The Riverside Group Limited (202317326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317326

The Riverside Group Limited

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour and ASB in the area.
2. Request for a housing transfer.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. This is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident suffers from an auto immune condition and has anxiety, depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident emailed the landlord’s housing officer on 5 June 2023. She said her neighbour had thrown food into her back garden. She also said her neighbour was brushing soil through the shared fence into her front drive. She asked if the landlord could send a warning letter to the neighbour, and if she could instal a security camera.
The landlord responded the next day, 6 June 2023. It said that it would send the neighbour a letter if it happened again, but, without knowing where the food or debris had come from, it did not think it needed to send a letter yet. It told the resident that she could instal a camera at her own cost but due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the camera could only be pointed towards her own property, which could cover her own front and back garden.
On 12 July 2023 the resident emailed the housing officer again. She said her neighbour had thrown food waste onto her property, and that her neighbour’s daughter was brushing soil into her yard through the shared fence. She said she had reported this the previous year, with photographic evidence and that the landlord’s contractor had come round to look. She said the contractor could not put anything down to block the wooden fence but had offered to move her stone pebbles. The resident also mentioned a historic incident where her neighbour had blocked the shared drains, but that this had stopped after the landlord’s intervention.
The housing officer responded on the same day and said she would speak to the neighbour, and if the neighbour denied this, the landlord would need more evidence.
After the housing officer called the neighbour, they emailed the resident on 13 July 2023. They said the neighbour denied sweeping the soil into the resident’s front garden. The landlord did not mention the allegations of food being thrown into the resident’s back garden.
On 13 July 2023 the resident replied to the housing officer via email. She attached photographs of soil on the border of her front fence. She said the landlord had told her it could not access any previous videos she had sent. She said the landlord had not addressed her allegations of food being thrown into her back garden. The resident received an “out of office” automated reply, stating that the housing officer was on annual leave and out of office until 24 July 2023.
On 17 July 2023 the resident emailed the housing officer to ask how she could transfer to another 2-bed bungalow. She said she was having issues at her property which were having an impact on her mental health.
On 24 July 2023 the resident emailed the housing officer, and the landlord’s housing services manager. She attached photographs of soil on her side of the fence. She also asked for a link to the landlord’s internal management transfer policy, and for information on mutual exchanges. She asked if the landlord had available properties for her to access.
On 25 July 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. She had been contacting her housing officer with evidence of ASB from her neighbour, but the landlord had “done nothing.”
2. She was vulnerable and suffering from ASB from constant fireworks in the area (not connected to the neighbour).
3. She had been trying to find out about a management transfer after taking legal advice. She wanted a ‘like for like’ property.
4. She wanted a different housing officer.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email complaint on 25 July 2023. It asked for the resident’s address to open an ASB complaint. It also told her it did not do internal transfers, and the resident would need to register with the local council in her area to be able to look for another property.
The resident replied on 26 July 2023. She said that, as per information on its website, the landlord did do internal transfers. She said it also advertised on choice based lettings and that is how she had secured her current property. She said she was not happy with the landlord’s response as it was inaccurate and wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded and advised the resident that all properties were advertised on the choice based lettings system and it sent her a link to this.
On 26 July 2023, the landlord sent the resident an automated acknowledgement of her complaint. This was marked as an “escalation request.” It also sent the resident information from its website, regarding housing transfers.
It said that although it had merged with another housing association, both housing associations would be working separately until at least 2024. As such, the information on its website above needed updating to reflect this. It had sent the information to the relevant department to update the website.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 July 2023 to advise her that it had raised a complaint. The resident responded on the same day, saying there was already a complaint in progress.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2023. She said she had asked her housing officer about internal transfers and was told the landlord did not do them. When she sent the landlord evidence from its website, it had then said that it did not do internal transfers “yet.” She also said she received confused and conflicting information about her complaint and complaint stages. She stated that she wanted to be moved to another property by way of internal/management transfer and wanted the housing officer and her manager investigated for failing in their duties.
She also said that the landlord had ignored her request for reasonable adjustments and that she wanted all correspondence to be in writing. She also asked for a single complaint handler to take ownership of her complaint as a reasonable adjustment.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 31 July 2023.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord raised and closed an ASB case for the resident. It logged the details of the phone call to the resident’s neighbour (of the 13 July 2023). It is unclear why the date was logged as 1 August 2023. The neighbour made a counter allegation against the resident on 1 August 2023.
On 3 August 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said:
1. The housing officer had asked for a photograph of the resident’s garden and said that it needed evidence that the debris was coming from the neighbour. Without this, it could not take further action.
2. The resident could instal a camera at her own cost as long as it pointed towards her own property (due to GDPR).
3. The housing officer did contact the resident’s neighbour on 13 July 2023, regarding the resident’s allegation of soil being swept on her drive. The neighbour denied the allegations.
4. The resident had emailed the housing officer and housing services manager on 13 July 2023 at 5.28 pm, attaching photographs of the soil/debris (that she believed had been brushed into her garden).
5. It apologised for the delays in the housing officer responding to the resident’s email of 13 July 2023, and explained the reasons for the delay.
6. The resident had emailed the housing officer and housing services manager on 24 July 2023 with additional photographic evidence of the soil. Although it could see a small amount of soil, this was not evidence that it had been deliberately brushed into the resident’s garden by her neighbour. It also did not see this as evidence that the neighbour had been throwing food items into the resident’s back garden. It would not be issuing the neighbour with a tenancy warning and felt the phone call was sufficient. Any tenancy enforcement action it took had to be reasonable and proportionate. The issue did not meet the definition of ASB.
7. The landlord needed video evidence to show items being deliberately thrown into her garden or other behaviour that would meet the definition of ASB. It would not investigate further without this.
8. In respect of the resident’s transfer query on 26 July 2023, its digital team correctly informed the resident that she would need to register through the local authority choice-based lettings system (property pool plus).
9. The resident had referred to an online article when she queried the landlord’s transfer policy. Her query was not logged as an official complaint and had been escalated to the housing team for them to investigate and confirm the correct transfer process.
10. Another housing officer had called the resident and left a voicemail, as the housing officer was on leave.
11. The landlord was only advertising properties available in its south and central regions for residents who wished to transfer via its choice based lettings system. It acknowledged the wording of the article on its website was misleading and this would be updated to be clear for all residents.
12. The resident could apply through its sub regional choice based lettings system for a transfer. She could also apply for accessible properties via a joint scheme between the local council and social landlords. It gave her the telephone number for this. The resident could also apply for a mutual exchange via a national mutual exchange website.
13. It apologised for the misleading wording on its website and for any incorrect information the resident had been given. It would update its website.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint on 3 August 2023. She said she only received one auto reply from the housing officer. She also said that there was a significant amount of soil in her front garden and this was affecting her mental health. She said the landlord’s website said, ‘one can apply for a transfer in the usual way.’ She also said she was unhappy that she had been offered telephone contact when she had asked for a reasonable adjustment to have correspondence via email.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 7 August 2023, which she added to on 11 and 13 August 2023. She said:
1. She wanted a more detailed explanation of the landlord’s transfer policies and potential exceptions or alternative solutions to help address the issue with fireworks and her PTSD.
2. She had been given conflicting information about the transfer policy. She had initially been told there was “no such thing” as an internal transfer. She then provided information from the landlord’s website, and was told it was not in force yet. She was then told it was “an article” and it was not available in her city region.
3. She had not received an auto response from the service manager, or an updated out of office auto response from the housing officer.
4. She had been given conflicting and confusing information about the complaints process.
5. She had provided evidence of the soil swept into her front drive through the fence. This affected her mental health. She had to pay for a camera and there had been no investigation and no warning.
6. She wanted the landlord to follow its policies and she wanted the ASB to stop.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2023 to say that the fireworks were being set off again and this was worsening her PTSD. The landlord responded on 11 August 2023. It said that it would tell the resident’s housing officer but was unlikely to investigate further without evidence.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 August 2023. She said she suffered from PTSD and had asked the landlord for an internal transfer due to the frequent fireworks. She said her neighbour had thrown food into her back garden and swept soil in her front garden. She wanted the landlord to offer her an internal transfer and for her neighbour to be given a warning. She said she had ring camera footage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 August 2023 to say that she had ring doorbell camera footage of the soil being swept into her front garden. She asked how she could send this as she had sent videos in the past and the landlord had told her it could not receive them.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023. It said:
1. It reiterated its response regarding the neighbour. The photographs were not sufficient evidence of any ASB and it could not take enforcement action.
2. If the resident provided more evidence such as video footage, proving the neighbour was throwing food in the back garden and brushing debris into her front garden, it would consider further action. As with all reports of ASB, it must take appropriate and fair action. It felt the housing officer responded to the resident’s concerns effectively.
3. It apologised for the delay in out of office email replies. It said that ‘out of office’ replies are only activated once. It would speak to its colleagues to ensure that ‘out of office’ messages were updated when away from work.
4. It apologised that the resident did not receive a reply to her email of 13 July 2023. It would ensure that outstanding emails were responded to or passed to another team member before going on annual leave.
5. It partly upheld the complaint as the housing officer did not respond to the resident’s email of 13 July 2023. Also, there was a delay in receiving out of office messages. Further, there was confusing information about rehousing on its website.

After the internal complaints procedure

On 21 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for the management transfer policy, as she had not been sent this. She also said the stage 2 response did not address the complaint handling failures.
On 25 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She asked for its internal management transfer policy and its complaints policy. The landlord supplied information regarding its complaints policy on 6 September 2023.
The resident emailed this Service again on 21 September 2023. She said the ASB with the neighbour was continuing and the landlord had not looked at her video footage. She also said she had been contacting the police and local council since May 2022 regarding fireworks being set off in the street and the police had issued warning letters. She said the fireworks were powerful and frequent and had harmed her in the past, which the landlord was aware of.
As a resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted a management transfer to a “like for like” property. She wanted a reasonable explanation why she was “denied access to a fair complaints policy” and to be compensated as a gesture of goodwill. She wanted a different housing officer, and a fair investigation into the ASB by the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has said that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in her health. Whilst we appreciate the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction and a matter best settled via the courts or via an insurance claim. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour and ASB in the area

When considering a complaint about a landlord’s handling of a report of ASB the Ombudsman considers whether it acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures, and whether it took reasonable steps to resolve the matter. It is acknowledged that the resident said the situation has been distressing and the incidents had an adverse impact on her. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the incidents reported amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and fairly.
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.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that when dealing with ASB it will:
1. Take all complaints of nuisance and anti-social behaviour seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
2. Keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate.
3. Use a national standard risk assessment matrix applied to any case of ASB, irrespective of type or category where there is an identifiable complainant.
4. Consider and where appropriate, use intervention measures such as mediation services and referral to agencies such as floating support providers.
The information on the landlord’s website states that all incidents of ASB reported will be acknowledged within 1 working day. It says that it makes sure that individual circumstances, support needs and concerns are taken into account.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that residents must not behave in a way that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure says that it may pay compensation when it had failed to provide a service or meet its standards. It pays £25-50 for low impact, £50 – £200 for medium impact and up to £500 for high impact.
It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on the 6 June 2023, advising the resident that without evidence, it could not send a letter to the neighbour. It was reasonable that it asked the resident to let it know if this happened again, so it could take further action.
It was further reasonable that the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation of 12 July 2023. The landlord replied the same day and advised the resident that it would speak to the neighbour the following day. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. It was also reasonable that the landlord told the resident it would need more evidence if the neighbour denied the allegations of ASB.
However, it was not appropriate that when the landlord called the neighbour, it only mentioned the allegations about the soil and there is no evidence why it did not mention the allegation of the food being thrown into the resident’s back garden. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident distress and frustration.
Further, the landlord did not appear to open an ASB case, until 1 August 2023, after the resident’s complaint. This is outside of the timescales in its policy. Regardless of the outcome, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to open the ASB case at the time of the report. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Also, the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and there is no evidence that it attempted to address these. It did not consider offering mediation, nor did it consider any floating support services. This is contrary to its policies and a failing on the part of the landlord. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
Also, although it was reasonable that the landlord needed evidence to consider whether or not ASB had occurred, it did not offer to view the resident’s ring doorbell footage. It did not provide the resident with a means by which to send the footage and did not offer to visit her to view this. Had it done this, it may have been able to consider further options before closing the ASB case down. This was not resident focussed and caused the resident distress and frustration.
Further, when the resident reported unauthorised fireworks going off in the area and the fact this exacerbated her PTSD, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated this further. Although it said it would pass the information onto her housing officer, it did not offer options to submit any evidence and did not open an ASB case. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. This is particularly pertinent as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the effect the fireworks would have on her.
The resident mentioned the issues with the fireworks and her PTSD several times in her correspondence with the landlord and there is no evidence that the landlord did anything to address this, or to seek further evidence from the resident. Further, it did not carry out a risk assessment which is contrary to its policy. This caused the resident significant distress. It also impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
The landlord did not attempt to gather further evidence regarding the resident’s claim of ASB by a neighbour. It did not offer any mediation or referral to support services.
Due to the issues above, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer

The information on the landlord’s website at the time of the complaint, said the following:
1. “Customers who wish to move homes will now have the opportunity to register for an internal transfer for a new home with both Riverside and One Housing. This means customers will be able to apply for a move in any area where we own homes, except where the local authority has specific local connection requirements.
2. Early in the New Year we will be launching a new process so that tenants who wish to transfer to a new home can bid for properties across Riverside and One Housing using our choice based lettings portal. More information will be provided in early 2022 on how to register and bid.
3. In the meantime, please apply for a transfer in the usual way through your local lettings team.”
The landlord’s letting and allocations policy states that it allows for urgent internal transfers (management lets) when residents need to move due to an emergency.
The landlord’s transfer policy – (management lets) states that a management let can be considered in very extreme circumstances, where it may no longer be safe for a resident to remain in their current home. It says that when a management move relates to ASB, it needs evidence of ongoing incidents and cases reported on its ASB Hub.
There is no dispute that there were failings in the way the landlord advertised its transfer policy at the time of the complaint. It acknowledged the wording was confusing and that the resident may have been given the wrong information. It also undertook to change the wording on its website. It apologised and further explained how to register for a transfer policy.
However, regardless of whether the resident would qualify for a management transfer, or not, due to alleged ASB, there is no evidence it undertook any enquiries into her claims of ASB regarding the fireworks and the resident’s PTSD. It would have been reasonable to consider this and log an ASB incident and then make a decision based on its findings. The fact it did not consider this, is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident distress and inconvenience and impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
The landlord did not follow its policy in terms of the resident’s request for a transfer due to alleged ASB. As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of staff conduct

There is no dispute that there were delays in the ‘out of office’ replies from members of staff. The landlord apologised for this and explained they are only activated once. This was an appropriate response. It also said it would speak to its colleagues to ensure out of office messages were updated when away from work. This was a reasonable response.
Although there was one incident when the landlord called the resident by telephone, the landlord acknowledged this and ensured that all subsequent communication was via email.
Further, the records show that the landlord logged the resident’s communication preferences, as per her request and communicated with her via email, which is appropriate and took account of her individual communication needs. As such, a finding of no maladministration is made for the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy:
1. Stage 1 complaints – The complaint owner should contact the resident on the next working day to tell them the complaint has been received and they will be investigating the complaint. The landlord will provide a response within 5 working days but may need up to 10 working days to be completed.
2. Stage 2 complaints – These will be allocated to a senior manager, who will contact the resident on the next working day to discuss a resolution of the complaint. The manager will provide a complaint response within 10 working days.
The policy says that when dealing with complaints, it will keep the resident informed about all stages, using their preferred method of communication.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (The Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The automated responses to the resident’s complaints caused confusion to the resident. The automated response of 26 July 2023 entitled “escalation request” caused the resident to believe her complaint was being escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This was confusing and caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue. The landlord has now changed the way it logs complaints so this service will be making no orders for a process change.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 25 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 3 August 2023. This is 7 working days and within its policy. It is also within the Code timeframes. She submitted a stage 2 complaint on 7 August 2023 and the landlord’s senior manager responded on 21 August 2023. This was 10 working days, appropriate and within its policy timeframe.
However, the landlord did not respond to all points raised in the resident’s stage 2 complaint which is not in line with the Code. It did not address her concerns regarding ASB from the fireworks and the adverse effect on her. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issues.
Further, it did not provide her with a copy of or a link to its management/internal transfer policy. This caused the resident inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour and ASB in the area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Arrange with the resident to view any recordings relevant to alleged ASB from the last 6 months.
3. Contact the resident to discuss any recent ASB and deal with this in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should let us know what has been agreed between it and the resident.
4. Send the resident a copy of or link to its management/internal transfer policy.
5. Pay the resident £350. This is to be paid directly into her bank account and not to be offset against any arrears (if applicable). This is as follows:
  1. £250 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in pursuing the ASB issues.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in pursuing the transfer issue.
  3. £50 for the complaint handling failures identified in this case.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.