The Riverside Group Limited (202419322)

The Decision
Case ID	202419322
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 February 2026

Background

1. The property is situated within a listed building, made up of 12 flats. The resident has complained about persistent condensation and moisture in the kitchen and delays in the installation of an extractor fan.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of condensation in the kitchen and the installation of an extractor fan.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in the kitchen and the installation of an extractor fan.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Condensation and extractor fan

4. The landlord delayed in raising the recommended works following the survey. It failed to identify at an early stage that the property was in a listed building, which led to it repeatedly changing its position on an appropriate solution for the condensation. This prolonged the repairs process and contributed to the work taking 22 months to complete.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgement and response slightly outside the timescales set out in its policy. It did not offer the resident any compensation despite acknowledging service failures. Its responses – particularly at stage 2 – did not fully address all the concerns raised in the resident’s complaints.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 03 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600, made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his reports of condensation in the kitchen and the installation of an extractor fan. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 03 March 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to: Establish if there are any outstanding issues associated with condensation and moisture in the kitchen.   If there are outstanding issues, the landlord must also:   Provide a clear action plan to both us and the resident by the due date, outlining the actions it intends to take and likely timescales for completion (in line with its relevant policies and procedures).	No later than 03 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He explained that the job to install the extractor fan had been ongoing for months and he was unhappy with the repeated delays.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair. It confirmed that an appointment had been scheduled for an electrical foreman to attend on 30 April 2024 to assess the kitchen.
4 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to install a cooker hood instead of an extractor fan. He said he felt the decision was personal, noting that other flats in the building had extractor fans and he was being prevented from having one.
8 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that an extractor fan could be installed, but because the property was in a listed building, it would need to obtain prior authorisation before approaching the local authority for permission. It also apologised for the distress it had caused the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate on 15 August 2024. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He explained that although the extractor fan had now been installed, this was after a long delay. As an outcome, he asked us to investigate the delays he had experienced and assess whether the landlord had acted unreasonably.
13 January 2025	During his contact with us, the resident reported that the new extractor fan was inadequate and that ventilation in the kitchen remained very poor. He said this had resulted in water dripping down the walls and paint peeling due to ongoing moisture. The resident did not provide any further updates during our investigation.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in the kitchen and the installation of an extractor fan
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident continued to experience issues with condensation after the new extractor fan was installed. In the interests of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process and the commitments arising from this. We will therefore consider events up to 30 July 2024 (when the extractor fan was installed). The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after this time. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. He can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which he may escalate to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we have investigated

7. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported issues with condensation and moisture affecting the kitchen, indicating gaps in the landlord’s records. The earliest documented action from the landlord was on 14 September 2022, when an inspection was carried out at the property. During this visit, the surveyor identified high humidity readings in the kitchen and recommended the installation of an airbrick.
8. In a timeline provided by the landlord for the purposes of this investigation, it stated that on 12 May 2023 it raised a repair order to install a passive air vent in the kitchen to reduce condensation during cooking. The work was reportedly scheduled for 15 May 2023. However, there is no corresponding record of this job within the landlord’s repair records. This indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s record‑keeping and means it is unclear whether, or when, the work was completed.
9. On 22 August 2023, almost 12 months after the survey recommended an airbrick, the landlord raised a repair to complete the work. The reason for the delay is unclear, but the length of time taken to raise the works was unreasonable. The landlord attended on 5 September 2023, within its 28-day routine repair timescale, but there was no access. Despite this, the repair was marked as completed and was not re‑booked. It was inappropriate for the landlord to record the repair as completed when the work had not been carried out. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach, by keeping the repair open, which would have allowed it to maintain oversight and arrange a further appointment. Its failure to do so unnecessarily prolonged the repair process and likely caused the resident frustration.
10. The landlord raised a further repair to install an airbrick on 9 November 2023, around 3 months after the previous attempt. Its records show delays between 14 November 2023 and 11 April 2024 in completing the repair, initially due to internal confusion about the work required and later because of access issues.
11. When the landlord attended on 11 April 2024, it identified that an airbrick would not adequately address the condensation and instead recommended either a cooker hood or an additional fan. The resident opted for the fan. However, when the landlord attended on 25 April 2024, it did not have the correct materials, resulting in the work being rescheduled. This was unreasonable as it required the resident to accommodate additional visits, contributing to his decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
12. On 30 April 2024, the landlord put the work on hold after it identified that the property was in a listed building. It was inappropriate that this had not been established earlier. The landlord also failed to inform the resident of the work being placed on hold, which led him to chase an update on 8 May 2024. Given that he had already raised concerns about delays, the landlord should have communicated this information promptly. Its failure to do so showed shortcomings in its communication and likely caused the resident uncertainty.
13. Internal records show that on 21 May 2024, the landlord discussed offering the resident a cooker hood as an alternative to the fan, as this option would not require permission to install. However, the resident advised that he was unhappy with this proposal and did not believe it would resolve the condensation issue. While the situation was understandably frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider alternative options.
14. Following the escalation of his complaint, the landlord appropriately contacted the resident to further understand his concerns. During a telephone call on 7 June 2024, the resident explained that condensation in the kitchen was an ongoing problem and prevented him from storing food, as excessive moisture caused items to spoil. He also expressed that he regarded the situation as a health hazard, particularly as he prepared food for his disabled brother. This showed the impact the issue was having on the resident’s daily living.
15. In its stage 2 response on 8 July 2024, the landlord changed its position, stating that an extractor fan could be installed. It explained that because the property was in a listed building, it would need to obtain prior authorisation before approaching the local authority for permission, but it would keep the resident updated. The extractor fan was installed on 30 July 2024 – 22 months after the initial survey recommendation. While there were some mitigating factors, it is our view that there were failings in the landlord’s actions throughout the timeline of our investigation which unreasonably prolonged the process and contributed to the overall delay.
16. The landlord did not offer any compensation in its complaint responses. We consider this to be maladministration and an apology and a payment of £500 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.
17. During contact with us in January 2025, the resident reported that the new extractor fan was inadequate and that ventilation in the kitchen remained poor. The resident did not provide any further update at the time of our investigation. A relevant order has been made for the landlord to establish whether any outstanding issues remain in relation to condensation and moisture in the kitchen.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

18. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy was consistent with the requirements of the Code in respect of response timescales. However, at the time of the resident’s complaint, the policy stated that complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days, which differed from the 5‑working‑day acknowledgement timescale set out in the Code.
20. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the stage 1 complaint. However, it issued its stage 1 response within one working day, which was significantly earlier than the timescales set out in both its policy and the Code. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation after 3 working days, representing a one-day delay when measured against its policy timescales.
21. In its stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 7 June 2024, the landlord advised that it expected to provide its final response by 2 July 2024. It issued its response on 8 July 2024, 21 working days after the acknowledgement, representing a one-day delay. While this was a minor delay with no evidence of any adverse impact on the resident, the landlord did issue its response 4 working days later than the date it had communicated. It did not provide any update to explain this change in timescale. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident at the earliest opportunity that the response would be delayed and to provide a revised date. Its failure to do so, resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for a response on 5 July 2024, adding to his time and trouble.
22. The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident, despite acknowledging service failures and the resulting distress in both of its complaint responses. This was inappropriate and inconsistent with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that financial redress will be considered where it has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards.
23. The landlord’s complaint responses, particularly its stage 2 response, did not fully address all the points raised in the resident’s complaints and lacked sufficient detail. There was no acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about the impact on his daily living, or the concerns he had raised regarding the situation being a potential health hazard. As a result, the responses were not proportionate to the seriousness of the concerns raised.
24. We consider this to be service failure and an apology and a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Learning

25. The landlord should ensure its complaint responses address all aspects of the complaint, providing clear and detailed explanations supported by relevant policies, legislation, and good practice where applicable. 

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good. However, minor discrepancies were noted, including reference to a repair in its timeline dated 12 May 2023 that did not appear in its repair records. This suggests there may be some areas where its record‑keeping processes could be strengthened.

Communication

27. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek updates regarding the repairs. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues.
28. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response by the date communicated in its acknowledgement letter, prompting the resident to chase the landlord. This highlights the importance of effective communication during the complaints process, particularly in keeping residents informed of any expected delays.