The Riverside Group Limited (202348468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348468

The Riverside Group Limited

4 June 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 landlords:
1. Handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.
2. Decision not to pay the requested compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 30 May 2011. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but the resident has informed us he has COPD.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 29 January 2024 following which the landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 11 March 2024.
Following the inspection, the landlord raised various repairs for the property including for the installation of a positive ventilation unit (PIV) in the property. The landlord booked an appointment for 26 March 2023. On that date, the operative was also due to install a window fan, but this was not possible due to the window type. The landlord noted that the resident refused the installation of the PIV unit.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 April 2024 to raise a complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. He asked that the landlord uphold a compensation claim he had made previously.
2. He wanted the landlord to make the property fit for purpose.
3. He said he had complained many times over the years and that he had made a claim for damage to his personal belongings in 2016 and sent a formal compensation claim for in March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident that day to ask why he did not want the PIV unit installed and said the resident said this was due a 4inch pipe needed on his bedroom ceiling.
2. The landlord said it would not pay the compensation requested from an earlier complaint as there had been no service failure and it had completed the outstanding works from that complaint. Except for the installation of the PIV unit.
3. It said the resident had asked the landlord to close the complaint so he could escalate the complaint to this Service. The landlord said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 19 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say he had just received the stage 1 response via this Service despite it being dated 1 May 2024. He requested escalation to stage 2 which the landlord acknowledged on 21 October 2024.
It provided its stage 2 response on 7 November 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It reiterated its stance in the stage 1 response with regards to the compensation claim in the earlier complaint and that it was correct when it said it was unable to review the response.
2. It had recommended a PIV unit, but the resident had refused the installation. But it acknowledged that during a call on 6 November 2024 the resident said he had not refused the installation, but the inspector had said it was not suitable for the home.
3. As the resident was still experiencing issues with damp and mould it had arranged a further inspection of the home. This inspection would determine the suitability of the PIV unit.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 28 November 2024. It repeated the points made in its earlier response, but added the following points:
1. During the inspection on 7 November 2024, it carried out a mould wash and its repair team confirmed it would assess the kitchen fans and install a new window fan on 28 November 2024.
2. It did not uphold the complaint as it attended within its published timescales.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 14 January 2025. It confirmed when it had attended on 28 November 2024 to install the window fan, the window unit was too small. It reminded the resident that the property needed a PIV unit to improve ventilation in the home and encouraged the resident to accept the unit.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident asked that his compensation claim be upheld and for the damp and mould to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction.

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is determined by its jurisdiction. In accordance with paragraph 42.f we may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. In the resident’s complaint, he raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not pay his compensation claim and asked that we order the landlord to pay the amount. We are unable to make a determination with regards to whether the landlord is liable for the damage to the items, this is more suitable for a court. Therefore, under paragraph 42.f the complaint in relation to the landlord’s decision not to pay the requested compensation claim is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of Investigation.

In the resident’s formal complaint, he raised repairs and earlier issues with damp and mould within his property. This included dissatisfaction with an earlier complaint made to the landlord in March 2023. We may not consider complaints that were not brought to our attention within a reasonable period, normally 12 months and we may also not consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s informal complaints procedure. In the landlord’s stage 1 response in this case, it explained to the resident that it was unable to investigate the earlier complaint as it was historical. This position was reasonable, and in line with its complaint policy, given that the resident raised dissatisfaction with it over 12 months after he had received the response, and the resident did not escalate the complaint at the time or bring the complaint to this Service. Therefore, any mention of the earlier complaint is for context only but will not form part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy set out that it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable repairs solutions and improvements to eliminate damp in a property and complete repairs in line with its responsive repair policy.
When the resident reported the damp and mould in the property again on 29 January 2024, the landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection to take place, in line with its policy.
It arranged the inspection for 11 March 2024, which was 30 working days after the resident had reported the issue. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it will attend to routine repairs within 28 days. While the scheduled inspection was only 2 days outside of this timeline, the landlord needs to ensure it strives to attend appointments within its published timeframes.
The inspection highlighted high levels of humidity in the property and the landlord appropriately raised the recommended repairs.
When the landlord attended on 26 March 2024 to complete the works it was unable to install the window fan as the window was not the correct size. While it was unfortunate that this was not identified at the earliest opportunity, the landlord is entitled to try repairs as it sees fit.
On the same date, the operative was also meant to install the PIV unit, however the repair log provided by the landlord, details that the resident declined to have the unit installed. Where a resident declines a repair, it would be reasonable for a landlord to explore the reasoning behind this further, especially in cases of damp and mould where other repairs over a period have been unsuccessful. We understand that the landlord offered the unit to the resident in an earlier complaint. Where the landlord is sure the option it is offering is the only solution, it would be useful for the landlord to explain the reasons for needing the unit and to explore the issues further with the resident. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did that with the resident at the time.
Following the visit on 26 March 2024, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any further action to resolve the damp and mould issue in the property; this is not appropriate. While the resident had declined the installation of the PIV unit, the landlord has failed to evidence that it considered if it could undertake any further works to help alleviate the humidity levels in the property. Its lack of action was not in line with its policy and highlights a lack of empathy towards the resident, which led to him raising a formal complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it explained that the resident had refused the PIV unit. This would have been for a further opportunity for it to explain why it wanted to install the unit and to explain what next steps, if any, it could take to resolve the issue. Or, to set out if the installation of the PIV unit was the only remaining solution. Its lack of explanation was not appropriate and is further evidence of a lack of empathy for the situation the resident found himself him.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 September 2024 to request escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process. In his contact he said in a phone call on 2 May 2024, the landlord said it was looking at other options to resolve the issue, but he had received no contact. In this case the landlord has not provided evidence of any phone contact with the resident. We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Furthermore, without clear record keeping the landlord cannot fulfil its commitment to use data to drive its response to damp and mould.
The lack of evidence from the landlord supports the resident’s assertion that between May and September 2024 it had taken no action to resolve the damp and mould for the resident. While there is no evidence to show that the resident had contacted the landlord in that time to ask for an update on the issue, we would expect the landlord to take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould and not to rely on a resident to chase the landlord for repairs.
Following the further contact from the resident in September 2024, the landlord arranged for a mould wash of the affected areas and for a further inspection of the property. The landlord completed this on 7 November 2024, which was 7 days outside of the landlord’s published repair timescales. The delay in completing a further inspection, especially in the context of the ongoing issues with damp and mould experienced by the resident, was not appropriate.
On the 7 November 2024, the landlord also provided a dehumidifier to the resident. Given the reports of damp and mould in the property, this was reasonable in the circumstances to help alleviate the issues.
The resident’s reasons for not wanting the PIV unit in the property were inconsistent in this case, evidence shows he both spoke to and emailed the landlord detailing that he did not wish for the unit to be installed due to the need for visible pipework. However, he also told the landlord on 6 November 2024 that he had not refused the unit, but the inspector had told him it was not suitable for the property. Given the inconsistencies, the landlord appropriately arranged for the inspector attending on 7 November 2024 to consider the suitability of the unit. Given the concerns raised by the resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to assess the suitability of the unit again during the visit.
The resident told us that following the inspection on 7 November 2024, the operative said the PIV unit was in fact not suitable. However, the landlord’s complaint response set out the property needed a PIV unit to improve the ventilation in the property and resolve the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided clear repairs logs to make a determination either way as to whether the operative considered the unit is suitable or not. Given the confusion, and order has been made for the landlord to attend the property, discuss this with the resident and to consider the suitability of the unit.
After the inspection on 7 November 2024, the landlord raised further repairs to check the functionality of the kitchen fans and to install a new fan in a window. The landlord arranged these for 28 November 2024; within the timeframes set out within its policy.
However, when the contractor attended to install the fan in the window, it found the window unit was too small for the fan. Given that it had tried this same repair in March 2024, it is unclear why the landlord had raised the same repair again. This highlights a lack of effective record keeping meaning the operatives did not realise the window had previously been identified as not suitable for a fan. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective systems in place to look at the history of repairs to ensure it does not repeat earlier unsuccessful repairs.
The landlord contacted the resident again in January 2025 when it provided a further stage 2 complaint and reiterated its position that the PIV unit was required in the property and urged the resident to consider having it installed. This would have been a further opportunity for it to have discussed the need for the unit with the resident and to understand his concerns. As previously mentioned, we have made an order in relation to this.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould could have been improved. Therefore, taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
A compensation order has been made for £300, made up of the following:
1. £150 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £150 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.

The Landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident wrote to this Service on 2 April 2024 to raise a complaint about the landlord, we wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2024 to ask it to provide a response by 3 May 2025. The landlord provided its response within the 10 working days as set out within its complaint policy on 1 May 2024.
However, the resident contacted this Service on 17 June to say that he had spoken to the landlord on 2 May 2024, but he had not received the formal complaint response. We then wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2024 asking it to provide the stage 1 response as previously asked. Following which the landlord said it had previously responded at stage 1. While the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination either way as to whether the resident did receive the stage 1 response in May, due to a lack of evidence from either party, the landlord helpfully accepted the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, despite the passage of time.
The stage 1 response demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity with regards to the resident’s complaint. It did not properly acknowledge the further reports of damp and mould or highlight the steps it would take or had taken to resolve the matters for the resident. Its language was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and did not demonstrate clear reasons for any decisions made in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Furthermore, it is also important to note that the landlord addressed the resident by the wrong name in the stage 1 response. Landlord’s need to ensure that they proofread complaint responses to ensure they are correct. Furthermore, the landlord did not apologise for the error in its further responses which would have frustrated the resident.
It is also important to note that in the stage 1 response the landlord said that the resident had asked to escalate the complaint as he wished to bring the complaint to us. The landlord acknowledged this and said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. Yet, it did not do this. This is not in line with its policy which says it would acknowledge an escalation request within 2 working days. The landlord’s failure to follow through with the escalation request caused a delay in the resident exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process again on 19 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 October 2024, 20 working days outside of its published timescale. This is not appropriate and caused a further delay to the resident receiving a response to his complaint.
It provided the stage 2 response on 7 November 2024. This was 13 working days after the acknowledgement and therefore, within its 20 working day published response time.
However, the landlord then provided 2 further stage 2 responses on 28 November 2024 and 14 January 2025. It is unclear why the landlord provided further response as this is not in line with its policy or the Code. Each response echoed the remarks made in the earlier response but with added information about action it had taken to investigate the matters. While it was appropriate of the landlord to keep the resident up to date on the actions it intended to take, it is unclear why it did this as a formal complaint response.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £225, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not escalating the complaint response at the earliest opportunity.
2. £50 for the lack of detail in its stage 1 response.
3. £25 for not apologising for the typographical error in the stage 1 response.
4. £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
5. £50 for the multiple responses provided at stage 2.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the landlord’s decision to not pay the requested compensation is outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £525, made up of:
1. £300 for the failings in its handling of the damp and mould.
2. £225 for the failings in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must arrange for an inspection of the property during which it must consider the suitability of the PIV unit for the property. It must provide evidence of the inspection, including a clear response from the operative with regards to the suitability of the unit, to the resident and this Service. If the unit is not suitable, the landlord must then provide a timebound action plan setting out the actions it intends to take to resolve the damp and mould for the resident.