The Riverside Group Limited (202402407)

Decision
Case ID	202402407
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	23 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat within a leasehold development. The landlord has told us that many of the flats within the block are sub-let by its leaseholders.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports:
   1. the communal front door was insecure
   2. of a broken electric meter cupboard door
   3. of graffiti in communal areas
   4. of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including criminal activity
   5. the communal side gate required repair
   6. of fly tipping and poor waste management
   7. of a rat infestation in communal area, including dead rats within the car park
   8. that the CCTV was not working
3. We have also looked at how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. reports the communal front door was insecure
   2. reports of a broken electric meter cupboard door
   3. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including criminal activity
   4. reports the communal side gate required repair
   5. reports that the CCTV was not working
   6. the resident’s complaint
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. reports of fly tipping and poor waste management.
   2. graffiti in communal areas
   3. a rat infestation in communal area, including dead rats within the car park

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Insecure communal front door

6. The landlord failed to resolve a recurring issue with the communal door in a timely way. It took over a year to consider a permanent fix and 7 months to complete it which was outside its repair policy timescale. There was a lack of proactive communication with the resident.

Electric meter cupboard door

7. The time taken to complete repairs to the electric meter cupboard door was outside of its repair policy timescale. It did not keep the resident updated about the repair.

Graffiti in communal areas

8. The landlord did not remove graffiti within its stated timeframe but communicated with the resident effectively. This included updates on when the graffiti would be removed and when the removal was completed.

ASB, including criminal activity

9. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy by not opening a case or completing a risk assessment for 18 months. It did not provide timely updates to the resident and failed to show it took a collaborative approach with other agencies.

Broken communal side gate

10. The time taken to complete repairs to the side gate was outside its repair policy timescale on 2 occasions. It did not keep the resident updated on the repairs.

Fly tipping and waste management

11. The landlord promptly responded to each report of fly tipping, clearing rubbish within its policy timescale. It took proactive steps to try and prevent future incidents, including installing cameras and improving signage. It clearly communicated with the resident and worked with contractors and other agencies to put reasonable steps in place to try and prevent poor waste management.

Rat infestation, including dead rats in the car park

12. The landlord took reasonable steps to manage the pest issue. It kept the resident updated regularly about the actions being taken.

CCTV not working

13. The landlord failed to confirm whether its CCTV was working for 4 months and did not keep the resident updated during this time.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord repeatedly failed to meet its own complaint response timescales and did not keep the resident informed about delays. Although it offered some compensation, this did not reflect the level of distress caused by the repeated failings.

 

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 identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff who deals with housing or complaints. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,300 made up as follows: £500 for the impact relating to the handling of ASB reports £400 for the impact relating to the insecure front communal door £150 for the impact relating to the handling of the complaint £100 for the impact relating to the repair to the side gate £100 for the impact relating to the electric meter cupboard door £50 for the impact relating to the report the CCTV was not working 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 paid.	No later than 20 November 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 December 2023	The resident made his first complaint about the broken communal front door, which had been damaged for several months. He said the police got involved because the broken door allowed unauthorised people to enter the building. These individuals were causing ASB, including drug use, and were vandalising the area with graffiti, breaking doors, and leaving rubbish in the communal spaces. The CCTV was not working, and there was fly tipping and waste around the bin stores, which had led to a rat infestation.
15 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and asked for any evidence to support the issues he raised.
22 December 2023	The landlord requested an extension to respond. It said a response would be provided at stage 1 of its complaint process by 9 January 2024.
28 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the delay in resolving the issues. It confirmed that it removed fly-tipped rubbish and repaired the electric meter door in January 2024. The communal front door was fixed in February 2024, and there had been no further reports of unauthorised access. Graffiti was removed from communal areas, and the landlord was in the process of renewing its CCTV contractor. It said it would update leaseholders once it had more information about the next steps for CCTV.
15 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, saying the issues from his first complaint were still happening. The communal door lock was broken again, and someone had forced open the electric meter cupboard. Graffiti had reappeared in the communal areas, the side gate did not close properly, and unauthorised people were still entering the block. He was also unhappy about the delay in installing working CCTV and reported more fly tipping.
17 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint
16 May 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and said it had completed all works raised in the initial complaint. However, ongoing criminal activity in the area had reversed some of the progress made. CCTV installation was delayed due to GDPR but had since been approved. The electric meter door was replaced on 23 April 2024 after repeated damage. Repairs to the communal side gate were pending, and a new job was raised for the front door. The landlord installed fly tipping signs and arranged rubbish and graffiti removal for 18 May 2024. It told the resident to report criminal activity to the police. The complaint was upheld due to poor communication, and the landlord said it would give feedback to relevant teams. It confirmed it would continue repairs and monitor ASB within expected timescales.
24 May 2024	The landlord updated the resident on his complaint. It said it was working with the police to tackle unauthorised access to the block. A staff member gave a witness statement, and the police were treating the incident as a burglary. The police planned to increase their presence at the site. The landlord was installing ANPR cameras and would keep the resident informed. It had fitted a push-button lock to the electric meter door to improve security. The locks on the communal front door and side gate had been vandalised. The landlord had submitted an insurance claim and was waiting for a part so its contractor could carry out the repair.
1 August 2024 to 2 August 2024	The resident raised a new complaint as he discovered dead rats in the car park. He said that the pest control measures put in place were ineffective. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 August 2024.
21 August 2024 to 22 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and said its pest control contractor believed the treatment was working. It explained that while seeing dead rats in the communal car park was unpleasant, it showed the pest control was effective. The landlord acknowledged that it should have communicated this better and said it understood the resident’s concerns. It asked the resident to report any dead rats so it could arrange removal. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 August 2024 because he was not satisfied with the response.
31 October 2024 to 5 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said that its response at stage 1 was accurate. The presence of dead rats was evidence that its pest control treatment was working. The complaint would be closed as upheld due to poor communication. Following further communication with the resident the landlord offered to send a £25 voucher as a goodwill gesture.
17 April 2024	The resident referred his complaint to us. He has told us that the issues were ongoing and that he had raised further complaints with the landlord since October 2024. To resolve the complaint, he asked for everything to be resolved and for compensation to be paid in line with our guidelines.

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	Broken front communal door
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

15. We understand the resident has made several new complaints following the 2 formal complaints raised in December 2023 and August 2024. These new complaints include both fresh concerns and some ongoing issues already covered within the scope of this investigation. To keep the scope clear and manageable, we have decided to assess issues up to October 2024 as part of this case. Any complaints raised on or after 10 October 2024 will be treated as a new Ombudsman case. We will contact both parties about the new cases in due course.

What we did investigate

16. The resident reported the front communal door required repair 3 times between January and July 2023. It was known that the issue with the communal door was repeating as unauthorised people were entering the block and damaging the door for access. The landlord dealt with these repair reports reasonably. Each time a repair was reported the landlord attended the same day to make the door safe, before attending within 14 days to complete a repair to the door. This is within its Repair Policy timeframe which says emergency repairs would be made safe within 12 hours and then any routine repairs that follow would be completed within 28 calendar days.
17. The resident reported the communal door was broken 4 further times between August 2023 and February 2024 by unauthorised people entering the block. Each time the door was made safe the same day, but no permanent repair was completed until 13 February 2024. This was 190 calendar days after the first report on 7 August 2023. This was far outside of its routine repair timescale of 28 days. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
18. On 4 April 2024 the resident reported a new repair for the communal door. This was made safe by the contractor the same day. They recorded that a new door and frame would likely be required. A contractor then attended on 23 April 2024 and noted a new part would be required for the door to help with security. It took the landlord 7 months to repair the door and install a new ‘self-resetting’ exit system on 22 November 2024. This was an unreasonable delay which was outside its policy timescales. This increased the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
19. There were some mitigating factors for the landlord in handling the front communal door. There was the issue of vandalism and ASB which is dealt with later in this report. Unauthorised people were entering the block and causing damage to the communal door for access. This meant that while the landlord was initially conducting repairs, the same issues were repeating. Additionally, the landlord was reliant on the contractor obtaining the correct part to fix the door.
20. Despite this, the time taken to consider a potential resolution for the repeated issue (the self-resetting system) was unreasonable. The first report was in January 2023, yet it took until April 2024 to consider an alternative to the standard door locking mechanism. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will try to fix an issue ‘first time’, but the same repair was reported 8 times before a more permanent solution was considered. The resident was left having to repeatedly report the same issue in his own time which increased the distress and inconvenience felt.
21. While the landlord is not responsible for the length of time taken to obtain the appropriate part for the door, there is a lack of evidence to show it proactively chased or managed the contractor during the 6 months between April and October 2024. Taking a more proactive approach in managing the repair, such as considering if alternative suppliers or contractors could be used, would have been appropriate.
22. The landlord’s communication throughout this period was lacking. It was not proactive in its communication about the communal door repairs until October 2024. Prior to this, the resident had to chase for updates on at least 10 occasions between April and October 2024. Given the resident was worried about his safety and security, this failure increased the distress felt. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it will always communicate effectively in relation to the delivery of its repairs service.
23. As there was a failure which impacted the resident and the landlord did not offer anything to put this right, we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation. This considers the mitigating factors, including that this was a communal repair rather than a direct repair to the resident’s property. This is in line with our remedies guidance where we have found maladministration.

Complaint	Electric meter cupboard door
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

24. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

25. The resident reported the meter door had been broken and a report made to the police on 10 August 2023. The landlord’s repair policy says that health and safety issues are treated as urgent and will be repaired within 5 calendar days. The landlord considered this to be a safety issue as it referred the repair to its Building Safety team. The repair to the door was completed within the policy timeframe.
26. As part of his formal complaint the resident reported the electric cupboard door was broken again. This was repeated in the escalation of his complaint. It took the landlord 130 days from the report in December 2023 to fix the electric cupboard door. On 23 April 2024 it installed a cupboard door with a new ‘combi-lock and push button’ system to try and resolve the issue more permanently. While it was positive the landlord was looking at permanent solutions to the issue, the time taken to fix the door was outside of its repair policy timescales. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
27. A further lock change was completed by the landlord on 12 August 2024 after the resident reported the meter cupboard door was open on 30 July 2024. This repair was completed within 13 days, which was outside of its policy timescales for urgent repairs. This further increased the resident’s distress regarding the matter.
28. The failings caused an adverse impact to the resident, and this impact was compounded by a lack of clear and effective communication between December 2023 and April 2024. During this period the landlord did not keep the resident updated on its actions as set out in its Repairs Policy. This meant the resident was left to report the cupboard door was insecure at least 5 further times.
29. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the failures identified. This recognises that there was an impact to the resident, but this was mitigated as the issue was confined to the communal area. The resident’s own property was not directly impacted by the broken electric meter cupboard door.

Complaint	Graffiti in communal areas
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

30. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

31. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says that it will remove graffiti within 28 calendar days. The resident first reported there was graffiti in the communal area on 7 August 2023, this was removed within its policy timescale. The resident told the landlord that there was graffiti in the communal area again on 15 April 2024, the landlord failed to follow its policy timescale. It took 33 days to remove the graffiti.
32. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the graffiti issue was reasonable. It updated the resident when to expect the removal of the graffiti and confirmed when this was completed. The landlord also told the resident in both instances if he witnessed anyone graffitiing the property to report this to the police. This was in line with its Community Safety Policy which confirms that it expects resident’s to report incidents of criminality to the police in the first instance.
33. While there was a failure to meet its policy timescales, the landlord kept the resident updated so he was aware of any delays. Therefore, we consider the actions of the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	ASB, including criminal activity
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

34. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

35. Between April 2023 and August 2023, the resident reported at least 3 times that unauthorised people were accessing the block and causing ASB. This included vandalism, sleeping in the area, using drugs, and leaving drug paraphernalia in communal areas. The landlord did not deal with these concerns until 14 August 2023 when it told the resident it had raised a case with its Building Safety team and had contacted the police about the issue. This did open an ASB case or conduct a risk assessment which did not align with ASB policy. This says that it will acknowledge each case of ASB is different and would complete a risk assessment irrespective of type or category.
36. The resident reported unauthorised people were entering the block a further 3 times between November 2023 and February 2024. While the landlord completed some work to fix the communal door where the unauthorised people were accessing the property, it did not deal with the case in line with its ASB policy. This was highlighted by the resident in the escalation of his complaint on 15 April 2024, where he told the landlord it had not dealt with the ASB issues including drug users in the communal areas.
37. On 30 April 2024 the landlord sent an update to all residents in the block to advise it had contacted the police about the unauthorised access and any resident witnessing people in the communal areas should call the police. It told the resident on 16 May 2024 that it would monitor the ASB issues. However, no ASB case reference was provided to the resident, and no risk assessment was completed. This again failed to align with its ASB policy.
38. The landlord updated the resident on 10 and 25 October 2024. It told the resident that it was working with police and the local council to try and deal with the unauthorised persons. It said it had opened an ASB case and provided an ASB case reference number for the resident. It asked the resident to report any instances of unauthorised access or ASB using this reference number. It was positive that the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident, but this took 18 months. There was an unreasonable delay in opening the case and treating the unauthorised access as ASB under its ASB policy.
39. By failing to treat the case in line with its ASB policy the landlord did not support the resident effectively. Its policy says it will take a harm centred approach and tailor its support to any victims or witnesses, and keep a resident updated. Until October 2024 there is a lack of clear, regular updates provided to the resident explaining the actions it was taking to prevent the ASB from reoccurring. This left the resident with a feeling that the landlord was doing nothing to support him or resolve the issues, as he set out in his complaint.
40. The landlord’s Neighbourhood and Estate Management policy says that it would work in partnership with police and the local council to deal with reports of ASB within the neighbourhoods it manages. While there is some evidence it was liaising with the police about the incidents, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it was in regular contact with them to try and resolve the matter. Nor is there evidence of a joined-up approach with the local council to deal with the ASB issue until October 2024. This lack of prompt action to ensure a joined-up approach meant the resident was left chasing for answers from the landlord. This caused him some distress and inconvenience.
41. We have ordered the landlord to provide compensation of £500 for the failures outlined in this complaint. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused because of the time taken to open the ASB case and failure to follow its own policy. It also considers the mitigating factors which include that the unauthorised people were not tenants of the landlord so there was a limit to the action it could take without police support. This amount also reflects that the ASB was intermittent and in the communal area.

Complaint	Broken communal side gate
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

42. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

43. Between 1 February 2023 and 20 June 2024, the resident reported that the side gate was broken on 6 occasions. These were:
    1. 1 February 2023
    2. 6 March 2023
    3. 24 August 2023
    4. 12 January 2024
    5. 26 April 2024
    6. 20 June 2024
44. The landlord assessed the communal side gate repair as a routine repair. It completed the repairs to the side gate within its Repair policy timescale for routine repairs of 28 days, except for the repairs reported on 24 August 2023 and 20 June 2024.
45. The repair reported on 24 August 2023 took 34 days to complete. The repair reported on 20 June 2024 took 62 days to complete. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the time taken to complete these repairs. This did not align with its repairs policy to always communicate effectively with a resident. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
46. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the impact of the failure to follow its policy. This recognises the time and trouble taken by the resident to chase the repairs in September 2023 and July 2024. The impact was mitigated as this was a communal repair and did not impact directly on the resident’s home.

Complaint	Fly tipping and waste management
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

47. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

48. The resident reported concerns about fly tipping as part of his complaint. Between August 2023 and October 2024, the landlord arranged contractors to attend the block 12 times to clear rubbish that had been fly tipped. Each report of fly tipping made was logged and cleared within its repair policy timescale of 5 days. This was reasonable and showed the landlord was dealing with each report promptly.
49. In January 2024 the landlord began conversations with a car park contractor to install ANPR cameras. New signage was erected within the block for fly tipping around April 2024. It sent a letter to all tenants, including the resident, on 23 April 2024 to advise that cameras would be installed to try to prevent or deter the fly tipping problems. These cameras were installed and went ‘live’ on 4 September 2024. The resident’s were told amount this at the time. In October 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident it was working with the local council to look at enforcement options for people entering the block to fly tip. This shows the landlord was proactively looking at ways to reduce instances of fly tipping.
50. The landlord had a contractor for waste management at the site to carry out clearance of the communal bins on a weekly basis. The landlord also arranged for yearly decontamination of the bin store areas. The landlord regularly communicated with its bin contractor about waste management and on 20 August 2024 agreed to implement a litter picking service on a 2-weekly basis. Recycling and refuse leaflets were left on communal notice boards around the site with links to local council websites. Communication was sent to tenants within the block, for example on 21 August 2024 which reminded them of the importance to dispose of rubbish correctly. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take in dealing with waste management at the site.
51. We understand that it was upsetting for the resident to see the build-up of rubbish in communal areas. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident about this issue was fair. For example, in its email dated 24 May 2024 it outlined clearly the steps being taken and attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the difficulties in identifying individuals responsible for the fly-tipping and waste management problems.

Complaint	Rat infestation in communal area, including dead rats in the car park
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

52. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

53. The landlord contracted a pest control company to monitor and treat the communal area. Between July 2023 and October 2024, the pest contractor inspected the site around 30 times. The contractor would record if rat activity had been found, how many bait boxes were replenished and if there was any recommended work to treat a specific issue.
54. The landlord acted on each recommendation made by the pest contractor. In November 2023 the contractor proposed treatment to remove vegetation and treat burrows. In January 2024 treatment which included monitoring and removal of nests was conducted. In April and July 2024 ‘riddance’ treatment was used at the recommendation of the contractor to deal with some further nesting burrows. And in August 2024 2-weekly checks began alongside more intensive treatment after higher activity was discovered. By liaising with the pest contractor, the landlord was taking reasonable steps to try and manage the issue.
55. The resident reported that he found 2 dead rats in the communal car park on 1 August 2024. The landlord responded to the report the same day and arranged for its contractor to clear the rats on 8 August. There is no specific timescale within the landlord’s policies for dealing with pest control issues within communal areas. We would expect the landlord to deal with a potential health and safety issue such as this in a reasonable period. The landlord acted promptly when the issue was reported, and a contractor removed the rats within 5 working days. We consider this was reasonable in the circumstances.
56. The evidence shows the landlord regularly updated the resident on the actions it was taking. Between 4 July 2023 and 24 September 2024, we have seen the landlord updated the resident 5 times. The communication with the resident clearly set out it was managing the pest problem and was responding to the residents communication.
57. The landlord may have better managed the resident’s expectations on what it could do in relation to the pest problem. Setting up a communication plan with the resident at an early stage for this issue may have helped alleviate the resident’s concern that nothing was being done to resolve the problem.

Complaint	CCTV not working
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

58. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

59. In the resident’s complaint he said that the landlord’s CCTV was not working. We have no records of what actions, if any, the landlord took to confirm its CCTV was operating correctly. The lack repair or contact records provided to us by the landlord about the CCTV issue has made it difficult for the landlord to evidence it dealt with the repair properly.
60. In its March 2024 complaint response, the landlord said that it was in the process of renewing CCTV contractors to include the car park areas. On 23 April 2024 the landlord confirmed its CCTV was working and that it was installing a separate ANPR camera to cover the car parks. It took the landlord 4 months to confirm to the resident the CCTV was working. The landlord did not update the resident within these 4 months of the actions it was taking to investigate the CCTV. This did not align with its Repair policy which says it will effectively communicate with residents and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
61. We have ordered the landlord pay £50 to the resident for the inconvenience caused by its lack of effective communication and the time taken to confirm the CCTV was working. This also factors in this was a communal area issue and there was no permanent impact to the resident.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

62. As confirmed earlier in this report, we have investigated the issue up to October 2024.

What we did investigate

63. The landlord did not meet its Complaint Policy timescales for either the first or second complaint made by the resident. Its policy says it will provide a resolution plan within 5 working days at stage 1 and 10 working days at stage 2. It says it will let the resident know if it needs to extend the timescales and any extension should be no more than 10 working days.
64. For the resident’s first complaint it took the landlord 71 working days to provide a stage 1 complaint response and 20 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. While it did tell the resident it needed to extend the time for its stage 1 response, it gave a new deadline which it still did not meet. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the reasons for any delays and it did not recognise the failure to follow its policy when responding to the complaint.
65. For the resident’s second complaint it took the landlord 13 working days to response at stage 1, and 50 working days to respond at stage 2. Again, it did not keep the resident updated on the reasons for any delays. As part of its resolution to the second complaint it offered the resident a £25 voucher.
66. This offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a ‘low impact’ failing. It is good the landlord recognised the failing and attempted to put this right, but the offer of compensation does not go far enough. Our remedies guidance suggests a payment of between £100 to £600 may be considered where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident that was not permanent.
67. Given the complaint handling failures were repeated across 2 different formal complaints and happened over both stages of its process, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 for this complaint in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

68. The landlord often carried out short-term repairs or actions without actively looking for permanent solutions. Staff should be encouraged to spot patterns in repeated issues and escalate them sooner for a more strategic and lasting fix.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

69. The landlord’s record keeping in general was good. For many issues there was a clear record of communication between itself and its contractors, and a record of the actions contractors took to deal with issues raised. There was a failure in record keeping for the CCTV issue which highlights the importance of recording all communication and actions on an easily accessible system.

Communication

70. The landlord’s communication with the resident about issues in the communal areas did not meet a reasonable standard. Its own policies say it should communicate effectively, but a theme throughout this case is how communication could be better managed. The landlord must improve how it keeps residents informed about actions it is taking in communal areas. One way to do this is by creating a communication or action plan early on for ongoing issues. This can help set clear expectations for updates, explain how often residents should report problems, and make it easier for residents to understand what the landlord is doing and when.