From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Riverside Group Limited (202445888)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445888

The Riverside Group Limited

18 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp, mould and associated remedial works at the property.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The resident moved into the property in November 2023. She first reported damp and mould in the property on 7 December 2023 and subsequently in March and April 2024. The landlord completed an initial mould treatment in December 2023. It undertook a drainage survey in May 2024 and cleared the gutters and drains. The following month it replaced 2 extractor fans. It also agreed to undertake external pre-emptive work to the damp proof course.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 5 August 2024. She complained about repeated delays, poor communication, and the impact of damp and mould on her belongings, which included damage to furniture, clothing, and personal items. She also reported distress and frustration at having wasted leave from work due to cancelled appointments.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It explained that the delay to the external damp proof course was due to staff illness. It confirmed revised dates for joinery and external works and promised to keep the resident updated.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 September 2024. She said the property continued to flood at the rear. She said the works were still incomplete, and the landlord had not addressed her compensation claim for damaged belongings.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2025. It upheld the complaint, acknowledged delays, and said it had completed all damp and mould works. It confirmed that, due to a lack of recent rainfall, it had been unable to confirm if water was still pooling on the patio following repairs. It offered the resident £750 for her damaged belongings and £150 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling delays.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She reported that the drainage issues remained unresolved. She stated that the compensation was insufficient given the damage to her possessions, as well as the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. She brought her complaint to us seeking a lasting solution to the outstanding issues and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said this situation had had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident told us that she believed the landlord had not completed all the void repairs prior to letting her the property. She said the landlord should not have let her the property until it completed the void repairs. The resident did not raise this issue regarding completion of void works as part of her formal complaint. The Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before our involvement. We are therefore unable to comment on the resident’s concerns about the completion of void repairs prior to her tenancy starting. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and follow on works after her tenancy commenced until its stage 2 complaint response.

Reports of a damp, mould, and associated works at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for completing repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes completing repairs to drains and pipework. It says it will complete urgent repairs within 5 calendar days and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy require it to identify the cause of damp promptly, conduct effective remedial works, keep the resident updated and complete follow-up checks to ensure it resolves the problem.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would normally refer claims for damaged belongings above £2,000 to its insurers. In some case where it accepts liability it may make a discretionary payment, subject to supporting evidence.
  4. The resident reported a damp patch appearing on the living room ceiling on 7 December 2023. The landlord’s records show it attended on 22 December 2023. Although it marked this job as completed, its records do not provide information on what works it completed, and if it tried to identify and resolve the underlying cause of the damp. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports of repairs that it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord.
  5. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s action at this time resolved matters only in the short-term. This is because the evidence shows the resident reported further damp and mould in the living room and bedroom some 3 months later on 11 March and 24 March 2024. The landlord identified non-working internal extractor fans and signs of drainage issues outside the property.
  6. The landlord’s damp and mould policies states where an inspection is required, it will complete this inspection within 7 days. Its internal communication suggests it completed a damp and mould inspection on 24 April 2024. This was more than 7 days from when the resident reported further damp and mould in the property. This was a failing and not in line with its policies.
  7. Additionally, its records do not include the outcome of this inspection. Also, it did not share its action plan to resolve the issues with the resident. The resident requested for updates on 16 May 2024 on the results of the inspection, what works the landlord had scheduled and the timeline for completion. This lack of communication was a failing and was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging a drainage survey when she reported flooding on the patio in mid-April 2024. It subsequently took action on 23 September 2024 to try to resolve the flooding by installing a soakaway and installing a drain. While this was reasonable action to take, the time taken to do so was outside the timescales set out in its repair policy and that was a failing.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident in its stage 2 complaint response to report to it any further drainage problems. This is because the surveyor was satisfied with the repairs that the landlord had undertaken and they had been unable to check if the repairs had been successful due to a lack of recent rainfall.
  10. The landlord replaced the faulty fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 29 May 2024. This was more than 2 months from when it first identified the problem on 11 March 2024. This delay was unreasonable and outside the landlord’s routine repair’s time limit.
  11. The landlord’s records show between 1 and 2 July 2024 it booked multiple pre-emptive disrepair works including electrical works, a mould wash, renewing skirting board, joinery works and works to the damp proof course at the rear and side elevation externally.
  12. By the time of the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord had completed some repairs, including the mould wash, replaced the fans and had cleared the gutters. However, it had not completed key remedial works including the joinery and external works to the property. By this time, the resident had been reporting damp and mould issues in the property for more than 5 months since 11 March 2024. It would therefore have been reasonable of the landlord to have prioritised the resident’s repairs and communicate any difficulties it was experiencing. It did not do so.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2025 the landlord highlighted all the damp and mould related works it had completed including the work to the damp proof course on 16 September 2024, drainage works on 23 September 2024 and the installation of additional vents on 2 December 2024.
  14. It was reasonable of the landlord to complete the actions above. However, its records show it was still completing repairs by 2 December 2024. This was more than 8 months after the resident reported damp and mould issues on 11 March 2024. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  15. Also, the landlord’s communication throughout its complaints process was poor. The landlord’s records show the resident kept asking for updates on multiple occasions with the landlord failing to respond promptly. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process for distress and inconvenience. It failed to do so.
  16. In conclusion, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated remedial works. These included poor communication, inadequate record keeping, and delays in completing repairs.
  17. The landlord referred the resident’s damaged items claim to its insurers, who confirmed that it did not cover damages caused by damp and mould. The landlord then sought advice from its litigation team, which suggested a discretionary sum. It asked the resident for receipts and evidence of damaged items. Based on the evidence available, the landlord awarded £750 compensation for the resident’s damaged personal belongings.
  18. This was a reasonable approach and in line with its compensation policy. However, its communication with the resident around its insurance procedure and her request for compensation for her damaged items were poor. The landlord did not address her request for compensation for these items until after her stage 2 escalation request. This would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to have managed her expectations early including explaining its compensation and insurance process.
  19. The landlord noted in its internal correspondence on 2 December 2024 that the resident was seeking compensation for her flooring which she believed its contractors damaged when they were completing repairs. Its internal correspondence shows it examined the possibility that it caused damage to her flooring and was willing to make amends. However, it stated that there was no evidence supporting the resident’s concerns. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord agreed to inspect the flooring. This was a reasonable step to take to bring the matter to a conclusion.
  20. Although the landlord offered £750 for the resident’s damaged items, it did not offer any compensation at stage 1 or stage 2 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given the delays that had occurred. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and associated works. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £280 in compensation.
  21. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience for the 8 months between 11 March and 2 December 2024 during which the resident experienced delays, cancellations, and the impact of living with unresolved damp and mould. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling obligations are set out in its complaints policy, which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days or 20 if extended, and provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of escalation.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 5 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024 within the 10 working-day target.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 September 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 27 January 2025 around 98 working days later. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy or the Code.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for the delay, and awarded £150 compensation specifically for complaint handling. This showed the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to provide redress. The £150 compensation was reasonable and falls within the amount prescribed in our remedies guidance. The landlord’s actions therefore amount to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated remedial works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,030 broken down as follows:
      1. The £750 previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response if not already paid.
      2. Additional £280for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in relation to its handling of her reports of damp, mould and associated remedial works in the property.
      3. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears where they exist.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £150 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2025 if it has not already done so.
    2. The finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s formal complaint is dependent on the payment of this sum.