Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

The Riverside Group Limited (202322210)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322210

The Riverside Group Limited

12 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about extractor fans.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health conditions.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 March 2023. This was about the running costs and noise of recently installed extractor fans. On 27 August 2023, the resident made another complaint to the landlord. This was about a missed appointment for the fans on 16 August 2023. The resident said they also wanted a response to their complaint from March 2023.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in raising the complaint in March 2023. It said the correct process was not followed and it was raised as a repair but should have been a complaint. The landlord confirmed the error had been fed back internally. It apologised for the missed appointment on 16 August 2023. The landlord said it did not offer compensation for the missed appointment. It said it had not found issues with the fans when checked on 6 September 2023. The landlord confirmed it could not cover the running costs of the fans.
  4. On 8 September 2023, the resident escalated their complaint. The resident told the landlord on 11 September 2023 that they remained unhappy about compensation for the missed appointment. They said the noise and cost of the fans remained unresolved. The resident said the noise from the fans in trickle mode was affecting their mental health. The resident said they expected this to have been taken into account. The resident expected the landlord to look at whether a reasonable adjustment should be made for the fans to be replaced or switched to a manual mode, as they were unable to access the off switch. The resident said the landlord had not contacted them at stage 1 to discuss the complaint.
  5. The landlord issued a final response on 27 September 2023. It upheld its decision at stage 1. The landlord said an electrician attended the property on 6 and 26 September 2023 to inspect the fans. It confirmed the fans were working correctly and it was not concerned with the noise levels. The landlord explained the reason why the fans worked constantly.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. They said the landlord had failed to follow its complaints policy. The resident said the landlord confirmed it needed an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment before it could consider making changes to the fans. The resident told us they felt the landlord had discriminated against them for not making reasonable adjustments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Only a court can determine whether a landlord has unlawfully discriminated against an individual. We can decide whether a landlord has acted fairly, taking account of all relevant factors, when considering requests for reasonable adjustments.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident, including the purchase of an item to control the extractor switch, and a formal reasonable adjustment request, happened following the end of the complaints process. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, to which the landlord sent its final response on 27 September 2023. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
  3. In their submission to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to the situation impacting upon their health. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, personal injury or damage to health are more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report. We can consider if the landlord’s actions or omissions caused distress and inconvenience.

Extractor fans

  1. In the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The landlord has a responsibility in the Decent Homes Standard to ensure its properties are free from hazards and risks within its rented properties. Similarly, it is required to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout – taking into account prescribed hazards. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says if it needs to change appointments, it will contact the customer as far in advance as possible to advise them.
  3. The landlord has an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy. It aims to ensure the landlord complies with its legal and regulatory responsibilities, including the current requirements set out in the Equality Act 2010. It will ensure it makes reasonable adjustments to the way it delivers services to resident’s based on their protected characteristics.
  4. The landlord’s aids and adaptions section on its current website explains the process for minor and major adaptions. It says in some instances, it may request a resident seek an OT report for minor adaptation cases to support a request where it deems this necessary.
  5. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy says financial redress and gestures of goodwill may be payable in situations including when the landlord has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards. Gestures of goodwill can be made for instances of low impact on the resident of between £0-£250.
  6. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair following a report on 7 August 2023 from the resident about the noise from the fans. This appointment was completed on 6 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had missed its initial repair appointment on 16 August 2023. The appointment was rebooked for the following day but the resident was unable to provide access when it arrived. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident may not have been aware if the appointment and explained the process it should have followed.
  7. The landlord said it did not compensate for the first missed appointment and offered an apology. The apology was appropriate. The landlord stated in its final response that its policy was that the first missed appointment would be an apology. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation policy shared as part of the investigation did not specify compensation for missed appointments.
  8. The resident stated in their complaint escalation that the fans were impacting their mental health. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further visit to the property to check the noise from the fans on 26 September 2023. At both appointments the fans were working correctly, and noise levels were acceptable. The landlord has a duty to prevent damp and mould, and keep the structure of the property in good repair. Therefore, the installation of the fans, and its refusal to install manually operated fans was not unreasonable. The landlord appropriately explained that the fans needed to be running constantly in a trickle mode, coming on fully when humidity levels were high in order to reduce moisture levels.
  9. On 11 September 2023, the resident said they were requesting manual extractor fans as a reasonable adjustment request. There was no evidence of the resident raising concerns about a reasonable adjustment before the stage 1 response. The landlord did not explicitly respond to this at stage 2. The landlord should have explained why it was not addressing the reasonable adjustment request in its final response and considered if it needed to open a further complaint or service request about this.
  10. The landlord told the resident on 4 October 2023 that if they required amendments to the fans for medical reasons, this would need a referral to an OT to review. While this confirmation was issued shortly after the complaints process, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide this advice. We understand the resident’s view that the landlord already had evidence of their disabilities. However, an OT review in order to make a decision on any adjustments needed to the property for medical reasons was appropriate. This is also in line with the information on the landlord’s website about aids and adaptations.
  11. We have not seen the initial correspondence between the landlord and resident about the estimated costs of running the extractor fans. The resident’s concern about the running cost is understandable. However, the landlord’s response that it was not able to reimburse the resident for the running costs was reasonable. The resident is responsible for the utility costs. The landlord did not have an obligation under the terms of the tenancy agreement to reimburse the resident for this.
  12. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns about the noise of the fans seriously. It showed a customer focused approach on attending the property again after the residents raised concerns about the impact of the noise on their mental health. The landlord acknowledged its failed appointment and offered an apology. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about extractor fans.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure from the time of the complaint says the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 the landlord will contact the resident the next working day after receipt of the complaint. It will communicate a resolution plan within 5 working days. On receiving a complaint escalation, it will communicate its decision to the resident within 10 working days of the escalation.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate.
  3. Part of the resident’s complaint in August 2023 was that a previous complaint had been closed. This related to their complaint made in March 2023 about the reimbursement of costs and the noise from the fans. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that this should have been raised as a complaint not a repair. The landlord acknowledged its error here and offered an explanation and apology in an attempt to put things right. However, this did not go far enough, considering the resident had waited almost 6 months for a formal response on the issues previously raised. Although the landlord confirmed it had provided an answer on the reimbursement of the running costs in March 2023.
  4. The landlord’s records showed that although the resident’s further complaint was raised on 27 August 2023, this was not raised by the landlord as a complaint until 6 September 2023. This further delay was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses and the reasons provided.
  5. The stage 2 response took 13 working days. This is outside of the timescales in the landlord’s complaints procedure at the time. However, the landlord did keep the resident updated on the progress of the complaint and advised the full response would be issued after the outcome of the visit on 26 September 2023. It was also within the timescales in the Code.
  6. The resident said they were not contacted by the landlord during the stage 1 investigation in September 2023. The landlord’s records showed a complaint introduction call was not made due to a note on the resident’s file about telephone contact. However, it was not clear why the landlord had not used an alternative method of contact to discuss the complaint such as email as it had at stage 2. The resident missed the opportunity to confirm the details of the complaint The landlord told the resident on 27 August 2023 that they would receive contact about the complaint on 29 August 2023. When this did not happen and the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up on this.
  7. The landlord’s communication about the complaints was poor. The delay to raising the initial complaint had caused a protracted complaints process for the resident. It also delayed their access to the Service because the resident did not have a final response on the matter until September 2023. The landlord investigated the delay and identified what had gone wrong. Its apology was appropriate. However, this did not go far enough to account for the distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about extractor fans.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £150 for its poor complaint handling. The landlord must also provide documentary evidence of compliance with this order within this deadline.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not already done so, it should provide the resident with information on obtaining OT assessment to review the suitability of the fans.