The Riverside Group Limited — case 202422870

Decision Case ID 202422870 Decision type Investigation Landlord The Riverside Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 13 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a first floor flat. The landlord’s recorded of vulnerability recorded that it should ring to gain entry to the property. The resident informed the landlord on 25 July 2024 during the internal complaints process that she has asthma. She began to report a damp and mould issue in the bathroom from June 2024.

She said that the landlord’s contractor said that this was from a leaking pipe, but they were unable to take a panel off to investigate the leak. This was due to possible asbestos which its contractor said would require the landlord to complete an asbestos survey. What the complaint is about The landlord’s response to: The resident’s report of a leaking pipe in the bathroom requiring an asbestos survey and associated damp and mould. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leaking pipe in the bathroom requiring an asbestos survey and associated damp and mould.

There was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord unreasonably delayed the completion of the asbestos survey. Its poor communication, record keeping and poor follow up led to its contractor using an incorrect contact method to arrange the survey. This meant that the asbestos survey was delayed and the landlord did not fix the leak until 3 months after the resident reported it on 30 August 2024.

This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale which was inappropriate. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its final complaint response and the impact that this would have had on the resident causing her frustration and inconvenience. Whilst it apologised, it did not consider awarding any compensation in line with its financial redress and compensation procedure. However, the landlord did identify some learning from the complaint which was appropriate. 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 senior leader.

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 13 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings and delays in completing the asbestos survey and fixing the leak in the bathroom. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 13 March 2026 3 The landlord must contact the resident using her preferred method of contact to update its vulnerability records as required. No later than 13 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened June – 4 July 2024 The resident reported a damp and mould issue in the bathroom in June 2024. When the landlord’s contractor attended on 4 July 2024, they found some mould under the lino identifying a suspected leak. The contractor requested an asbestos survey before it could complete the repair to fix the leak.

8 July 2024 The resident complained to the landlord referring to her June report of damp and mould in the bathroom and the contractor’s visit of 4 July 2024. She said she had logged a complaint previously but felt that the landlord had been removing her complaints from its system. 9 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said its specialist contractor had been trying to contact the resident but none of the contact details were correct and working.

It asked her to contact the contractor directly to arrange a visit to complete an asbestos test by 25 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. 22 July 2024 The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She said she was still waiting for the asbestos survey to be completed to check for the leak which was from a pipe behind some boxing in the bathroom. She complained about the landlord’s communication and that it did not follow her preferred method of communication being email.

She said that the landlord followed instructions previously to install an extractor fan. She could not understand why its specialist surveyor could not follow the same instructions. 9 August 2024 The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It found that it had failed to follow its own clear notes to contact the resident by email to schedule appointments. It also said it had failed to share this important information with its asbestos team. It apologised and said it had provided feedback to the relevant manager.

It had completed the asbestos survey which was negative. It had scheduled work to fix the leak to the bathroom pipe work for 9 August 2024. It said it would monitor progress of the works. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her case to us on 12 September 2024. As a remedy the resident wanted the landlord to be held accountable and to be flagged for constant communication failings. 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 response to the resident’s report of a leaking pipe in the bathroom requiring an asbestos survey and associated damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident was concerned about the impact of the leak, damp and mould on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this. What we did investigate The resident reported the damp and mould in the bathroom in June 2024. This is consistent with the landlord’s repair records as it logged the repair on 4 June 2024.

The landlord sent its contractor on 4 July 2024 which was 31 days later to investigate. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should attend emergency repairs within 12 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days. The contractor’s visit was outside of all these timescales which was inappropriate. We have not seen records whether the landlord checked whether the leak was containable or not to help it decide whether it need to deal with this more urgently.

This was inappropriate. The landlord’s contractor did not complete any work to fix the leak on 4 July 2024 due to their asbestos concerns. The landlord was right to arrange an asbestos survey in line with its health, safety and environmental policy. This says that the landlord will identify any environmental hazards such as asbestos and use appropriate controls to manage risk. Though the landlord instructed it specialist asbestos contractor within a reasonable timeframe, its poor communication meant that the survey was not completed until 6 August 2024.

The resident reminded the landlord in her complaint escalation request of 22 July 2024 that the landlord needed to use her email to communicate, and it had used this to complete the extractor fan repair without issue. However, the resident could not understand why the specialist asbestos contractor was not able to follow the same instructions. The landlord’s records show that a repair to the extractor fan was raised on 8 June 2024 and completed on 25 June 2024 within its repairs policy timescale which was reasonable.

This would also help alleviate excess moisture in the bathroom that could contribute to damp and mould. The landlord told its specialist asbestos contractor in its email of 8 August 2024 that there had been a breakdown in its internal communication which had led to the access issues that had occurred. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its final complaint response of 9 August 2024. The landlord’s vulnerability records for the resident are unclear as it says it needs to ring the resident to gain entry which could be interpreted as ringing a doorbell or phoning the resident.

The landlord should update its records to ensure that it uses the correct method of contact in future. The landlord’s specialist contractor completed the asbestos survey on 6 August 2024 and found no asbestos present in the bathroom. This meant that the landlord’s contractor could proceed to remove the boxing to access the leaking pipe. The landlord fixed the leaking pipe on 30 August 2024. It took the landlord 88 days to complete the repair which was outside of its repairs policy timescale which was unreasonable.

Although the landlord acknowledged the communication issues, we must consider whether the landlord has provided a suitable remedy in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord checked that the work had been completed as promised in its final complaint response which was appropriate. It emailed the resident on 9 September 2024 to confirm that it would close the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the work. It acknowledged its failure to follow the resident’s communication requirements and to pass the information to its contractor.

It appreciated that this would have caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. Whilst the landlord was right to apologise for the delay, it did not consider any compensation for its service failings in line with its financial redress and compensation procedure. This would have been appropriate under the circumstances to help to put things right for the resident, particularly as it had recognised that this would have caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leaking pipe in the bathroom requiring an asbestos survey and associated damp and mould.

After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s failings. This includes its delayed response to undertake the asbestos survey and to fix the leak that was causing the damp and mould issues and its communication failings. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to update its vulnerability records so that this reflects the resident’s required method of communication.

Complaint The landlord’s response to the associated complaint Finding No maladministration The resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 when it logged her complaint that she had raised earlier complaints on 21 June 2024 and 1 July 2024 that the landlord had not logged. However, we have not seen records of these earlier complaints, so we are unable to verify this. The landlord responded the following day to the resident’s logged complaint on 9 July 2024. This was sent within the landlord’s response timescales which was reasonable.

According to the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint at both stages within 2 working days. It should respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It should respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The Code requires an acknowledgement to be sent within 5 working days for both stages. It requires a response to be sent within 10 working days from acknowledgement at stage 1 and a response to be sent within 20 working days from acknowledgement at stage 2.

The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 22 July 2024. It took the landlord 13 working days and chase ups from the resident to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation request. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy or the Code’s timescale to respond. However, it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2024 which meant that its stage 2 complaint response was sent within 14 working days. As this was within the landlord’s complaints policy timescale and the Code timescale this was reasonable.

The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Learning The landlord identified some learning from the complaint in its final complaint response which was appropriate. It said it had updated its internal systems to ensure that they displayed the right information about the resident’s communication requirements. However, the screen shot it sent to us does not reflect this. It fed back to the relevant manager to consider improvements to internal communication.

These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlords records were not fully complete to accurately record the resident’s initial report was from June 2024. The record keeping issues would have contributed to the communication issues below. We have recommended in a previous case (reference 202413716) that the landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management using our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication The landlord’s communication was more reactive to the resident’s chase ups rather than proactive. It also failed to follow the resident’s required communication method which was unreasonable. This contributed to the delayed repair as its specialist contractor was unable to contact the resident by phone to arrange a survey. This evidenced poor internal and external communication. However, it did monitor the completion of the repair as promised in its stage 2 complaint response of 9 August 2024 which was appropriate.