The Riverside Group Limited (202401145)

Decision
Case ID	202401145
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Riverside Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

1. The resident accesses her home through an entrance shared with 2 other properties. In September 2023 she reported that her neighbour had dogs living at the address and that there was dog mess and litter in the shared communal areas. She later raised concerns that her neighbour might be at risk of exploitation and needed support.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour.
4. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. Once it was clear the resident did not want an ASB case logged, the landlord should have taken a more timely and proactive approach and not relied so heavily on its ASB procedures. Although the landlord took some reasonable steps, it missed earlier opportunities to act on safeguarding concerns. While it initially provided updates to the resident about contact attempts with the neighbour, there was a prolonged period without further communication while awaiting a formal complaint response. This left the resident uncertain about what action, if any, the landlord was taking.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement and response were delayed, which led to the resident chasing for updates. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses fell short of the requirements of the Code, as the landlord did not show it had investigated its actions or provided the resident with a clear outcome and reasons.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 May 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £225 compensation made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 May 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her current concerns. The landlord should explain to the resident:   How any tenancy issues will be investigated. Including any limitations it may have. What steps it will take, if any. What information it can and cannot share for data protection reasons.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord had not taken any responsibility for the ongoing issues with her neighbour. She also said she had provided a large amount of evidence to the landlord and had not received any feedback.
18 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint. It said it had updated the resident in January 2024 that a referral had been made for the neighbour. It also advised that any further incidents should be reported through its anti-social behaviour (ASB) portal.
22 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she waited 4 months for a response and it did not answer her complaint. She did not feel the landlord had made enough effort to understand her complaint.
23 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Said dog mess in the communal garden breached the tenancy agreement and that it would arrange a one‑off clean. Summarised its contact with the resident between November 2023 and April 2024, including missed callbacks and delays. It apologised. Said incidents supported by evidence should be reported and logged as an ASB case in line with its policy. Said it opened a safeguarding case. Concerns about criminal exploitation should be reported to the police. Offered the resident a meeting with the housing officer to discuss ASB. Set out its internal actions and communication with the resident during its stage 2 investigation. Said it follows a pre‑tenancy process before offering a property, and if all checks are satisfactory, an offer is made.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary the resident said the landlord did not do anything to resolve the situation. She said its communication was poor and it did not take responsibility.

What we found and why

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Service failure

7. We acknowledge the resident continued to report ASB after the landlord issued its complaint response. We recognise the impact these ongoing incidents had on her. We acknowledge that there were many reports and the landlord took some action. However, the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider a formal complaint about its handling of this later period. For this reason, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of incidents after 23 April 2024.
8. 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 and includes:
   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
9. The landlord’s safeguarding policy states it has robust processes in place in relation to the recording and reporting of allegations of or concerns about abuse. The landlord’s policy recognises “cuckooing” as abuse.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states if the home has a shared entrance or uses any shared area, the landlord would only give permission for a resident to have a pet on medical grounds.
11. In September and October 2023 the resident became increasingly concerned about dogs at her neighbour’s address. She felt unsafe. She also reported overflowing bins and large amounts of rubbish in the communal areas. She told the landlord that her neighbour might be vulnerable and asked it to complete a support visit. The landlord told her that her neighbour was not engaging and said it would complete further visits. The landlord appropriately updated the resident on actions it planned to take.
12. On 3 November 2023 the resident reported noise, rubbish, excrement and a dangerous dog to the landlord. She said the landlord was not accepting responsibility for the issues and was unhappy about the offer of an ASB case being opened.
13. On 8 November 2023 the resident reported her neighbour was in distress, shouting, crying and screaming. She said the police attended and she had concerns about possible exploitation. The landlord opened an ASB case and offered to visit the resident to discuss her concerns, which she refused. She said the landlord was overlooking her complaint about staff conduct and was not taking responsibility. The landlord closed the ASB case and told her the complaints team would deal with her concerns separately. This set the resident’s expectation that her complaint would be considered, whether an ASB case was active or not.
14. The resident told the landlord she felt coerced into making an ASB complaint about a neighbour she believed was vulnerable and being exploited. The landlord’s internal note said it would not update her without an agreed action plan. The landlord should have explained what it would do with the information she provided even without an action plan. While action plans form part of its usual ASB process, this should not prevent the landlord from responding to new information or explaining its approach. Although data protection may have limited what it could share, the landlord could have done more to reassure the resident that it would take reasonable steps.
15. Although the resident said she did not want an ASB case opened, this did not remove the landlord’s responsibility to act on the information it had. The resident’s concerns, such as the condition of the communal area and the dog, could have been investigated directly by the landlord. The tenancy agreement did not permit pets without permission at that time, and the landlord told the resident it would not grant permission for the dog. It should therefore have taken the issues forward as a tenancy management matter sooner than it did. This may have reduced the impact on the resident, who said she felt fearful going to and from her home.
16. In March 2024 the resident told the landlord that 2 dogs had gone for her and that there was dog mess in the communal areas. The landlord’s records show it had visited the area 2 weeks earlier, found no dog mess, and considered the area clean. After the resident provided photographs, the landlord internally considered raising a job to remove the dog mess. It is unclear from the evidence whether this action was completed.
17. On 4 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that there were multiple people living in the neighbour’s address, the communal door was insecure with people coming and going and a male had taken photos and videos of the resident and her vehicle. She was concerned her neighbour was being exploited. She said she considered the dogs dangerous and that fluid, food, litter and excrement were often left around the building. We have seen evidence that following this report, the landlord took steps to investigate the safeguarding concerns and considered referrals to partner agencies. However there were missed opportunities for the landlord to have acted sooner in line with its safeguarding obligations. At this time, the landlord appropriately updated the resident that it would contact and visit the neighbour.
18. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the allocation of the neighbour’s property and that the neighbour did not have adequate support. We are satisfied that the landlord confirmed its position, explaining its lettings process.
19. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles encourage landlords to act fairly and flexibly to reflect individual circumstances. Once it was clear the resident did not want an ASB case logged, the landlord should have taken a more timely and proactive approach and not relied so heavily on its ASB procedures. Although the landlord took some reasonable steps, it missed earlier opportunities to act on safeguarding concerns. While it initially provided updates to the resident about contact attempts with the neighbour, there was a prolonged period without further communication while awaiting a formal complaint response. This left the resident uncertain about what action, if any, the landlord was taking. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
20. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 in compensation.
21. The resident’s neighbour was away from the property for approximately a year and returned in March 2026. The resident has told us that the issues have since restarted. The landlord has told us that dogs are now permitted unless considered unsuitable. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her current concerns and agree appropriate next steps. The landlord should explain:
    1. How any tenancy issues will be investigated, including any limitations it may have.
    2. What steps it will take, if any.
    3. What information it can and cannot share for data protection reasons.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

22. The landlord’s complaints policy said stage 1 and stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days. After this, stage 1 responses would be issued within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 16 working days, which was outside the timescales in its complaints policy. The acknowledgement did not set the resident’s expectations because it did not tell her when it would respond. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response 77 working days later, which was significantly outside its policy timescales.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 response were not in line with the Code. The responses did not demonstrate learning, and did not provide the resident with assurance that her concerns had been properly considered. This is because:
    1. The stage 1 response repeated an incident the resident reported and the actions the landlord had taken. The landlord did not show that it had investigated its own handling of the resident’s reports. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised, but it did not explain what service failures it had identified.
    2. At stage 2 the landlord did not provide a clear decision on whether it upheld the complaint. This fell short of the Complaint Handling Code, which requires landlords to give residents a clear outcome and the reasons for it.
25. The landlord provided its stage 2 acknowledgment and stage 2 response on time.
26. We find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its stage 1 acknowledgement and response were delayed, which led to the resident chasing for updates. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses fell short of the requirements of the Code, as the landlord did not show it had investigated its actions or provided the resident with a clear outcome and reasons.
27. We have ordered the landlord to pay £125 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Learning

28. Where residents raise concerns that indicate possible vulnerability or exploitation, landlords should act promptly under their safeguarding duties. Early consideration of safeguarding action, independent of ASB processes, can help reduce risk, ensure appropriate referrals are made, and provide reassurance that concerns are being taken seriously.
29. The landlord should take greater care when issuing complaint responses. In this case the stage 2 response was dated incorrectly and its paragraph about its lettings process was incomplete. Accurate, clear, and complete information is essential to ensure residents understand the landlord’s decisions and to maintain confidence in its complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord provided adequate records for the purpose of our investigation.

Communication

31. There is learning for the landlord to take from this case. As discussed, the landlord should provide regular, proportionate communication when residents report ongoing concerns. Even where data protection considerations limit the detail that can be shared, clear updates about actions taken or planned can reduce uncertainty, build trust, and prevent distress.