The Riverside Group Limited (202522343)

Decision
Case ID	202522343
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that she was experiencing damp and mould in her property in November 2023. The landlord conducted works through 2024 but the problem persisted. The resident was decanted in November 2024 to allow for extensive repair works. She informed the landlord that she did not want to return to her permanent home. She also raised dissatisfaction with the decant, damage to her belongings and flooring as well as energy costs and staff conduct. The resident and her 2 children live with physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
2. Throughout her complaint with the landlord the resident was represented by a tenants union. For simplicity, both are referred to as the resident in this report.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Temporary decant.
   3. Request to remain in the decant property.
   4. Reports of damage to her belongings by the removal company.
   5. Reports of damage to her flooring.
   6. Reports of high energy costs in the decant property.
   7. Dissatisfaction with staff conduct.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
6. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Temporary decant.
   2. Reports of high energy costs in the temporary decant property.
7. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her flooring.
8. We have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request to remain in the decant property.
   2. Dissatisfaction with staff conduct.
9. We have found that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
10. Reports of damage to the resident’s belongings by the removal contractor is outside our Jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the repairs

11. The landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and awarded an appropriate amount of compensation.

Handling of the temporary decant

12. The landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated, was slow to provide information and had not completed repairs. It also failed to conduct a joint sign-off visit that it had committed to.

Handling of the request to remain in the temporary decant property

13. The landlord considered the resident’s request and evidence and made a decision that was reasonable in the circumstances.

The handling of the damage to the resident’s belongings by the removal company

14. We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions, or what its agents did (or did not do) on its behalf. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over. In this case, the damage to the resident’s belongings was not due to the actions of the landlord. That means we have no power to investigate the complaint.

The handling of damage to the resident’s flooring

15. The landlord failed to protect the flooring in line with its decant policy and demonstrated poor communication.

The handling of the high energy costs in the decant property

16. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience through the landlord’s failure to put in place clear arrangements for the payment of energy bills.

The handling of dissatisfaction with staff conduct

17. The landlord informed the resident that it had investigated her concerns in line with its internal processes, which was appropriate.

The handling of the complaint

18. The landlord did not respond to the complaint as required by our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It significantly delayed providing a response which caused prolonged frustration for the resident.

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 provided by a director 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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,790 made up as follows: £ 1,740 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the repairs (if it has not already done so) as this was our reason for reasonable redress £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the temporary decant £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the damage to the resident’s flooring £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the energy costs £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 27 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had damp and mould in her permanent? property for over a year, which had impacted upon her families health. She told the landlord that the decant had been stressful and that the removal company had damaged her belongings in the move. She confirmed she did not want to move her family back to her permanent home. She said she had visited her permanent home and found that the contractors had not covered the flooring which was “ruined”. She also raised concerns with energy costs and the lack of communication from staff members.
11 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would be unable to permit the resident to remain in the temporary accommodation once it completed the repairs to her permanent home. It advised that it would investigate the conduct of the staff member through its HR and disciplinary process. It confirmed it had sent the resident compensation forms in relation to her damaged belongings.
23 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she did not want to move back to her permanent home due to the impact on her children’s health. She advised that her daughter’s skin condition had improved since being decanted. She also stated that she had received a £900 energy bill because the decant property was on a commercial energy rate. She said she was worried she was going to get into debt. She told the landlord she wanted it to pay £9,000 for damage to her belongings and to update her on the repairs. In addition, she said she felt staff had “fobbed her off” and not listened to her.
25 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would investigate the resident’s reports of poor communication with staff members. It advised it had told the housing team that she had concerns about moving back to her permanent home. It said it had conducted a further inspection on 22 April 2025 and would provide her with a copy of the schedule of works. It committed to conducting a post inspection visit with her to sign off the works at her permanent address. It informed the resident that it had sent her case to an independent solicitor to advise if she should be awarded compensation. It would inform her of the decision once it became aware.
14 January 2026	The landlord provided a revised stage 2 response. It said: its electrical contractor had accepted liability for the damaged laminate flooring and would replace it free of charge it had investigated the resident’s concerns around staff conduct in line with its HR policies and procedures due to confidentiality, it could not disclose the outcome of the investigation into the staff member’s conduct it had considered the medical evidence relating to her children and confirmed the resident would be unable to stay in the decant property permanently and would have to move back to her home when the work was complete the resident could explore other moving options such as a mutual exchange or an application to the local housing allocations scheme it had provided sufficient notice for the resident to move back to her property it had actioned the repairs highlighted after sign–off as soon as the resident made it aware of the issues it had paid the energy bills and applied a figure of £146 per month to the resident’s energy usage which was in line with the average usage for similar properties it acknowledged that the repairs had been prolonged over a number of years and had caused the resident distress, upset and inconvenience The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £3,200 compensation, which it reduced to £1,740 once it had subtracted £1,460 for the outstanding energy costs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The landlord completed the works in September 2025 and the resident moved back to the property on the 24 September 2025. She advised she had not accepted the compensation the landlord offered. She said she wanted the landlord to pay her £10,000 for the damage to her belongings and to pay compensation for the distress it had caused.

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 landlord’s handling of the repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not look at

19. The resident told us that the damp, mould and repairs have impacted upon her and her children’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further in this complaint point or any of the complaint points below. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did look at

20. The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 8 November 2023. The landlord inspected on 16 November 2023. It completed plasterwork to the fireplace, roofing works and chimney repointing between 16 November 2023 and 4 January 2024. The landlord’s actions were timely and in accordance with its repair timescales.
21. On 14 January 2025, the resident reported ongoing damp and mould. The landlord visited on 25 January 2024 and found further works were necessary to the walls and flooring. It requested an asbestos survey. This was delayed due to the resident being away and 4 no access appointments.
22. The landlord visited again 26 August 2024 and identified that the external walls needed repointing. The ongoing delay was unreasonable and outside the required timescales in its policy. The records do not indicate if the pointing took place, which is an indication of poor record keeping.
23. On 15 October 2024, the resident reported mould on a recently installed skirting board as well as the floor.
24. On 17 October 2024, the landlord visited and determined that the property was suffering from rising damp and required a new damp proof course. It decided that a decant was necessary to conduct the repairs. The resident was decanted on 5 November 2024.
25. Overall, it took the landlord 11 months to diagnose the cause of the damp. This was a prolonged timescale that led to ongoing distress and inconvenience for the resident. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged this and apologised, which was appropriate.
26. The landlord employed the services of an independent damp expert to conduct a survey of the property. It was appropriate that the landlord employed a competent contractor to assist it in diagnosing the cause of the damp and the remedial work required.
27. On 2 May 2025, the landlord asked an independent solicitor to determine what compensation it should pay the resident for living with the damp mould and associated disrepair up until the decant. The solicitor returned their advice on 25 August 2025. It confirmed that its recommendation of £3,200 was based on the repairs highlighted in the damp expert’s report. The landlord agreed with the figure. Given the failures and timescales highlighted above we believe the compensation offer was reasonable.
28. The landlord reduced the compensation award by £1,460 to £1,740 to cover unpaid energy charges. We have dealt with this further below.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the temporary decant
Finding	Maladministration

29. The resident moved into the temporary decant property on 5 November 2024. The damp expert undertook an intrusive survey on 19 November 2024. On 11 December 2024 the resident spoke to the landlord and expressed her upset that a skirting board had been broken and that the contractors had been upstairs and used her toilet. The landlord informed us that the resident’s home would have been considered a void property during the works and that workmen were permitted to use the facilities. This was different to what the resident believed and indicates that the landlord had not fully explained the scope of the works and how the property would be used. This early failure in communication was unhelpful.
30. At this point it would have been reasonable to have written to the resident to inform her what work it expected to take place in the property, how long the work was likely to last and how often it would provide updates. This did not happen.
31. On 9 December 2024, the landlord told the resident it was still waiting for the survey report and would contact her once it had received it. The completed report was dated 10 December 2024 and sent to the landlord that day. On 10 February 2025, and 3 March 2025, the resident told the landlord she had not received updates. The landlord’s continued poor communication caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
32. On 4 April 2025, the landlord told the resident that its housing team had been providing her with updates on the work. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the particulars of a case, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it had provided accurate and timely information, which met an acceptable standard. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping we have been unable to evidence it provided the updates it said it had.
33. The landlord met with the resident at the property on 16 April 2025. While it was appropriate to meet with her to explain the works, the visit and explanation should have taken place much earlier.
34. On 25 April 2025, the landlord told the resident it would provide a schedule of works. She pursued this document 3 times between 30 April 2025 and 25 June 2025. The landlord provided the expert damp report and schedule of works on 26 June 2025. The delay in providing the documents was unreasonable.
35. In the landlord’s decant policy it states that it “understands that decants can be disruptive and difficult for customers and will ensure that it provides clear information and that resident’s are kept informed throughout the decant process”. The landlord’s poor communication indicates a failure to comply with its decant policy.
36. On 11 July 2025, the landlord told the resident that it had scheduled 25 August 2025 for her to move back to her property. She said she would not move back on that date and needed 8 weeks from school starting. The landlord agreed to extend the date to 8 September 2025, which amounted to 8 weeks notice. This extension was positive and showed consideration of the resident’s circumstances. The resident again disagreed with the date due to its proximity to school restarting and the insufficient time she would have to redecorate the property. We find that the landlord’s notice period was reasonable and significantly more than the 7 days required in the temporary licence.
37. On 19 August 2025, the landlord advised it would give the resident the opportunity to decorate before moving in. However, it later changed this position due to the time the repairs had taken but confirmed it had painted all newly plastered surfaces white. This was appropriate and showed the landlord had considered the requirements of its damp and mould policy. While the landlord was under no obligation to provide the resident with time to decorate, its changing position was likely frustrating for her.
38. Due to the availability of the removal company the removal date changed to 15 September 2025. The resident received the keys on 12 September 2025. Upon visiting the property she found a number of defects. These included, electrical faults, the presence of mould, builders rubble in the bins and garden as well as a missing cutlery drawer in the kitchen.
39. In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to conducting a sign off visit with the resident but did not. The resident queried why this had not happened. The landlord advised its contractor had signed the work off and that there was no need for a joint visit. This position was unreasonable given the prior agreement and a failure to deliver on a commitment it made in its complaint response.
40. Further, if the joint visit had taken place the parties could have identified the outstanding defects before the keys were handed over. Of most concern was the presence of mould in the property. The resident had regularly expressed her concerns about the potential impact of mould on her daughters skin condition. This concern had been supported by numerous medical professionals. The landlord’s failure to ensure the property was mould free was significant.
41. The resident told the landlord that her son had received an electric shock from a light switch on 12 September 2025. An electrician visited the same day. They checked the socket and noted that it was correctly earthed and could not have caused a shock. Due to the differing accounts, we are unable to make a finding on this point. During the visit the electrician found several loose sockets in the kitchen, which indicates further concerning failures with the landlord’s sign off procedures.
42. The resident refused to move into the property due to the defects. The landlord addressed the urgent matters that day and completed the remaining repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The resident moved back into the property on 24 September 2025. When she returned, she notified the landlord there was a loose wire in the boiler. It appropriately dealt with the issue on the same day.
43. The resident then told the landlord that there were issues with the electric meter and the gas and that she had involved the utility suppliers. The landlord attempted to attend but the resident refused access. It asked her to provide any inspection reports or paperwork left by the utility suppliers. This did not happen.
44. Due to the failures highlighted above we have made an award of £500 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the request to remain in the decant property
Finding	No maladministration

45. The resident told the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that she did not want to move back to her permanent home. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident she would have to move back home once it had completed the repair works.
46. Between 28 January 2025 and 12 August 2025, the resident provided several letters from the NHS, her child’s school and children’s services. The letters highlighted the potential link between the mould and her daughters skin condition. The letters also highlighted that her son would find the potential of another move difficult to manage.
47. On 14 August 2025, a manager consulted 2 senior managers about the resident’s request to remain. They advised on the daughters skin condition and the concerns that there was a link between the skin condition and mould. The manager recommended that the family should return as it was undertaking work to deal with the damp and remove the mould. Neither manager objected.
48. On 19 August 2025, the landlord told the resident that senior managers had reviewed and considered her request alongside the medical evidence she had provided. It said that she would have to move back to her property once it had signed off the work rendering the property free from damp and mould. It advised it was willing to assist the resident with all available housing options when she returned to her permanent home.
49. We find that the landlord’s decision was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the damage to the resident’s belongings by the removal company
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

50. The resident complained to the landlord about the damage caused to her belongings by the removal company.
51. We have not investigated the complaint due to the matter involving an independent third party which the landlord had no control over.

Complaint	The handling of reports of damage to the flooring
Finding	Service failure

52. The resident told the landlord that the operatives had marked her laminate flooring and that it had not covered the carpet which was “ruined”.
53. The landlord provided the resident with claim forms and forwarded the completed forms to its insurance department. The insurance department advised that the electrical contractor should pay for the replacement of the laminate flooring, which it did.
54. It is unclear if the landlord sent the resident’s claim for new carpet to the insurance department or if the insurance department responded to her, which indicates further incidents of poor record keeping and communication.
55. The landlord inspected the carpet on 18 March 2025. It said the carpet was not damaged but confirmed it was dirty and would need cleaned. The landlord’s decant policy states that carpets should either be removed or covered. Allowing the carpets to become dirty indicates that the landlord had failed to comply with its decant policy.
56. Landlords are able to decide on the most suitable course of action to take in relation to alleged damage. In this case the landlord did not feel the carpet was damaged and that cleaning would return it to the condition it was in before the work started. The landlord cleaned the carpet prior to the keys being handed over on 12 September 2025. This was appropriate.
57. On 16 September 2025, the landlord advised the resident that she would have to claim for the carpet from her own contents insurance. She told the landlord it had said it would replace the carpets, and asked when it would conduct the work. On 30 September 2025, the landlord advised it had never committed to replacing the carpet.
58. The resident pursued the landlord about the carpet 3 further times between 1 October 2025 and 12 November 2025. There is no evidence it responded, which was unreasonable.
59. Had the landlord complied with its decant policy it could have avoided the unnecessary stress and upset caused to the resident over a prolonged period.
60. Due to the above observations, we have made an award of £100 compensation. This award is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Complaint	The handling of the energy costs
Finding	Maladministration

61. An internal email dated 29 October 2024 indicated that the landlord was aware that the decant property was registered as a commercial property and was subject to commercial energy rates. On 4 November 2024, a staff member made an internal request to reclassify the property as domestic as soon as possible. Unreasonably this did not happen.
62. On 7 February 2025, the landlord sent an internal email stating that the resident had been receiving high energy bills and that the supplier had threatened to disconnect her. This was likely distressing for the resident given the time of year and the fact she had 2 children in the property.
63. The landlord was also aware that the resident had contacted numerous suppliers but that none would change the supply. It was inappropriate of the landlord to require the resident to put the energy supply in her name given it was a commercial contract, with high costs and the possibility of her incurring debt.
64. On 23 February 2025, the landlord confirmed it had paid the bills the resident had received up until that point. On 3 April 2025, it said “electric and gas bills would be dealt with by the landlord during your stay at the decant property”. In a text message the landlord told the resident to forward all bills and it would pay them. The landlord’s offer to pay the bills was appropriate. However, the messages were unclear. It was possible to interpret the messages to mean that the resident would not have to pay for energy at the decant property. This ongoing lack of clarity was unfair and likely confusing for the resident.
65. In its revised stage 2 response the landlord informed the resident it would be charging her £146 per month for energy. Unfairly it did not explain how it had come to this figure. It did clarify internally that it had used the published average consumption for a similar property on a dual fuel tariff.
66. The temporary licence agreement states that the resident is liable for all energy costs while residing at the decant property. It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord charged the resident for her energy use. However, it would have been fairer to have taken actual meter readings at the start and end of the decant period to calculate the actual energy used.
67. The landlord was aware before the resident moved in that it could not allow her to pay commercial rates for energy. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not put in place and document an agreement that clearly explained how the energy would be managed and paid for from the beginning of the decant.
68. The landlord’s failures highlighted above caused prolonged distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. We have therefore made an award of £250 compensation. Again, this award is in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

69. The resident complained to the landlord about staff conduct, which included feeling “fobbed off” and not receiving adequate communication.
70. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised. It confirmed that it had passed the resident’s concerns to management to investigate in line with its HR and disciplinary process. In its revised stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that the investigations had taken place. It said the matter had been taken seriously, handled with care and dealt with in a manner consistent with its standards.
71. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with what we would expect.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

72. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. It states it will notify residents of any delays in the process. This is in line with the requirements of the Code.
73. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the required timescales. However, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint point about the longstanding disrepair she had referred to. This was a failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code, which requires landlords to respond to all complaint points.
74. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 7 days outside its published timescales. In its acknowledgement it said it would provide its stage 2 response by 4 March 2025 but it did not issue the response until 25 April 2025. This was 22 working days outside the required timeframe. The landlord did not notify the resident of the delay. This indicates ongoing failures to comply with the Code.
75. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not deal with several of the resident’s complaint points. These included her request to remain in the decant property, the damage caused by the removal company and her ongoing concerns about the energy rates. Further, the landlord advised that it had sent the resident’s case to an independent solicitor to determine if it should pay compensation.
76. The landlord advised us that it had deferred these points and the compensation as it had decided to treat the resident’s case as a disrepair claim. This approach was inappropriate and not in line with the requirements of the Code. The Code requires landlords to provide a response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
77. The landlord was in a position to respond to all aspects of the complaint at stage 2. It should have provided a comprehensive response at that point and then opened further complaints if necessary and dealt with them as required. If it considered it necessary to use a solicitor to assess compensation, it must ensure the assessments are completed within the appropriate timescales.
78. The landlord issued its revised stage 2 response on 14 January 2026, nearly 1 year after the resident had escalated her complaint. This prolonged timeframe was inappropriate and significantly delayed the resolution and compensation, which likely caused the resident considerable frustration.
79. In addition, the landlord did not award any compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident during the period of the decant and the return to her permanent home. This was unfair and a missed opportunity to learn from its mistakes and put things right for the resident.
80. Given the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling we have made an additional award of £200 compensation. This award is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a complaint handling failure that had a significant impact on the resident.

Learning

81. The landlord attempted to combine its complaints process with the pre action protocol. It would be beneficial for the landlord to review its complaint handling in this case to ensure future cases are not subject to the same processes.
82. In any future decants involving non-standard energy contracts the landlord should ensure that all aspects associated with energy use and payment are clarified and agreed in writing at the beginning of the decant process.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

83. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good, especially surrounding email and telephone communication. We did identify some short comings related to the repairs and insurance aspects of the case, which it could look to improve.

Communication

84. The landlord’s communication with the resident about repairs and energy charges was poor. Better communication with the resident could have reduced her frustration, uncertainty and her time and effort chasing the landlord about the progress of her repairs and the energy charges.