The Riverside Group Limited (202111572)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111572

The Riverside Group Limited

12 January 2022


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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced a starter tenancy with it on 28 May 2021. Her property is a flat within a block with shared communal areas. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 28 June 2021, the resident called the landlord to make a complaint. She said that during the viewing for the property she pointed out a faint smell of cannabis in the foyer of the block. The landlord had assured the resident that this was not a regular occurrence. She reported that the smell was now “horrendous” and was coming through the walls and windows which was making her sister ill. The resident said that she could not remain in the property and wanted the landlord to move her to a different home.
  3. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 29 June 2021. It issued a stage one complaint response to her later that day confirming its discussion with her during the visit. The landlord said that when it attended the property that day, it could not detect any cannabis smell in the property, the entrances to properties in the block nor the communal areas. It acknowledged that some of its residents may be recreational users of cannabis but stated that it could not take any action unless they had been successfully prosecuted for this by the police. The resident said that the previous occupant of the property had caused the cannabis smell, but the landlord asserted that it’s staff had previously been present in the property with the previous occupant and had not witnessed this smell.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that she did not meet the criteria for a priority move due to her report of a cannabis smell. If she did not wish to remain in the property, it outlined her options for finding alternative accommodation which were to seek private rented accommodation or to contact the local authority’s homelessness team. The landlord cautioned the resident that she would not be eligible for a move through the choice-based lettings scheme operated by the local authority for the first 12 months of her tenancy. After this time, she was advised that she may be eligible for a priority banding dependent on obtaining the necessary medical evidence.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that this response was provided to the resident earlier that day and she was dissatisfied with this and wished to escalate her complaint.
  6. The landlord carried out five visits to the block between 16 and 26 July 2021 and delivered a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on 23 July 2021. This advised the neighbour that an odour of cannabis had been detected from their property specifically on 22 and 23 July 2021. The landlord’s informed them that they may be potentially breaching their tenancy agreement. It asked them to make contact within seven days and refrain from any drug use.
  7. After speaking to the resident on 26 July 2021, the landlord issued its final complaint response to her on 28 July 2021. In this its relayed the actions it had taken to investigate her report of the smell of cannabis in the block. The landlord confirmed that it had distributed surveys to resident to gain feedback on any signs of drug use but had only received a response from the resident and had not received any reports of the issue from others. It repeated that it could only take tenancy action in respect of a report of drug use after a successful prosecution by the police. The landlord informed the resident that it would continue to carry out regular spot checks at the block and take appropriate action if it found any breaches of tenancy. It advised her to report any signs of cannabis use to the police to allow them to investigate.
  8. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the report of a smell of cannabis did not meets its criteria for a priority move. It repeated the options available to her for rehousing which it provided in its stage one complaint response.
  9. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 21 October 2021 that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint as she continued to be affected by her neighbour’s use of cannabis. She said that the smell of cannabis entered her property and affected her and her household’s mental and physical health. The resident said that she had not been successful in finding a private property to move to and that her application through the choice-based letterings system was “frozen” due to her being within 12 months of the start of her current tenancy. She wanted the landlord to allow her to bid on properties through this letting system.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that residents are not to behave in a way which may cause nuisance or annoyance to others in the vicinity of the property, such as using drugs.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will take legal action against residents who are convicted of drugs offences and will encourage residents who witness drug related offences to report these to the police. When a resident reports ASB, this procedure provides for contact with the resident at the first stage, followed by engagement with the alleged perpetrator of the ASB.
  3. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. This states that it should provide a resolution plan to the resident within five working days of receipt of the complaint. The landlord should complete any actions to resolve the complaint within ten working days. At the final stage of the complaints procedure, the landlord should provide a written response to the resident within ten working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations in response to a report of dissatisfaction with its service from a resident. Dissatisfaction with services operated by the local authority, when not acting in the capacity as a social landlord, are outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the resident’s dissatisfaction with being unable to seek an alternative property through the local authority’s choice-based letting system. The resident may be able to complain to the local authority if she is unhappy with its letting system. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received the local authority’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO can consider complaints about local authority’s activities aside from their role as a social landlord, including complaints about the local authority’s choice based letting system.
  2. When considering a complaint about a landlord’s handling of a report of ASB, the Ombudsman considers whether it acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures, and whether it took reasonable steps to resolve the matter. In line with its ASB procedure above, on receipt of the resident’s report of ASB, the landlord visited her to discuss the report. It then carried out spot checks at the building between 16 and 26 July 2021 to identify the source of the cannabis smell and wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 23 July 2021. These were reasonable actions, in accordance with its procedure above, to investigate the source of the ASB and engage with the alleged perpetrator to resolve the reported ASB.
  3. It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to report any instances of drug use she witnessed to the police. Drug use is a criminal offence and the police are best placed to investigate reports of criminal activity. In accordance with its ASB procedure above, the landlord would only take legal action against a tenant for drug use of the tenant was prosecuted and convicted. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to encourage the resident to contact the police to help to resolve the issue. In conclusion, the landlord acted reasonably and there was no evidence of a failure on its part to address the ASB.
  4. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to move her to another property. The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident of her options for moving. It is understood that the resident was unable to register to move with the local authority as she was within the first 12 months of her tenancy. As above, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the local authority’s choice-based lettings system. it is noted that the landlord did not discuss a managed move with the resident. Typically, it would be reasonable for a landlord to consider a management move in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is an immediate risk to the resident’s safety due to severe ASB. While the evidence does not suggest that it was appropriate to consider a management move at the time, it is recommended that the landlord should continue engaging with the resident and the alleged perpetrator to resolve the ASB gong forward.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of ASB.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the ASB reported by the resident, in accordance with its ASB procedure.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should continue engaging with the resident and the alleged perpetrator to resolve the reported ASB.