The Riverside Group Limited (202453226)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453226

The Riverside Group Limited

24 October 2025 (amended at review)

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:
   1. Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)
   2. Fly tipping
   3. A pest infestation.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 28 September 2020. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom detached house. The resident has autism and suffers with anxiety.
4. Between 4 January 2024 and 9 February 2024, the landlord responded to reports from the resident that her neighbours were using communal bins not assigned to their property. She said that this was causing rubbish to overflow and attracted rats. She reported that rats were climbing ivy at the side of her property, entering her loft, and damaging her property. She provided images of a rodent in her loft.
5. On 17 September 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that the landlord failed to address the issue of ivy on her property. She reported a rodent infestation in the loft which caused damage to her belongings. She was unhappy that the landlord was not addressing harassment from her neighbour or fly tipping from the same neighbour. She said that these issues were affecting her mental health.
6. On 24 December 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that:
   1. it had authorised work to clear the ivy.
   2. it attended her property and confirmed the loft was clear of infestation.
   3. it was reviewing the ongoing ASB reports and asked the resident to continue to report incidents.
   4. the resident should claim for her property damage from her contents insurance.
   5. it offered a £50 voucher for the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay in responding to her complaint.
7. On 29 December 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy because:
   1. the ivy was already growing back
   2. pest control had removed rodents from the loft and said they would have to return in the new year
   3. she would be charged for removal of items caused by fly tipping yet the landlord refused to put locks on the bins.
   4. she was told by the landlord that it could compensate her for damaged items.
8. On 30 January 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that it found no indication of pest infestation. It would be too expensive to build a fence around the communal bins. It said that its ASB investigation was ongoing and asked the resident to continue reporting incidents of ASB if they occur. It found that its stage 1 complaint investigation and response was reasonable and it made no further offers of compensation.
9. On 28 March 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained unhappy because the landlord had not dealt with the fly tipping issues and ongoing ASB. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to deal with the fly tipping and ASB. She also wanted compensation for her property damage she asserted was caused by the pest infestation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

10. The evidence provided indicates that there was a delay in beginning the ASB investigation. The resident first brought allegations of harassment by the neighbour when she raised a complaint on 17 September 2024. The landlord discussed the ASB with the resident on 26 September 2024.
11. On 7 October 2024, the resident reported that her neighbour had placed a washing airer in front of her back gate which was blocking access. On 8 October 2024, the landlord sent the resident diary sheets and asked her to send evidence to support her allegations of ASB. This was an appropriate response.
12. On 6 November 2024, the resident provided evidence of ASB, the landlord contacted the resident the next day to discuss the issues and asked her to continue providing further evidence of ASB. On 24 December 2024 as part of its stage 1 complaint response, it asked her to continue providing evidence for review as the ASB case remained open. This was appropriate.
13. On 29 December 2024, when the resident escalated her complaint, she did not report any further allegations of harassment from her neighbour. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord asked for the resident to provide further evidence of ASB if they occur. This was appropriate.
14. We find that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded reasonably to the allegations of ASB. The evidence indicates that the investigation was in its early stages as it also progressed the complaint through the complaint process. The landlord had provided assistance and requested evidence to support the allegations of ASB.

The landlord’s response to reports of fly tipping

15. On 11 January 2024, the resident reported that her neighbour was using communal bins not allocated to the neighbours property. This caused the bins to overflow. The evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly by contacting the neighbour. When it found that the neighbour did not have wheel bins it liaised with the council and arranged for new bins for the neighbour. It communicated this with the resident. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
16. On 17 September 2024, as part of her complaint the resident reported that the fly tipping issue was ongoing. The landlord visited the resident to discuss the issue. It considered her suggestion of placing fencing around the communal bins but found that this option was too costly. The evidence shows that the landlord addressed the issue of fly tipping with her neighbour, sent a letter to all residents of the estate about fly tipping, and asked the resident to report any further incidents. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take.
17. We find that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping. This is because it appropriately considered the resident’s concerns and took practical actions to reduce the likelihood of the issue continuing.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation

18. On 12 January 2024, the resident reported rodents in her loft which damaged personal property. She said that rodents were attracted to the area because of overflowing rubbish in the communal bins and accessed her loft because of ivy on the property. The evidence shows that the landlord addressed the fly tipping concerns with her neighbour and arranged for the ivy to be removed. These were reasonable steps to address the pest infestation.
19. On 9 February 2024, the landlord told the resident that it was arranging for the ivy to be removed. Based on the records provided to us, it is not clear why there was a delay in removing the ivy. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord revisited the issue after the resident made a complaint. It was then removed on 17 December 2024. This delay indicates a service failing by the landlord.
20. On 17 September 2024, when the resident raised a complaint, she said that rodents were still accessing her loft. The landlord arranged to remove the ivy and for pest control to remove any rodents. Pest control attended on 30 October 2024 and found rodents in the loft. It laid traps and returned on 26 November 2024 and removed 2 mice. While this was an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of pests, the evidence indicates that the landlord delayed in responding to the initial report and only acted more urgently when she raised the issue as a complaint.
21. As part of her resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted compensation from the landlord for damaged property in her loft by the rodents. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. In its complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident to claim from her contents insurance for any damage caused to the items in her loft. This was appropriate advice.
22. We find that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of a pest infestation. This is because it delayed in removing the ivy as it said it would and the evidence indicates that it acted more urgently when the resident raised a complaint. As such, the pests remained an issue for the resident for approximately 10 months due to the landlord’s delay.
23. This delay caused time and trouble to the resident in chasing the issue with the landlord. An order of £50 compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to reflect this inconvenience.

Complaint handling  

24. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. Its policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would respond to complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 and within 10 working days at stage 2. The landlord has since revised its policy and response timescales to bring the timescales in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 September 2024 and provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 24 December 2024. This was 53 days beyond the Codes timescale. The landlord delayed slightly in acknowledging and providing its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged its delay and offered a £50 voucher for the delay in resolving the complaint.
26. We find that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified a complaint handling failing. While there was a considerable delay in providing a stage 1 complaint response, it is acknowledged that the landlord was in continued contact with the resident to address the substantive issue of the complaint throughout this timeframe. The landlord apologised for the delay and made an offer of redress which was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

27. The there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
28. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping.
29. There was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
30. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

31. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the service failure identified in this report.
32. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 for the time and trouble caused by the delay in addressing the report of a pest infestation.
33. The landlord should provide evidence to us that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should:
35. Consider further options/solutions for the ongoing fly tipping issues. Contact the resident to confirm what measures will be taken to resolve the problem.
36. Arrange another visit from pest control to check the resident’s loft for further rodents in traps