The Riverside Group Limited (202407909)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her 2 disabled children. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of a neighbour dispute over security lights, including reports and counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour(ASB) dating back to around June 2023.The resident has also complained about the landlord sending correspondence during unsociable hours and allegedly causing a data breach.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a neighbour dispute, including reports and counter-allegations of ASB.
3. The landlord’s sending of correspondence at inappropriate times.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s data and an alleged data breach.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found several failures by the landlord in its handling of the neighbour dispute and the associated reports and counter-allegations of ASB. The landlord has not followed its ASB policy, nor has it taken appropriate action to resolve the matter. The landlord has not provided evidence to support the warnings it issued to the resident and there have been delays in both the landlord’s responses to the complaint and its handling of the alleged ASB.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a neighbour dispute involving security lights and ASB dating back to June 2023. Although the landlord issued a stage 1 response addressing these matters in March 2024, the complaint was not resolved and the issues continued. We note the landlord has said the resident asked for it to no longer pursue the March 2024 complaint, but this is not clear from the evidence provided. We have therefore considered reports about ASB from June 2023 onwards, as the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this, as shown by her further complaint on 15 April 2024.
9. It is important to note we do not decide whether there has been ASB or who was responsible. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the security lights

10. The resident moved into the property in May 2023 and shortly after installed security lights without the landlord’s consent. This resulted in N raising concerns directly with the resident in June 2023 and with the landlord in September 2023. It seems the resident asked the landlord for retrospective permission to install the lights sometime around 22 August 2023.
11. On 21 September 2023 the landlord said the resident could use the lights while it considered her request for retrospective permission, on the condition that:
    1. The lights were fitted and activated by a PIR sensor, which was not activated by pedestrians or vehicles on the road adjacent to the resident’s property.
    2. The lights were not permanently on.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she must not carry out improvements or alterations of her home without prior written consent from the landlord. As the lights were an alteration/improvement to the property, we are satisfied it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the resident could install these.
13. Additionally, the tenancy agreement says the resident must not behave in a way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. Given the terms of the resident’s tenancy and the nature of N’s complaints about the lights, we are satisfied it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to set the conditions for the use of the lights.
14. On 24 October 2023 the landlord added a further condition that the lights must not remain active for longer than 3 minutes. The landlord also advised it was still considering the request for permission to install the lights. We’re satisfied it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to include the additional condition.
15. The resident has said the landlord delayed granting permission for the lights and failed to provide clear permission in writing. The resident’s emails dated 5 February, 6 February and 26 February 2024 support this. It is unclear when, or if, the landlord explicitly granted permission. The landlord’s letter dated 24 February 2024 implied consent had been given prior to this but did not confirm when or how this had been communicated to the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s claim in its later correspondence, dated 12 April 2024, that it had granted permission on 21 September 2023, is not supported by its letter of the same date and this contradicts the landlord’s statement from 24 October 2023.
16. In our view, the landlord has not provided the resident clear and explicit consent to install and use the security lights. This lack of clear communication was not fair and reasonable and evidently contributed to the resident feeling that the landlord treated her unfairly.
17. The resident also complained the landlord issued her a tenancy warning for breaching the retrospective conditions. In the landlord’s email dated 12 April 2024 it said it had received video evidence showing the resident’s security lights were active for extended periods of time after 09:00pm. The landlord has not provided us a copy of the video, nor has it shared other evidence to support its decision to issue the tenancy warning letter. So, we cannot say the landlord has sufficiently demonstrated that it acted reasonably or appropriately.
18. The resident asked the landlord to share the evidence it relied on to issue the warnings. In its email dated 2 May 2024 the landlord said it would not share the evidence it had relied on. This was on the basis any pre-court evidence was privileged, and it said the evidence was confidential and belonged to the other party.
19. It is not always appropriate for a landlord to share evidence directly with residents. However, in the circumstances, we would have expected the landlord to clearly explain what the evidence showed and how this supported its decision to issue the warnings. Additionally, as our investigation is evidence-based, we would also expect the landlord to provide us with supporting evidence, which it has not done.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by N

20. The resident has said the landlord failed to respond appropriately to her reports of ASB by N. What began as a neighbour dispute over the security lights escalated, with numerous reports from August 2023 onwards of verbal and racial abuse directed at the resident and her children, threats, and filming of the resident’s property and children. These incidents were reported to the police from at least November 2023.
21. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will handle reports of ASB. It says it will carry out a risk assessment on every ASB case where there is an identifiable complainant. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB. This is concerning, particularly given the nature of the resident’s reports and her safe-guarding concerns. This was not fair and reasonable and was a failure by the landlord.
22. The landlord’s ASB policy also says it will respond promptly to resolve issues. We are not satisfied the landlord has done this. We recognise the landlord did take some action in response to the reports of ASB. This includes asking both parties to end the dispute on 8 February 2024, noting it would work with the police to help identify any criminal activity, requesting a Police and Communities Together (PACT) meeting, and interviewing the resident on 15 March 2024.
23. While the above demonstrates some attempt by the landlord to resolve the issue, it is clear from the landlord’s tenancy warning letter dated 12 April 2024 the landlord had not fully considered the resident’s reports of ASB from 1 August 2023 to 5 February 2024 until that date. It is concerning that the landlord took over 8 months to fully consider the resident’s ASB reports. Issuing an ASB warning in April 2024 for an incident from November 2023 shows it did not act promptly or in line with its ASB policy. This was a failure by the landlord, which may have contributed to the escalation of the dispute.
24. In separate correspondence also sent on 12 April 2024 the landlord said it had reviewed video evidence of an incident on 31 December 2023. The landlord said it was not clear that N had gestured offensively at the resident. Again, it is concerning that it took the landlord over 3 months to inform the resident of its position on this issue. This was not fair and reasonable.
25. On 21 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident it had closed its investigation into her reports of racial abuse. This was due to insufficient evidence and the police closing their case. The resident has said there were eyewitnesses to the racial abuse. However, we have not seen evidence of this. The landlord also closed its investigation into the 22 March 2024 incident for the same reason.
26. While we recognise landlord’s require evidence of ASB to take robust action, in the circumstances it was not fair for the landlord to close the ASB case because the police ended their investigation. Given the nature of the resident’s reports and her safeguarding concerns, the landlord should have done more, such as agreeing an action plan with the resident, monitoring the situation, or considering a good neighbour agreement between the 2 parties.

The landlord’s handling of counter-allegations of ASB

27. On 22 March 2024 the resident reported that a member of N’s family attempted to start an altercation. The landlord responded, stating both parties had made threats, nearly resulting in a physical altercation. The landlord said this was unacceptable, irrespective of which party started the altercation, and highlighted the relevant sections of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord said it would recommend a joint interview with the police before agreeing what action it would take.
28. The resident did not dispute that the altercation took place. However, she said N’s visitor was the instigator, and the altercation involved a member of her household. So, the resident did not think it was fair for the landlord to hold her responsible and ask her to attend an interview.
29. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for the behaviour of her household and visitors, and they must not behave in a violent, threatening or abusive way. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work in partnership with other agencies, particularly the police, when considering certain types of ASB, such as ASB involving threatening behaviour. We note the police decided to conduct its own investigation into the incident.
30. Based on the tenancy agreement and landlord’s ASB policy, we are satisfied the landlord acted appropriately by reminding the resident of her responsibilities and recommending a joint interview with the police. While we recognise the resident said she did not instigate the incident, we are satisfied the landlord’s response was reasonable.
31. The resident also complained about the landlord’s decision to issue her an ASB warning letter. The landlord said it had reviewed video evidence from 28 November 2023 showing the resident verbally abusing N. However, it has not shared this video or provided a detailed explanation of what the evidence showed. If the landlord felt unable to share the evidence, it should have been very clear what evidence it had, what this showed, and how this met the threshold for issuing a warning. The landlord only provided general information, stating that a video showed the resident verbally abused N. In the circumstances, the resident’s dissatisfaction is understandable as it seems she has been issued warnings, without a sufficient explanation as to why this happened.
32. The resident has said the landlord’s HSM acted in a bias way, and she would like the landlord to replace the HSM. We may not consider complaints which concern the terms of employment or other personnel issues. So, we have not considered whether the landlord should appoint a new HSM. We have considered whether the landlord acted in a bias manner, and we have found no evidence to suggest it has. We are also satisfied the landlord sufficiently explained why it would not appoint a new HSM in its stage 2 response letter.
33. In summary, we have identified several failures in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute and related ASB reports. It did not follow its ASB policy, delayed its responses, failed to take appropriate action, and did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the warnings issued to the resident. We have therefore made an overall finding of maladministration by the landlord. To resolve this part of the resident’s complaint, we have ordered the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Confirm in writing, whether it has granted retrospective permission for the security lights, and set out the conditions for their use.
    3. Clearly explain to the resident, in writing, what the evidence it relied on to issue the ASB and tenancy warnings showed, and how this supported its decisions.
    4. Pay the resident £150 for the delays in responding to her reports of ASB by N.
    5. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to carry out a risk assessment.
34. The above compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

35. The resident has complained the landlord sent correspondence during unsociable hours. The specific correspondence the resident has referred to is an email dated 13 April 2024 which was sent at 03:31am.
36. The landlord has acknowledged this was sent outside of its normal office hours. It has said this was done so the resident received it before the HSM went on annual leave. We recognise the resident said this was not true, as the HSM allegedly sent further correspondence to other residents after they had gone on leave. Based on the evidence we have been provided, we are satisfied with the landlord’s explanation.
37. In any case, we note the HSM stated in their email to the resident that they sometimes work irregular hours and if they send an email at an unusual time, they do not expect an immediate response. We think this was fair and reasonable. Additionally, while we recognise the resident may have been surprised to receive an email at 03:31am, we have not seen evidence to suggest receiving this correspondence negatively impacted the resident.
38. Taking the above into account, we are satisfied the landlord has acted in a way that’s fair and reasonable, and we have made a finding of no maladministration for this part of the resident’s complaint.

39. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to an alleged data breach by the landlord. This was in relation to the landlord sending the resident an email incorrectly addressed to N, and the resident’s concerns that there may have been other alleged data breaches.
40. The Ombudsman cannot investigate every complaint brought to us. We may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
41. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body which has the power to investigate alleged data breaches and to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling requirements.
42. This part of the resident’s complaint is solely about the alleged data breach. As such, this part of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction, which means we will not investigate it. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her data, she is free to visit the ICO’s website where there is further information and advice on what to do if she feels an organisation has mishandled her data.

43. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. The resident raised the initial complaint on 29 November 2023. The landlord did not respond until 19 March 2024, which is 77 working days. The landlord has apologised for this failure.
44. The resident made a complaint on 15 April 2024 and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024, which is 36 working days. This was a further delay and a failure by the landlord to adhere to its policy. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £25 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this and the earlier delay. That said, we have considered the landlord’s compensation offer in light of its overall handling of the complaint.
45. In line with its policy, the landlord should respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2024. The landlord responded on 12 August 2024, which is 49 working days. The landlord has not addressed this further delay in its complaint responses.
46. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make a payment of up to £250 when a mistake, such as a delay, has resulted in a minor negative impact to the resident. Considering the overall delays in answering the resident’s complaint, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident, inclusive of the £25 it has already paid. We are satisfied this amount is fair and reasonable and is in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

47. We have identified several learning opportunities from this complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord did not provide video evidence it had relied on to support its decisions to the resident or the Ombudsman. Where sharing such evidence with a resident may not be appropriate, a clear summary of the evidence and its relevance should be recorded and communicated.
49. In relation to any concerns about sharing evidence with the Ombudsman, we are experienced in handling confidential data and investigation staff receive data handling training, including consideration of how sensitive data will be referenced in our investigation reports.

Communication

50. The landlord did not clearly communicate whether retrospective permission for the security lights was granted. It should aim to improve how decisions are recorded and conveyed to residents, especially where conditions are attached.