Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202102149)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102149

The Riverside Group

26 November 2021


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:
    1. The comments made by the landlord’s staff, about the resident, to the occupiers of the property next door.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has accused a member of the landlord’s staff of making a defamatory statement about her. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service therefore cannot investigate the resident’s accusations of slander, libel and defamation of character as these are issues which are better suited for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s (and its staffs’) service.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.
  3. It is noted that over the years the resident made multiple reports of anti-social behaviour by the occupiers of the property next door to hers.

Summary of events

  1. On 31 December 2020, the resident had a conversation with the occupier of the property next door to hers and they advised her that they had been cautious of the noise they caused because the landlord “warned them”, upon moving into the property, that the resident displayed anti-social behaviour and would “bang on the wall if they made any noise”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 and 8 January 2021 to express her dissatisfaction and lodge a formal complaint with it, in respect of the comments it had made about her to the neighbour.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 January 2021 to advise it had investigated her complaint and confirmed that a member of its staff advised her neighbours “that there had been incidents of anti-social behaviour in the past…but [that] these had been resolved and [were] no longer an issue”. Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident that it was common for potential residents to query this, and that it was legally obligated to disclose such information, but keep the details to a minimum. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and advised that if the resident did not contact it by 18 January 2021, it would close her complaint.
  4. The member of the landlord’s staff, who the resident was informed had made unfavourable comments about her, wrote to the resident on 4 February 2021 to apologise. This was followed up by two telephone calls between the landlord and resident, during which the resident informed the landlord of the impact this had on her health. This resulted in her complaint being escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  5. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 18 February 2021, in which it:
    1. Confirmed it had discussed the matter with the member of staff who allegedly made unfavourable comments about her to her neighbour, and they could not “recall saying those exact comments” but acknowledged that this type of behaviour would be unacceptable.
    2. Apologised for any inconvenience caused and advised that the member of staff concerned had already sent a written apology to her.
    3. Advised it had dealt with the matter internally by following its disciplinary process.
    4. Offered a gesture of goodwill of £50.
  6. As the resident was unhappy with the above resolution she then escalated the matter to the landlord’s residents panel, and, subsequently, to this Service on 9 July 2021. The resident advised that, as an outcome, she would like for the member of the landlord’s staff who was responsible for the comments made about her to “fully” admit “she was wrong”, “compensation to match the complaint and the distress”, for the landlord to advise her of the disciplinary action it took, and for the landlord to improve its communication and ensure it adheres to the complaint handling code.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has exacerbated her medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the unfavourable comments and the resident’s medical condition. Any such determination would require an assessment of liability, and only insurers or the courts can provide this. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident, however, as explained at paragraph three, this Service can only investigate and make a determination on the landlord’s handling of her reports concerning the comments made by its member of staff, and not the accusation itself.
  3. Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident informed the landlord of the comments its member of staff made about her on 2 January 2021, which resulted in the landlord issuing a stage one complaint response on 14 January 2021, a written apology on 4 February 2021, and a stage two complaint response on 18 February 2021. Whilst the landlord did not provide this Service with a written policy that would apply in such instances, it is clear from the above that the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s claim, and to respond in good time.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the resolution provided as she wished further information on the disciplinary actions taken by the landlord and higher compensation. The landlord is not required to disclose information concerning personnel or Human Resources (HR) processes.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman expects landlords to provide a fair service. A fair service must be based on evidence. In this case there are two summaries of the comments made to the neighbours. The resident believes the landlord made biased and inappropriate comments about the resident’s past behaviour. Meanwhile the landlord’s staff has stated it only informed the neighbour of past ASB cases, as it is required to do. Despite the lack of corroboratory evidence, the landlord apologised in the complaint response, arranged for a direct apology from the member of staff, arranged training for its staff, and offered a goodwill payment. Based on the information available to the landlord this was a reasonable response to the complaint.
  6. To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident, however, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her reports concerning the unfavourable comments made by its member of staff because it investigated these in a timely manner, offered a written apology and reasonable compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the unfavorable comments made by its member of staff.