The Riverside Group Limited (202401927)

Background

1. The resident reported a wall in her home had cracked plaster on 16 April 2023. After an initial check, the landlord arranged a structural survey. The survey identified structural issues at the property but could not confirm the cause.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. Structural issues with the resident’s property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in how the landlord handled structural issues at the property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord took nearly 11 months from the resident’s initial report to issuing its stage 2 response. In this time, its investigations into the issue were delayed and it did not communicate appropriately with the resident.
5. The landlord did not meet its timescales when responding to the resident’s complaint at either stage. It delayed its stage 1 response and did not provide clear complainthandling updates, instead providing service updates.

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

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.

6. The resident reported broken plaster on a wall in her property on 16 April 2023. The landlord attended on 30 May 2023. At the time, the landlord considered this to be a routine repair. Its responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs should be attended to within 28 calendar days. The landlord attended after 44 calendar days and therefore did not meet its policy timescale.
7. The resident requested a structural survey after noticing a crack on the internal side of a bedroom wall. The landlord agreed on 30 May 2023 that it needed to carry out a survey and arranged it for 28 July 2023. This was 59 calendar days after the landlord decided to proceed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange this inspection within its 28‑day timescale for routine repairs.
8. The contractor provided the survey to the landlord on 25 September 2023, 59 calendar days after it was carried out. While the landlord could not progress works without the survey recommendations, there is no evidence that it actively chased its contractor to obtain the report. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will deliver an effective repairs service. Given the length of delay, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to manage its contractor communications more effectively.
9. The survey identified a structural issue and suggested that movement or failure of concrete beams had likely caused it. It recommended a further, more detailed investigation to confirm this. The landlord arranged a further inspection for 6 December 2023, which was 72 calendar days after it received the recommendation. At this stage, the survey had recommended further investigation rather than monitoring. It again would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange this inspection within 28 calendar days. The landlord has provided no evidence to explain why it took this amount of time to arrange the further inspection.
10. A subsequent inspection took place on 23 January 2024, 48 calendar days after the December inspection. The December inspection had recommended monitoring the crack using specialist equipment to assess movement. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on expert advice regarding the period required for monitoring. The landlord’s actions at this stage were appropriate.
11. The January 2024 inspection ruled out the concrete beams as the cause of the issue. It recommended inspections of neighbouring properties. In its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, the landlord confirmed these inspections would take place on 27 March 2024. This was 62 calendar days after it received the inspection findings on 25 January 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence to explain why it did not arrange this inspection sooner. The landlord did not act reasonably in this regard.
12. The landlord’s communication with the resident across the complaint was inconsistent and often inadequate. The landlord has provided no evidence that it communicated with the resident between the 28 July 2024 survey and the inspection on 6 December 2023. This is despite the resident chasing for updates and reporting that the condition of the bedroom wall and floor was worsening. She explained that this was causing her stress. The landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident and set out a clear plan of action. It was also a failure of the landlord to follow its responsive repairs policy, which states it will communicate effectively and provide a customer‑focused service.
13. While communication improved at points between investigations, the landlord did not keep the resident consistently informed. It only informed the resident of the 23 January 2024 inspection the day before it took place, when its policy says it will give residents a choice of repair appointments. Following this inspection, the landlord initially provided updates. However, after the resident’s escalation request on 12 February 2024, the landlord has provided no evidence of any further communication until the stage 2 response. Overall, the landlord did not communicate effectively or consistently, and this was not in line with its policy on communicating about repairs.
14. Structural issues can take time to identify, track, and resolve. From the resident’s initial report on 16 April 2023 to the stage 2 response on 14 March 2024 was nearly 11 months. During this period, the landlord delayed its investigation without providing a reasonable explanation. As a result, it had not yet identified the cause of the structural issue by the time of its stage 2 response. The resident reported her concern on visible movement within the property. The landlord did not clearly or consistently explain what action it planned to take, and its communication increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the structural issues at the resident’s property.
15. The landlord failed to put these matters right through the complaints process. It acknowledged one delay in its complaint responses to the resident. However, its complaint responses did not adequately acknowledge its failings or demonstrate learning. In line with our compensation guidance for maladministration, we order the landlord to pay £350 to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This recognises that there have been failings that adversely affected the resident. The landlord has not tried to acknowledge these or put things right in its complaint responses.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time says it will acknowledge complaints and escalations in 5 working days. It says a stage 1 response will be issued in 10 working days and a stage 2 response will be issued in 20 working days.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 9 working days and issued its response in 53 working days. On both occasions, the landlord did not meet the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
18. During this period, the landlord provided the resident with updates about its wider investigation into the structural issue. However, it did not provide updates on the progress of the stage 1 complaint. The landlord combined complaint handling updates with investigation updates, which did not provide clarity for the resident. In line with its policy, the landlord should have issued its stage 1 response within its published timescales and clearly set out how it would keep the resident informed about the investigation separately.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on the same day it was submitted, 12 February 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, 23 working days later. While the landlord met its timescale for acknowledging the escalation, it issued its response 3 working days later than its policy allows.
20. The landlord delayed its stage 1 response. When the resident requested escalation to stage 2, the landlord issued the stage 1 response on the same day and escalated the complaint. This did not mitigate the impact of the delay on the resident. The landlord should have issued its stage 1 response within its timescales and not waited for the resident to request escalation before responding. This was contrary to its complaints policy. We consider that that these failures amount to maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
21. The landlord must apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures. The resident experienced additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaint, as well as distress and inconvenience while the repair issues remained unresolved. We therefore order the landlord to pay £50 in compensation to recognise the impact of these complaint handling failings.

Learning

22. This case highlights the importance of having systems in place to keep residents updated during complex repairs. Providing timescales at each stage and committing to regular updates could have reduced the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s records were generally detailed and showed good practice. They largely captured the full repair journey, though the repairs history does miss the 6 December 2023 inspection. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive from the landlord. However, while the resident referred to several calls during the repair period, the landlord has provided no records of these contacts. Keeping a complete record of communication supports transparency and accountability.

Communication

24. In this case, the landlord’s communication was not appropriate. The only period of time when the resident had consistent updates was when her complaint had been assigned to a complaint handling officer at stage 1. The landlord should have measures in place to ensure a resident receives updates outside of a complaint process. A resident should not have to complaint to be kept updated on a repair. The landlord is encouraged to make use of our Centre for Learning, particularly the resources on repairs, which provide guidance on effective communication with residents.