The Riverside Group Limited (202323637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323637

The Riverside Group Limited

13 May 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 noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from an upstairs neighbour.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom 12th floor flat in a block. There are no vulnerabilities noted on file or disclosed by the resident.
On 8 January 2022 the resident first wrote a letter to the landlord to report ASB. He said his upstairs neighbour was carrying out noisy building works at lunch time on the weekends. He said this had been ongoing for 2 years. On receipt of the letter (17 January 2022), the landlord opened an ASB case. It attempted to call the resident but could not get through, so sent him a letter asking him to get in touch to go over everything in detail.
The resident reported several further instances of noise nuisance between 26 January 2022 and 30 September 2022. He said he could hear “knocking and drilling” and what appeared to be “structural alterations.” The landlord responded on each occasion. It opened an ASB case, attempted to call the resident, wrote to him, and offered to either visit him or have a face-to-face meeting in its offices. It closed the ASB case when it did not receive a response from the resident.
On 15 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and complained that the ASB had started again. He said that he could hear “persistent drilling, scraping, woodcutting, knocking, and banging” from the neighbour. He believed the neighbour was using the flat “as a workshop.”
The landlord responded to the resident on receipt of the letter, 21 October 2022. It offered to visit or meet him. It also visited the upstairs neighbour on the same date. It said that after visiting the neighbour, it was reassured that the neighbour was not using the property as a “workshop” and was not “carrying out extensive DIY.” It asked the resident to let it know if the issue persisted.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 31 October 2022 to say that he had been complaining about his upstairs neighbour for 2 years and that he believed the neighbour had made structural changes and the building noise was excessive with “unbearable drilling noises.” He also said that his neighbour had shouted at him and called him a “bad neighbour” because of his noise complaints.
The landlord responded to the resident’s letter on 9 November 2022, and noted the following:
1. It apologised for the noise in the block, which was caused by contractors fitting a new communal boiler and a replacement roofing programme.
2. It acknowledged that this had caused disruption to a number of residents.
3. It also said that it had not noted any structural changes when visiting the neighbour in October 2022.
4. It said it had no open ASB cases on its system and asked the resident to let it know if he had experienced any recent issues with dates and times.
5. It also asked if the resident wanted the landlord to raise it directly with the upstairs neighbours.
6. Further, it included information on the Noise App (an application which could be downloaded to the resident’s mobile phone) which could be used to record evidence of noise. It told the resident that this evidence could be used to build a case.
7. It said it welcomed written replies but also offered again to meet the resident to discuss the issues in person.
The landlord visited the resident on 15 November 2022. Further to the meeting, the resident wrote to the landlord again on 19 November 2022. He said that noise from the flat above had been ongoing for over 30 minutes in the middle of a Saturday afternoon. He wanted the landlord to listen to his own noise recordings and said he was “offended” by the landlord offering him the noise app.
The landlord responded to the resident’s letter on 15 December 2022. It told him that the noise app was the only option it had at the time to record noise. It offered to meet or visit him to listen to his recent recordings so it could log these on its ASB database. It also offered to speak to the neighbours above and ask them not to approach the resident directly. It said it was happy to continue communicating via letter but was also keen to speak to him to give a quicker response to his enquiries.
The resident responded to the landlord’s letter on 25 February 2023. He said he was complaining about the same issue regarding drilling and wood cutting noises. He did not accept it was DIY works.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 6 March 2023 and visited the resident on 8 March 2023. It also visited the upstairs neighbour, who denied making any regular noise. The neighbour said they did have flooring put down a few weeks ago, which may have made some noise, but they did not regularly use power tools. The landlord also listened to the resident’s noise recording and noted power tool noises. The landlord also spoke to other tenants in the locality to see if they regularly heard any loud noises, but they said they did not.
The upstairs neighbour emailed the landlord on 23 March 2023. They said they wanted to make the landlord aware that they had heard really loud drilling that morning. They said it was not an issue but wanted the landlord to know they had not caused the noise and that workmen were working loudly on the stairwell near the roof. He believed the noise recording the landlord had listened to may have been taken during the stairwell works.
The resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance on 1 April 2023. He said the tenant that previously lived below him had been moved as the noise was so bad and they used to think the noise came from the resident. He said he had told them that the noise came from the flat above him and asked the landlord to speak to them.
The landlord logged another ASB case when it received the letter on 11 April 2023. It wrote to the resident the same day, and said it was happy to listen to the recordings but that it would be more efficient to use the landlord’s noise app as it had previously discussed with him. It arranged a visit for 18 April 2023. It is unclear what happened on this visit.
The resident reported a further noise incident on 2 September 2023. On receipt of the resident’s letter (6 September 2023), the landlord opened a further ASB case. It wrote to him on 11 September 2023 and told him that it had not been able to locate the source of the noise. It urged him to reconsider using the noise app, as it recorded noise and independently confirmed the location, so would provide a stronger level of evidence. It said it would also need similar reports of noise from other residents and said it did not have these. It also said it would write to all residents in the vicinity to remind them of their responsibilities in “this respect.” It offered to visit the resident on 14 September 2023.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 September 2023. He said:
1. The ASB had been bad for 3 years. The noises from his neighbour’s “workshop” transmitted to their floor and the resident’s ceiling.
2. The noise was so bad that the neighbour below him had been rehoused by the housing provider who previously managed the block.
3. His other neighbours may not hear the noise as acutely as him as they did not live directly below the alleged perpetrator.
4. The landlord had said it would not accept further complaints unless other neighbours also reported similar noises.
5. He did not want to instal the noise app on his phone. He wanted the noise app to be installed on a landlord telephone and to be placed in the communal electrical cupboard next to the upstairs neighbour.
6. He wanted noise recording equipment installed and said the landlord was failing in its duty.
On 19 September 2023 the landlord delivered letters to all residents in the block. It said it had reports of unacceptable noise levels and asked residents to only carry out DIY between the hours of 9am and 9pm. It also suggested that residents speak to their neighbours to let them know if the noise was going to be prolonged for a period of time. It also reminded residents that they were not permitted to run a business from their properties without prior written consent.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2023. It said:
1. The former tenant (who lived below the resident) who was relocated due to ASB was managed by a previous housing association, so it could not comment on historic cases.
2. It encouraged the resident to log any ASB with the landlord. The more evidence it had, the better it could help the resident.
3. He had not been issued with an ultimatum. He could still log ASB complaints with the landlord but there needed to be more substantial evidence.
4. It recommended using the noise app as it could pinpoint exactly where the noise was coming from. He did not have to do this and it was only a recommendation, but the landlord could not do much more to establish exactly where the noise was coming from.
5. It was sorry for any distress or inconvenience caused but it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2023. He said:
1. He wanted a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy as he had mislaid the previous copy.
2. He did not want the landlord to contact him by telephone as he would “hang up.” He would not speak to the landlord by any other means and would walk away (if it tried to arrange a meeting).
3. He reiterated that he had received an “ultimatum” as the landlord had said it needed similar noise reports from other residents to establish a case against his upstairs neighbour.
4. The landlord had disregarded his accounts about the previous neighbour, who was rehoused due to ASB. The problem persisted and it was irrelevant which housing provider managed the building.
5. He would not install the noise app and asked how the app would differentiate if the noise was coming from above or below.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 October 2023. It said:
1. It had recommended that the resident use the noise app as this could pinpoint exactly where the noise was coming from. This would have helped the landlord build the case further.
2. It is not its policy to place a recording device in any buildings where residents report ASB.
3. A different housing association had managed the previous neighbour’s ASB case. It had its own policies and procedures and the landlord could not comment on this.
4. It sent out a copy of its complaints policy.
5. It urged the resident to continue to log ASB as the more evidence it had, the more it could help.
6. It was sorry for the distress and upset caused but it was not upholding the complaint.
The resident wrote to this Service on 9 October 2023. He said that the landlord had only offered him the noise app and had not explored any other alternatives to investigate the ASB. He wanted the landlord to contact neighbours to investigate and to place recording devices in buildings where residents report ASB.
The resident reported a further incident of noise nuisance to the landlord on 19 February 2024, which the landlord has handled as a new formal complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that noise nuisance had been ongoing for 3 years. While we understand the resident’s frustration, this investigation will focus on events from October 2022, one year before the resident made his stage 1 complaint. This is because we consider it reasonable to only investigate matters which were brought to the attention of a landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

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. We acknowledge that the resident said the situation has been distressing and the incidents had an adverse impact on him. 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 capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
2. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that when dealing with ASB it will:
1. Take all complaints of nuisance and ASB seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
2. Keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate.
3. Consider and, where appropriate, use intervention measures such as mediation services and referrals to other agencies.
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 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 Neighbourhood Management policy (implemented in September 2024) states that it will work with local partners to address issues such as ASB and neighbour nuisance. It says that it will, where possible, utilise mediation services to help resolve neighbour nuisance and ASB.
It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of noise and ASB on the same day it received his letter (21 October 2022). It acted within its policy by acknowledging the resident’s concerns within 1 working day. The resident did not provide the landlord with a telephone number or email address and communicated with the landlord only by letter, so it was reasonable that it responded using this method.
Further, on the same day, it offered to meet with him and also visited the upstairs neighbour to check the property for any signs of “structural changes” or “a workshop” and to raise the noise concerns. This was a reasonable response and showed that the landlord was trying to resolve the issue, according to its policy. It responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and took the allegations seriously. It also wrote to the resident to let him know of the actions it had taken, which was further appropriate.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s further noise complaints of 31 October 2022 on receipt of his letter (9 November 2022) within the timeframes of its policy. On this occasion, it identified that the noise was contractor works and apologised to the resident for this. It was reasonable that it did not log this as an ASB case, as it was a temporary disruption, caused by necessary roof works to the block. However, it would have been helpful had the landlord advised the resident (and other residents in the block) of the works and possible disruption, prior to them starting.
It was also reasonable that the landlord offered to visit the upstairs neighbour again, and that it offered the resident the option to call or meet in person to facilitate a quicker response.
The landlord again acted appropriately when it delivered letters to all residents in the block, advising them of unacceptable noise levels and of their tenancy obligations. This was in line with its ASB policy and its tenancy agreement.
It was reasonable that after further noise reports, the landlord opened an ASB case on 6 March 2023 and visited the resident shortly afterwards. It was further appropriate that it visited the upstairs neighbours again to raise the noise concerns and that it spoke to other neighbours in order to obtain further evidence. Also, the landlord opened ASB cases after the resident’s noise reports from April 2023 to September 2023.
The Ombudsman understands that there is a high level of evidence required for a landlord to pursue enforcement action. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident take recordings using its app and informed him that this could be used as evidence to build a case. We note that the resident did not want to use the noise app; however, the landlord explained why it was necessary and also continued to listen to the resident’s own recordings, which was appropriate. This shows that the landlord was taking the reports seriously and attempting to find the source of the noise, in order to consider building a case.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on Noise’ report recognises that noise transference can have a significant impact on people’s lives. It recommends landlords explore all avenues to lessen noise transference and its impact. Given the stage of its investigation, and the evidence it had available to it, it is not clear that noise transference minimisation works were proportionate at that time. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations as to possible further steps.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider exploring other noise recording options, such as signposting the resident to the local authority’s environmental health noise team. This would have allowed him to explore the option of installing sound equipment or similar if environmental health deemed this appropriate. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will refer residents to other agencies where appropriate, and it did not do this. This was a failing and caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Also, the landlord did not consider offering mediation to the resident and his upstairs neighbour, and this was not in line with its policy.
In summary, although the landlord went some way to address the resident’s concerns of noise nuisance, it did not go far enough. It did not refer the resident to other agencies as required by its policy. It also did not consider whether mediation was appropriate or offer this to the parties.
Given the failings identified, a finding of service failure has been made. An order for £100 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is made up of £50 for its failure to refer the resident to environmental health and £50 for its failure to offer the parties mediation. This order is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.
This Service notes that the landlord did not have a neighbourhood management policy in place during the period of the complaint; however, we will not be making recommendations for the landlord to implement a neighbourhood management policy, as it subsequently did this in September 2024.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB from an upstairs neighbour.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Provide the resident the contact details for its local council environmental health team so he can discuss other sound recording avenues if he wishes to.
3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. This is to be paid directly into the resident’s bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable).
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.