The Riverside Group Limited (202319066)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319066

The Riverside Group Limited

13 November 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 Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2 May 2022. The property is a self-contained 3rd floor apartment. The building is made up of 19 self-contained apartments, all owned and managed by the landlord, providing flexible support for vulnerable people enduring mental ill health.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 6 February 2023 that water was leaking into his property from the flat above. The resident continued to report water leaks from the upstairs flat until June 202 with the landlord confirming that it had attended on 4 occasions. The resident considered that his neighbour was intentionally causing water to leak into his property. The landlord held meetings with the neighbour to address their behaviour. When this did not improve, the landlord agreed with the neighbour to support them in finding more suitable housing for their needs. The neighbour moved out on 4 July 2023 and their tenancy ended on 9 July 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord and submitted a compensation claim on 22 May 2023 for damage to their possessions caused by the leaks. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 May 2023 asking the resident to provide a list of the damaged items. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023 acknowledging that the complaint was about malicious water damage caused by ASB. The landlord advised that it did not receive a list of the damaged items and that it was not responsible for the damage, as another resident caused this. The landlord offered a £50 shopping voucher as a gesture of goodwill for the stress caused to the resident.
  4. The resident requested their complaint escalated on 10 July 2023, as they were unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 response, as they felt that their neighbour was causing the leaks on purpose. The landlord acknowledged that the neighbour had caused considerable damage to the resident’s flat, but it had taken appropriate action to stop this reoccurring. The landlord considered its offer of £50 compensation fair and made no further offer of compensation.
  5. The resident requested that this Service investigate his complaint on 30 August 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, as the ASB had increased his anxiety, caused him to dissociate on numerous occasions and to attempt suicide. The resident considered that the landlord should deal with complaints quicker in the future.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
  2. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  3. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the same definition of ASB that is set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014. This is:
    1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
    3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy includes that when tackling ASB, it will strive to:
    1. Have in place a robust tenancy or licence agreement clearly outlining our stance on anti-social behaviour.
    2. Take all complaints of nuisance and anti-social behaviour seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
    3. Keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate.
    4. Consider and where appropriate offer support to vulnerable residents and families who are responsible for anti-social behaviour to try and help modify their behaviour.
  3. The resident’s tenancy under the section covering anti-social behaviour states that if they do not comply with their duties under sections 3.13 to 3.15 that the landlord can take possession proceedings. The relevant sections state that:
    1. You must not damage or threaten to damage any property belonging to us, your neighbours, our staff, agents and contractors or any other person who is lawfully in or in the locality of your home.
    2. You will not behave in a way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to your neighbours, or any other person who is lawfully in or in the locality of your home.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

  1. It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and industry best practice.
  2. The resident accused the neighbour of intentionally causing leaks in their property to cause water to leak through his ceiling and into his flat. These actions meet the definition of behaviour not allowed under the tenancy.
  3. The resident first reported water leaking into his flat from the above flat on 6 February 2023. The landlord responded appropriately by entering the upstairs flat to stop the cause of the leak the same day. The landlord’s records show that following this incident it supported the neighbour with a washing machine leak. The landlord contacted the resident and the neighbour throughout February 2023 and March 2023 to check if there had been any further leaks or if they required any repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep in contact with both parties to try to prevent or deal quickly with any further issues.
  4. The landlord held a meeting with the neighbour on 19 April 2023 to discuss damage that he had caused to communal areas of the building. The landlord highlighted the several ways it had tried to meet the neighbour needs, such as through development plans and meetings with their social worker. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour was aware of the impact on their tenancy should he continue to cause further damage. It was appropriate for the landlord to have meetings with the neighbour to try to help him modify his behaviour. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  5. The landlord held a further meeting with the neighbour and his social worker on 26 April 2023 regarding damage the neighbour had caused and the affect this had on the other residents. At this meeting, the neighbour agreed that he would look for more suitable housing to meet his needs. The landlord confirmed that it would support the neighbour in finding more suitable housing. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that it would issue 2-months’ notice at the next meeting on 22 May 2023, which it did.
  6. During the period 3 May 2023 to 3 June 2023, the landlord responded to further reports of leaks promptly. The landlord identified on 10 May 2023 that the neighbour was causing the leaks intentionally. It found that the hallway was soaked but there was no leak from the radiator and as such it deemed this intentional. The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 May 2023 who advised that he was currently in hospital due to a decline in his mental health caused by the incidents of damage to his property. The resident advised that his neighbour kept trying to engage with him, but he felt that he needed to be away from his neighbour, otherwise he may “snap” should their behaviour continue. The landlord noted that it would continue to support the resident once he was discharged from hospital.
  7. The landlord arranged a meeting with the neighbour on 12 May 2023, but the neighbour refused to participate on the day or allow access to their flat. During the same week, the landlord inspected the damaged caused to the resident’s flat. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the damage caused to the resident’s flat to assess what damage the leaks had caused. In addition, it was appropriate for the landlord to try to arrange a meeting with the neighbour to assess the situation. It was disappointing that the neighbour declined to participate with the landlord’s attempt to address the issue. This made it difficult for the landlord to address the neighbour’s behaviour directly with him.
  8. The landlord kept in touch with the resident throughout the period February 2023 to May 2023 to check if he had experienced any further leaks or ASB. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take given the ongoing issues the resident experienced and his reports about how these issues had impacted upon him. The landlord in its stage 1 response confirmed to the resident that it had assisted the neighbour in moving out to prevent the neighbour causing any further damage. In addition, it explained that it had completed all maintenance and repairs to stop any water coming through to the resident’s flat, as well as completing remedial works. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide this update to the resident and to provide reassurance that this issue should not happen again.
  9. The resident submitted a compensation form and complaint to the landlord on 22 May 2023. The resident requested £100 for damage to his possessions and advised the landlord that the leaks had ruined his trainers. The landlord asked the resident to provide a list of the damaged items he wished to claim for on 26 May 2023. The landlord in its stage 1 response stated that the resident did not provide it with a list of the damaged items. Furthermore, the landlord explained that it was not responsible for the damage, as another tenant caused this. The landlord offered the resident a £50 shopping voucher, as a gesture of goodwill for the stress caused to him.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it was not responsible for the damaged caused to the resident possessions. In addition, it was fair, reasonable and resolution focussed for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim and to offer £50, to try to resolve the complaint. While the landlord had not identified any failure on its part in the handling of the issue, its goodwill gesture recognised the detriment experienced by the resident.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the leaks did not trip or damaged his electrics. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide reassurance to the resident that the leaks had not damaged his electrics.
  12. The resident raised an issue with the neighbour having previously thrown bottles from this flat after the landlord’s stage 2 response. In addition, the resident complained that the neighbour had made up that he threatened them with a knife, resulting in the police holding him overnight. The landlord responded to explain that it was not aware of any incidents of the neighbour throwing bottles from their flat. However, as the neighbour had now moved out, it could not investigate this. Furthermore, the landlord explained that the resident would need to raise the knife incident with the police. The landlord’s response was appropriate and reasonable, as it could not assist with these issues.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leaks caused by ASB was in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations and its ASB policy. The landlord reacted promptly to each report of a leak. It dealt with the neighbour behaviour proportionally with it initially attempting to help the neighbour modify his behaviour. When the neighbour did not modify his behaviour, the landlord assisted the neighbour in moving out. During this period, it kept in touch with the resident and provided confirmation when the neighbour had moved out.
  14. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear of the impact the neighbour’s behaviour had on the resident. This Service acknowledges that this was a difficult time for the resident and that the ASB caused him distress and upset. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident wanted the landlord to resolve this issue quicker. However, landlords can only take formal action against tenants for ASB, such as acceptable behaviour orders, court injunctions or eviction if there is sufficient evidence to show that formal action is appropriate. Therefore, the landlord had to make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue informally before it could take formal action. In this case, the landlord did not need to take formal action through the courts, as the neighbour agreed to move out.
  15. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process.
    1. Stage 1 – The complaint owner should contact the resident by 5pm on the next working day to acknowledge the complaint and agree a resolution timeline. Once the investigation has been completed a resolution plan should be communicated within 5 working days.
    2. Stage 2 – The complaint owner should contact the resident by 5pm of the next working day to discuss resolution of the complaint. The decision should be communicated to the resident within 10-working days of the request to move to stage 2.
  2. The resident complained on 22 May 2023, but the landlord did not call the resident until 26 May 2023 to acknowledge his complaint. This was 3 days outside of the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s letter on 26 May 2023 states that it would be in touch within the timeframes set out below with a decision on the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord left sections of its acknowledgement letter blank, as it did not fill in the reasons for the complaint, resolution requested or the resolution target date. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not fill in these sections of its letter, as it did not provide the resident with a date it would respond by or proofread its letter.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 20, 31-working days after the complaint. This represented an unreasonable delay against the landlord’s published timescale of 5-working days and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code of 10-working days.
  4. The resident requested escalation of their complaint on 10 July 2023, but the landlord did not call the resident to discuss resolution of their complaint until 19 July 2023. This was outside the landlord’s published timescale for contacting a resident to discuss a resolution. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023 within its published timescale of 10-working days. It was appropriate that the landlord responded within this timescale.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgement or delay in its stage 1 response in either of its complaint responses. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for the delay. Its failure to do so was a failure in service. While there is no record of the resident chasing the landlord for a response, the delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response would have caused the resident frustration during a difficult time. It is good practise that the landlord contacts the resident by telephone at both stages, as this helps the landlord increase its understanding of the complaint by discussing this verbally.
  6. The landlord in its stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident requested as a resolution to his complaint to move addresses and be rehoused with the council in supportive living. The landlord advised that it would pass this request to the area manager to discuss with the resident’s social worker, who would support the resident in reaching these aims. This was an appropriate response to this request, as it would be the local authority that would deal with this type of request.
  7. The resident raised a new issue at stage 2 about the landlord entering his property without permission to check a smoke detection device. While the landlord’s response to this issue was fair and reasonable, the landlord should not have addressed this in its stage 2 response. This would prevent the resident from having a further review of this issue, as stage 2 was the landlord’s final complaint stage. Therefore, the resident would be unable to request that the landlord review this if he were unhappy with the response. In this situation, the landlord’s actions caused no detriment to the resident, as they have not disputed the landlord’s response or requested our service review this issue. However, the landlord should be mindful in the future that it should address new issues raised after the stage 1 response through its full complaint process.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman concludes that there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints within its published timescales. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for these delays. In all the circumstances of the case, a finding of service failure is considered appropriate. As a remedy, the landlord has been ordered to pay compensation of £50.

Determination

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

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks from the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £50 for complaint handling failures in addition to the £50 shopping voucher already provided.