The Riverside Group Limited (202417895)

Decision
Case ID	202417895
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

 

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in her home in February 2024. She decided to move out of her property in April 2024 due to outstanding damp and mould works and returned in March 2025. She is asking the landlord to reimburse the rent she paid during the period she did not live at the property.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Level of compensation offered for its handling of the resident’s damp and mould repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the level of compensation the landlord offered for the damp and mould repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlords complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Level of compensation

4. The landlord delayed inspection and repairs beyond its policy timescales and failed to adjust its communication approach, which contributed to further delays. While it offered compensation for the loss of one room, it did not explain how the amount was calculated, or if it was in line with its compensation policy.

 

Handling of the complaint

5. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code by closing the stage 1 complaint prematurely, not keeping full records, and issuing its stage 2 response later than the agreed extension.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must reconsider and provide evidence of how it calculated the compensation for the loss of 1 room in line with its policy, including the period used for the calculation and why. It must explain how much compensation is for each of the two specific issues. If the correct amount for the loss of use of 1 bedroom exceeds what has already been paid, the landlord must pay the resident the difference.	No later than 06 January 2026
	Compensation order For the failings found in this report the landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £150 for not clearly explaining its compensation calculation. £150 for its poor complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 January 2026

 

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February – April 2024	The resident reported damp and mould in her home on 20 February. She contacted the landlord again on 26 February as she had not received a response. The landlord replied on 12 March and carried out an inspection on 4 April. The inspection identified low-level damp in the bedroom, and the landlord raised work to address the issue.
5 August 2024	The resident told the landlord that she had moved out of the property in April because she was concerned about the damp and mould.
19 August 2024	Copies of the resident’s original complaint and the landlord’s response to it have not been provided. The records show the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that: The landlord continued to book appointments for the outstanding work when she was not at home. She asked the landlord to call her instead of sending text messages to confirm appointments, but the landlord did not do this. She told the landlord she had moved out of the property on 27 April because the work was still outstanding. She asked the landlord to complete the outstanding work so she could return to the property and requested a refund of rent paid from the date she moved out.
19 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
3 September 2024	The landlord informed the resident that the complaint response would be delayed and that it would provide a response by 14 October.
28 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, it said: It attempted to contact the resident about her complaint multiple times in June. It sent a letter on 14 June requesting a response by 20 June or the complaint would be closed. The resident contacted the landlord before the deadline and asked for the complaint to remain open. It closed the residents complaint after works were booked. All works were completed on 28 November except skirting boards, which would be refitted once plaster dried. The landlord acknowledged delays in the initial inspection (reported 20 February, inspected 4 April), and that the resident lost use of a bedroom and it continued to text her after requesting phone calls. The landlord apologised and offered £660.03 compensation for the initial inspection delays and loss of use of the bedroom. On 21 November, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the compensation, stating two rooms were unusable. The landlord repeated its original offer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that: She moved out on 27 April 2024 due to health concerns and advised by a health professional and returned on 5 March 2025. She was seeking reimbursement for the rent and council tax she paid for the period she did not live at the property.

 

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	The level of compensation.
Finding	Service failure

6. The resident reported damp and mould on 20 February 2024 and chased the landlord on 26 February. An inspection was booked for 4 April, which identified low-level damp in the bedroom. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states inspections should be completed within 7 working days and repairs within 28 working days. Records show that damp and mould work was complete in November. Further work remained outstanding to reinstall the radiators and skirting boards that had been removed for the repairs. This was completed in February 2025.
7. The records show that the resident explained her availability to the landlord, but it continued to attend on days when she was unavailable, resulting in no access. She also requested that the landlord call her before making appointments rather than send text messages, but this adjustment was not adhered to on several occasions. These communication failures contributed to delays.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that if it is unsafe for occupants to remain in the property while works are carried out, it will arrange alternative accommodation. In this case, there are no records showing that the landlord told the resident it was unsafe to remain in the property while works were outstanding.
9. The resident said she moved out in late April 2024, but the landlord’s records show it was informed of this in August 2024. A phone call took place shortly after to discuss medical documentation, though it is unclear what was said. The resident told us that, during a phone call with the landlord at the time of her escalated complaint, she said she was moving out of the property due to health concerns. However, the landlord’s records do not confirm these concerns were raised.
10. The resident’s liability to pay the rent on her home is set out in the tenancy agreement. Her liability remained even if she was not living at the property. Because of that there were no grounds for the landlord to agree to her request for a full rent refund. Council tax is not something the landlord was responsible for, so any queries the resident has about that should be raised with the relevant council.
11. The landlord’s financial redress procedure states if part or all a of a home is uninhabitable due to delays in repairs for which the landlord is responsible, financial redress may be payable. This is calculated as a reduction in rent based on the number of rooms unavailable for use as a percentage of habitable rooms, over a period from “the date that the repair was due for completion until the work is completed”.
12. The landlord accepted that the bedroom was unusable and said it would compensate for that. The resident disputed this, explaining that the living room was used to store bedroom furniture and was therefore also unusable. The landlord did not agree and maintained its original compensation offer. It was the damp and mould that made the bedroom uninhabitable, which was not present in the living room. Accordingly, while the situation was understandably inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision was in line with its compensation policy.
13. However, it is not clear from the landlord’s complaint responses how it calculated the level of compensation. It combined compensation for two issues, the delays and the uninhabitable room, into one total amount of £660.03. Without explaining the specific manner in which it arrived at that amount and how much was for each issue or over what period, it is not possible for us to consider if the landlord acted in line with its policy. On the face of it, given the lengthy period the repairs took to be completed the amount does not seem proportionate to the facts of the case.
14. Overall, while the landlord was not liable to reimburse rent and council tax for the period the resident did not live at the property, it appropriately offered compensation for the loss of one room which it agreed was uninhabitable. However, it did not explain how the amount was calculated. The figure does not appear to align with its own policy for the loss of use of one room for this period. It is also unclear how much of the compensation amount was for its initial delay.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

15. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Stage 1 requires contact with the resident the day after the complaint, agreement on a resolution timeframe, and a written plan within 5 working days. Further actions should be completed within 10 working days, after which the complaint can be closed. If there is no engagement within 10 working days, the landlord should issue a closure notice after three contact attempts. A written response is mandatory for all stage 1 complaints. Stage 2 requires acknowledgement of escalation and a decision within 10 working days.
16. The Ombudsman’s Code requires landlords to provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a final stage 2 response within 20 working days. Stage 2 extensions must not exceed 20 working days and must be explained to the resident.
17. On 13 June 2024, the landlord records show it wrote to the resident stating it had tried to contact her three times and that the complaint would close on 20 June if no contact was made. The resident responded within the deadline on 19 June asking for the complaint to remain open. The landlord told the resident it closed the complaint because works were booked. When the Service asked it to provide its stage 1 response, it said it could not locate a copy on its records. The Code requires for landlords to keep a full history of the complaint.
18. The resident escalated to stage 2 as she had requested rent reimbursement while away from the property and had not received a response. The landlord did not respond to this in its stage 2 reply. The stage 2 was acknowledged on 19 August 2024. On 3 September, the landlord requested a 20-day extension and said it would respond by 14 October. The final response was issued on 28 November, later than agreed.
19. As was explained above, the landlord was not obliged to reimburse the full rent amount. Nonetheless, it should have explained this in its response to the resident in order to address the issue.
20. The landlord did not keep full stage 1 records which shows poor record keeping, it exceeded its agreed extension at stage 2 and failed to address the resident’s concerns about moving out. It did not acknowledge these failings or offer redress. These actions do not align with the Code or the landlord’s own complaint handling policies.

Learning

21. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code to understand the importance of timely and effective complaint responses and consider implementing improvements to reduce the risk of future failures.