The Riverside Group Limited (202331764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331764

The Riverside Group Limited

7 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for the landlord to write off his arrears because of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) he had experienced.
   2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

2. The resident lived in a first floor, one bedroom flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord from August 2019 to September 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident informed the landlord, and it recorded, that he had mental health and mobility issues.
3. The resident started reporting ASB from others in the building to the landlord from December 2019. He reported noise coming from his upstairs neighbours, including loud music and noise at unsociable hours. He also reported ASB issues from other neighbours and said police were regularly visiting the block because of their behaviour.
4. The resident started asking for a management transfer from May 2020. He said he was unable to manage the stairs to get to his flat due to his mobility issues. He also said the ASB issues in the block were affecting his mental health. He provided medical evidence in support to the landlord. The landlord said he did not meet its threshold for a management transfer and gave advice on other services the resident should register with if he wished to move. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to rehouse him throughout his tenancy.
5. The resident was offered accommodation from a different landlord in August 2023. He gave four weeks’ notice to the landlord and his tenancy ended on 10 September 2023. After moving out, the resident started receiving rent arrears letters from the landlord. He disputed the arrears with the landlord, saying he had moved out of their property before his tenancy ended. He also said that earlier that year there had been a discrepancy on his rent account that was never resolved by the landlord. He therefore felt the arrears were incorrect.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in September 2023. He said he wanted the rent arrears removed from his account. He said he had moved out of his flat earlier than the tenancy ended because he felt poorly treated by the landlord, especially in the way it had handled his ASB reports, and therefore he felt he should not be charged rent for the full notice period.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 September 2023. It said all residents are expected to give four weeks’ notice and pay rent to cover this period regardless of when they move out.
8. The resident escalated his complaint because he felt the landlord’s response did not reflect his complaint. He also felt the landlord had not considered the medical evidence he had previously provided when he had requested rehousing and reported ASB.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023. It said all the resident’s medical evidence had been considered when he asked for rehousing and it had responded fairly to these requests. It also said all the resident’s ASB reports had been thoroughly investigated in line with its ASB policy. It maintained that the resident needed to pay the rent arrears.
10. The resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he was frustrated with the landlord’s complaint responses. He wanted the landlord to clear any rent arrears.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The landlord’s historic handling of the resident’s ASB reports is a significant part of this complaint. Nonetheless, this investigation centres on the key issue the resident raised in his complaint: that because of the ASB he should not be liable for the rent arrears accrued during the notice period when he moved out of the property, and the landlord’s response to his request.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have his arrears written off

12. The resident started receiving arrears letters from the landlord shortly after his tenancy ended on 10 September 2023. In evidence seen by the Service, the resident disputed these arrears for two reasons:
    1. The resident moved out of his property during his four week notice period due to ongoing ASB issues and therefore felt he was not liable for any rent after he moved out.
    2. There had been a discrepancy on his rent account that the landlord never resolved. The resident felt this meant the amount of arrears recorded was incorrect.
13. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that when moving out residents must pay their rent up to the last day of their tenancy. In this case the last day was 10 September 2023.
14. In both its complaint responses the landlord said it was the resident’s decision to move out before the tenancy ended and he was therefore liable to pay rent up until 10 September 2023. While the resident has explained that he moved out earlier than the tenancy end date because of the ASB he was experiencing, nothing in the tenancy agreement or the policies the landlord provided for this investigation provides an exemption from paying rent in these circumstances. The resident was obliged to meet the terms of the agreement, of which rent was obviously a part. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to maintain that he was liable for the rent up until 10 September 2023 as this was line with the terms of his tenancy agreement.
15. On 9 May 2023, the resident called the landlord to query a £375 credit on his rent account. He said he had not made a payment for this amount and he asked the landlord to look into the matter It said it would and would then update him. The resident chased the landlord for an update two times in May 2023. Each time the landlord promised it would contact the resident once it had investigated.
16. The landlord’s internal emails show that it attempted to identify where the unknown credit had come from, but there is no evidence of it reaching a conclusion on the issue or giving any updates to the resident.
17. In the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s escalated complaint, it said it understood the resident wanted his arrears cleared or reassessed as he felt they were incorrect. However, it did not address the discrepancy in its final complaint response. This issue was part of the resident’s concerns that the arrears amount was incorrect. His concern related to a credit to his account, so the transaction was potentially to his benefit. Nonetheless, not acknowledging the rent account discrepancy was a service failure by the landlord and should have been addressed in its response to provide clarity about the arrears.
18. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to write off his rent arrears was reasonable because the resident was liable for the full period of rent even if he moved out during his notice period. Nonetheless, the resident had raised concerns about the actual amount of arrears and asked for clarification, which the landlord investigated but did not respond to, either within its complaint responses or outside of them. That was not reasonable.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

19. The landlord’s management transfer policy says it may consider rehousing a resident in “very extreme circumstances”. It says these circumstances can include where a resident has “a severe and long-term medical condition” meaning they cannot leave their property or use essential facilities in their home. It also includes where there is a “severe and imminent threat” to a resident’s safety from ASB.
20. The resident made multiple requests for the landlord to rehouse him during his tenancy. He requested rehousing for two reasons:
    1. He was experiencing ASB from several neighbours in the building. He had experienced ASB in a previous property that he said resulted in the landlord rehousing him.
    2. His mobility issues meant accessing his first floor flat difficult and he needed ground floor accommodation, preferably in a bungalow.
21. The resident’s original complaint, and escalation have not been provided. However, in its acknowledgment and complaint responses the landlord said it understood the resident was not happy with its decision not to rehouse the resident and this formed part of his complaint.
22. In both its responses, the landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s rehousing requests each time they were made, as well as the supporting evidence he provided. This evidence included supporting letters from the resident’s GP and a clinic who were treating him. Despite the evidence, the landlord maintained that the resident did not meet its threshold for a management transfer and it provided information about other options and services he could contact for alternative accommodation.
23. The evidence supports the landlord’s response. On each occasion the resident made his request, the landlord responded promptly and gave advice about the resident’s moving options. It was also clear that it did not have an extensive stock of bungalow properties, which the resident had said was the only type of property he would accept.
24. The landlord took other steps to help the resident move. This included following up on an email Social Services sent in June 2023 where they asked it to help the resident with rehousing. It referred the resident to an external rehousing service. This referral resulted in the resident being offered a bungalow with another landlord within two months. This was good practice by the landlord and showed that it appreciated the resident’s frustrations and desire to move.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to write off his arrears.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

27. In light of the failings found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £200 within 4 weeks for not responding to his queries about the unknown credit to his rent account and the accuracy of the arrears.
    2. Within 6 weeks the landlord must respond to the resident’s query about the £375 credit. If, given the time that has now passed it is unable to do that, it must confirm what it believes the current arrears are, and what the resident needs to pay to clear them. The credit to the account means the arrears should be less than they might otherwise have been. The landlord should consider repayment options for the resident if he asks it to.
    3. Provide evidence of the above to the Service.