From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Riverside Group Limited (202331042)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331042

The Riverside Group Limited

4 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak and related damage to his belongings.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background 

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. He has lived at the property since 1999. The property is a flat in a converted building. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental and physical health. These include Asperger’s and a physical disability. A representative helped the resident with his complaints to the landlord and the Ombudsman. For readability, this report will refer to ‘the resident’ (and his actions) unless further clarification is helpful.
  2. In late July 2023 the resident told the landlord that water was leaking into the property. It raised a related repair order on the same day. There were further interactions between the parties subsequently. Eventually, the landlord logged a complaint in early August 2023. The resident was unhappy because a repair was outstanding. He said that some of his personal items had been damaged. The landlord completed an initial repair several days later. Around the same time, it wrote to the resident about its process for handling damage claims.
  3. In mid-August 2023 the landlord inspected the property and arranged further repairs. Subsequently, the resident detailed his complaint in several letters to the landlord and its main contractor. He wanted compensation for his distress and damaged items. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in October 2023. It did not identify any significant delays or failures. It did not award the resident any compensation. Its response confirmed it had escalated his complaint.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in November 2023. It upheld the complaint. It also said it would not compensate the resident for his damaged personal items. In addition, the landlord said he had previously declined a £400 payment that was offered as a gesture of goodwill. It promised to raise some additional repair orders. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. He updated the Ombudsman in June 2025. He said he felt the landlord’s goodwill gesture was unfair. He felt there may be underlying repair issues which could result in further leaks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if a landlord was responsible for any damage to personal items. In some cases, we can consider whether a landlord’s actions or inaction was a contributory factor.
  2. During his complaint to the landlord, the resident said that similar leaks had occurred on 2 previous occasions. The Ombudsman has seen little evidence in relation to the previous leaks and it is unclear when these occurred. It is also unclear if the resident complained to the landlord at the relevant times. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question.
  3. Residents are also expected to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period. This is usually within 12 months after it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Given the above, the previous leaks at the property are out of scope for this report. It is noted that landlords usually have similar time restrictions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and related damage

  1. On 25 July 2023 the resident called the landlord to report a leak into the property. It related to some external pipework above a bay window. The resident says he had been away for several days. He also says he found the leak when he returned home. Records show the landlord raised a related repair order on the same day. However, it has not provided a copy of its relevant call notes. This is concerning and points to a record keeping problem. Where the landlord has not supplied key case records, we have typically relied on the resident’s recollection of events (in the absence of evidence to the contrary).
  2. The resident says he called the landlord after he had taken steps to stop the water from spreading inside the property. He also says he told it that he felt the situation was an emergency and the property was uninhabitable. Similarly, he says he told the landlord he would stay elsewhere due to its condition. He also says the landlord replied that it could not arrange an emergency repair for him. This was because he had advised that nobody would be at the property to facilitate an urgent visit. The resident says the landlord did promise to prioritise the repair. His comments show it would have been reasonable to respond swiftly. There is no indication the resident highlighted his vulnerabilities at this stage. Still, the landlord could have proactively asked him if he required any reasonable adjustments to its standard services.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy says it should respond to emergency repairs within 12 hours. These are repairs which may present an immediate health and safety risk. The policy also says that small leaks can be an emergency repair issue. It shows the landlord should complete routine repairs within 28 days. Ultimately, it confirms the landlord should prioritise repairs based on the level of risk.
  4. The resident says he had further interactions with the landlord between 26 July and 2 August 2023. He also says its main contractor promptly arranged 2 separate appointments. There is no indication it completed any repairs at this point. The resident says he contacted the landlord and its contractor about 4 times during this period and some of his calls were not returned. He also says he was given conflicting information about whether he needed to be at home to facilitate a repair visit. He says he told the landlord that he was about to go on holiday with his family. The landlord has not disputed this version of events. It is likely that chasing it was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident. Since the leak had not been resolved, its lack of clarity may have added to his distress.
  5. The resident says his family returned from their holiday on 5 August 2023. He also says he chased the landlord on 7 August 2023. The evidence suggests it offered to raise a formal complaint for him at this point. It also suggests the landlord logged a complaint on the same date. The landlord has not supplied any corresponding call or complaint records. As a result, the exact contents of the resident’s complaint are unclear. Again, the lack of records is concerning. The evidence shows that, by this time, some of his personal items had been damaged.
  6. Repair records show a different contractor attended the property on 10 August 2023. It unblocked an external drain. This was around 16 days after the resident’s initial report. It is noted the landlord unblocked the drain in line with its routine repair timescale.
  7. On 11 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about his complaint. It said it was sorry to hear that some of his personal items had been damaged during the leak. It explained its approach to damage claims in detail. It said that, if the resident felt it was responsible for the damage, he could raise a claim with its insurer. To do this, it said he should complete and return some enclosed forms within 7 days. It also said he should not dispose of any damaged items until its insurer had confirmed whether or not it wanted to inspect these. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its approach to the resident in writing.
  8. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to health or personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer them to its insurance team or process. Alternatively, it can address some issues through its own internal complaints procedure. This approach could be applied to a small number of damaged items. It is noted that insurers specialise in liability matters. For clarity, a landlord is entitled to refer any legal liability issues to its insurer before it raises a complaint. Since claims can be time sensitive, it is good practice for a landlord to refer the reporting resident to its correct process as soon as possible. In this case, the content of the landlord’s letter was consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations. As a result, we find the letter was reasonable.
  9. The landlord attended the property around 17 August 2023. This was to assess the damage and specify the repairs. This was about 23 days after the resident’s report. In line with its repair policy, the landlord should have swiftly established the level of risk that was associated with the leak. This included the level of risk to the resident. The evidence suggests the landlord did not do this. This is because the resident had said that the property was uninhabitable and he would stay elsewhere. This was a significant welfare issue. The resident was also vulnerable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord showed a concerning lack of urgency. Arguably, it also showed a lack of due care. The evidence points to an initial communication problem and/or a subsequent lack of monitoring. In any case, the landlord’s initial approach was inadequate.
  10. The resident wrote a detailed letter to the landlord on 20 August 2023. In it, he expanded on his initial complaint. The resident said the leak had created several holes in his living room ceiling. He also said the walls were “thoroughly damp” and the smell inside the property was “vile”. He reiterated that he felt it was not habitable based on its condition. The resident’s other key points were:
    1. The leak had damaged his furniture, carpet, and footwear.
    2. He had washed and rehung his curtains on 2 occasions to remove the dirt.
    3. The situation was distressing. The property did not feel like his home.
    4. He was sleeping on a family member’s sofa. This was not good for him because he had a health condition relating to his hips.
    5. He had a support worker but he had cancelled a number of support visits.
  11. Repair records show the landlord completed internal repairs to the property around 6 September 2023. The works included plastering, stain blocking, and applying anti-mould paint. They took place around 20 days after the landlord completed its inspection. There is no indication the landlord attempted to expedite the works based on the resident’s personal circumstances. Given his previous letter, it may have missed another opportunity to identify and address any welfare issues that were involved in his complaint. This is concerning.
  12. Overall, there is no indication that the landlord sufficiently engaged with the resident’s comments about the property’s condition at any stage during the repair and complaint timelines. For example, there is no indication that its operatives attempted to assess whether the property was habitable, or expressed a professional opinion about this. This was inadequate. It is further evidence that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to establish the level of risk to the resident.
  13. Subsequently, the resident wrote another letter on 19 September 2023. The evidence suggests he was corresponding with the landlord’s main repairs contractor (a subsidiary company of the landlord) at this point. His second letter shows he had previously requested £750 in compensation. In it, the resident said his request was based on the distress and inconvenience he was caused by delayed repairs. His previous letter indicates the level of distress and inconvenience that he experienced. Other key points from the resident’s second letter were:
    1. He felt the property’s bay window had underlying repair issues which had not been addressed.
    2. Repairs were complete but redecoration works were outstanding.
    3. His curtains needed to be cleaned or replaced.
    4. The existing carpet needed to be replaced.
    5. He felt he should be compensated for other damaged items.
  14. On 10 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said when the resident made his initial report, it had logged the repair as a glazing issue in error. It said this was due to a “miscommunication”. The landlord rightly apologised for this. However, it said it could not have predicted the leak. It also said it had applied its routine repair timescale when it raised the repair order. It believed it had prioritised the repair correctly because the leak was containable. It said it had repaired the leak within its applicable timescale (28 days). The landlord also said it did not replace carpets and the resident had declined its offer to clean the carpet.
  15. The evidence suggests the resident wanted the landlord to confirm that it was ultimately liable for the damage. The landlord was not obliged to do this. If it had accepted that it was at fault, this may have prevented it from claiming on its own insurance policy. However, it could have referred the resident to the contents of its previous letter. This confirmed he could raise a claim with its insurer regardless of whether the landlord disputed the claim or not. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord did not do this, so its response lacked clarity. This was inadequate. The landlord’s inconsistent approach may have caused avoidable confusion for the resident.
  16. In its response, the landlord said the resident had previously asked it to escalate his complaint. It also said it had complied with his request. The landlord has not supplied a copy of the resident’s escalation request. It is reasonable to conclude that its contents were similar to his previous letters. Subsequently, the resident emailed the landlord’s stage 2 complaint handler on 13 October 2023. The email shows his representative had bought a new carpet for the property. In it, the resident referenced some invoices. He also included a list of damaged items that he was unable to provide receipts for. From the evidence provided, it is unclear what the invoices related to. It is also unclear if the landlord was following its damage claims process.
  17. On 9 November 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It described the leak as “extensive”. It acknowledged the resident had asked for compensation and he wanted his costs to be addressed. Based on its records, it said that delays had occurred due to a requirement for reporting residents to be present during repair visits. It said the resident did not need to be present in this case. It also said it would raise the matter with its main contractor because “this was clearly the cause of the damage that occurred in [the property]”. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. It would not offer any compensation for loss of personal items. It expected residents to have their own contents insurance.
    2. As a goodwill gesture, the resident was previously offered a £400 payment (presumably by the landlord’s main contractor).
    3. It had not mentioned the goodwill gesture in its previous response (it is unclear when this was offered). It had upheld the complaint on that basis.
    4. The resident had decided not to accept the goodwill payment. He had also asked whether any repairs had been completed above the bay window.
    5. It would raise a works order to clear the external drain on a regular basis. It would raise a separate order to check the seals around the window.
    6. It had sent the resident a £20 voucher. This was to replace a mug that its contractor had forgotten to return to the property.
  18. The response shows the landlord felt its main contractor was responsible for a key delay. Since the contractor was acting as the landlord’s agent, the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions. It should have acted accordingly. The wording of its response suggests the landlord did not recognise this. The response contained contradictory information around liability issues and its decision on the complaint. It also overlooked key issues. For example, it did not acknowledge that the resident had chased the repair multiple times, or that he was given conflicting information on several occasions. Ultimately, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or the related adverse impact to the resident. Its approach was inadequate at this point. Given the above referenced problems, its response may have added to his distress.
  19. The resident replied to the landlord several days later. He highlighted some inaccurate information in its response. We have considered these inaccuracies in the complaint handling section below. He said his own insurer would not accept a claim due to the recurring leaks at the property. He also said he had unfairly incurred costs. He attributed these costs to the landlord’s “negligence, mishandling, irresponsible attitude, and lack of communication”. Some of the resident’s comments are understandable in the circumstances.
  20. In January 2024 the resident updated the Ombudsman by email. In summary, he said he was not sure what action the landlord had taken to prevent similar leaks going forwards. Repair records show the landlord subsequently checked the bay window in July 2024. It also cleared some blocked external pipework around the same time. These works suggest it did act on its promise to raise further repairs at stage 2. However, the resident’s update indicates it did not keep him informed about its progress or findings. This was unreasonable because he had told the landlord that he was worried about the possibility of similar leaks in the future. The lack of clarity may have been distressing for him.
  21. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a call in July 2025. He said he had not made a claim with the landlord’s insurer. He did not recall the landlord’s related information letter. He confirmed he had disposed of his damaged items. With reference to the new carpet, he reiterated that he had incurred costs. He also reiterated that he had spent time away from the property following the leak. He told us the landlord had cleared the external pipework around March 2025. He also said a different contractor had inspected the area, but he did not know why. He felt more repairs were needed to the area outside the property’s bay window. For example, he felt a cowl should be installed on the roof.
  22. In summary, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to establish the level of risk. This was not consistent with the approach outlined in its repairs policy. Similarly, it also overlooked important information about the resident’s welfare. Its inadequate communication and/or lack of monitoring contributed to an unreasonable delay. This delay may have been a contributory factor in any related damage to the resident’s personal belongings. The landlord gave him conflicting information about its approach to these damages. While it eventually offered £400 as a goodwill gesture, it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures or the adverse impact to the resident. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right. Its approach may have added to his distress. Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  23. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s applicable compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it can pay a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. It includes some guidance about proportionate award levels. It shows the landlord can award £700 and above in cases that involved a “high impact” to a resident. The evidence suggests this category is relevant to the resident’s case. We note the resident previously asked for £750 in compensation. We are satisfied this figure is fair. However, we have increased it by a proportionate amount to reflect the landlord’s lack of communication following its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained on 7 August 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. This was 46 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure shows it should issue a response within 15 working days at stage 1. It did not adhere to its relevant timescale in this case. This was inadequate. The evidence points to a delay of around 6 weeks. There is a lack of evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated during the interim period. This points to a related communication failure on its part.
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 response. It should have recognised that it had not complied with its policy. Having done so, it should have taken proportionate steps to address any associated distress or inconvenience caused to the resident. Its approach was inadequate. To prevent similar failures going forwards, it should routinely consider its own complaint handling at each stage of its complaints process. This includes considering the relevant complaint journey from the beginning to the end. This will allow the landlord to address any procedural delays and/or failures accordingly.
  3. There were other problems with the landlord’s response. It contained inaccuracies and conflicting information. It described the repair issue as “a first-time leak”. It also included an apology even though the landlord had not upheld the complaint. Ultimately, it did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld, not upheld, partly upheld). This was contrary to the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), as published in March 2022. Section 5.8 says a compliant response must include a clear decision on the complaint in “plain language”. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. It may have caused some confusion or distress for the resident.
  4. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint when it had completed the first stage of its complaints process (on the day it issued its stage 1 response). It updated its complaints policy around the same time. Its relevant policy says it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. Later, it issued a stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. This was 22 working days later. The landlord did not adhere to its relevant timescale. The evidence points to a short delay of 2 days. Given its duration, an apology may have been sufficient to address it. Again, there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated during the interim period. This is concerning.
  5. There were similar problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge that delays had occurred at both stages. It said an asbestos survey had been completed at the property. In contrast, the evidence shows a survey was not required. It is noted the resident subsequently highlighted this error to the landlord. This indicates they may have found it distressing. Overall, the landlord’s response lacked a reasonable degree of thoroughness. This was inadequate.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its policy timescales. There is a lack of evidence to show that it kept the resident updated in the interim period. There were delays at each stage of its complaints process. These amounted to around 7 weeks in total. Contrary to the Code, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not include a clear decision on the complaint. There were inaccuracies in both of its responses. Overall, the landlord displayed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. It has not acknowledged these issues or attempted to put things right for the resident. Its approach may have added to his distress. Overall, we find there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. It is consistent with the “low impact” category in the landlord’s guidance. The evidence shows this category is relevant in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak and related damage to his belongings.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for 1 of its relevant senior managers to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its apology within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £850 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of a leak and related damage to his items. If it has already paid this amount to the resident, the landlord should deduct the £400 that it previously offered as a goodwill gesture.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for compensation to address his damaged items. It must contact the resident (via his representative) to gather the relevant details. It must then assess the items in line with any of its relevant policies and procedures. As mentioned, there is evidence that its actions prolonged the repair timeline. There is also evidence that it did not follow its correct process for damage claims in the first instance. On that basis, it should avoid imposing onerous evidence requirements on the resident. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to update the resident about its position on the external pipework and the property’s bay window. This is because the resident is concerned about outstanding repairs and the possibility of further leaks. It could arrange for 1 of its surveyors to inspect the area and share its findings with the resident. In any case, it must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  5. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for its relevant senior manager to review this report’s key findings within 6 weeks. They should check to ensure that the main failures could not recur under the landlord’s current approach to repairs and complaints (it has updated its relevant policies since the resident complained). This is to ensure that the landlord embeds any critical learning that has not been addressed by its previous updates to its policies and procedures. Any identified improvements should be shared with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord must share a summary of its findings with the Ombudsman within the 6 weeks.