The Riverside Group Limited (202002928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002928

The Riverside Group Limited

18 June 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours.
2. The resident’s associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord between January 2016 and May 2020.
3. The property is a ground-floor flat.

Summary of events

4. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2020 to submit a report to it regarding antisocial behaviour that he had been experiencing, which he said was caused by his upstairs neighbours’ stomping.
5. On 15 January 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and said that it had attempted to contact him via telephone on 10 January 2020 “to discuss the details of the case”, in response to his above report, and had left a voicemail requesting for him to contact it to do so and clarify whether he wanted it to contact the alleged perpetrator. Additionally, it asked him to provide details of the antisocial behaviour experienced, to enable it “to investigate the case further”, and advised that it had “issued a noise app leaflet in the post” to enable him to provide evidence of any further incidents that it requested he confirm had occurred.
6. Based on the information provided to this Service, there was no further communication about the resident’s above report of antisocial behaviour until he made a formal complaint about matters including the landlord’s handling of this to it on 9 March 2020. On 9 April 2020, it wrote to him to address various issues in response to his complaint. In respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his upstairs neighbours, the landlord advised the following:

1. It appreciated the inconvenience caused by noise transferring from neighbouring properties.
2. Due to the type of building “overhearing domestic noise” was “unfortunately unavoidable”.
3. In respect of the antisocial behaviour report logged on 6 January 2020, it confirmed that it had left a voicemail on 10 January 2020, then contacted the resident by email, and subsequently, delivered “some information” about its noise monitoring app to his property on 23 January 2020.
4. It confirmed that it was yet to receive any recordings from the resident and asked him, moving forward, to either use the noise monitoring app or contact its customer service department to report any new antisocial behaviour.
5. In order to resolve this type of situation it would “often attempt” “to ask neighbours to speak to one another”. Furthermore, the landlord noted that it would suggest “this as a standard method” “to see if an amicable solution could be reached” and that it would not suggest for the resident to challenge his neighbours.

7. The resident subsequently moved out of the property on 18 May 2020.
8. On 8 July 2020, the resident wrote to this Service to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour by his upstairs neighbours, and to request for this to be reviewed. He also mentioned that:

1. Noise caused by stomping began shortly after he moved in and that “it soon became apparent that it was intentional”.
2. He attempted to discuss this matter with one of the occupants of the upstairs flat, who advised that the occupier causing the noise did this because of a dislike for the previous tenant.
3. He advised the landlord of the above and it asked him to discuss this with the above occupiers. In respect of this, the resident also advised that he believed that it informed the occupiers of the concerns that he had raised, which led to an altercation with them.
4. He lodged a report about this with the landlord, but due to it not responding within the indicated 24-hour timeframe, he discussed the situation with his local councillor, who in turn contacted it. It responded to the councillor, who advised that the resident would be invited to discuss this situation in person; however, he confirmed that this did not occur and there was no further correspondence from it about this.

9. On 19 August 2020, the resident logged a new stage one complaint with the landlord, at the advice of this Service, with regard to its handling of his initial report concerning the antisocial behaviour by his neighbours. It issued a stage one complaint response to this on 21 August 2020, which advised that it considered that it had addressed the concerns raised by him in its above letter of 9 April 2020, and so it had decided to close the new complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. However, the resident then made a further complaint to the landlord on 21 August 2020 that it had not reviewed its handling of his antisocial behaviour reports, including its failure to invite him to discuss this with it in person.
10. On 4 September 2020, the landlord issued another stage one complaint response concerning its handling of the resident’s initial antisocial behaviour reports, acknowledging and addressing his above concerns. In this response, it also confirmed that it had discussed his concerns of “excessive and deliberate noise nuisance” with his neighbours, and had recommended that he approach them in person as this type of issue was sometimes resolved by neighbours cooperating.
11. As a resolution the landlord determined that it “should have dealt with some of the issues [he] reported more promptly”, decided to partially uphold the complaint, and complied with this Service’s recommendation that it keep to its previous offer to the resident, and offered him £100 compensation. This was for reasons including its delay in arranging a promised office visit for him via his local councillor to discuss his concerns, which was subsequently ruled out by pandemic restrictions, although it explained that its options to deal with these were extremely limited even if he had remained in the property.
12. The landlord then issued a stage two final complaint response to the resident on 9 October 2020 following his further complaint to it of 4 September 2020. In respect of the antisocial behaviour aspect of the complaint, it advised that, following its review of this, it had found that it “did follow the prescribed course of action in the majority of [the] investigation; however, there were gaps in terms of communication…and in relation to the timing of some of the interventions considered.”
13. As a result, the landlord apologised to the resident for “not supporting [him] sufficiently during this time”, and offered him further compensation of £100 for its handling of his antisocial behaviour case. This was in addition to the above offer of £100 compensation that it had previously made him, which he had accepted and was being applied to his former tenant arrears, and it further advised that it would ensure that it would “always provide the best service possible” moving forward. The landlord said that it would do so by asking its regional service manager, who was also its corporate lead on antisocial behaviour to work with its neighbourhood teams.
14. On 18 November 2020, the resident wrote to this Service to advise that his complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and that he was “not satisfied with how it was dealt with”. He explained that this was for reasons including its “deliberate ignorance and avoidance of the [antisocial behaviour] issue” that he had raised, as well because its £100 compensation offer seemed “unreasonably low for [him] suffering over [four] years of deliberate [antisocial behaviour] from the neighbours above [him].”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tackling antisocial behaviour policy

15. The landlord’s tackling antisocial behaviour policy states that it “will strive to”:

1. Take all [reports] of nuisance and antisocial behaviour seriously, and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
2. Adopt a preventative approach to minimise the potential for disputes by letting properties in a way that is sensitive to the interests of the local community and ensuring tenants are fully aware of the conditions of their tenancy relating to antisocial behaviour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours

16. Although the resident has reported being dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours for over four years, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the events in his case that occurred in 2020. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure or that were not brought to its attention as a formal complaint under the procedure within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising. As there is no evidence that such a complaint from the resident was brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period and exhausted its complaints procedure in relation to events prior to 2020, this Service cannot therefore consider the period before this.
17. The resident lodged a report with the landlord concerning antisocial behaviour caused by his upstairs neighbours through stomping on 6 January 2020. As a result, it contacted him to request further information about this on 10 and 15 January 2020, and provided him with a leaflet about its noise monitoring app to enable him to submit evidence of this to it, as well as seeking to clarify whether he wanted it to contact the alleged perpetrator.
18. Taking into account the landlord’s tackling antisocial behaviour policy, detailed above, along with its responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner towards all of its residents, its above actions were reasonable in this instance. This is because, in cases of reports concerning antisocial behaviour, it cannot investigate or take further action against a resident without substantial evidence to support the antisocial behaviour reported. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to ask for further details, for clarification as to whether it should contact the alleged perpetrator, and to request for the resident to monitor and report any future incidents to it, including with evidence from its noise app, was in line with what would be expected of it at that stage under the policy.
19. The landlord then suggested to the resident on 9 April and 4 September 2020 that he discuss his concerns with his neighbours. Because the issue presented in this case concerned a noise grievance, rather than display of violent/abusive behaviour, it was acceptable for it to recommend that he to attempt to discuss and resolve this issue with his neighbour amicably, rather than for it to get involved directly, as this might have caused further animosities. The landlord’s reasoning behind this recommendation was justifiable because:

1. It was in line with its responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner towards its residents. Had the landlord become involved directly from the beginning, especially as it did not hold recordings or a clear log of incidents, it would not have been fair to the resident’s neighbours because it did not have evidence supporting its actions.
2. Due to the nature of the antisocial behaviour, an informal discussion between the two parties could have resolved the issue as the neighbours would have been made aware of the noise and repercussions that this had on the resident, which would have given them the chance to rectify the issue.

20. In his correspondence to this Service, of 8 July 2020, the resident advised that he believed that the landlord had informed his neighbours of his reports of noise, which had led to an altercation between them and him. Considering that it did not have substantial evidence to support taking further action against his neighbours, along with the fact that he disagreed with its initial suggestion to approach them himself, it was reasonable of it to contact the alleged perpetrator. This was because this was an appropriate alternative way of the landlord addressing and handling the concerns raised by the resident.
21. To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconveniences and distress experienced by the resident. However, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour from his neighbours in 2020. This is because it initially requested for the resident to document the antisocial behaviour by either using its noise monitoring app, or by recording incidents by contacting its customer service department. The landlord then attempted to resolve the issue informally by asking him to communicate with his neighbours, and by subsequently contacting them itself. These actions were in line with its obligations from its tackling antisocial behaviour policy, and therefore there was no maladministration by it in the way it responded to the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure

22. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure states that compensation “may be payable in a number of situations”, such as when it “has failed to provide a service or meet its service standards”. It may also pay compensation “as an apology”. The amount of compensation paid is calculated based on the landlord’s compensation guidelines, which are divided into three impact categories, as per below:

1. Low impact – £25 to £50
2. Medium impact – £50 to £200
3. High impact – up to £500

The landlord’s customer feedback procedure

23. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure, as per below:

1. At stage one, the landlord is to contact the resident to “discuss and agree resolution at [the] earliest opportunity but within a maximum of [five] working days”. If need be, it could, at its discretion, add a five-day extension to this timescale.
2. At stage two, the landlord is to contact the resident within three working days to discuss the complaint, conduct an investigation, and issue the final resolution within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints

24. The resident logged a report regarding antisocial behaviour with the landlord on 6 January 2020. It advised that it had attempted to contact him about this on 10 January 2020 by telephone, and on 15 January 2020 via email. However, the resident subsequently made a formal complaint to the landlord about matters including its handling of this on 9 March 2020.
25. Moving forward, the landlord addressed its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, along with multiple other concerns, in a letter issued on 9 April 2020. However, this was 13 working days later than its customer feedback procedure’s maximum ten-working-day timescale above for it to discuss and agree a resolution to the above complaint with him. This delay was both unjustified and not in line with the response timeframes set out in the procedure, leading to a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
26. Two more stage one complaints were then lodged with the landlord by the resident, on 19 and 21 August 2020, in respect of its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour and the associated complaint. It issued a stage one complaint response concerning its handling of antisocial behaviour on 21 August 2020, in which it determined that it had already addressed the matter in its letter of 9 April 2020, and so it decided to close the complaint at that stage.
27. In this instance, the landlord adhered to its customer feedback procedure’s maximum ten-working-day response timeframe for stage one complaints. It was also permitted to exercise its discretion when deciding to close the complaint at the first stage of the procedure, if it considered that there was nothing further it could do in respect of this and if it could demonstrate that it had addressed the matter already.
28. In respect of the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint, raised on 21 August 2020, regarding its failure to review its handling of the resident’s reports concerning antisocial behaviour, it issued another formal stage one response to this on 4 September 2020. This was also within its customer feedback procedure’s maximum ten-working-day response timeframe for stage one complaints, and it additionally acknowledged its delays in responding to his reports, including in arranging an in–person meeting with him via his local councillor, for which it offered him £100 compensation.
29. The resident subsequently made a final stage complaint to the landlord on 4 September 2020, for which it sent him a stage two final complaint response on 9 October 2020 that was five working days later than its customer feedback procedure’s 20-working-day timescale for final stage complaints. Taking this into consideration, along with the response timeframe indicated in the procedure, there was a slight delay in issuing the final stage complaint response. However, the delay was minimal and would not have been detrimental to the outcome of the complaint.
30. Following its final stage complaint investigation, the landlord identified gaps in communication and determined that it could have dealt with the resident’s complaint in a timelier manner. As a result, it apologised to him for this, offered him £100 further monetary compensation for a total of £200 compensation, and committed to ensuring that moving forward it would “always provide the best service possible”, by asking its regional service manager and corporate lead on antisocial behaviour to work with its neighbourhood teams. This was a reasonable offer of redress because:

1. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s above financial redress and compensation procedure, which recommended that it offer compensation of up to £200 for a medium impact for reasons including failing to provide a service, meet its service standards, or as an apology.
2. The landlord acknowledged its service failure and showed that it would attempt to learn from its mistakes and improve its service.

31. To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of his associated complaints. However, based on the information provided, it recognised its shortcomings and took appropriate action to put them right.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbours.
33. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his associated complaints satisfactorily.

Reasons

34. The landlord requested for the resident to record and report antisocial behaviour incidents. Furthermore, it attempted to resolve the matter informally by liaising with him and his neighbours, as it could not take further action due to a lack of substantial evidence.
35. The landlord acknowledged its failure with regard to its delays in the handling of the resident’s associated complaints, apologised, offered monetary compensation, and advised that it would attempt to improve its service.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £200 compensation that it previously offered him, if it has not done so already.
    2. Provide further complaints handling training to its staff, to ensure that, moving forward, complaints are handled in an effective and timely manner, and in line with its customer feedback procedure. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
37. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
38. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.