Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Riverside Group Limited (202305725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305725

The Riverside Group Limited

26 April 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.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 8 January 2023, the resident reported their neighbour had been aggressive and threatening during a conversation about trimming overhanging trees and bushes. The resident also reported to the police that their neighbour had threatened them. The police spoke to both parties and advised them not to speak with each other.
  3. Between 16 January 2023 and 8 March 2023 the resident reported loud noise (including music) from their neighbour and concerns about the positioning of the neighbour’s CCTV cameras.
  4. In March 2023, the police contacted the landlord to tell them it had received further reports from the resident about their neighbour. The police and the landlord agreed to work together to reach a resolution between the resident and their neighbour.
  5. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 15 March 2023 to discuss the ongoing matters. While there the landlord approached the resident, who was outside their home, to ask if they had time to discuss the case.
  6. On 16 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint about being approached the previous day. They were unhappy as they had previously told the landlord they would be unavailable that day.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. It apologised for the staff member making the resident feel uncomfortable. It also apologised for not having taken note of the resident saying they would not be available. The landlord explained that, in relation to the ongoing ASB case, it would make pre-arranged appointments for any meetings.
  8. The resident met with the police and the landlord on 17 April 2023. The resident and landlord agreed an action plan to resolve the outstanding matter. This related to overhanging trees in the neighbour’s garden. It told the resident it would close the ASB case once the action plan had been completed.
  9. The landlord completed the action plan and closed the ASB case on 20 April 2023. It notified the resident the same day.
  10. On 25 April 2023, the resident took their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord sent a final response on 9 May 2023. The response repeated the findings from the stage 1 complaint. It also provided explanations for concerns the resident had raised about the meeting on 17 April 2023.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated their complaint to this service on 16 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that there have been previous anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports by the resident. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from January 2023 until April 2023. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns that counter-allegations were put to them by the police. The Housing Ombudsman is not able to consider the actions of the police. Paragraph 34(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may only investigate the acts or omissions of the landlord.


The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. In cases concerning noise nuisance and ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
  2. The landlord, after receiving the resident’s initial report, opened an ASB case and contacted the resident to discuss the report. It provided the resident with advice on how to minimise future ASB incidents happening. It said it would speak to their neighbour. These were appropriate actions, in line with its ASB procedure, to take at the initial stages of the case.
  3. After speaking to the resident’s neighbour and the police, the landlord provided the resident with an update on 13 January 2023. It advised it would not take any formal action unless the police decided a criminal offence may have happened. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable approach to take.
  4. When the resident reported further concerns the landlord noted these within the ASB case. Where the landlord required further evidence, it explained what was needed from the resident and how they could provide it. It also provided clear explanations why the reported matters did not meet the threshold for ASB or statutory noise nuisance. These were appropriate steps to take.
  5. The Ombudsman considers the landlord took appropriate account of the impact of the alleged ASB on the resident. It completed a risk assessment, noting the resident’s comments on the impact to their mental health and the support networks in place to assist them if needed. It also offered, in relation to the positioning of the neighbour’s CCTV, to visit to view the cameras if the resident did not feel comfortable taking photographs.
  6. The landlord spoke to the neighbour about the resident’s concerns and attempted informal resolution. The neighbour agreed to be mindful of their behaviour and the impact on others. The landlord signposted the resident to other appropriate agencies, such as the local council’s environmental health teams, to allow them to pursue their concerns further. This was in line with its ASB Procedure.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree a combined approach with the police to resolve the ongoing ASB case. This was in accordance with its ASB policy on working closely with partner agencies, such as the police, to detect and prevent ASB.
  8. Following the meeting between the resident, police, and landlord on 17 April 2023, the landlord spoke with the neighbour about the proposed action plan. The neighbour agreed to trim the overhanging trees, but not go into the resident’s property to collect any cuttings. The landlord then advised the resident it would be closing the ASB case. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate action for the circumstances of the case and in line with the landlord’s procedures.
  9. The resident was unhappy with the actions of the landlord and escalated their complaint to stage 2. The evidence indicates the resident made their request by telephone. There are limited notes of what the resident raised with the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made detailed notes of the conversation. It could also have considered providing the resident with a copy of these notes to confirm they were accurate. However, the Ombudsman is mindful that the resident has not indicated that the landlord missed any elements of their complaint.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the meeting of 17 April 2023. It explained the police had arranged the meeting time and location. This is supported by the evidence provided to this service.
  11. The stage 2 response also explained that the police were looking to provide a long-term solution to the issues between the resident and the neighbour. The landlord stated it would expect discussion of historical information as well as all current allegations to have taken place. It did confirm there was no supporting evidence to confirm any breaches of tenancy had occurred. It did not propose to take any further action. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable outcome to have reached.

A staff member attending the resident’s property

  1. There is no dispute that the resident had informed the landlord that they were not available for a meeting on 15 March 2023. The evidence provided to this service confirms there was an agreed appointment between the landlord and the resident’s neighbour that day.
  2. It appears the housing officer approached the resident to raise the neighbour’s counter allegations. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to put counter allegations to a resident. However, in this case it is accepted that the landlord ought to have made an appointment to discuss the issues first.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that it would be normal for Housing Officers to approach residents without appointments or speak to them in the street where required. However, it accepted that before approaching the resident it should have considered their previous statements about availability. It said it would ensure that, for the active ASB case, it would prearrange any meetings with the resident. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and their partner. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable outcome.
  4. This service has not seen any evidence that the resident had any new or substantially different concerns when escalating their complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained it was in the area due to the pre-arranged meeting with the neighbour. It found that the decision reached at stage 1 was correct and did not take any further action. The Ombudsman agrees this was an appropriate response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.