The Riverside Group Limited (202518443)

Background

1. The resident said the landlord had not addressed the condensation and lack of ventilation in the property. The resident also requested a rent rebate and said for some time she did not have adequate washing facilities. The resident said an operative had entered her property without an adult being present.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould and property condition.
   2. The resident’s safeguarding concerns following an unannounced visit.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of condensation, damp and mould and property condition.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the safeguarding concerns following an announced visit.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s records do not show when it serviced and cleaned the ventilation system. It is evident it did not meet its responsive repair timescales causing inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord assessed the resident’s washing facilities and carried out agreed repairs.
5. Given the resident’s complaint that its contractor did not follow its code of conduct and the safeguarding concern raised, the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it had acted. Had it done so, she would have felt the landlord had taken the matter seriously and appropriate actions taken to prevent the situation reoccurring.
6. The landlord did not follow its complaint procedure or our Complaint Handling Code which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. It unreasonably delayed in providing its Stage 1 complaint response. Also, both its complaint response show the same dates which indicates it did not take sufficient time to consider the resident’s concerns.

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.

7. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard that it should resolve.
8. It is not disputed there was mould in the resident’s property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will identify and address causes of damp and mould including where the property has inadequate ventilation. It is reasonable to expect any inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all possible reasons for the damp including condensation. This involves checking the fabric of the building for faults. The surveyor on 12 February 2025 assessed the windows had secondary glazing and the property had inadequate ventilation. He recommended for the servicing of the ventilation extraction system, ducting checked and for the vents to be cleaned throughout the property. Also, for the extractor fan in the kitchen changed.
9. The landlord’s records do not give the exact date the landlord carried out the work. However, its complaint responses confirmed it had externally cleaned the ventilation system, inspected the vents and installed the kitchen extractor fan. The landlord’s responsive repair policy such work should be completed within 28 days. Its records show the resident chased the landlord regarding the servicing and cleaning of the ventilation system. The records show the work was carried out sometime in early May 2025, taking around 11 weeks which represents an unreasonable delay. The landlord has not given any reasons for the delay.
10. The landlord made appointments with the resident between 27 February 2025 and 10 April 2025 to carry out mould washes to the property. The appointments were not successful. This was because the resident informed the landlord, she did not need them to carry out the mould washes as she was carrying out the mould washes. She was also unwilling to provide access for the appointments until a root cause analysis determined the reason for the damp and mould. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is required to provide access for the landlord to carry out repairs. For those reasons the landlord cannot be held entirely responsible for the delays experienced by the resident.
11. After the complaint process was completed, the landlord agreed to change the ventilation system. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2025. This included the resident’s concerns about the new ventilation system which she described as noisy and had not improved the air quality to the property. The new complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s internal complaint responses, she can bring it to us for consideration.
12. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy gives the landlord the discretion to provide additional services beyond its statutory and contractual obligations. It says the resident is responsible for maintaining the fittings to the bath and sinks. The landlord agreed to renew the shower rail and hose and it replaced them within 21 days in line with its routine repairs policy.
13. The resident said she was unable to use the washing facilities in the property. She said this was ongoing for some time. This is not disputed but the resident made her report to the landlord on 6 March 2025. The resident told us the shower was not working, however she had use of the bath. The landlord records show a plumber attended on 9 April 2025, taking 34 days. This was just outside the landlord’s routine repair standard of 28 days. The caused inconvenience to the resident and her family.
14. The resident requested a shower screen on 12 February 2025 as a replacement for the shower curtain she was using to prevent water pooling and mould build up. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair responsibilities whether this fell within its obligations, therefore it was reasonable it agreed to look into its installation. The landlord in its Stage 1 complaint response said it had installed the shower screen. The landlord records do not give the date of installation. This is not a failing as its records should show repairs undertaken and the outcome of any visits.
15. The resident requested for the shower screen to be reinspected stating it was not preventing the pooling of water. A surveyor inspected on 4 June 2025 and agreed for the rubber blade to the shower screen to be upgraded. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s suggestion and requested a larger shower screen. This was not agreed by the landlord. It is noted on 17 November 2025 it made a good will gesture of £250 for the resident to purchase a larger shower screen.
16. The landlord in its complaint responses gave reasons for the resident not qualifying for a rent reduction. The landlord explained it had not assessed that any rooms in the property was unsuitable to occupy. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional advice it receives following a surveyor inspection. It was satisfied the property was suitable for the resident’s to continue living in.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of the ways she could move to another accommodation. In its complaint response it provided a link for the resident to obtain information about how she could apply for alternative accommodation.
18. The resident requested the landlord carry out a property condition survey on 24 March 2025 as she believed the property may have a structural defect. The landlord’s records show surveyor inspections carried out in February 2025 and on 4 June 2025. A condition survey report was carried out on 26 September 2025 which recommended an upgrade to the ventilation system. There is no evidence the report identified structural defects to the property.
19. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says to establish the necessity of finding permanent alternative accommodation for residents, it will request a medical letter. The letter will be considered in line with its rehousing policy. The resident has medical conditions. For those reasons the landlord’s request for medical evidence of the resident’s health was reasonable.
20. In its complaint response, the landlord requested the resident provide a medical letter to confirm the health impact to her and her son. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the property condition.
21. The landlord is responsible for keeping the property in repair. On receiving the resident’s reports, surveyor inspections were carried out and there is no evidence the property was assessed as being not suitable for the resident to occupy. The landlord in its complaint responses confirmed the resident did not qualify for a rent reduction and gave information
22. The landlord has a responsibility to manage reports of condensation it receives. The landlord unreasonably delayed in servicing and cleaning the ventilation system. This caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord in its complaint response awarded £50 for the delay in carrying out the repairs. This is not sufficient as it does not represent the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident and her family. Our Remedies Guidance says when landlord’s acknowledge their failings and made attempts to put things rights payments between £50 to £100 may be payable. As the landlord has serviced the ventilation system and to put things right made a good will gesture of £250 towards the replacement of the shower screen a finding of service failure has been made and an additional £100 awarded.

23. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will make reasonable attempts to inspect and carry out works. Only component contractors will carry out any works to its properties and will comply with its code of conduct.
24. The landlord has acknowledged an operative attended and accessed the property without an adult being present. For this failure the landlord apologised to the resident. It also said it had referred the matter to the head of planning and operatives and it had learnt from the complaint as its operatives should not attend in such circumstances. The text messages sent to the resident informing her of the appointment clearly state that an adult needs to be present for the repair to be carried out. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident recognising the distress and upset the situation had caused.
25. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She expressed it had failed to recognise the safeguarding issue and wanted information about the action taken. The landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it had taken her concerns seriously and the action taken. The landlord told us it had held sessions with its operatives about accessing properties with minors present and the associated health and safety issues.
26. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response did not take the opportunity to provide a fuller explanation to the resident. Had it given a more detailed explanation, this may have given assurance to the resident. The resident was understandably concerned about the safety of her son when the operative attended when she was not present. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, its response did not sufficiently address the concerns raised or show it had understood the upset experienced by the resident. It was also an opportunity to improve its relationship with the tenant and her faith in the complaints process. For those reasons, we have made a finding of service failure and compensation of £100 awarded.

27. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 March 2025. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge complaint received within 5 days. This is to set out its understanding of the complaint and inform the resident when it would respond to the complaint. Had it done so, this may have prevented the resident chasing the complaint response on 31 March 2025.
28. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 28 May 2025 taking 44 working days. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code says complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord in its complaint review recognised it had not met its complaint handling target and made a compensation award of £50. This was not sufficient or proportionate for the delays experienced by the resident as it failed to acknowledge the complaint and significantly exceeded its published complaint handling timescale.
29. The landlord’s complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code informs residents they can escalate the complaint if they are dissatisfied with the Stage 1 response. Landlords should respond to escalated complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s Stage 2 complaint response has the same date as its Stage 1 complaint response. The landlord told us this is because it communicated the Stage 1 complaint response to the resident before it was issued and the resident said, she wanted the complaint escalated and it did so.
30. The explanation does not provide a reasonable justification for both complaint responses having the same date. The landlord should have followed its complaint procedure. Had it done so, it would have demonstrated that it had properly considered and investigated the resident’s concerns. Having both complaint responses have the same date is confusing. This is because it is unclear when the landlord decided to consider the resident’s complaint at the second stage of its complaint procedure.
31. The landlord in its complaint review awarded £50 for its complaint handling failures. This was discussed above and is not considered sufficient or proportionate. For its complaint handling failures we have made a finding of maladministration and an additional £100 awarded for the delay, inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.

Learning

32. The landlord should:
    1. Ensure its repair records show actions taken and the outcomes.
    2. Provide updates to residents following reports of breach of its operatives code of conduct.
    3. Follow its complaint handling procedure with all complaints considered at each stage of the complaint process.