Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

The Riverside Group Limited (202204392)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204392

The Riverside Group Limited

24 February 2023


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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a two-bedroom house. The landlord has noted that the resident has advised it that she suffers from depression.
  2. The resident has advised that her neighbour began to behave antisocially towards her from July 2021. The police have been involved and have issued both the resident and the neighbour with community resolution notices which stated that neither party should have contact with the other. The resident has advised that the neighbour had nevertheless continued their ASB against her.
  3. The resident reported this behaviour to the landlord, and sent it video evidence of the behaviour. The landlord subsequently offered to facilitate mediation between the parties, however, the neighbour declined this offer.
  4. In early 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Her complaint included that the landlord had delayed in seeking to address the ASB, given that it had been ongoing for six months prior to it taking action. She also advised that the ASB had affected her mental health. She also expressed concern that she was being treated like a perpetrator of ASB. Additionally, she expressed concern that the neighbour had CCTV that had a view of her rear garden.
  5. In its formal responses, the landlord advised that it did not have sufficient evidence to take tenancy enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour. It advised that the neighbour had made counter allegations of ASB against her, and so it had subsequently sought to manage both parties’ behaviour. It reassured her that it would only take proportionate enforcement action based on evidence. It had offered both the resident and the neighbour alternative accommodation, but the resident did not want to move. It was satisfied that it had dealt with her case appropriately, and did not uphold her complaint.
  6. The police ultimately concluded their investigation and determined that there was no clear perpetrator of ASB. They took no further action.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this service because she did not consider that the landlord was appropriately safeguarding her, and wanted it to conclusively deal with the alleged ASB being carried out by her neighbour against her.

Assessment and findings

  1. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  2. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord must consider (amongst other things) the seriousness of reported ASB as well as the likelihood that the ASB would continue or be repeated. As part of its investigation in this case, the landlord reviewed the evidence provided to it by the resident, including creating timelines of events and matching incidents with evidence that had been supplied. It also discussed the issues with the parties. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that the landlord’s method of assessing severity is separated into four stages. At the first stage, the landlord must assess the risk, undertake an assessment of the complainant, formulate an action plan that includes how to record/gather evidence, and make referrals for support. In this case, the landlord referred the resident’s concerns to the police, who were the appropriate body to investigate any concerns of criminal behaviour. The landlord also advised the resident it would formulate an action plan based on the outcome of the police’s investigation. This approach was also appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the landlord’s policy.
  5. The second stage of assessing the severity of alleged ASB, under the landlord’s policy, relates to the landlord engaging with the alleged perpetrator of ASB. It is evident that the landlord contacted the neighbour throughout the course of the complaint and reminded them of their obligations under their tenancy agreement regarding behaviour. It also requested that the neighbour remove their CCTV. Given that it had received counter allegations, it was also reasonable that it requested for the resident to remove her own CCTV. It noted that neither of them had sought permission from it to install cameras, and that given the privacy concerns raised by each of them, they would have to remove the CCTV. Once again, this approach was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s policies.
  6. The third stage of assessment under the landlord’s ASB policy relates to case escalation, further evidence gathering, and non-legal options. In this case, the landlord continued to record the resident’s further reports of ASB, and it is evident it reviewed its risk assessment upon receiving feedback from the police. Given that the police chose to take no further action, it was reasonable for the landlord not to escalate its own response. As part of its evidence gathering, the landlord also spoke to the resident’s other neighbour, and also had a witness statement given by a social worker that had attended the resident’s neighbour’s property.
  7. In relation to the non-legal options available to the landlord, it has the option to issue the alleged perpetrator of ASB with verbal warnings, warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation, and community notices. The landlord did attempt to utilise all of those means; however, the resident’s neighbour refused to sign an acceptable behaviour contractor and also refused to attend mediation. It was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to attempt these methods of managing the ASB.
  8. Regarding legal action, the Ombudsman understands that a very high level of evidence is required for a court to approve tenancy enforcement action. Given that the police had not taken further action, and that there were conflicting reports from the parties, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider non legal options in the circumstances.
  9. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord made appropriate use of its discretion to offer alternative accommodation to each party. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord has appropriately sought to manage the ASB reported using the tools available to it. It has also appropriately confirmed that should the behaviour continue, the parties should continue to report this for further investigation.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.