therefore we are not able to comment on this further. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about this, so that it can consider any future service delivery and communication with the resident is tailored to best support her.
17. The landlord offered to cut back the laminate with the intention to remedy the loose and sharp edges. While we understand that this is not the outcome the resident wanted, it is line with the landlord’s repair policy. However, its communication around responsibility for the kitchen and why it considered this the best option was not always consistent or fair. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for its communication when handling kitchen repairs at her property. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure.
18. Since the resident’s complaint, the landlord carried out further works to the kitchen units in October 2025. As a result, we have not ordered the landlord to carry out additional repairs or an inspection. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions during the October 2025 works. However, these more recent issues fall outside the scope of our investigation, as they were not part of the original complaint. We have nevertheless made a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the October 2025 works further.

19. The landlord followed its 2 stage complaints process set out in its policy. It sent the stage 1 response within 5 working days of the complaint, and the stage 2 response within 10 working days of the resident’s escalation request.
20. The landlord did not give us its stage 1 acknowledgement, so we cannot confirm it acknowledged the complaint by the next working day, as its policy requires. However it issued the stage 1 response within its policy timescales, and the resident was able to escalate her complaint without delay. The missing acknowledgement therefore did not disadvantage the resident.
21. Although the stage 1 response incorrectly recorded the resident’s complaint as being made on 31 August instead of 30 August 2023, this minor error did not affect the resident’s ability to escalate the complaint within the required timeframe.

Learning

 Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. This case highlights that the landlord needs to improve the accuracy and consistency of its repair records. Key details, such as who installed the laminate, were missing or contradictory. Better record keeping would have helped the landlord make consistent decisions and carry out a proper assessment for safety risks.
23. The landlord’s lack of detailed telephone records may have contributed to the gaps in its awareness of the resident’s reports about her injury and mental health. More detailed and consistent record keeping would have supported better understanding and more informed decision making.

Communication

24. The case shows the need for clear and consistent communication with residents. The landlord gave mixed messages about whether the kitchen issue was only cosmetic, or a safety risk. Clearer explanations would have helped the resident understand the landlord’s position and what action would follow.