The Riverside Group Limited (202338208)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338208

The Riverside Group Limited

23 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 the resident’s reports of garden flooding.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 3-bedroom bungalow. The resident said 3 adults and 1 child live in the property. The resident and her husband are disabled.
  2. The landlord raised several work orders between 2019 and 2022 to address issues with the garden paving and drainage. The resident reported garden flooding on 7 November 2023. On 5 December 2023, the contractor requested the landlord’s approval to add extra drainage to the garden. The landlord declined the request and said the works were the resident’s responsibility.
  3. The landlord has not provided a dated copy of the resident’s initial complaint. It provided a complaint note which said the landlord raised a work order on 17 May 2022, but works had not been carried out since. The resident was dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the issue.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It said it completed a garden inspection on 11 November 2023, and the contractor compiled a report including costing. The works were not approved as they were considered tenants’ responsibility.
  5. The landlord told the Service that the resident escalated the complaint on 19 December 2023 as she was unhappy with the outcome and lack of communication. In the complaint acknowledgment, the landlord noted that the resident wanted it to complete the works. She subsequently added to the complaint that the landlord had completed similar works in other properties experiencing the same issues. She also said that communal gardening and landscaping were included within the service charges.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 11 January 2024. It confirmed its stage 1 decision was correct. It said the service charge for garden maintenance covered lawn mowing between April and October. It recognised that the resident said she does not always receive this service due to the lawn being flooded. It had referred the matter to the relevant team to assess whether it could offer a refund.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied the landlord would not complete works to address the flooding. She said the garden flooding caused dirty water to pool on the patio, which is dangerous, and presents a slip hazard as she is disabled. She said the issue restricts her access to the garden and she has been unable to use it for 2 years. She added that the waterlogged garden attracts flies and gnats. She wanted the landlord to consider a more cost-effective solution. She thought the landlord was required to complete the works as under the tenancy agreement it Is responsible for means of access and the landlord confirmed it would provide additional support due to their disabilities. She also said the landlord had not refunded any of the garden maintenance charge.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden flooding

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including drainage and means of access. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for keeping “any garden or yard attached to your home clean and tidy, clear of rubbish and well maintained”.
  2. The resident reported on 7 November 2023 that the garden was waterlogged and flooded. The landlord promptly responded, and a contractor inspected on 11 November 2023. The contractor recommended additional drainage in the form of a land drain in the grass with an outlet coming out of the retaining wall going into aco drains. The contractor also told the landlord that the grass retained half an inch of water 7 days after rainfall as there was no drainage, which caused the patio area to flood. The contractor quoted the works at £2555.62.
  3. The landlord advised that it would not complete the repairs as the resident was responsible for the works in line with the tenancy agreement. Although the resident is responsible for keeping the garden clean and well maintained, this should not typically cover such extensive, high value works. Further to this, installing additional drainage would be considered part of the infrastructure, which should not fall within the resident’s remit of responsibility. The landlord may have considered the work to be an improvement, which would generally be the resident’s responsibility. However, in this case the works presented a health and safety issue to the resident, particularly as the resident and her partner are disabled.
  4. The landlord previously completed drainage works to the lower part of the garden between 2019-2022. It is unclear why the landlord differentiated the repair responsibility. Further to this, if the landlord did not think it was responsible for the works it is unclear why it inspected and unreasonably set the resident’s expectations that it would complete repairs.
  5. The landlord did not explain how it determined the resident was responsible for the works, including referencing the relevant sections of the tenancy agreement and policy. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the reasons for its decision. The Service asked the landlord to clarify this. In response, it said it declined to complete the works as the flooding issues were caused by the conservatory, which the resident constructed without permission.
  6. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must not carry out any improvements or alterations without obtaining written consent and any other necessary approvals such as planning permission and building regulation approval. The agreement also states the landlord is not responsible for “keeping in repair anything that you install in your home”. Further to this, the landlord’s website states the resident will be responsible for rectifying “any damage caused to fittings or the structure of your home as a result of the works”. As such, if the conservatory was the cause of the flooding, it would be reasonable for the landlord to determine the resident was responsible for the works to resolve it.
  7. However, the resident disputed the landlord’s conclusion. She said she had permission to install the conservatory, and she did not think it was the cause of the flooding. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident requested to install the conservatory in 2007. It is unclear whether the landlord subsequently gave permission. Regardless of whether permission was granted, as the resident installed the conservatory, if it caused any subsequent repair issues to the property, she would be responsible for resolving them.
  8. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm how it concluded the conservatory was the cause of the flooding issues, such as confirmation from its contractors. Its decision not to complete the repairs on this basis was therefore unreasonable. Further to this, the landlord did not advise the resident that this was the basis for its decision. In cases where the landlord deems the works fall into the resident’s remit of responsibility, it should provide clear, appropriate reasons for its decision. As it failed to do so, it prevented the resident from having the opportunity to respond to the findings, so it did not take a fair approach and consider all the evidence. It also led the resident to continue to pursue the matter, causing her additional time and effort.
  9. Overall, the landlord has not handled the resident’s reports of garden flooding appropriately. It has not provided sufficient evidence to support its decision that the resident was responsible for the works. It also failed to inform the resident of the reason for its decision. As a result, the issue has remained unresolved for almost 2 years. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs. The resident told the Service that the flooding from the garden runs onto the patio, causes dirty water to pool, and freezes in winter, which prevents access at the rear of the property. This is a clear health and safety concern, particularly in light of her vulnerabilities.
  10. The landlord should complete an independent survey to determine the cause of the flooding and the necessary repairs to resolve the issue. If the conservatory is not found to be the cause of the flooding, the landlord should complete the works. The landlord should also pay the resident £300 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of garden flooding. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance which states such amount is appropriate in cases where the landlord has not recognised its failings or taken steps to put things right.
  11. Another element of the resident’s complaint related to the service charge for garden maintenance, which the contractor was often unable to complete as the grass was waterlogged. In its complaint response, the landlord said it had referred the matter to the relevant team to discuss a refund. The resident told the Service that the landlord has not since reimbursed her and said it was unable to calculate the number of times it had not attended. The landlord should have clear record keeping practices, particularly for services the resident pays for. If the landlord is unable to obtain the necessary evidence to consider the reimbursement, it should ask the resident to confirm how many times it failed to attend and provide a refund accordingly.

Complaint handling

  1. In line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The Service’s complaint handling code states that “A full record must be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys.” Despite requests by the Service, the landlord has not been able to provide contemporaneous records of the resident’s initial complaint and escalation request.
  3. The landlord has not confirmed when the resident initially raised her complaint. The complaint raised concerns that the landlord had not completed works raised on 17 May 2022. As such, there may have been a substantial delay in the landlord responding, as it issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. We are also unable to determine whether it responded to all points raised in the complaint.
  4. The landlord said the resident escalated the complaint on 19 December 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023, which was within its response timeframe.
  5. The record keeping failing impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the complaint and assess the detriment to the resident. 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. In this case, we are unable to verify if the landlord acted in line with its response timeframes.
  6. In line with our remedies guidance, £150 compensation is warranted as the landlord has not identified its failing or took steps to put things right. The landlord should also assess its record keeping practices to ensure it retains all complaint information.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden flooding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £300 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of garden flooding.
    2. £150 compensation for the record keeping failings in relation to its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered to complete an independent inspection to ascertain the cause of the garden flooding. It should share the report with the resident and the Service. If the conservatory is not deemed to be the cause of the flooding, the landlord should complete any recommended works that fall into its remit of responsibility. It should provide a work order to confirm it has raised any required repairs.
  3. The landlord should refund the resident the garden maintenance service charge for dates it was unable to complete the lawn mowing due to the grass being flooded. If it is unable to confirm from its records how many dates it did not attend, it should ask the resident. It should provide evidence of the compensation payment and evidence to support its calculation.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure it retains clear records of all complaint correspondence, including initial complaint and escalation requests.