The Riverside Group Limited (202319298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319298

The Riverside Group Limited

28 February 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 reports of a neighbour’s security lights shining into her property, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by this neighbour.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The landlord is aware she has severe asthma.
On 14 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that her neighbour had installed security lights facing her property. She said the lights were on all night and were shining through her bedroom window.
The landlord’s records do not show when the resident raised a complaint, however the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. It said its Legal team had advised that the lights needed to be lowered and bulb wattage changed to stop further issues. It said this should be completed within 14 days and it would call her on 28 July to check this.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 9 August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 August. It said the neighbour had changed the bulbs and lowered the lights within 14 days as agreed. It also said the resident had told it the lights remained as bright as before and had been tilted back up. Finally, it said it had asked the resident for medical evidence that the resident needed to sleep with the curtains open. It had not received this, so the case was closed.
The landlord sent a revised stage 2 response on 20 September 2023, in which it said it had now received medical information from her. It had recommended the resident considered sleeping in one of the other bedrooms. It asked to visit to establish if a rear bedroom was big enough, but the resident had declined this. It said it would continue to deal with the lights as a tenancy management issue. However, it felt the suggestion that she relocate bedrooms was reasonable.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord sent a further stage 2 response, however its records do not show when this complaint was raised. This response addressed the lighting nuisance again and addressed the resident’s concerns of ASB by the neighbour. It said:
1. The resident had provided photos of the lights, but it needed video footage of them being illuminated for more than 3 continuous minutes. The resident provided such a video on 6 December. It had asked the neighbour to ensure the lights were on a sensor which only detected movement within the boundary of the property.
2. It conducted an unannounced visit on 6 December, where it found the lights were only activated when walking up the neighbour’s path and deactivated in less than 3 minutes.
3. It had no evidence the lights were not working as they should be, so it could not consider enforcement action.
4. Information received about ASB was not detailed enough, or in the correct format for the landlord to take action. It had now received video evidence of a recent incident which was currently being investigated. It would update her once the investigation was completed.
5. It reiterated that if the resident required the curtains open, it was reasonable for it to ask her to consider using one of the rear bedrooms, as this would immediately alleviate the problem. It said if this required relocation of a handrail it would be happy to do this.
The resident contacted us on 19 December 2023 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and asked us to investigate the complaint.
The resident has continued to report issues with the lights to the landlord. She provided a large amount of evidence to the landlord in January and February 2025. The landlord wrote to her on 19 February, agreeing that the lights were being triggered from outside the property boundary. It said it would take further action and keep her updated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord sent its final stage 2 response on 18 December 2023, however the resident has continued to report the issues continuously since that time. As the issues have persisted, and the landlord has not raised new complaints for the resident, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s continued reports as the matters remained the same, in line with the Scheme.

Security lights and ASB

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that tenants may make alterations and/or improvements to their home. They must first get the landlord’s written permission.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will, among other things:
1. Talk all complaints of ASB seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
2. Use a national standard risk assessment matrix.
3. Consider and where appropriate use intervention measures such as mediation services.
4. Keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate.
The resident first raised an issue with the neighbour installing security lights on 14 June 2023. She said the lights were facing her property and were shining through her bedroom window. The neighbour told the landlord that they were tilted downwards and were only triggered from inside their garden. However, the resident said they were on all night.
The landlord’s records noted that it had 2 conflicting accounts and questioned whether the lights were too high. In its stage 1 response of 14 July 2023, it said that its Legal team said the lights needed to be a lower wattage bulb. It said it would ensure this change was conducted within 14 days. This was a reasonable approach at this stage.
On 4 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged in an email that the lights were bright. It said it ‘looked like a nighttime football match is playing’ and it would ensure the matter was investigated immediately. No evidence has been provided that the landlord followed through with this, which was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue. The resident called to complain about the lights again on 9 August.
The landlord’s internal records said it was considering granting retrospective permission for the lights to the neighbour. It said it did not think it was reasonable for the resident to expect her neighbours to curtail their rights because she would not close her curtains during darkness. We appreciate it can be difficult for landlord’s to balance differing needs of residents. However, its approach here did not demonstrate empathy towards the resident.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide medical evidence to show that she must sleep with the curtains and windows open. It sent its stage 2 response the next day, in which it said that it had not received medical evidence so the case was closed. This was not appropriate, as it only gave the resident 1 day to provide this information. If it believed this information was relevant to the outcome of the complaint it should have allowed a reasonable amount of time for her to provide it. Its response said that the neighbour had lowered the lights and wattage as requested.
The resident provided the landlord with a letter from her GP dated 16 August 2023. This explained she had to sleep with the windows and curtains open due to severe asthma. Her GP said that the lights were waking her, causing anxiety and depression, which would aggravate her asthma.
On 21 August 2023, the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord explaining that the issue with the lights related to lumens not watts. They provided an extensive diary of incidents with the lights being illuminated during the dark. The landlord’s internal records of 30 August said that the neighbour had taken reasonable steps. However, there has been no evidence provided to show the landlord did any investigation and it appears to have only relied on the neighbour’s word, which was not appropriate.
Following receipt of the GP’s letter, the landlord sent a revised stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. It said it had recommended that the resident relocated to one of the rear bedrooms that did not face the lights. It said it had requested a visit to establish whether a rear bedroom could accommodate her medical equipment. The resident had declined this visit and said moving bedrooms would not be feasible.
There is no evidence that the landlord made this recommendation in anything other than good faith. However, it was reasonable for the resident to decline this option based on her medical needs. She had lived in the property for many years without a light issue. The potential availability of other bedrooms did not mean the landlord was not required to investigate the issue with the lights fully.
On 19 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident providing ASB incident diary sheets, asking her to complete these. It is unclear from its records at this time whether the resident had raised a separate ASB issue, or if this related to the security lights. It was helpful for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets. However, it could have used this opportunity to clearly explain how it would be managing her reports in line with its policies to set clear expectations.
On 21 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and said it was looking at retrospective permission for the lights. It said that the lights could not be permanently illuminated and should be adjusted so they were not activated by pedestrians or cars passing by. We have not seen a copy of the letter confirming the permission was granted. However, the landlord has since confirmed that it was granted, with conditions.
On 21 September 2023, the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord to say that there had been many incidents with the lights. They said the lights were on solidly for hours at a time at night. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 September and said it required better evidence. This included video footage of the lights being on for more than 3 minutes. It again said the resident should move bedrooms.
At this time there was still no evidence the landlord had done any investigation itself, despite one of its staff members acknowledging the brightness of the lights. It put the onus on the resident to provide lengthy videos taken at night, despite her being elderly and vulnerable. It would have been appropriate for it to consider other ways of obtaining evidence, such as providing temporary cameras.
During the first week of December 2023 the landlord contacted some of the other neighbouring properties to ask about their experience with the lights. This was a proactive step by the landlord, but it could have done this sooner.
Some neighbours said they had not noticed the lights or had blackout blinds and were not disturbed by them. Others had reported they had noticed they were often on. Despite some neighbours corroborating the resident’s reports, there is no evidence the landlord did anything further with this information.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 December 2023. It said that it had received still photos of the lights but needed video footage showing them illuminated for more than 3 minutes. It said that it had advised the neighbour that the lights must only be activated by movement within the property boundary.
The landlord said it had conducted an unannounced visit on 6 December 2023 where it found the lights only to be activated within the property boundary. It also said the lights went off within 3 minutes. It said the resident had declined a visit from the local authority’s Environmental Health team to measure light pollution. However, she had declined this as it would be measured with the curtains closed, which she said would not reflect the actual situation.
The landlord explained that if the lights were measured as a nuisance even with the curtains closed, this would mean it could collaborate with the local authority to get things resolved. It encouraged her to reconsider, which was a reasonable suggestion.
The landlord said it could not consider enforcement action at that stage as it had evidence the neighbour’s light was working as it should be. However, we have seen no evidence other than a single visit by the landlord, which was in contradiction with information gathered from other residents.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s reports of intimidation by the neighbour, however it is not clear when she raised this matter. It said that until recently information provided had not been detailed enough to act. She had recently provided video evidence of the neighbour being aggressive and this was currently under investigation. Once it had completed its investigation it would contact her.
On 20 December 2023, the landlord conducted an ASB risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy, which it scored as low risk. This risk assessment document said that it should regularly monitor changes in risk factors to ensure appropriate and proportionate use of tools and powers are considered.
On 8 January 2024, the landlord asked the resident to provide footage, as it said it had not received sufficient video footage. It told her the evidence was not in the correct format, which it had requested many times. It is not clear from the evidence provided what format it had requested from her. The landlord missed an opportunity here to explore with the resident the barriers stopping her from supplying the evidence in the format it wanted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 January 2024. It said that she had provided a short video of an unidentified person in a heated exchange with the neighbour. It said it she had also sent a video that was almost 7 minutes long which showed the lights illuminated for the full period. It said it would address this breach with the neighbour and would investigate the verbal altercation.
The landlord also said it would continue to undertake random and unannounced visits. No evidence has been provided that it updated the resident with an outcome to its investigation into the videos relating to the neighbour’s behaviour. Its suggested approach was reasonable but not keeping the resident updated was not appropriate and not in line with its ASB policy.
On 5 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had to have a safety lock installed on the letterbox by the fire brigade as ‘disgusting items’ had been put through. The landlord wrote to her the same day, explaining the conditions under which permission for the lights was granted to the neighbour. It said it would be acting now it had evidence of a breach of these conditions. It has not, however, provided any evidence that it did act at this time and instead continued to ask the resident to provide more evidence, which was not appropriate.
On 24 February 2024, the landlord invited the resident to an interview to discuss the issues she had raised and counter-allegations made by the neighbour. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show this meeting went ahead, and if so, what was discussed. It wrote to her on 12 March to say that without further evidence it was ‘her word against the neighbour’s, who she clearly had a hostile dispute with’.
The landlord said that the lights being illuminated was not evidence of a nuisance and it required video footage of at least 5 minutes taken after 9pm to be able to take action. It did not make it clear why the videos needed to be longer than 5 minutes, as the condition placed on the duration of the lights was no more than 3 minutes. It is also unclear why it decided to implement a cut off of 9pm, and it is not evident that it explained this to the resident. From the evidence provided it appears that it changed its expectations on the resident without clear explanation, which was not reasonable.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 12 April 2024. It said that the neighbour had denied sending malicious post and did not have any evidence to take this matter further. It sent a further letter the same day thanking her for providing video evidence. It said this showed a breach of the conditions for the lights and a written warning had been issued to the neighbour.
On 18 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident an ASB incident diary form, along with guidance for completing this. It said that it had reviewed recent evidence and could not rely on still images. It said she needed to complete the diary sheets to support the video evidence provided. It wrote to her again on 21 June saying the ASB case was closed. It said both parties needed to take positive steps to ensure matters did not escalate and advised her not to have contact with the neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 August 2024 saying it had not received further evidence. It set out clear guidelines of what it required to take a report further. On 10 October it said it still had not received an incident form or evidence, so it was closing the case down. On 23 December it wrote to her to say it had received video footage from her. It said 6 videos were taken pre-watershed, between 4pm and 5pm. However, it said that these showed the lights constantly on which was technically a breach of the consent conditions. It said it would contact the neighbour to discuss this. No evidence has been provided that it followed this up with the neighbour.
On 17 January 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it had recently received an increased number of reports from both parties. It would soon be inviting both parties to a meeting at the local police station to try to resolve matters. The resident has told us that given the way the dispute has escalated, she would not now feel safe to meet with the neighbour to attempt mediation. Mediation could have been an effective tool, if used early on, however the landlord did not offer this at an appropriate time.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 20 January 2025 saying it had met with the police about an incident reported in December 2024. They were not taking any further action as the neighbour denied it. The landlord said that without evidence it also could not take matters further. It said she had reported that the neighbour had put up more security lights, but it had attended and could not identify any new lights.
On 6 February 2025, the resident sent the landlord 139 pieces of evidence, which the landlord said it would review by 14 February.
The landlord’s internal records of 12 February 2025 said that it had conducted random visits when its staff were in the area on 13 occasions in 2024. It said that each time the lights were working in line with the conditional permission. However, these records do not show what time of day the visits were conducted, and if these were during daylight or darkness.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 February 2025 in response to her evidence, outside the timeframe it had agreed. It confirmed that the evidence showed that the lights were being activated from the road, which was not in line with the conditional permission. It also said the evidence raised concerns about the frequency of the illuminations. It said it would address this with the neighbour and update her with the outcome of its investigation. While it did accept that there was an issue with the lights, it did not give the resident a clear expectation of the action it would be taking to resolve matters.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s security lights shining into her property, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by this neighbour.
The landlord was slow to act at all stages and often failed to follow up with actions it promised the resident. It put all the onus to collect evidence on the resident who is elderly and vulnerable. It was evident she was finding it difficult to provide evidence the landlord could use. Given that the incidents were occurring during the night when she was trying to sleep, the landlord could have been more proactive and considered other methods of evidence collection, such as it installing temporary CCTV.
When the landlord did collect evidence itself, by obtaining testimony from other neighbours, it failed to take any action. It acted too late in offering mediation 18 months after the issues began, by which time the dispute had escalated to a point where the resident did not feel safe to attend a meeting. It conducted an initial ASB risk assessment, but did not conduct further risk assessments, in line with its policy, when the dispute escalated.
While the landlord has now accepted that there is an issue with the lights, it has not set out clearly to the resident how it is going to deal with this. The resident has made it clear the distress and inconvenience this issue is causing her and it should have ensured it tried to alleviate this.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £750. This amount has been awarded with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind and considers the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Orders have also been made for the landlord to:
1. Meet with the resident to agree an action plan in relation to the security lights.
2. Consider the options available to it to manage the dispute between the resident and her neighbour.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint by the end of the working day after it is received. It will attempt to speak with the resident within 5 working days and will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint. At stage 2 it says it will send its response within 10 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord’s records do not show when the resident first asked to raise a complaint. It sent its stage 1 response about the security lights on 14 July 2023, in which it said had also spoken to the resident the same day to discuss the issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2023 and asked it to escalate the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 11 August, which was within its policy timescale. Upon receipt of medical evidence from the resident it sent a revised stage 2 response on 20 September. Its policy did not require it to do this, however it was a reasonable step for it to take.
The landlord sent a further stage 2 response on 18 December 2023, which was about both the security lights and the ASB. It has not provided a copy of stage 1 response to the ASB complaint, or of the resident’s complaint/escalation request, so it is not clear what prompted this response. As we do not know when this complaint was raised, it is unclear whether the landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It has not provided copies of the resident’s initial complaints about either issue, which is a record keeping failure. There has also been no evidence provided to show it sent a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about ASB, so it has not correctly followed its complaints policy.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to handle the complaints in line with its policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s security lights shining into her property, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by this neighbour.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £850, broken down as follows:
  1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to the lights and the ASB.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
2. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
3. Meet with the resident and agree a timebound action plan in relation to the security lights. This should include the steps the landlord is going to take, who is responsible for the actions, and when these will happen. A copy of this action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.
4. Complete a new ASB risk assessment and provide a copy of this to this Service.
5. Consider whether options such as shuttle mediation, good neighbour agreements, or the use of other tools would be appropriate. It should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of an action plan detailing how it is going to try to prevent further ASB, and how it will deal with and respond to any further allegations.