The Riverside Group Limited (202400801)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202400801

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

The Riverside Group Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

21 January 2026

Background

  1. The resident has lived in his flat since June 1985. The flat is in a block that has 2 communal security gates and intercom access. His daughter represented him in this complaint.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gates and intercom.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with:
    1. Repairs to the communal gates and intercom.
    2. The resident’s complaint.
  2. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord did not follow its responsive repairs policy. There is also evidence of poor communication, poor record keeping, and a lack of effective contract management.
  2. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s first complaint. When the resident complained again, there were significant delays in sending responses at both stages.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

 

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than 18 February 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation made up as follows:

  • £600 for failures relating to repairs to the communal gate and intercom.
  • £200 for delays in responding to the complaint.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.

No later than 18 February 2026

3

Inspection order

The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the gates and intercom by the due date to assure itself that they are working correctly. Following this, it must give the resident and Ombudsman a clear update within 2 weeks on what it has found. Where it needs to do repairs, the update must include clear timeframes on when it will complete the work.

No later than 18 February 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

20 June 2022

The first report from the resident about repairs to communal gates that we have seen. This was followed by him asking the landlord for updates in July and September 2022, and it telling him on 23 September 2022 that a repair would take place on 11 October 2022.

28 March 2023

The resident complained that a gate would not lock and was making a banging noise when it closed. He said the intercom had been vandalised. He wanted to know why there had been a problem with the gates for years and why the landlord ignored him. He complained again on 17 November 2023 about faults with the gates.

5 March 2024

In its complaint response, the landlord said it had asked its contractor to repair the gates. It said its contractor told it that when it visited, it did not know which gate to repair. It said it had raised a new repair for 5 April 2024, and the contractor would contact the resident. It apologised for the delay and said it would discuss this at the next contractor meeting.

9 April 2024

The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said there had been an attempted break-in in his block and that he had received no contact from the contractor on 5 April 2024.

21 June 2024

In its final complaint response, the landlord said its contractor attended on 17 June 2024 and started work. It said it would complete repairs on 25 June 2024.

Referral to the Ombudsman

In his escalation to us, the resident said the communal gates and intercom did not work as they should. He said the landlord had upgraded key fobs, but had not given residents enough fobs, so they left the gates wedged open. He said strangers walked in, bikes had been stolen, and he felt unsafe. He wanted a permanent repair to the gates and intercom.

 

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.

Complaint

How the landlord dealt with repairs to the communal gates and intercom

Finding

Maladministration

What we have not investigated

  1. The resident complained that problems with the gates “go back years”. The Ombudsman’s Scheme says we may not investigate matters that a resident did not refer to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The first report we have seen about the gates was in June 2022, with a complaint made in March 2023. Because of this, we will not investigate events before June 2022.
  2. The resident continued to raise concerns about the gates and intercom after the landlord’s final response in June 2024. We will not investigate these, unless they relate to actions the landlord said it would take in its final response. This is because the Scheme says we cannot investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may raise a new complaint with the landlord about events since it issued its final response.

What we have investigated

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has a responsibility for repairs to the “common parts” at the block of flats. This includes communal gates and intercoms.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will do urgent repairs within 5 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. We have seen the landlord responded to the resident’s report about communal gates on 20 June 2022. We have not seen the resident’s original report but have seen the resident chased the landlord for an update on 25 July 2022. He said contractors had phoned him to say they would visit to look at the gate. He said there was still a problem with the gate, which compromised security. The landlord responded on 30 July 2022 and said it had sent the contractors an email asking them to contact the resident with an update. It apologised that he had not had an update.
  4. It is our view that there was a failure in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s report at this time. It had passed the report to its contractor but does not appear to have checked progress with the repairs, as over a month had passed since the report.
  5. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 19 September 2022. The landlord replied on 23 September 2022 and said the contractor would do the repairs by 11 October 2022. We have not seen a record of what work the contractor did. However, 11 October 2022 was almost 4 months after the resident raised concerns about the gates and security at the flats. It is our view that this was a failure by the landlord to follow its responsive repairs policy.
  6. On 7 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord if it could repair the gate. It is unclear from the information we have what the fault was. We have seen no further communications until the resident complained on 28 March 2023 about a lack of a response. In his complaint, the resident said the gate would not lock and caused noise and vibrations when residents let it bang close. He said vandals had dismantled the intercom panel to stop the gate from locking. He said there had been problems for years and the landlord was ignoring him.
  7. The landlord told the resident on 19 May 2023 that it was going to install CCTV cameras because of regular damage to the door entry system. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take in response to concerns about security and vandalism. However, in January 2026, the resident told us the landlord installed “dummy” cameras. We have not seen evidence to confirm whether the cameras were dummy or working.
  8. The resident complained on 17 November 2023 about the time taken to repair the communal gates. A landlord internal email on 20 November 2023 noted there were 2 gates with fob access. It said both gates were not flush, and the front gate had bowed. It said both gates banged loudly when closed and the resident had said there was structural damage to the rear wall due to the banging. The landlord told the resident in its complaint acknowledgement that it would repair the gates by 23 November 2023.
  9. We have seen no further communications or evidence of repairs until the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. In this it accepted it had raised several repairs. It said it had asked its contractor why it had not fixed the gates. It said the contractor gave an unsatisfactory response about its engineer attending and not knowing which gate needed repairs. It said it had raised a new repair for 5 April 2024 and had emailed the contractor with the exact location of the gates. It said the contractor would meet the resident when it did the repairs. It apologised for the time taken to do the repairs. It said it would raise the complaint at the next contractor meeting and would keep the complaint open until he was satisfied with the repair outcome.
  10. It is our view that it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay, arrange a new appointment, and say it would keep the case open. It was also positive that it said it would raise the issue at the next contractor meeting. However, it had acknowledged that it had raised several repairs and had not completed the work. It also accepted the contractor’s explanation was not reasonable. It is our view that it should have been aware that its contractor had not completed the work. This was a failure to effectively manage the contractor and repairs.
  11. On 4 April 2024 the landlord appropriately contacted the contractor and asked it to make sure that its engineer attending the following day contacted the resident. The contractor said it would make sure this happened.
  12. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 9 April 2024. He said the contractor did not call him on 5 April 2024 and because of the unsecure gates there had been a break-in at one of the flats in the block.
  13. In its complaint response on 21 June 2024, the landlord accepted that the contractor did not attend on 5 April 2024. It said another contractor attended on 17 June 2024 and had started work in preparation for the first contractor to complete repairs on 25 June 2024. Records we have seen show it completed the work on 25 June 2024.
  14. In January 2026 the resident told us the landlord did further work on the gates in January 2025, but he still had concerns. He said the front gate opened automatically when a resident presented their fob but stayed open too long. He said the back gate still banged against the wall because the magnets were too weak. He said because the landlord only gave households 2 fobs, some residents left the gates open causing security risks. He said there were issues with the intercom, as some residents were turning the system off by accessing the switch box.
  15. Overall, we have found there were significant failings in how the landlord dealt with repairs to the communal gate and intercom. It is unclear whether the resident’s reports of problems with the gates were about the same issue or different faults. However, regardless of this, it is our view that the landlord did not follow its responsive repairs policy, as there were significant delays after individual reports and until it completed work in June 2024. This caused some concern to the resident over a 2-year period. There is evidence of significant gaps in communication with the resident. It also appears there was poor record keeping, as the landlord was not aware of whether repairs had been done. Finally, there is evidence that it did not effectively manage its relationship with its contractor.
  16. These failings caused inconvenience for the resident, as he had to chase the landlord several times about the repairs. He also arranged to meet a contractor who did not turn up. The delays caused him distress, as he felt unsafe in his home because of non-residents walking into the block of flats through unsecure gates. He reported break-ins, thefts, and vandalism. Because of these failings, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation as follows:
    1. £100 for time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
    2. £100 for poor record keeping and communication failures.
    3. £200 for delays in doing repairs.
    4. £200 for the distress caused.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first complained about a lack of response to his concerns about the gates on 28 March 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged or responded to this complaint. We have found this was a significant failure.
  3. On 17 November 2023 the resident complained again. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 November 2024 but did not send a response until 5 March 2024, which was over 3 months later. We have found this was another significant failure.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 April 2024. We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement. The landlord again delayed in sending a response and did not send its final response until 21 June 2024. This was over 10 weeks after the resident asked it to escalate his complaint.
  5. Overall, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint, as it did not follow its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s first complaint in March 2023. When the resident complained again in November 2023, there were significant delays in sending responses at both stages that amounted to 6 months in total.
  6. These delays caused inconvenience to the resident, and in our view contributed to the delay in repairing the gates. Because of these failings, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation.

Learning

  1. The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord did not have a clear record of what work its contractor had done on the gates. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

  1. There were significant gaps in the landlord’s communication with the resident following his reports and complaints.