Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Riverside Group Limited (202347256)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347256

The Riverside Group Limited

30 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 residents reports about the conduct of staff members.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property at the time of the complaint. The property is a general needs 1-bedroom flat located in a complex which also includes supported accommodation for young people aged 16-24.
  2. The resident complained verbally to the landlord on 1 February 2024. On 2 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed that she had told it that:
    1. She was dissatisfied with members of the support accommodation staff.
    2. Staff member A had been rude and dismissive and then spoken to another resident about her when she was no longer there.
    3. Staff member B had been obstructive about her request to move away from the complex and said she could only do so after they had had “a grown-up conversation”.
    4. Data breaches were occurring which she would provide more information about.
    5. She would like the matter investigated and action taken against the staff members.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2024. It said that:
    1. Staff member A had provided a written statement of the event the resident had complained about and there were also other witnesses to the conversation. From the information gathered it was satisfied that there was no evidence that staff member A was rude and dismissive.
    2. Staff member B had acknowledged that they had said that the resident needed to have a “grown-up conversation” before moving on from the complex. However, this did not mean that they would not allow her to move. If she applied for a move the local authority would contact staff member B to discuss it. As there was no further evidence regarding this the landlord could take no further action regarding this part of the complaint.
    3. Without exact dates and times, it would be difficult to investigate her allegations about data breaches and some of the incidents she had mentioned were not data breaches. It had spoken to staff member C who denied talking to the resident about any incidents.
    4. It therefore did not uphold her complaint and suggested that as a resident living in general needs accommodation she did not need to enter the supported accommodation building to raise any enquiries or repairs.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 1 March 2024. It said that:
    1. The resident had informed it that she was starting to feel bullied and unliked by members of the supported accommodation staff. This had affected her mental health meaning she hardly left her property and was reluctant to speak to staff and residents. She had also told it that staff member B would not support her application to move, which the landlord should address.
    2. It had spoken to the staff concerned and they felt that they had already answered the questions in the stage 1 complaint response.
    3. As there was no further evidence it could take no further action. However, it apologised that the situation had impacted her negatively.
  5. The resident advised us in September 2025 that she has since moved to a new property away from the complex.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
  2. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact the ongoing issue had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this. However, we are unable to decide about the link between the landlord’s handling of the reports about staff conduct and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the residents’ health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s code of conduct states its staff are responsible for ensuring that their behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional, does not constitute as discrimination, bullying, harassment, or victimisation. Staff should always consider their own behaviour and the impact that this can have on others, working cooperatively, considering different perspectives.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had asked staff member A to provide a written statement regarding the incident the resident reported. It was appropriate for the landlord to get the staff member’s version of events. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of this statement to us. We would also expect to see internal notes relating to what it discussed with the staff member after taking the statement into account. However, the landlord has also not provided these.
  3. The landlord also said that there were other witnesses to the incident. It would have been appropriate for it to speak to the witnesses to obtain an independent version of events. However, we have seen no evidence of any notes taken regarding such interviews.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management says that the failure to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action. This means that they may miss opportunities to identify when actions were wrong or inadequate. This can contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
  5. In this case the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records regarding the actions it took means that there is no evidence to support that it took any action at all. This means that it has not shown that it ensured that staff were following its code of conduct and we have not seen the information it relied upon to make its decision on the resident’s complaint. In the absence of such evidence, it is impossible for this Service to reach an informed finding on the adequacy or not of its investigation.
  6. In summary, the landlord has provided no evidence to support that it made a thorough investigation. This record keeping failure means that there was service failure in its handling of the residents reports about the conduct of staff members. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident and pay her £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused.

Complaint handling

  1. Stage 2 of the complaints process gives the landlord the opportunity to review all evidence and to ensure that it fully investigated the complaint at stage 1.
  2. In this case the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response just said that the staff involved had said that they had nothing more to add. We have seen no evidence that the landlord reviewed the information used to make the stage 1 decision, or that it considered making any further enquiries. For example, it could have interviewed the witnesses if there was no evidence that it had spoken to them previously. This failure meant that the resident did not feel that the landlord had investigated the complaint any further than it had at stage 1. This cost her time and trouble escalating the complaint to us.
  3. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and we have ordered it to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble this caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of staff members.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this investigation.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £125 comprising:
    1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about staff conduct.
    2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review any procedures it has regarding dealing with reports about staff conduct. It should evaluate whether it needs to provide further guidance to staff or update the current procedure. This should include making sure that it keeps adequate records to support its decisions. It should update the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review in writing. This should include timeframes for the implementation of any proposed changes.
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review and self-evaluate against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for improving current practices.