Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Riverside Group Limited (202321168)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321168

The Riverside Group Limited

05 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of :
    1. kitchen unit repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a two-bedroom house. The resident has advised she has young children, one of whom has autism, and one has asthma.
  2. The resident reported a leak from her boiler on 18 October 2022 which the landlord repaired on 27 October 2022. The resident reported that the leak caused mould and damaged kitchen units, and the landlord inspected the kitchen on 2 November 2022. On 24 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said when the contractor attended to complete repairs, he said it was just to replace one unit, but this was not what was agreed during the previous inspection and she refused the works.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 January 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it attended following the leak and advised it would try and source replacement kitchen materials as the kitchen had been discontinued. It said that it told the resident that there were no matching units available and that white unit fronts were suggested. It stated it attended on 12 December 2022 to replace the base unit but the resident refused the works as she wanted all of the unit fronts replaced. It said its inspector spoke to the resident on 16 December 2022 and told her he looked into the possibility of a new kitchen however as it is a fairly new kitchen only the base units would be replaced. It stated the resident said that she was not happy that only base units will be replaced and asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 March 2023. It said its assets team had declined the quote to replace all the unit fronts so it tried to find the closest match. It said that the resident told it on 1 March 2023 that she did not want to go ahead with the kitchen unit repairs as there would be a contrast in colour between the existing units and replaced unit fronts. It said that in line with its repairs policy it would not replace all the unit fronts but would provide the closest match possible for replacing the damaged units only. It said that the lifespan of a kitchen was around 20-25 years, and the kitchen was installed in 2011. The landlord told the resident to contact it if she changed her mind.
  5. The landlord attended on 16 August 2023 to replace base units and assess damp however the resident refused works as she wanted the kitchen unit issue resolved. The resident then contacted us as she felt the landlord had not addressed part of her complaint where she said the landlord had not informed her it had changed its plans regarding replacing kitchen units. We contacted the landlord to request that it provide the resident with a revised stage 2 complaint response that addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord provided a revised stage 2 complaint response dated 7 February 2024 (however the date was likely incorrect as the response was likely issued in March 2024). t confirmed that the kitchen was installed in 2011 and as kitchens have a life span of 20-25 years it would not replace the kitchen. It said it would replace the damaged fronts with the closest match possible. It stated that a further inspection was completed on 4 March 2024 to assess the kitchen, and it appeared from the photos that there was little contrast between the proposed replacement units. However, it offered to ask a specialist supplier to source a match. It stated that although the resident had refused this offer, it remained open should she change her mind.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she felt it was unreasonable that the landlord would not replace all of the unit fronts, and she was unhappy she was not told the plans had changed.

  Assessment and findings

  1. It is not our role to decide whether the resident’s kitchen required replacement, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports in a reasonable manner and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. Social housing landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standards. With regard to kitchens, the standards state that kitchens should be under 20 years old and have adequate space and layout. It also states that the definition of ‘poor condition’ in relation to a kitchen is where there is a major repair needed or where there is a need to replace three or more items out of the following six: cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards and worktop. The landlord’s inspection on 2 November 2023 identified water damage to some kitchen units and it did not identify any other concerns relevant to the Decent Homes Standard for kitchens.
  3. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 14 November 2023 to assess the leak damage to the kitchen units. An earlier appointment for 31 October 2022 had been rescheduled at the resident’s request. The landlord’s kitchen inspection was a timely and appropriate action and task notes from this attendance state “Kitchen units to source and replace following leak. Not going to be a quick issue due to sourcing and resource.” It is unfortunate that the resident’s kitchen was discontinued however this was outside the landlord’s control.
  4. The resident stated that the inspector told her all of the lower units would be replaced. We have seen an internal email dated 26 January 2023 which states “When I attended there had been a leak from the boiler in the rear of the cupboard, … I agreed I would replace 1 base unit and would look into picking up 2 matching replacement doors.” This suggests that the landlord did not intend to replace all of the lower units. While it is acknowledged that the resident does not agree that this is what she was told, it is not possible to verify her version of events based on the evidence provided.
  5. The landlord attended on 12 December 2022 to attempt to replace the base unit. The resident refused these works however as she stated she was expecting a number of units to be replaced, and she felt the landlord had changed its plans without informing her. The internal email (26 January 2023) indicates that the landlord’s intention was to address the leak damaged base unit as soon as possible while making efforts to source 2 replacement doors. More specific and contemporaneous task notes however would have helped determine what had been agreed with the resident initially. Furthermore, this matter was not addressed by the landlord in its complaint response which added to the resident’s frustration and prolonged the resolution of this matter.
  6. The landlord however clearly confirmed that only damaged units would be replaced in the stage 1 (27 January 2023), stage 2 (2 March 2023) and revised stage 2 (7 February 2024) complaint response. It demonstrated that it considered whether the kitchen should be brought forward in its planned maintenance programme in line with its planned standard policy. This policy states that kitchen replacements are work that is carried out on an agreed cycle and as part of its planned investment in homes. It schedules kitchen replacements according to lifespan and condition. The landlord noted however that the resident’s kitchen was 14-years old and not due for replacement for several years. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not consider replacement of the resident’s kitchen at this time.
  7. The landlord also investigated replacement of all of the kitchen unit fronts. This was not approved due to cost however which was a legitimate consideration for a social landlord who is responsible for managing limited resources. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord committed to replacing only the damaged kitchen unit fronts. The landlord demonstrated that it made efforts to find a best match for the existing kitchen units which was appropriate. It made further efforts by offering to engage a specialist to try and source the closest match possible which was again appropriate and demonstrated efforts to provide the closest matching units in recognition of the resident’s concerns.
  8. While the resident’s frustration in this matter is understandable, the landlord has acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures in committing to only replace the damaged kitchen base unit and damaged unit fronts. The landlord advised the resident that its offer to seek specialist assistance still stood if she changed her mind which was appropriate. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within a working day of receipt. It will attempt to speak with the resident within 5 working days and will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint. At stage 2 it says it will send its response within 10 working days of the escalation request.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 January 2023, 3 days after the resident’s complaint on 24 January 2023. This was within the landlords 10-day response period. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 31 January 2023 which the landlord acknowledged 2 days later on 2 February 2023.
  3. It provided its stage 2 complaint response 20 days later on 2 March 2023. While this exceeded its own stage 2 response timeframe by 10 days, it was within the 20-day stage 2 complaint response period as set out in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code (the Code).
  4. Although the landlord’s complaint responses were timely, they did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint, namely her concern that the landlord did not communicate its change of plans with her. The Code states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord’s failure to address this key point left the resident uncertain and frustrated. She stated she refused works as she was waiting for this aspect to be addressed by the landlord.
  5. Furthermore, we had to intervene and ask the landlord to provide a revised stage 2 complaint response to address all elements of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord’s revised stage 2 complaint response (dated 7 February 2024 but issued later) still did not address the resident’s concerns about communication which is concerning. As a result, this matter remained unclarified for 13 months from the resident’s original complaint which was an unacceptable delay. The landlord did not explain why this point was repeatedly not addressed which likely added to the resident’s frustration.
  6. An effective complaints process is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate to a resident that it is listening to a resident’s concern and what it intends to do to put things right. In failing to address all elements of the resident’s complaint it missed an opportunity to rebuild the relationship with the resident and prolonged the resolution of the issue unnecessarily.
  7. The landlord also failed to consider compensation for the resident. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy allows it to offer goodwill payment for delays in in resolving matters, unsatisfactory communication, or poor complaint handling. This would have been appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to ‘put things right’ and to acknowledge its failure to fully address the resident’s complaint. This would have gone some way to acknowledge any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced as a result. The failure to do so was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate accountability.
  8. Therefore, there was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. The stage 1 complaint response did not address the resident’s communication concerns. There was a further opportunity for the landlord to have done so in the revised stage 2 complaint response and this was not done.
  9. It is our view therefore that the landlord was responsible for maladministration which caused the resident further inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing her complaint. To reflect this impact the landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation. This is within the mid range of compensation for complaint handling failings and is in line with our remedies guidance where “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.” Furthermore, the landlord is ordered to provide complaint handling training to relevant staff to help prevent similar future occurrences.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of kitchen unit repairs.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided a written apology that addresses the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failings.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided refresher complaint handling training to relevant staff to make sure complaint responses effectively address all elements of residents’ complaints.