The Riverside Group Limited (202231255)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231255

The Riverside Group Limited

28 February 2024

 

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 resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the property from 22 September 2014 until she ended the tenancy on 16 April 2023. The property is a flat in a block that has external communal areas. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  1. In January and April 2022, the resident reported behaviour that she considered to be antisocial to her landlord. The reports were of someone smoking in an external communal area and bikes being placed in the bin store. On each occasion the landlord advised the resident that the reports did not meet the threshold for antisocial behaviour and would not be investigated through its antisocial behaviour (ASB) procedure.
  2. When the resident complained about the lack of action, the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2022 detailing the 5 issues she was complaining about and responding to each point, explaining what action it could and could not take and why. The issues were:
    1. Smoking in communal areas and discarded cigarette butts.
    2. Bikes in the bin store preventing easy access to the bins.
    3. Dog noise.
    4. Dogs fouling on the communal green.
    5. Request for the current housing officer and housing manager not to deal with the case.
  3. The landlord agreed to complete the following actions:
    1. Arrange for a contractor to tidy up the communal areas.
    2. Write a letter to all residents of the block about the issues and what the landlord expected of them.
  4. The complaint was not upheld, and the resident did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. On 13 July 2022 all residents living in the block were sent a letter about the issues outlined above and the landlord’s expectations of how residents should treat the communal areas. On the 4 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and outlined what action it had completed in trying to resolve the issues and clarified other issues that the resident and landlord had discussed.
  5. Around the 31 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the actions taken to stop the ASB and that the ASB was ongoing. The landlord noted on its system that there was no new information, so it was not logging a new complaint. However, the landlord did then respond to the complaint with a stage 1 and stage 2 complaints letter. The responses detailed the action already taken by the landlord, that the incidents were not serious breaches, and that tenancy enforcement action could not be taken. The complaint was not upheld. The resident did not agree and contacted the Ombudsman on 20 March 2023 asking this service to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s communication with the Ombudsman, she stated that to resolve the matter the landlord should provide her with a management move to a different property. This request did not form part of the original complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider “matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide”. The resident has since ended her tenancy. The resident could consider raising a further complaint with the landlord if she wishes to.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. 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. It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing for the resident and that the incidents did have an adverse impact on her. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the incidents reported amounted to antisocial behaviour, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and fairly.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report her neighbour smoking on a communal balcony area on 30 January 2022. The landlord’s case notes state that the resident was verbally advised that this was not a breach of tenancy so no action would be taken. This was an appropriate response. The landlord’s ASB procedure explains that following a report of ASB, it will take as much detail as possible. The landlord will decide if the issue meets the threshold for further investigation and if it does not it will signpost the resident to self-help information.
  3. Similar advice was given on 21 April 2022 when the resident called to report a neighbour leaving a bike in the communal bin area. The landlord’s records said there was no evidence to support the allegation. These were appropriate responses from the landlord given the severity of the reports. In line with its ASB policy, they were not incidents that would be investigated under the landlord’s ASB procedure. Due to lack of exact call log notes the Ombudsman cannot conclude whether the landlord correctly signposted the resident or advised her if it could do anything – within its neighbourhood management remit for example. There is no evidence in the detail of the 2 reports that the landlord showed empathy for how these incidents affected the resident. The Ombudsman understands that while a report may seem minor and at a low level, it is subjective and may still have had an adverse impact on a resident.
  4. No risk assessments or draft action plans were completed during or following the 2 reports of 30 January and 21 April 2022. This is in keeping with the landlord’s ASB procedure as this only happens when the reports meet the threshold for further investigation by the ASB team.
  5. The landlord had no known vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system. In her correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident noted she had complications from long covid and associated health issues. There is no evidence that the Ombudsman has seen to show that the landlord was aware of this. This is not to say it was not made aware, but the Ombudsman can only make decisions based on the evidence it has received.
  6. The completion of incident diaries and mediation were not noted as being offered. This is an appropriate response given the nature of the reports. The evidence shows that the landlord advised the resident about the noise app and explained how she could record noise incidents, including dog noise. The resident did send in some recordings. The landlord advised her in a timely manner that it considered the recordings to be everyday noise and not statutory noise nuisance.
  7. The landlord completed a stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2022. No evidence was provided to assess when the resident made her formal complaint. The response showed the landlord had spoken to the resident. This is good practice and in keeping with the landlord’s complaint handling procedure. The response clearly outlined each aspect of the complaint and provided a resolution or action for each. The explanation for each point was clear and appropriate for the severity of the reported issues. The landlord also stated what it could and would do to try and resolve the issues. The letter acknowledged that some of the issues were impacting the resident’s ability to access her bins and use the communal green area.
  8. On 13 July 2022 all residents in the block were sent a letter about some of the ongoing issues in the area. It detailed what the concerns were and how the landlord expected the residents to behave. It was clear and detailed. To send a block letter was an appropriate action to the resident’s multiple reports. It is reasonable that the landlord did not send a block letter after the two reports made in January and April 2022 as at the time these appeared to be isolated incidents.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2022 following a recent conversation it had had with her. It outlined what was discussed. It detailed what action the landlord had and would take; and also, what action it would not take and why. The Ombudsman finds that this is good practice to follow up a detailed conversation with a letter. It provides an opportunity for the landlord to document what it has understood and what it will do. It manages the expectations of both parties. Equally, it provides the resident with documentation of agreed actions of the landlord and an opportunity to let the landlord know if it missed any aspect of the conversation.
  10. Between the 7 December 2022 and 18 January 2023, the landlord discussed the situation with the Environmental Health team (EH) following reports the resident made to EH. Working in partnership with other agencies can be productive and useful. In this case EH noted that the resident had asked them about a management move and they asked the landlord to contact the resident about her housing options. It also noted that the resident asked for a meeting about the issues. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident about her housing options or that a meeting was organised. Both actions would have been reasonable and helpful in dealing with the overall complaint. This was a missed opportunity. It would have shown that the landlord was listening to the resident and trying to resolve her concerns.
  11. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to try and resolve the issues and manage the resident’s expectations. Had it organised a meeting with the resident as she had requested it would have been an opportunity to repair the relationship with the landlord and manage the expectations the resident had around the landlord moving her. The Ombudsman does note that there is evidence of the resident not wanting to engage with the landlord’s neighbourhood staff. However, as the resident had suggested a meeting it would have been reasonable of the landlord to attempt to arrange one.
  12. In summary, the landlord acted fairly and appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It classed them as neighbourhood issues and explained to the resident what it could do to try and resolve the issues. The landlord carried out the actions it said it would. It worked in line with its policies and procedures. It was timely in its responses to the resident except for the stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  13. The Ombudsman does make a recommendation to the landlord to make sure that it keeps detailed records when a resident reports ASB. If it makes the decision not to investigate through its ASB procedure there needs to be clear notes as to why. The notes need to show that the resident has been informed, understands and what advice has been offered. The notes must also detail if any action outside the ASB procedure will be completed by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. On 31 October 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she was unhappy that the antisocial issues were not resolved. The landlord accepted it as a new complaint and responded with a stage 1 complaint letter on 14 November 2022. This was outside the timescale of the landlord’s complaint handling procedure to provide a written response within 5 working days of the complaint. It is 1 day outside the timescale within the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to provide a response within 10 working days. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident from 1 November to 14 November 2022 and kept the resident updated with when the written response could be expected. The delay was reasonable as the landlord was allowing the resident to send in some more evidence and it kept the resident updated.
  2. The stage 1 landlord complaint response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It pointed the resident to the previous stage 1 response that provided an explanation of what the landlord could and could not do. It would have been useful for the landlord to have provided the resident with a copy of this previous response and the evidence is not clear as to whether it did. The response explained why the reports could not be treated as serious breaches. The landlord’s assessment of the reported antisocial behaviour was appropriate and followed the guidance in its ASB policy, which highlights what types of incidents can be classed as ASB. Evidence was provided to the Ombudsman to show that the actions detailed in the response were completed by the landlord in a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint handling process on 6 December 2022. She explained that she did not feel the complaint was completed independently and that her concerns about the landlord’s housing team were not addressed. She specifically asked for someone independent to carry out the stage 2 review. The landlord allowed the person who had completed the stage 1 response of the previous complaint to complete the stage 2 review. The Ombudsman finds this to be in opposition to what the resident had requested. Although this person did not complete the stage 1 investigation for this complaint, this person was not completely removed from the history of this case. While this is not strictly a breach of the Code, it would have been good practice for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s request and explicitly state why it had not accommodated it.
  4. The landlord completed the stage 2 complaint response on the 23 January 2023, which was 32 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was outside the timescale of 10 working days in the landlord’s complaint handling procedure and outside the Code’s timescale of 20 working days. There is also no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about the delay, which was a further failing on the landlord’s part.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The response addressed the escalation points the resident had made and clarified the landlord’s position, following its review of the complaint. It would have been good practice to attach the letter from 1 July 2022 that is referred to in the response.
  6. In summary, the landlord dealt with the complaint fairly. It was reasonable of the landlord to accept the complaint again given the time that had passed. It was appropriate to refer to the original stage 1 complaint response, as the landlord’s position had not changed. The landlord did not meet its timescales for responses and the way it managed the delay in the stage 2 response was not acceptable. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling of this case because of the delays and not allocating the stage 2 to an appropriate member of staff.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order and Recommendation

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident £100 for service failures in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review how it handled this case and assess if any learning or improvements can be achieved. Specifically, to consider how the landlord manages and documents reports of ASB that do not meet the threshold for its ASB procedure but do still require actions by the landlord. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of its findings within 4 weeks of the date of this report.