The Riverside Group Limited (202453289)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453289

The Riverside Group Limited

23 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to report property damage to the police.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. On 29 January 2025 a repair request was logged for work needed to a ceiling and the roof. A contractor attended on 30 January 2025. After inspecting the repair, the contractor advised the landlord that the damage to a ceiling and the roof had been caused intentionally. The landlord logged an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for criminal damage by the resident.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 18 March 2025. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had made a report to the police about property damage. The resident said he had received a visit from the police. He believed this was a false allegation.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 March 2025. It said all contact about the complaint would be in writing. This was due to a contact restriction that was in place with the resident since January 2025. The landlord confirmed it had reported to the police that there had been criminal damage to the resident’s property. It said this statement had been supported by a report carried out by an independent third-party surveyor. The landlord stated it was obligated to report criminal activity to the police. It said how the matter was managed was then down to the police. The landlord advised the resident if he felt the allegation was false, he would need to raise this with the police.
6. On 20 March 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the police report was made weeks before the surveyor’s report was issued. The resident said he was not named in the surveyor’s report, and it was only an opinion. He said he was disabled so could not cause the damage. The resident said the police did not take the matter further. He said the roof had problems for over a year. The resident said the surveyor’s report stated the cause was lack of maintenance and a storm.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 March 2025. It said it had made the report to the police before the independent third-party surveyor’s report was received because it had evidence from its contractors and operatives who had attended the property. The landlord said the contractors’ and operatives’ views were supported by the surveyor. It stated the surveyor’s report confirmed intentional damage, not lack of maintenance or a storm.
8. The landlord reiterated its duty to report criminal activity to the police. It said how the matter was managed was then down to the police. The landlord repeated that if the resident felt the allegation was false, he would need to raise this with the police.
9. On 28 March 2025 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident said being blamed for the damage to the property had caused him fear, sleepless nights and mental health issues. He said he could not have caused the damage as he had to use a crutch to stand and walk.
10. The resident reiterated this information to the Ombudsman on 19 September 2025. He said he had paid for a plasterer to carry out some repairs. The resident wanted an apology from the landlord. He also wanted assurances that blaming him would not happen again. The resident requested compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident told the Ombudsman that the situation had affected his health and wellbeing. It is outside our remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court.
12. During a telephone call, the resident told the Ombudsman about other complaints he had raised with his landlord. He also said he had other cases logged with the Ombudsman. This investigation is only about the complaint the resident raised with his landlord on 18 March 2025 regarding the landlord’s decision to report property damage to the police. Other complaints will not be referred to in this report. If the resident has other open cases with the Ombudsman, he will be contacted about these separately.
13. It is also worth noting that the intension of this investigation is not to determine whether intentional property damage has or has not taken place. This investigation only considers whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s decision to report property damage to the police. 

14. On 31 January 2025 the landlord logged an ASB case for criminal damage by the resident. This was in response to a repair request for the roof which was made by the resident on 29 January 2025. This repair request was attended to on the following day. At this appointment, damage to a ceiling and the roof was found. The contractor advised the landlord after the appointment that it thought the repairs were caused by intentional damage.
15. It was appropriate and reasonable of the landlord to log an ASB case in response to this information. This was because damage to the landlord’s property is listed under the “violence, domestic violence and antisocial behaviour” section of its tenancy agreement.
16. On the same date the landlord logged the ASB case, it also contacted the police to report alleged criminal damage by the resident. This was reasonable as the landlord’s tenancy agreement specifically noted how seriously it took damage to its property.
17. The landlord’s tenancy agreement stated that this section of the tenancy agreement was “very important”. If a tenant was found to have caused damage to the landlord’s property, serious consequences were listed. Possible actions that the landlord stated it could take included possession proceedings and applying to court for an injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Reporting alleged criminal damage of its property to the police was proportionate to the actions the landlord listed in its tenancy agreement for these matters.
18. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it had made the decision to report criminal damage following visits and inspections. In its stage 2 response the landlord said these had been carried out by its contractors and operatives. The Ombudsman has not seen the reports from these visits and inspections. However, the evidence showed the decisions about this matter, and the handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint, were taken after advice from the landlord’s legal department.
19. An inspection by an independent third-party surveyor was commissioned by the landlord. The inspection took place on 14 February 2025. The surveyor’s report stated that “on the balance of probabilities”, the damage caused to the roof covering and to the underfelt had not been caused by storm damage, general weathering or wear and tear. The surveyor said it had been caused by “tenant damage”.
20. The surveyor reached the same conclusion about the ceiling. He said this was based on his survey and the comments provided by operatives who attended the property previously. The report stated it was the surveyor’s opinion that the resident had “caused willful damage to the bedroom ceilings”.
21. The surveyor’s report supported the previous information the landlord had received about the damage. It also evidenced that the landlord’s decision to report criminal damage to the police was reasonable.
22. The resident told the Ombudsman that he had paid for a plasterer to carry out some of the repairs. This was fair as the landlord’s tenancy agreement stated the resident was responsible for making good any damage caused.
23. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman about how his mental health and wellbeing had been affected by the allegation of criminal damage. From the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, we are satisfied that the landlord showed consideration for these matters.
24. The landlord made appropriate enquiries and reports to safeguard the resident. The landlord also asked the resident on 21 February 2025 if he would like any referrals for support made for him. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which stated, where appropriate, offers of support should be made to vulnerable residents who are responsible for ASB.
25. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to report property damage to the police. This was because the actions the landlord took were in line with its tenancy agreement terms and ASB policy. The actions were also reasonable and proportionate considering the information the landlord had. The landlord also considered the support needs of the resident and made appropriate enquiries, reports and offers of support to safeguard the resident.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to report property damage to the police.