The Riverside Group Limited (202330237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330237

The Riverside Group Limited

29 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to her.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 2 February 2023. The property is a 4-bedroom house. An estate management board (EMB) manages and delivers services on behalf of the landlord, which is the freeholder. These services include voids and repairs.
Between 3 and 5 July 2023 the resident reported a number of issues with her property. These included, but were not limited to damp and mould, blown windows, issues with the back garden, front path and rear patio, the vinyl flooring in her toilet, issues with several radiators not heating up properly, a leak from the toilet when it was flushed and issues with both internal and external doors.
On 5 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about a number of issues with her property. These included, but were not limited to:
1. The condition of the garden, which the resident said was overgrown and she had to dispose of rubbish that had not been removed. The resident also said that she had to remove an overgrown vine, from her neighbour’s garden, which had damaged the fence. The resident said the EMB had charged her to dispose of this, which she said was ‘completely unfair.’
2. ‘Flags’ to the front and back, including the path to the front door, which the resident said were so uneven they needed fixing. The resident said that her husband used a stick and the uneven flags were dangerous.
3. The front and back doors needed replacing.
4. At least 10 windows had to be replaced due them being blown in the first weeks of moving in. She was still waiting for a window at the bottom of the stairs to be replaced, which she said had been measured by a glazing contractor.
5. The bath was rusty and the silicone was yellow with nicotine from the previous tenant. She had replaced the lino in the bathroom as it was dangerous.
6. The property needed decorating throughout and the £50 decorating allowance was not enough.
7. The walls, especially upstairs, were full of holes.
The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 October 2023, referring to her email of 5 July 2023. The resident said the property not being ready for her and her family to move into, and that there were still repairs that needed to be carried out, was ‘unbelievable.’
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 31 October 2023, having spoken to her the same day, and issued its stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. In its response, the landlord:
1. Made no specific mention of the damp and mould. However, it did confirm that a 1m x 0.2m area needed to be replastered following advice from its damp specialist. The landlord said this was only bought to its attention the previous week, as it had assumed its damp specialists had completed this when carrying out the damp proof course works. The landlord said it was waiting to find out its plasterer’s availability, due to sickness, before it could make this appointment.
2. Said, with regards to the garden and paving:
  1. The front flags were levelled by its inhouse team at the request of the resident and the rear flags were passed to its contractor to lift and level.
  2. ‘Even after’ it had agreed to go ‘well beyond’ the standard paving policy, the resident then asked for its contractor to supply a quote for a completely new and expanded patio area. The landlord said this was refused and its contractor instructed to’ lift and level.’ The landlord said that on the day the works were due to commence, the resident refused its contractor access, for which it incurred cost.
  3. Its paving policy only covered the single row immediately contacting the side of the building and a single row path from the gate, any issues with additional patio flags would ordinarily be remedied by removing the additional flags and scattering grass seed. The landlord said additional rows were typically installed by previous tenants. The landlord said that this was ‘often’ considered an improvement to the property and as such, would not be removed during the void period unless specifically requested by the incoming resident.
  4. The mud in the back garden would be the resident’s responsibility. The property was deemed to have sufficient drainage; however, it was situated in a valley so the ground was particularly sodden.
3. Said, with regard to the front and back doors:
  1. The back door had been forwarded to its ‘investment planning team as a reactive improvement request,’ explaining that EMB only repaired items.
  2. The front door had not been submitted because, though it was old, it was ‘perfectly functional and in perfectly acceptable condition.’
4. In regard to the windows and internal doors, the landlord:
  1. Challenged the number of windows that the resident said needed replacing. Said the windows it had replaced were replaced in a timely manner, as they were reported, and that blown units were only evident during certain weather conditions. The landlord also said that any discovered during the void period were replaced at the time.
  2. Said 2 internal doors were replaced, 1 due to a mismatch by the team renovating the kitchen and the other to the pantry as requested by the resident.
5. Said, with regards to the bath, that ‘small patches of chipped enamel’ were referred to a specialist contractor for ‘spot repair resurfacing.’ This was refused by the resident, for which it again incurred costs.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day. In her escalation request the resident said:
1. The landlord was ‘lying’ when it said it had only just been made aware of the plastering in the hall. The resident said that she originally contacted the landlord about this on 18 July 2023 and had mentioned it 2 weeks ago when she went to its office. The resident said she had also told her housing officer about this 6 weeks ago and sent an email with pictures.
2. She had not asked for the patio to the back of the property to be extended but for the missing flags to be replaced. In regard to the front path, the sand that had been put under one side of the flags, to level them, had washed away and so needed correcting. The resident said that there were a lot of damaged flags which needed replacing as they were unsafe, as her husband used a walking aid.
3. The front and back doors had been measured and ordered for replacement. The resident said that this was because she was locked out in her back garden and the front door had a ‘huge gap and the windowpane was held in by screws.’
4. She had said in her email in July 2023 that the window at the bottom of the stairs still needed to be replaced and so this was ‘certainly not’ completed in a timely manner.
5. The bath should have been done before she moved in as not having a bath for 48hours for the chipped enamel to be repaired was ‘impossible’ with children.
The landlord issued its final response on 27 November 2023 in which it said:
1. It had reviewed the decision made at stage 1 and, having spoken to EMB, it had concluded that its decision at stage 1 was correct.
2. Said that EMB had agreed to uplift and relay the paving to the front path they had originally laid and where the sand had washed away. The landlord said EMB had asked that the resident contact them with a convenient date for this to be booked in.
3. The front and back doors had been replaced.
4. It appreciated that the resident would be without the use of the bath for 2 days for the enamel to be repaired. However, this would not be replaced.
5. For the resident to contact EMB to arrange a convenient appointment regarding a number of issues, including the plastering.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
When a property is let, the landlord would be expected to carry out a void inspection to determine whether any works were necessary to bring the property up to its lettable, in this case ‘Empty Homes,’ standard.
The voids and repairs process in this case is managed on the landlord’s behalf by an EMB. In such circumstances the Ombudsman considers the EMB to be an extension of the landlord itself, and as such would expect the landlord to monitor performance and ensure that the EMB was acting in line with its expected standards.
In general, the landlord, or in this case the EMB, would be expected to complete any required works prior to the resident moving in. Were there to be any outstanding repairs at that point, the Ombudsman would expect the new resident to be provided details of those works, how and when the landlord proposed to complete them, and to complete them within a reasonable timescale. There is no evidence of this happening in this case.
The landlord was asked to provide copies of its void inspection report, void repairs log and post void works inspection report for the resident’s property. In response to our request the landlord sent us copies of 6 weekly emails between 6 December 2022 and 21 January 2023 which it said represented the EMBs void reporting. These emails listed tasks in black font where there were completed and in red font if they were still outstanding. The landlord also provided us with a copy of its repair records which log the void jobs carried it. However, it provided no void or post void works inspection reports.
The landlord’s Empty Homes Standard states that:
1. ‘A full damp survey will be completed.’ However:
  1. The weekly void report emails sent to the landlord from the EMB make no mention of this being carried out. Nor has the landlord provided any evidence of it raising any concerns with the EMB that this had not been done.
  2. It also failed to acknowledge in its complaints responses that a damp survey was not carried out prior to the property being let.
  3. An inspection was carried out by a damp specialist on 8 June 2023. However, this was only carried out following the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and not until she had already been living in the property for 4 months.
  4. The inspection report noted that there appeared to be no obvious external defects, however, there was no evidence of a damp proof course. The report also noted there were areas of plaster with ‘high moisture levels’ which ‘would indicate a number of issues including rising damp and insufficient wall to floor jointing.’
  5. These were significant issues that it would be reasonable to conclude would have been picked up had the damp survey been carried out during the void period. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge any failure with regards to this in its complaint responses.
2. ‘Gardens will be clear of all rubbish, bushes and overgrown vegetation clipped, and grass will be cut.’ However:
  1. Given the only mention of the garden in the EMBs weekly voids emails was in relation to the removal of a shed, it is unclear how the landlord accepted that this requirement of its Empty Homes Standard had been met.
  2. The landlord also made no reference in its complaint responses to the resident’s concerns about her having to remove rubbish that was left in the garden, nor her being charged for the disposal of her neighbour’s vine (ivy) which she had advised was overgrown, was causing a nuisance, and damaging a fence.
  3. The landlord told us that the resident employed a private contractor to remove the ivy from a number of garden fence panels, and that due to this disturbance the panels fragmented and needed replacing.
  4. Whilst it may have been the situation that the removal of the ivy was not essential and had damaged the fences, the lack of any evidence of an assessment of the garden against its Empty Homes Standard during the void period, means the landlord has been unable to support its position with regards to this.
3. ‘Perimeter paths around the property and leading to the front door will be free from trip hazards, such as missing flags.’ This standard is also referred to in the EMB’s Flagging and Paving Maintenance Policy, mentioned in the landlord’s complaint responses. However:
  1. Again, the weekly void report emails sent to the landlord from the EMB make no mention of the perimeter paths.
  2. Further, the landlord made no apology to the resident that the paving had not been looked at and addressed before she moved in. This was despite it acknowledging in its stage 1 response that the front flags had to be levelled ‘at the request of the resident’ and that the rear flags had had to be passed to its contractor to lift and level.
  3. Instead of reflecting on its and the EMBs performance, the landlord instead focused on the resident asking for a larger patio, her refusing access and that this cost it money.
  4. The EMB’s Flagging and Paving Maintenance Policy states that perimeter paving, should be wide enough to accommodate the households needs (a pram, walking aid, mobility scooter). This does not extend to rows of flagging beyond that. As such the EMB would not be expected to add or replace any slabs that extend beyond that area, whether or not they were in place at the time the resident moved in.
  5. However, the policy goes on to state that consideration should be given to trip hazards within the extended area. ‘Albeit not explicitly (its) responsibility, once notified of such by the tenant (or observed within a void), any trip hazard should be addressed.’ In such cases, the policy states that it:

(1) ‘Will either refit or replace any hazardous flags.’

(2) ‘If due to the size of the area this would be impracticable and not within its areas of responsibility it would remove the additional rows of flagging and make good by seeding it with grass seeds.’

In light of this, the landlord’s offer in its stage 2 response for the EMB to uplift and relay the paving to the front path and to remove the additional flags to the rear patio area, and scatter grass seed, was reasonable.
Whilst it is understandable that the resident would want the landlord to replace missing slabs to the extended area, it was not obliged to do so. However, it would be expected to address any slabs both within the standard and the extended area of the patio that posed a trip hazard.
It is evident that the issue of the front path and rear patio area remained outstanding following the landlord’s final response. This is evidenced by an email from the EMB to the resident on 8 March 2024, in which:

(1) On the basis of it being approved by the landlord, the EMB offered to make a £500 contribution towards the resident extending the patio area. On the basis that the EMB ensure that none of the slabs to the standard patio area pose a potential trip hazard, its offer was reasonable given that it was not obliged to do this.

(2) The EMB also said that it had offered, as a ‘courtesy’ soil to ‘shore up’ the sides of the front path, however, due to the costs it was not able to do this. Given there is no doubt with regards to the landlord’s obligation to ensure that the front path (leading to the front door) was free from trip hazards, if this funding were to ensure the front path was level and free from such hazards, this would not be reasonable. However, if it were to improve the appearance of the path, as indicated by the EMB in its email of 8 March 2024 (in which it referred to the soil being used to ‘create a small boarder effect’) this would not be unreasonable as it would not be obliged to fund this.

(3) The resident advised us in April 2025 that she continues to have concerns about the safety of both the rear patio and front path. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to arrange for an inspection of both the front path and rear patio area to be carried out by a suitably qualified contractor. This it to ensure that the paving to both of these areas is safe.

‘External doors will be watertight, and open and close with ease. Internal doors will open and close with ease, with handles and latches fitted (where required).’
1. In its weekly emails to the landlord the EMB confirmed that the ‘front door furniture and internal door handles’ were ‘done.’
2. However, no mention was made of the back door, which the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response had been forwarded to its ‘investment planning as a reactive improvement request’.
3. The front door was also subsequently replaced by the landlord, following the resident’s report of a number of repair issues with it.
‘Windows will be watertight, and open and close with ease.’ In this case the weekly emails sent to the landlord by the EMB confirm that the mechanism on every window had been ‘done’ and that the restrictors on ‘every’ window had been fitted (as they were ‘missing’). However:
1. No mention was made by EMB of any other concerns with the windows nor of any being replaced during the void period.
2. The first mention of replacement windows in the records provided by the landlord was on 8 February 2023, 6 days after the resident moved in. This related to ‘3 blown small bedroom windows’. These were noted as being replaced on 1 March 2023.
3. There were 2 further reports of blown windows, in the kitchen (reported on 10 February 2023), and at the bottom of the stairs (which the resident said in her email of 5 July 2023 still needed to be replaced). These windows were replaced on 1 March and 6 August 2023, respectively.
4. Rather than reflecting on why the windows, most especially those reported on 8 and 10 February 2023, where not picked up and addressed during the void period, the landlord simply challenged the number the resident had quoted as having been replaced.
‘The bathroom will have, in good working condition, a bath and/or shower, wash hand basin and toilet. These will be clean, free from lime scale and free of chips, cracks, and/or scratches.’ However:
1. As the landlord acknowledged there were small patches of chipped enamel to the bath, which it referred to a specialist contractor for ‘spot repair resurfacing.’
2. Again, the weekly voids emails to the landlord from EMB make no mention of this repair nor of any assessment of the bathroom to ensure it met the required standards. The only mention in the emails in relation to the bathroom referred to the pull cord needing replacing, a repair to the toilet flush and a repair/replacement of the extractor.

The complaints process provided the opportunity for the landlord to review its, and the EMBs, handling of the void process, explain what it had done and when, and to acknowledge any failures there may have been. However, despite the significant number of repairs that needed to be carried out within a short time of the resident moving in, it repeatedly failed to do so. Added to this, whilst the landlord would not be responsible for decorating the property:
1. Given the resident had raised concerns about the level of decorating allowance, it would have been expected to address this in its complaint responses, but did not do so.
2. It did have a responsibility to ensure that the walls were in an acceptable condition before the resident moved into the property. Despite this, whilst the landlord referred to the hall wall needing replastering in relation to the recommendations from the damp survey, it made no mention of the holes in her walls, ‘especially upstairs,’ raised by the resident in her complaint.
It was not the fault of the resident that so many repairs were required when she moved into the property but rather a failure, ultimately by the landlord, to ensure that the property was at a suitable level of repair, and met its Empty Property standard, when it was let to her. That it did not do so resulted in significant and unnecessary distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident.
Given this failure a finding of maladministration has been made. To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her a total of £1,000 compensation.
The landlord has also been ordered to review its handling of the voids works in this case. This is to focus on how it will ensure, going forward, that when a property becomes void, an appropriate assessment is carried out, that any works required are clearly recorded and addressed, and that it has robust processes in place to ensure that when a property is let it complies with its Empty Homes Standard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to her.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise and pay the resident £1,000 compensation for the failures identified in this report.
2. Review its handling of the voids works in this case. As part of this review the landlord is to consider:
  1. How it will ensure that going forward it has a robust process for ensuring that, when a property becomes void, an appropriate assessment and any necessary works are carried out.
  2. Review it record keeping to ensure that, going forward, it can provide an audit trail which clearly evidences what actions it took to ensure that a property complies with its Empty Homes Standard before it is let.
3. The landlord is to provide us with a copy of its review and any actions it intends to take as a result of its findings, within the timescales set out above.
4. Arrange for an inspection of the paving to both the front and rear of the resident’s property by a suitably qualified contractor:
  1. This assessment is to consider whether any works are required to the paving to ensure that it is safe.
  2. Feedback from this inspection is then to be reviewed by a senior member of the landlord’s staff, in conjunction with the relevant paving policy, to decide whether any works, for which the landlord is responsible, are required.
  3. The landlord is then to provide both the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review together with an action plan, with timescales, with regards to any actions that it intends to carry out, if any.
5. Confirm compliance with the above orders.