The Riverside Group Limited (202012509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012509

The Riverside Group Limited

29 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an Assured tenancy with the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned ongoing issues with her neighbours since 2017. The available records show that the last ASB case was closed in August 2019 and a case review at that time found that there had been no further reported ASB incidents. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in August 2020 following an incident of ASB in June 2020.
This investigation report will consider events from June 2020 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. It should be noted however that all of the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.
As such, whilst this report may include some historical events for the purposes of context, the scope of this investigation will be limited to consideration of the report from June 2020 up to the final complaint response of 23 December 2020.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB policy:

The sets out the landlord’s general approach to dealing with ASB. For example:
1. It is required to respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner; it should take ownership of the issues and work in partnership with appropriate agencies to tackle ASB.
2. The landlord is required to take a ‘harm-centred approach’ to dealing with the issue, tailoring its support appropriately.
3. It should use a risk assessment matrix on all cases where there is an identifiable complainant.
4. It should keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate.
5. It should consider and where appropriate use intervention measures such as mediation services, referral to agencies such as floating support providers and inter agency partnership.

ASB procedure:

This sets out the landlord’s general process for handling an ASB case e.g. carry out an interview and risk assessment and draw up an action plan within 7 working days. Within 5 working days of this initial review, interview the perpetrator and consider any support needs and the involvement of any external agencies.
The landlord is required to make an assessment within 20 working days of the initial report. At this point the landlord needs to consider if the Community Safety Team (CST) should be involved in the case, and if so, the case needs to be prepared accordingly. The CST will then review the case and the evidence, liaise further with all parties, and make a decision on what, if any, formal action needs to be taken.
The procedure document also sets out the various tools available to the landlord to tackle ASB e.g. formal warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Agreement, mediation, as well as formal legal action.

Summary of events

On 28 June 2020 the landlord was notified of an ASB incident that had occurred a few days prior involving the resident and her neighbours.
The records show that on 25 June 2020 the Police were called about an incident on the estate and noted that the resident had alleged that one of her neighbours was being abusive and had spat on her and had threatened her with a golf club. The Police attended At 11pm as a neighbour had called them to report that the resident was outside her home threatening her with a bat. On arrival, the Police found that several of the residents were all outside, including the resident’s partner, who was noted as being extremely rude and aggressive. The Police said that it took several minutes and four officers to calm the group of residents down and allegations were made about the actions of the neighbour. The Police arrested the neighbour.
The Police noted that there was an issue between the resident and her neighbour and the main aggressors on that evening were the neighbour and the resident’s partner, who ‘were clearly antagonising each other’.
The records show that the landlord liaised with the Police about the incident and also contacted the appropriate agencies in light of the neighbour’s vulnerability.
On 3 July 2020 the landlord interviewed the neighbour about the incident. She said that she felt threatened by the resident’s partner. The landlord also spoke to the resident and carried out a risk assessment and an initial action plan.
The landlord’s records show that it discussed the incident further with the resident and noted that whilst the neighbour had been arrested and charged following the incident on 25 June 2020, counter allegations had been made by other neighbours regarding the conduct of the resident’s partner who was arrested for threatening to kill the neighbour and criminal damage. These allegations were still being investigated by the Police.
As a result of the discussions and following a case review, the landlord agreed to have a multi-agency meeting with the Police, the local authority Community Safety Team, and Social Services to explore what interventions were necessary. The landlord also offered the resident the option of mediation.
The records show that on 6 July 2020 the landlord liaised with the Community Safety Team who had also been speaking to the neighbour. The CST raised concerns about the targeted conduct of the residents on the estate towards the neighbour. The neighbour was given diary sheets to complete for two weeks to record any further incidents.
The landlord was contacted by the neighbour on 22 July 2020 as she was worried for her safety as the resident’s partner had returned to the property.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 July 2020 it received reports from other residents on the estate about the resident’s partner, in particular regarding the CCTV that had been installed, and noise nuisance from the resident’s dog.
On 7 August 2020 the CST spoke to all the residents involved in the ASB allegations.
On 27 August 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she felt that it was not doing enough regarding her ASB and ongoing issues with the neighbour.
On 4 September 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and said it would review any evidence the resident could provide about any recent ASB allegations against the neighbour and it will review the case again after the multi-agency meeting.
The multi-agency meeting took place on 7 September 2020 which included the landlord’s ASB officer, the CST Officer and the PCSO to discuss any further actions that could be implemented. It was jointly decided that an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement would be the most appropriate course of action and this would need to happen before any formal enforcement action could be considered. It was also noted by the Police that the neighbour was vulnerable and it was aware of her circumstances.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 11 September 2020:
1. It set out the actions the landlord had taken so far.
2. With regards to the June incident it noted that the neighbour had been arrested but there had also been counter allegations made against the resident and her partner.
3. A multi-agency meeting was arranged and it was jointly agreed that an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement would be the most appropriate course of action.
4. It said that until the counter allegations had been fully investigated and an outcome reached, it could not consider any further action against the neighbour.
5. The resident was asked to keep the landlord updated once a decision is made by the Police about the counter-allegations against the resident and her partner.
6. It confirmed that the ASB case would remain open and continue to be monitored until the Police decision is known. However, the complaint would now be closed.
On 25 September 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour had been verbally abusive and threatening her. She also confirmed that the Police were no longer taking any action against her partner following the June incident. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2.
During October 2020 there were further emails between the landlord and the Neighbourhood Policing Team about the ongoing dispute between the resident and the neighbour and the counter-allegations from all parties.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord, in conjunction with the Police, drafted an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement to be signed by the resident and the neighbour.
By 19 November 2020 the ABA had not been signed by either party and was re-issued again.
The correspondence between the landlord and the Police showed that as at 21 December 2020 there had been no further incidents reported since the ABA’s had been issued.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 final complaint response on 23 December 2020:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the Stage 2 response and offered the resident a £25 gift voucher in recognition of the delay.
2. It said it was satisfied that its officers had been working closely with both the CST and local Police and had taken the agreed action against individuals on the estate involved in the ASB allegations.
3. It noted the resident’s request for the neighbour to be evicted, but it said that this was not appropriate and it had to consider other measures first before taking such steps.
4. It found that there were other more effective enforcement measures that could be used which, it said, the Courts were keen to see having been tried in tackling the ASB. It said it had demonstrated that it was working with its partners to resolve the ASB cases through the appropriate course of enforcement action, therefore, it did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the actual ASB allegations or to apportion any blame on any party. Our role is to consider and assess the landlord’s response to the ASB report, and the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in light of the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
It is duly noted that this case has presented challenges to the landlord, partly due to the vulnerability and support needs of the alleged perpetrator (the neighbour) and also due to the history of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB between the resident and her neighbour.
The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident, primarily under her tenancy agreement and its ASB policy, with its obligations to support the neighbour (the alleged perpetrator) under her tenancy, its ASB policy and relevant legislation. The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the alleged perpetrator’s personal data and information, and as such, this can impact on the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the case.
With regards to the 25 June 2020 incident and the allegations of ASB made by both the resident and the neighbour, this must be viewed in the context of the long history of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB between the two parties. It is clear from the records that there was a degree of animosity between the resident and the neighbour. In such situations there are no easy solutions and the landlord must ensure that it is being fair to both parties and taking into account the history of the case and both parties’ circumstances and actions.
The available evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly and appropriately in response to the ASB report it received on 28 June 2020. The correspondence shows that within five days of the report it had interviewed the resident and the neighbour and had initiated contact with the Police and other support agencies to draw up an action plan. It acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy by investigating the report, speaking to the parties, and liaising with the relevant external agencies to work together to address the issues.
The landlord reviewed the case and promptly agreed to arrange a multi-agency meeting to discuss how best to deal with the issues raised by the June 2020 incident. It acknowledged that it needed to work with other community agencies to have a co-ordinated response to the ongoing issues with the resident and the neighbour (as well as other residents on the estate).
The landlord also offered the resident mediation with the neighbour as an option. But given the nature of the incident and the history between the parties, this may not have been an appropriate solution at this stage.
The records show that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident and the neighbour, as well as the Police and other external agencies, and it took into account that counter-allegations had been made against the resident (and her partner) which also involved the Police.
The landlord took part in a multi-agency meeting on 7 September 2020 where a review of the ASB problems involving the neighbour, the resident (and others on the estate) was carried out. The purpose of the meeting was not only to review the actions taken so far, but also to agree a way forward. This demonstrates that the landlord was committed to finding solutions and working with the resident and other parties (such as the Police, social services, and community safety teams) to work together to support both the resident and the neighbour. The landlord acted appropriately by considering the impact of the ASB on the resident and also on the neighbour.
A key factor in this case has been the involvement of the Police. Given the seriousness of the incident and the allegations and threats of violence against both parties (and the fact that the neighbour and the resident’s partner had been arrested) the landlord responded appropriately by ensuring that the Police were fully involved in the case review. In such situations the involvement of the Police is not only helpful but is vital when considering what options the landlord has in terms of pursuing enforcement action against any party.
Following the multi-agency meeting, it was jointly agreed by the landlord and the other agencies that the neighbour and the resident would be issued with Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA). The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure allows it to consider what intervention options to use. These can range from written warnings, and mediation, all the way to formal legal action being taken. When considering what intervention action to take, the landlord needs to take into account the individual circumstances of the case, as well as the support needs of the parties involved.
The resident has said that she feels the landlord should be taking a tougher stance against the neighbour and consider evicting her. While the resident’s comments are noted, it is not always the case that a landlord will be able to start eviction proceedings in such situations. The landlord is guided by its ASB policy and procedure which sets out how it will consider enforcement action for any tenancy breaches. It is not for the Ombudsman to dictate to the landlord what actions it should take, and its policy sets out that it has the discretion to decide what action it deems appropriate for the case. It also needs to be borne in mind that any action needs to be proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the landlord was right to wait for the Police investigations to be completed before making any decisions on what further action was appropriate. It can be seen that the landlord was actively liaising with the Police and it was reasonable for the landlord to take into account whether or not the Police would pursue any action against either party. The landlord has, in its complaints process, explained its reasoning for not starting eviction proceedings and this is reasonable. The resident may well want stronger action to be taken by the landlord, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s decision-making and rationale shows that it carefully considered its options and it deems this to be a reasonable and proportionate response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Reasons

The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response to the ASB report was appropriate and proportionate given the circumstances, and it acted in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.