From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

The Riverside Group Limited (202324423)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324423

The Riverside Group Limited

06 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its staff.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her stepdad. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has said she is registered disabled, due to a visibility issue. The landlord has said it did not have any vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems.
  2. The resident had reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) against her to the landlord, which had been ongoing since May 2021. The ASB involved children kicking footballs at the resident’s property and congregating outside. The landlord was investigating these reports of ASB.
  3. On 23 May 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a CCTV camera, to help gather evidence of the reported ASB. It said it would arrange for its repairs team to fit the CCTV camera. The resident told the landlord on 7 August 2023 that it had not yet fitted the CCTV camera.
  4. On 1 September 2023 a housing officer and community safety officer of the landlord visited the resident, to discuss allegations of ASB made against her stepdad.
  5. At the visit the landlord’s two officers also discussed the reported ASB made by the resident. The landlord’s records show that its two officers advised her to ignore the children kicking footballs at her property and to close her kitchen blinds. Its records also show it had fitted the CCTV camera and told the resident to complete incident diaries.
  6. On 3 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the conduct of its officers at the visit. She said that the community safety officer had told her, she was “more than capable of putting the CCTV camera up.” She felt that the landlord was discriminating against her, due to her disability. She said the landlord’s staff had also told her, that children can play where they want. She said this had left her upset and did not want either of the officers to contact her again, as they had made her feel “worthless.”
  7. The landlord’s complaint handler requested information from its two members of staff about the incident, on 4 September 2023. Both members of staff said although there were some problems at the early part of the visit, they considered it to have been successful. The housing officer confirmed the resident was advised to ignore the ASB and close her kitchen blinds.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2023. It stated:
    1. it had contacted the members of staff, who believed the meeting had gone well and ended in an amicable fashion.
    2. following a telephone call to the resident she had told it, due to the way the staff had made her feel, she only agreed to the advice given at the visit so its staff would leave.
    3. it was sorry and said it was not its intention to cause the resident unnecessary distress.
    4. it was unable to assign the resident with a new housing officer but had made the manager of the members of staff aware of the issues and it would review this internally.
    5. as the landlord had provided the CCTV camera, it was its responsibility to maintain and repair it. It apologised it had told the resident to fix it herself.
    6. it had booked a formal repair job to install the CCTV camera.
    7. it had requested mediation between the resident and the alleged perpetrator of the ASB, which would need agreement of both parties.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 18 September 2023, asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
    1. there had been a repeat incident with the landlord’s two members of staff, who attended her property again following further allegations of ASB against her stepdad.
    2. her stepdad had needed intervention by the crisis team due to the way the two members of staff had spoken to him.
    3. she felt the two members of staff were harassing and victimising her and her stepdad.
    4. she would like the conduct of the two members of staff investigated again, as she felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action at stage 1.
  10. On 20 September 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 acknowledgement letter. It said the resident remained dissatisfied because, its two members of staff had visited her property again and she felt this was continued “victimisation” towards her. The resident felt the police should have dealt with the issue its two members of staff approached her about and not the landlord. The resident raised a conflict of interest and wanted the staff’s conduct investigated by someone other than the person she had named.
  11. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2023. Its letter stated:
    1. the two members of staff visited her again due to ASB allegations made against her. This was without prior notification, as the staff were working in the area. It said it was clear there were counter allegations, but it did not need to take further action. It had closed the case, so there was no need for it to contact the witness, whose details the resident had provided.
    2. the resident felt the reason for the further visit should have been a police matter. However, it confirmed that when it believes incidents fall outside its jurisdiction, it provides customers with appropriate advice.
    3. the resident had concerns about its community safety officer “discriminating” against her, when discussing the CCTV camera, he allegedly said “you are more than capable to get up a ladder and fit it yourself,” despite being aware of her disability. It said the community safety officer was unaware its repairs team had not fitted the CCTV camera. He had told the resident she should have made him aware of this, or she could have it mounted on the wall herself if she had ladders.
    4. the community safety officer was not aware of the resident’s disabilities and the landlord held no details of her being registered disabled. It advised her to provide documentation of her disability, so it could record this on its systems.
  12. On 8 July 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said the conduct of the landlord’s staff at the visits to her property “were disgusting and they were hostile towards her.” She stated the landlord was aware of her disabilities and the advice given by its members of staff did not take these into account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of victimisation and being discriminatory. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
  2. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman, she stated that she wanted the landlord to hold the members of staff accountable for their actions. While we can look at staff conduct in some cases, and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its staff

  1. The landlord’s Code of Conduct states its staff are responsible for ensuring their own behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional does not constitute as discrimination, bullying, harassment or victimisation. Staff should always consider their own behaviour and the impact that this can have on others, working cooperatively, considering different perspectives.
  2. There were conflicting accounts of the landlord’s staff’s visits to the resident’s property. The resident was clearly upset by both visits and felt that the staff did not conduct themselves appropriately. The housing officer and community safety officer considered the visits had resulted in a successful outcome.
  3. The evidence provided by the landlord and resident confirms it advised her to ignore the ASB issues and close her kitchen blinds. While the landlord considered this as reasonable advice in response to the reported ASB against the resident, she felt that this left her a “prisoner in her own home.” She also said she only agreed to the advice given so its staff would leave.
  4. The landlord and resident dispute the comments made by its community safety officer’s regarding the CCTV camera. There is no evidence to confirm what the community safety officer said regarding the CCTV camera, so we are unable to determine the accuracy of either the resident’s or landlord’s statement on this matter.
  5. The landlord said that the community safety officer was not aware of the resident’s disabilities. However, the landlord’s evidence shows that the resident informed it of her disabilities on 17 May 2021, 26 July 2021 and 10 October 2022. Having declared this to the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to obtain further details about this from the resident, so it could assess whether it needed to make reasonable adjustments in its communication with her.
  6. The resident informed the landlord on 7 August 2023, that it had not yet fitted the CCTV camera. The landlord’s staff should have recognised that as it supplied the resident with the CCTV camera it was its responsibility to fit it. While we cannot confirm what the community safety officer said during the visit to the resident’s property on 1 September 2023, it was not reasonable to have suggested the resident could have taken responsibility for fitting the CCTV camera.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. It informed her it had contacted the staff’s manager and its staff’s response to the investigation. It provided an apology to the resident and said it was not its intention to cause distress. It apologised that it told the resident to fix the camera herself and booked a repair appointment to remedy this, which was a reasonable response. Although the complaint was about its staff’s conduct, it offered the resident mediation between herself and the alleged perpetrator of the reported ASB. While this was an appropriate offer to address the reported ASB, it would have been beneficial to consider making the same offer to repair the relationship with its staff.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She also provided new information to the landlord, of a second visit to her property by its housing officer and community safety officer, which she said left her feeling victimised. The visit was in relation to a further report of ASB against her stepdad, which she felt should have been a matter for the police to investigate, rather than the landlord. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she requested the two members of staff did not contact her again. It is unclear whether the two members of staff were aware of this.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out the reasons for the visit. It said it was clear then that there were counter allegations of ASB, which it had recorded on its systems. It had not been necessary to contact the witness, whose details the resident provided, as it had closed the case. The landlord’s response did not adequately address its community safety officer’s comments about the CCTV camera. It advised the resident she should have told it the CCTV camera had not been fitted and explained its purpose was to support ongoing ASB issues. However, it did not provide a response directly about the conduct of its staff, nor did it apologise to her, as it had done in its stage 1 response.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not mention the mediation, which it had offered in its stage 1 response. It is unclear why this was absent. It said the community safety officer was unaware of the resident’s disability, and it did not hold details of her being registered disabled. It advised the resident to contact it to provide supporting documentation of her disability. It concluded it had closed her complaint but did not state whether it had upheld the complaint or not.
  11. The landlord’s complaint responses did not mention its Code of Conduct, in relation to allegations made against its members of staff. It would have been reasonable for it to do so and explain if it considered the members of staff had followed this, during the visits to the resident’s home. Its stage 1 response did consider its staff conduct and provided an apology to the resident. While its stage 2 covering letter apologised to the resident that she had to make a complaint, its response focused on the reason it provided the CCTV camera and does not adequately address the staff conduct. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reiterated its apology to the resident in its stage 2 response, as well as clearly setting out whether it considered its staff had followed its Code of Conduct appropriately during the visits to the resident’s property.
  12. Having arranged a repair to the CCTV camera in its stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 response does not confirm if it had done this. It is unclear from the evidence the landlord has provided whether it fitted the CCTV camera at the resident’s property.
  13. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the upset the comments by its staff had caused the resident and tried to put things right. However, its stage 2 complaint appears dismissive of the resident’s concerns, it no longer offered her an apology or tried to put things right. The absence of this is likely to have caused the resident confusion and impacted on the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord did not consider the resident’s request, for its two members of staff not to contact her, which would have been reasonable for it to agree to, until it had concluded its stage 1 complaint. In not doing so it caused the resident distress as well as putting the two members of staff in a difficult position.
  14. We find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the conduct of its staff. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation to the resident, which we consider appropriate redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its staff.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
    2. pay the resident £50 compensation, for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its staff.
    3. to arrange installation of a CCTV camera at her property, as agreed, if it has not already done so and confirm to this service when it has done this.
    4. obtain details from the resident of her disabilities if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord must confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord offers mediation between the resident and its two members of staff as a gesture of goodwill towards strengthening the landlord-tenant relationship.