The Riverside Group Limited (202502192)

Decision
Case ID	202502192
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident told the landlord in August 2024 that there was a rat infestation in her property. When the issue remained unresolved, she raised a complaint.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a rat infestation.
   2. The complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handing of:
   1. Reports of a rat infestation.
   2. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

 

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays in the landlord addressing the rat infestation. However, it acknowledged this and offered appropriate compensation.
5. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint when requested. However, it acknowledged its failings and awarded appropriate compensation.

 

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.

 

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the £500 compensation it awarded to the resident during the complaints process, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the landlord makes this payment.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 October 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She told the landlord that she found signs of a rat infestation within a matter of weeks of moving into the property. She said that she had reported this but it failed to raise a job for a pest control company to attend. She said her neighbour also had persistent issues with rat infestations. She wanted the landlord to install inspection hatches in the kitchen that were not done on 6 September 2024. She also asked for it to complete further works to resolve the pest control issue.
12 November 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for access hatches to be installed but this had not been completed. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
19 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord’s response did not detail any actions related to her complaint. She said she could hear rats in the ceiling while cooking in her kitchen, and it had affected her mental and physical health.
27 June 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It attended on 6 December 2024 and fitted 2 access panels for rodent inspection. It completed a full inspection on 26 June 2024, which noted no recent signs of rodent activity but recommended that the loft was cleaned and a drain survey was carried out. It carried out a drain survey in May 2024 which found no structural issues. It would arrange another drain survey and to have the loft cleaned following the recommendations from the survey. It apologised that it had not escalated the complaint on 19 November 2024. It accepted that this error had caused delays in resolving the pest control issues. It awarded £500 compensation for the failings it had identified.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She felt the landlord had not satisfactorily met the commitments it made at stage 2 as she said it had not disinfected the attic. She was also concerned that it had failed to replace the loft insulation. She wanted the landlord to complete these actions.

 

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 handling of reports of a rat infestation
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The landlord’s pest control statement says it handles pest control when a building defect causes the problem. In this case, the landlord has not disputed that it was responsible for dealing with the pest issue.
7. The resident first reported a rat infestation in August 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 14 August 2024. The inspection recommended adding inspection hatches to the pipe boxing in the kitchen so treatments could be placed inside. The landlord’s decision to inspect the property, following the resident’s initial report, was reasonable.
8. The landlord did not install the inspection hatches until 6 December 2024, almost 2 months after it had identified this as a suitable solution. This exceeded the 28 day target for routine repairs set out in its repairs policy. The delay likely prolonged the resident’s distress with having to live with a pest issue.
9. Between December 2024 and June 2025, the landlord completed another inspection, raised work orders and completed further proofing works, including brickwork in the attic and filling in holes. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to permanently resolve the issue, taking steps to prevent continued access.
10. On 26 June 2025, the landlord carried out a third inspection of the property. It found no evidence of recent rodent activity. This lack of activity meant the landlord would have been reasonable to assume the actions it had taken were effective. The report recommended a drain survey to rule out any other additional entry points. It also advised clearing and disinfecting the attic.
11. In its stage 2 response on 27 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in it addressing the pest issue. It offered £400 for these failings and said it would arrange a drain survey and clear and disinfect the attic. This was a reasonable response, as it accepted responsibility for the delays, offered compensation in line with its policy and said it would complete the recommended works.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord met the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. A drain survey was completed on 20 August 2025 that confirmed all pipes were in an acceptable condition. The loft was cleared and disinfected on 2 October 2025.
13. Although there was a delay between the stage 2 response and the work being completed, the evidence shows that the landlord made repeated attempts to schedule the repairs. Delays were caused by contractor issues and difficulties contacting the resident.
14. Overall, the landlord did not dispute that there were delays in it resolving the pest control issues. It offered a total of £400 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for failures that caused considerable distress or inconvenience. It also demonstrated that it met the commitments it made in its final complaint response.
15. For this reason, we find that the compensation awarded was fair and provided redress that was proportionate to the failings it identified.
16. The resident has since told us that she does not believe the attic was disinfected on 2 October 2025. She also said the landlord removed loft insulation and did not replace it, which has caused new issues during cold weather. These concerns have been raised after the landlord’s complaint process has been exhausted and are separate to our investigation. It is unclear whether the landlord has been given the opportunity to investigate these specific concerns. Should the resident remain unhappy, they are recommended to make a complaint directly to the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, issue a formal response within 5 working days at stage 1, and within 10 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The resident raised a complaint on 28 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged it after 3 working days and responded 8 working days later. Although this slightly exceeded its policy timescales, it remained within the expectations of the Code, which allowed up to 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint and 10 working days to respond at stage 1.
19. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to escalate the complaint when the resident asked it to in November 2024. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response and awarded compensation.
20. The response did not specify how much compensation was awarded for the complaint handling failures. However, the evidence shows that the landlord intended £100 to cover these failings. This amount aligns with our guidance for failings that adversely affected a resident.
21. The landlord’s responses satisfactorily acknowledged its complaint handling failures and it awarded compensation that was fair and provided redress that was proportionate to the failings it identified.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord provided sufficient and relevant information to enable the investigation of this complaint.

Communication

23. Communication at some points could have been better. The landlord is encouraged to consider what it can do to ensure enquiries receive timely, clear and thorough responses. This could include how to ensure customers are provided with realistic expectations to prevent unnecessary chasing by residents.