The Riverside Group Limited (202440889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440889

The Riverside Group Limited

29 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed first floor flat. The resident’s daughter has assisted her in speaking to the landlord and bringing her complaint, as the resident is elderly and has heart problems. For ease of reference, any actions her daughter has taken on her behalf will be referred to as the resident’s actions throughout this report.
The resident reported water coming through her bedroom ceiling on a number of occasions from 13 March 2023 onwards. She made a complaint on 3 October 2024. She said the ceiling was leaking again, this was an ongoing issue, and that she could not use her bedroom as a result.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 October 2024. It said it had attended that day and carried out further repairs to the roof. This included renewing the felt and battens, and overhauling roof tiles. It said the resident had confirmed she was happy with the repair, but was concerned about further repairs being needed in future. It said she wanted an assessment of the roof to confirm if it needed to be replaced. It confirmed it would repair the roof as and when needed, but it would only replace the roof if it was no longer repairable.
The resident was unhappy with the response, so escalated her complaint. She said she felt the landlord was just completing patch repairs, and should have inspected the roof fully to check if it needed to be replaced. She said she wanted to be sure the roof was secure for winter. She reported further roof leaks from 8 October 2024 onwards.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. It said its operatives had confirmed that staining to the resident’s bedroom ceiling was old staining, rather than from a current leak. It said it also inspected the roof on 10 December 2024, and found no faults with the roof. It acknowledged a delay in its stage 2 response, so offered a £50 shopping voucher. It also confirmed it would arrange to repaint the ceiling.
The resident was unhappy with the response, so referred her complaint to us. She said:
1. There had been endless stress and inconvenience, and she was unable to use her bedroom. She had her bedroom furniture in the living room.
2. Operatives had visited to do repairs multiple times, but there was still a leak as of 7 January 2025.
3. She did not think the landlord had done enough to put things right. She said she wanted the landlord to confirm there were no outstanding issues with the roof, as well as compensation for stress, inconvenience, and the cost of redecoration and carpets.

Events post complaint

Since the complaint was referred to us, there have been further roof leaks and works to resolve the leak. The landlord has raised works orders to insulate the loft, install 4 tile vents, stain block the bedroom ceiling, and replace a loose roof tile. The landlord’s operative confirmed on 22 May 2025 that there was no roof leak and everything was fine. The resident said that operative told her the ceiling was still wet, but the landlord told them to stain block the ceiling anyway.
The landlord then recorded a further roof leak on 6 June 2025, and re-fixed and sealed the flashing on 10 June 2025. The evidence provided does not confirm whether the leaks are now resolved.

Assessment and findings

Roof leak

It is common ground that the landlord is responsible for roof repairs. Its responsive repairs policy says it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 working days. This is standard across the industry. The policy also says that if an inspection is necessary to determine what works are needed, the landlord will complete that inspection within 7 calendar days.
The repair records the landlord provided to us are incomplete. While they show the date the landlord raised works orders, and some limited information about repair works, they do not show when the resident reported issues, the date it completed some of the works, or inspection notes from most of the operatives who inspected or repaired the roof. This has hampered our investigation into the complaint. Based on the incomplete repair records provided, the timeline of repairs is as follows:
1. Following a report on or around 13 March 2023, the landlord completed works to the roof on 8 April 2023. Those works included replacing a lead valley and strip around the window, resealing it, and renewing the flashings.
2. On 26 August 2023, the resident reported a ceiling collapse. The landlord attended an out of hours appointment to make the area safe. It raised works orders to seal roof lead cracks on 24 November 2023 (after the resident requested a delay in the appointment). It removed and reinstated the ceiling on 21 March 2024.
3. On 23 May 2024, following another report of a roof leak, the landlord replaced a lead soaker, as water was getting into the property behind the existing soaker.
4. On 8 September 2024, after another report of a roof leak, the landlord raised a works order. It put up scaffolding on 11 September 2024, and re-sealed the flashing. The resident says the roof was leaking again on 15 September 2024, and she reported this to the landlord. The landlord has provided no record of this.
5. Following a call from the resident on 3 October 2024, the landlord booked an inspection the following day. Its contact notes say a roofer attended and found a pinhole in the membrane which was letting water in, and that they repaired it. The landlord also said in its stage 1 response that it renewed felt and battens, and overhauled roof tiles. This was not included in the repair records provided.
6. On 8 October 2024, the resident reported that the roof was leaking again. The landlord arranged an inspection on 18 October 2024. While it says this was a different leak, its notes contain no information about the inspection, the identified source of the leak, or the works completed.
7. The landlord had its operatives visit the property on 20 November 2024 while inspecting a neighbour’s roof. They spoke to the resident, who advised the leak was ongoing. There is no evidence of them completing any inspection. The landlord recorded this as “no access”. There is no evidence that the resident refused access. The resident said the operatives never asked to come inside, and instead gave details of works they would complete. It is now common ground that the operatives gave information about repairs for the wrong property.
8. On 21 November 2024, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking. The landlord arranged an inspection for 5 December 2024. This was in response to chasing from the complaints team, who were delaying a stage 2 response pending an inspection.
9. The records show the roofing team had not booked any further inspections or works until chased by the complaints team. This was because they maintained the resident had refused access previously, despite being made aware the operatives gave information about the wrong property, and had spoken to the resident.
10. The operatives who inspected on 5 December 2024 reported the “stain has gone no worse looks like an old stain”. The landlord has provided no details of the investigations carried out, or whether its operatives looked at the roof or loft above the stain.
11. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it reinspected on 10 December 2024, but found no faults. There is no record of any such inspection in the repair records provided, or in the landlord’s contact notes.
12. The landlord fitted tile vents on 13 January 2025, removed broken tiles on 24 April 2025, and re-fixed and sealed the flashing on 10 June 2025.
It is apparent from the landlord’s repair records that there have been persistent problems with roof leaks at the property, which start again within either days or months of a previous repair. The resident believes that the landlord has not properly inspected the roof, and is instead only completing patch repairs which do not resolve the issue. She wants the landlord to carry out a full inspection and assess whether or not the roof needs to be replaced. The landlord says it will continue to repair the roof, but would only replace it when it could no longer repair it.
When a repair falls under a landlord’s repair obligations, it is required to carry out a repair within a reasonable timeframe. It can be difficult to identify the source of a roof leak, and such leaks may not necessarily be successfully resolved at a first repair appointment. As such, there having been a number of visits does not automatically mean the landlord handled the leak unreasonably. A landlord is also entitled to repair the roof rather than replacing it where possible to do so. We would only expect it to replace the roof if it could not complete a lasting repair.
However, if a landlord keeps receiving reports of a recurring repair issue, we would expect it to carry out a more detailed technical inspection. This would help it to identify the underlying issue (or multiple issues), which would enable it to carry out a lasting repair.
In this case the landlord has arranged various inspections and repairs by roofers, as set out above. However, the records it has provided do not include details of the inspections it carried out, and some inspections it referred to in its complaint response are entirely absent from its repair logs. As such, we cannot conclude those inspections took place as stated or that the inspections it can show took place included an appropriate level of investigation into the underlying cause of the leaks.
When it has logged works (or concluded no works were needed) following an inspection, it has not shown how those conclusions were reached. For example, when its operatives concluded the stain from the leak was an old stain, there were no details of any damp readings or similar which would enable them to reasonably reach that conclusion.
When we requested copies of any inspection notes or survey reports, it said it had never had a surveyor look at the roof, and confirmed it had provided all of its records. In view of the history of water ingress and continued inconvenience to the resident, we would have expected it to arrange a more detailed survey to identify all likely causes of the ongoing leaks, rather than attempting a series of individual patch repairs. It did not do so, which was a failing.
It is also apparent from the communication between the landlord and the resident that she did not feel the landlord took either the recurring leaks or her concerns seriously. We have also not seen evidence that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident about the causes of the leaks, the repair attempts, or its intentions for providing a lasting resolution to the leaks. It has also not shown that it took any steps to test the effectiveness of its repairs once complete, which it would have been reasonable to do given the history of repeated leaks at the property.
As a result of the above, we find there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the leak. We have therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
In addition to sending a written apology to the resident, the landlord must arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the bedroom ceiling, loft space, and roof. It must instruct the surveyor to complete a full survey report setting out the inspections carried out, their findings, and any recommendations to provide a lasting resolution to the recurring leaks, as well as whether the roof can continue to be patch repaired or needs to be replaced.
Following the report, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm the results of the survey, details of any works it will complete following the survey (including any redecoration following those works), and when it will complete them.
We also consider that the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the leak. The evidence provided shows the resident has lived with leaks into her bedroom for a significant length of time. While the leaks were not constant, they recurred regularly. This would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience.
In addition to this, the resident has confirmed that she could not use the downstairs bedroom because of the leaks, and had to store her bedroom furniture in the living room for 6 months. While there is a second bedroom which the resident was able to use, she has confirmed that doing so was against medical advice, as her medical conditions required her to have a bedroom on the ground floor.
It is not within our remit to determine whether or not having to use the upstairs bedroom instead of her ground floor bedroom had any effect on the resident’s health and wellbeing. That would be a matter for a court to determine, as they can consider medical evidence and determine personal injury claims. However, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience caused, and having to take action you believe may be harmful to your health because of ongoing leaks would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the landlord must pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repeated leaks. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which negatively affect a resident.
This compensation takes into account the history of water ingress in the property, the resident being unable to sleep in the downstairs bedroom and having to store bedroom furniture in the living room, and the inevitable distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of meaningful or proactive communication from the landlord. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not include the £50 shopping voucher offered, as that was offered purely for the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident also said she believes the landlord should pay compensation for carpet she says was damaged by the leaks. An insurer would be best placed to assess the cause of the damage and the value of any damaged items, as well as whether or not the landlord was responsible for the damage. We would only expect a landlord to consider compensation for any such losses if its insurer would not cover the claim, for example if the cause of the damage was not covered under the policy. As such, the landlord must provide details of its liability insurer to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has offered the resident a £50 shopping voucher for delays in its complaint response, and offered to repaint her bedroom ceiling. The resident said the £50 was not enough given the amount of time the roof had been leaking. However, it is important to note that the compensation offered was solely for delays in complaint handling. It was not for any failings in dealing with the roof leak.
The landlord is required to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint, and within 20 working days of an escalation request. Its stage 1 response was issued within a reasonable time. However, its response does not indicate a meaningful investigation into the complaint. This is because, while it explained what repairs it had carried out that day, it made no mention of the repairs or its actions prior to that point, or the resident having been unable to use her bedroom. Those were both aspects of the complaint, which the landlord should have investigated.
The landlord accepts its stage 2 response was delayed. It issued its response 51 working days after the escalation request, which is more than double the amount of time allowed under the Complaint Handling Code. The evidence provided shows this was because it wanted to arrange an inspection to reassure the resident.
It was not necessary for the landlord to delay the complaint response until it had completed the inspection, and the records provided show no reasonable explanation for why the landlord could not have arranged a full inspection sooner. As set out above, the resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2024. The landlord knew from 8 October 2024 that the roof was leaking again. It arranged a visit on 18 October 2024, which was not a full inspection.
The landlord’s operatives visited on 21 November 2024, spoke to the resident, gave information about a different property, and then left. The landlord incorrectly recorded this as ‘no access’, and failed to arrange any further visits until pushed to do so by the complaints team, despite being informed of what happened. Either appointment could have been a full inspection had the landlord arranged it. As such, while its complaints team took steps to chase the repairs team for an inspection, the poor handling of the leak then unreasonably delayed the complaint response.
However, while the stage 2 response was unreasonably delayed, the landlord’s complaints team updated the resident throughout that time. This reduced the impact on the resident. And £50 is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. As such, the compensation is a reasonable offer of redress, and the landlord has done enough to put things right with regard to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to our involvement which resolves its complaint handling failings satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This does not include the £50 shopping voucher offered for its delayed stage 2 response.
3. Give the resident details of how to make a claim on its liability insurance, should she wish to do so.
4. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the roof, loft, and downstairs bedroom ceiling. The surveyor must produce a full survey report setting out the following:
  1. Details of their investigations.
  2. Their conclusions about the condition of the roof, the cause of any leaks, and how they reached those conclusions.
  3. Their recommendations for resolving any current leaks, or preventing future leaks.
  4. Whether or not they believe the roof needs to be replaced or the landlord can continue with patch repairs.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must write to the resident to set out the following:
1. The results of the survey.
2. What works, if any, it intends to complete following the survey (including any redecoration).
3. When they intend to start any recommended works.
4. How long any recommended works will take.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders in the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should give the resident the £50 shopping voucher offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Our finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the landlord providing the voucher to the resident.
The landlord should let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.