The Riverside Group Limited (202431077)

Decision
Case ID	202431077
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat. Due to structural concerns, the resident moved into temporary accommodation. The resident has health and mobility issues known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication regarding disrepair works.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about receipt of post.
   3. Handling of service charges.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The landlord’s communication regarding disrepair works is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s postal concerns.
   3. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of service charges.
   4. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Disrepair works

5. We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters where a resident has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

Postal concerns

6. The landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or suggest a solution in response to her concerns about it continuing to send letters to her home address while she lived in temporary accommodation.

Service charges

7. The landlord did not tell the resident when she could expect to see a change in service charges to reflect the suspension of cleaning and gardening services.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed and unnecessarily repeated information included in its stage 1 response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £175 made up as follows: £50 for the distress caused by its failures regarding its response to the resident’s postal concerns. £50 for the distress caused by its failures regarding its handling of service charges. £75 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. 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 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 December 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about matters regarding her home address while she was living in temporary accommodation. The key points were as follows: There had been a lack of communication from the landlord regarding works at her home, how long she would have to stay in temporary accommodation, and whether/when she would be able to return home. The back gate needed repairing. The landlord was continuing to send letters to the resident’s home address. The resident wanted to know why the landlord was paying for cleaners and gardeners while no one was living at the property. The resident requested compensation for items damaged due to damp and mould while the property was empty.
19 December 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
7 January 2025	The landlord phoned the resident to agree an extension. It said it would respond to her complaint by 21 January 2025.
9 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: The landlord was due to review investigations and reports about structural concerns to decide whether to invest or dispose of the resident’s home. It would provide the resident with all reports on previous and current works under its pre-action protocol due to an ongoing disrepair claim. The landlord was sorry that the resident was living in a hotel and that it could not confirm when she could return home. The resident had declined the landlord’s offer of alternative, permanent accommodation. A contractor would visit on 10 January 2025 to establish works required to repair the communal garden fence. The landlord could not send letters to the resident’s temporary accommodation, but the resident could collect letters from her home address. The landlord had suspended cleaning and gardening services, which would be reflected in the resident’s future service charges. The landlord had provided the resident with a form to complete to make a compensation claim for items damaged due to suspected damp and mould at the property.
6 February 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 due to the lack of information regarding works at her home.
11 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
9 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: The landlord repeated some of its stage 1 response. Although the resident said she did not have a solicitor involved in a live disrepair claim, the landlord’s solicitor had recently communicated with legal representatives that she had instructed on 28 June 2023. Its solicitor was considering negotiating financial redress in relation to works at the resident’s home and her resulting move into temporary accommodation. The landlord provided reports dated 12 September 2024 and 27 November 2024, which it had sent to the resident’s solicitor as part of the disrepair case. The landlord said it could not confirm its intentions for the property or how long the resident would be in temporary accommodation until its solicitor reviewed reports regarding the condition of the property. It apologised for the impact of this on the resident.
30 April 2025	The resident referred her complaint to us. She requested that the landlord complete the required works so she could return home and provide compensation for loss of belongings due to damp and mould in 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	Landlord’s communication regarding disrepair works
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. When responding to our request for evidence for this investigation, the landlord provided us with details of a disrepair claim dated 4 September 2023 and the resulting Tomlin Order agreed on 20 March 2024. The landlord said the disrepair case was ongoing and that it was awaiting a revised programme of works to provide to the resident’s solicitor. The resident’s request for information regarding the future of the building forms part of the disrepair issues. Due to the repairs and loss/damage being the subject of legal proceedings, we cannot investigate these issues. The continuation of these issues can be brought back to the court’s attention, including any further claim for loss/damage and the repair to the back gate.

Complaint	Landlord’s response to postal concerns
Finding	Service failure

10. On 18 December 2024, the resident complained that the landlord had continued to send letters to her home address even though she was living in temporary accommodation. An internal landlord email on 23 December 2024 noted that this ‘may pose an issue if they (the letters) get lost at the hotel’. In its stage 1 response on 9 January 2025, the landlord said it could not send post to the resident’s temporary address. However, while this position may have been reasonable, it is unclear why it did not explain its decision.
11. Instead, the landlord said the resident could collect letters from her home. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, which was not in line with its customer care policy and showed a lack of empathy for her situation. Although the landlord was concerned that there was a risk of post getting lost by sending it to the resident’s temporary address, it could have suggested that the resident might wish to arrange to have post redirected at her own risk.

Complaint	Handling of service charges
Finding	Service failure

12. The resident asked why the landlord continued to raise service charges for maintenance while no one lived in the property. In its stage 1 response dated 9 January 2025, the landlord said it had suspended cleaning and gardening services, which it would reflect in the resident’s future service charges. Although this was in line with the tenancy agreement, which says the service charge can be changed if existing services are stopped, the landlord did not clarify when the resident could expect to see any change in her service charges.
13. It was not until the landlord responded to our request for evidence for this investigation that it said any difference in service charges would show in the balancing charge effected for April 2026. The landlord’s failure to communicate this to the resident has led to a finding of service failure.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

14. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition, effective from 1 April 2024. The landlord had a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales for acknowledging and responding to a complaint at each stage of its 2-stage process.
15. The landlord has not provided any record of the phone call that took place on 18 December 2024, during which the resident explained why she wanted to complain. This indicates an issue with its record keeping.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and appropriately confirmed its understanding of the resident’s concerns and requested resolution. Due to being unable to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, it appropriately agreed an extension with the resident. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response 2 working days later. Therefore, it acted in line with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy.
17. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s escalation request, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days of the date that it said it received the request, which was in line with its complaints policy. However, it issued its stage 2 response 21 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated a lot of the information that it provided at stage 1, which was unhelpful. It therefore missed an opportunity to clarify its position and address the resident’s ongoing concerns.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

20. This investigation identified issues with the landlord’s record keeping in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response included a lot of information repeated from its stage 1. It also failed to keep the resident updated regarding its delayed stage 2 complaint response.