The Riverside Group Limited (202342986)

Background

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of powder in the property.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

What the complaint is about

3. The resident has had a newly built house since May 2018. She reported a white powder throughout the property, which she believed was from the ceiling or walls and said this affected her health.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of powder in the property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Reports of powder

5. The landlord gave a fair and balanced response explaining the defect period ended in June 2019, while the resident first reported the powder in 2023. As a shared owner, the resident is responsible for remedying such issues.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord issued its detailed formal complaint responses within its procedure’s timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we will not investigate

7. The resident also told us the powder situation in the property had a negative effect on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused, if she thinks that her health has been affected by any action or lack of action by the landlord. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this aspect of the complaint further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we will investigate

8. The resident complained that white powder regularly settled throughout her home, covering furniture and surfaces. She said she reported this to the landlord and developer without results and believed the landlord should have inspected and tested the powder, as she only partly owned the property. The landlord’s formal responses did not uphold the complaint, saying the defects period had ended, no reports were made during that time, and repairs and inspections were her responsibility as a shared owner.
9. The landlord has no standalone defects policy but its website explains that new shared ownership properties have a defects period, usually lasting 12 months from the property’s handover from the developer to the landlord. After this, all repairs are the shared owner’s responsibility. In this case, an end-of-defects-period inspection took place on 30 May 2019, and the defects period ended on 14 June 2019.
10. The resident first raised concerns on 20 March 2023, saying powder was everywhere and she had to use air purifiers. The resident felt the landlord did not manage her expectations properly after it told her the same day it would “get this chased up”. However, the landlord promptly clarified on that day that it was not responsible for repairs and advised her to arrange her own inspection. This communication appropriately managed her expectations. Its response was also in line the resident’s lease, which says she as the leaseholder must keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition and has the same responsibilities as a full owner.
11. After the complaint on 29 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident on 1 March 2024 to confirm there were no earlier reports of powder to it. The resident told the landlord that she previously reported the issue to the developer, who had inspected and advised the powder was not harmful. The same day, the landlord contacted the developer, who confirmed no reports were made to them about this during the defects period. The landlord also referred the resident to NHBC and gave her the developer’s contact details on the same day. These were fair and proportionate steps.
12. While the situation was clearly frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s responses were fair and proportionate. It consistently said it was not responsible for inspections or repairs, as no reports were made during the defects period, which ended in June 2019. Considering the resident’s lease’s terms, the landlord was under no obligation to inspect or repair for the powder. There was no maladministration in its handling of the reports of powder.

13. The resident complained on 29 February 2024, which the landlord acknowledged in good time on 1 March 2024, within 5 working days in line with its customer feedback procedure. It issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2024, within 10 working days in line with its procedure. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 March 2024 and a stage 2 response was provided within 20 working days on 22 March 2024, again in line with its procedure. While the stage 2 acknowledgement was sent 2 working days outside the procedure’s timescale on 18 March 2024, there is no evidence of any negative effects on the resident from this brief delay. Overall, its formal responses were timely and detailed, and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

14. We did not identify any record keeping or communication concerns with the landlord’s handling of these matters.