Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Riverside Group Limited (202209085)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209085

The Riverside Group Limited

17 May 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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

c.      The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord (a Private Registered Provider of Social Housing). The property is a one-bedroom flat within a block of flats. There are flats above, below and opposite the resident. 
  2. The resident has reported, by email and phone, issues concerning noise nuisance and ASB from neighbouring properties which he states have affected his sleep and wellbeing. Due to the impact the noise was having on his wellbeing, the resident asked the landlord for a transfer to another property. It then offered the resident properties from its own stock and provided assistance in securing private-rented housing. However, the resident declined the offers of alternative properties, saying they were unsuitable.
  3. Over an approximate two-year period, the landlord said the resident has logged 12 formal complaints about the noise nuisance and ASB. The resident has also made many calls to the landlord’s customer service centre.
  4. In the landlord’s first complaint response, it said it was sorry that the resident was unhappy. However, in relation to the noise nuisance, the landlord said it had provided ASB diary sheets, but the resident had not completed them. As such, it could not act on the ASB allegations as it did not have the corroborating evidence. Despite this, the landlord accepted the resident wanted to move and it offered alternative housing.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two and asked for a specific member of staff to handle the complaint. This request led to a delay in the landlord’s response, as it said that the manager had tried to communicate with the resident to resolve his issues. The resident said that he would withhold his rent until the landlord gave a written guarantee that it would rehouse him.
  6. In its stage two response, on 23 August 2022, the landlord upheld its stage one decision. The landlord said that the resident had refused two properties, one in February 2021 and one in April 2021. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this service.
  7. Following the course of the complaint escalation, due to the resident’s alleged behaviour, the landlord has restricted the resident’s contact to email only and to one designated person whom he should contact. The resident is unhappy about this.

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact with it to one point of contact, and via email only, on 6 September 2022. However, the resident may call the customer service centre for repairs. The landlord confirmed this decision by letter on 13 October 2022. The letter outlines the reasons why and these include the resident allegedly being rude and derogatory towards staff. They also include the resident making an unreasonably high volume of phone calls to the landlord’s Customer Service Centre to register complaints that have already been raised. The landlord’s letter provided the resident with a right to review its decision and said that the measures would be reviewed in six months. The resident feels that this restriction is unfair and unreasonable.
  2. There is no evidence that this issue was raised with the landlord as a formal complaint. As such, under paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate this issue as the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond through its complaints process. It is also relevant that the decision to restrict the resident’s means of contact came after the completion of the complaint that is the subject of this investigation, which is assessed below.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Although this service notes there is a history of noise nuisance complaints reported by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the events from September 2020 onwards, which the landlord has considered during its recent complaint responses.
  2. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord has investigated and responded to several complaints from the resident since September 2020, that concern the same issues relating to this complaint. However, whilst the issues preceding and following the complaint were considered in this investigation, this service has only considered the landlord’s handling of the actual complaint that was escalated to this service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.

  1. This Service recognises that the concerns the resident has reported have affected and caused distress to him. In cases concerning noise nuisance and ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s issues and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; the investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours or decide whether the landlord should rehouse someone.
  2. It is clear from the evidence provided to this service, that the alleged noise nuisance and ASB from neighbouring properties has caused much distress to the resident. The resident had felt compelled to make several reports to the police about the problems, and to the local authority. On reading the emails the resident has sent to the landlord, the bulk of the noise problems reported consisted of ‘general household noise’ such as tapping, doors banging, taps running, and items dropping on the floor. However, the times at which the resident reported the noise occurring, has at times been during unsociable hours, such as 3am, 5am and 5.30am. 
  3. It is noted that the resident’s earlier complaints were about a specific neighbour whom he was having problems with. The landlord said that it had received counter-allegations from this neighbour, and others, about the resident’s behaviour. This service found that the landlord had acted appropriately in responding to the issue. The landlord offered the resident a move to another property (at his request), however, he refused the offer. Due to counter allegations made, the landlord also later offered the resident’s neighbour a move, and according to the landlord, this neighbour accepted the first property it offered and moved out. Despite this neighbour moving out, the resident continued to report other issues with neighbours from other flats within the block. 
  4. The landlord’s policy says that it will deal with reports of noise nuisance, but it requires residents to provide evidence of the alleged nuisance. The landlord’s policy says it will “ensure that all parties are aware of this at the point of first contact and we will endeavour to offer additional solutions for those who may require them.” The policy says that the landlord may refer cases to the Local Authority, who by law have a duty to deal with cases of noise pollution which constitute a statutory nuisance.
  5. The resident raised his concerns to the local authority, and on 3 February 2022. The authority informed the resident to log disturbances on diary sheets, with which they said that they could consider acting further if the resident logged at least six incidents of noise nuisance on separate days. This service did not find any evidence of diary sheets that the resident provided to the local authority. 
  6. In this case, this service acknowledges that it has been difficult for the landlord to take the necessary steps to resolve the noise allegations raised. This is because the resident has not been forthcoming in completing the diary sheets that the landlord says it has repeatedly provided prior to the recent complaint (reference 678017), in June 2022, which he escalated to this service. Nor has the resident recorded the noise nuisance using technology recommended by the landlord, such as noise apps on his mobile phone.
  7. This service, however, has found that although the resident did not complete diary sheets, the landlord had accepted that the resident was experiencing problems with noise nuisance. This was clear by virtue of the landlord’s complaint response in December 2020 whereby it promised to get a quote for the soundproofing of the kitchen. This service found that the landlord missed an opportunity here to potentially resolve some of the issues faced by the resident, to mitigate future noise nuisance complaints. However, it is acknowledged that even if a quote had been obtained, the landlord was not obliged to soundproof the property, as this would amount to an improvement, rather than repair or essential works. The landlord informed this service that it was unable to get quotes because only essential work could be undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic.
  8. The resident had responded to the landlord’s suggestion of soundproofing in a positive way. This service found that had the landlord taken a proactive approach in obtaining a quote, and considered soundproofing the kitchen area of the flat, this may have alleviated some of the resident’s future complaints. However, the resident did not specially raise this matter in his subsequent complaints as his main request was to be rehoused. 
  9. Despite not having any diary sheets and noise recordings from the resident, this service found that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to deal with the resident’s complaints about the alleged noise and ASB. The landlord had informally interviewed other residents in the block and had asked them to be mindful about the noise they were making. The landlord had also offered to help the resident with rehousing. This service found that the landlord had dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately and sensitively.
  10. Furthermore, in its stage one response (reference 678017) on 19 July 2022, the landlord apologised that the resident was still unhappy, however it said that there had been counter allegations about his behaviour.  The landlord encouraged the resident to provide evidence by completing the diaries logging the alleged ASB and recording the alleged noise nuisance on his phone, so it could consider what action it could take.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The landlord has informed this Service that it allocates the flats in the resident’s block to former homeless people, including those with support needs, under the Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) service. It is recognised that in an environment where residents have mental health difficulties and need support, this could result in behavioural issues which could lead to ASB. This forms a big part of the resident’s complaint in that he does not think he meets the criteria to be housed within his current setting. The Ombudsman found that the landlord responded sensitively to this and focussed its endeavours on trying to support the resident in his request to be rehoused.
  2. The landlord offered two of its own properties as a transfer in February and April 2021. The resident refused both offers. For several months, the landlord also arranged for an employee to support the resident with finding private rented accommodation. The landlord supplied a report dated 15 July 2021 to 5 April 2022 detailing the properties that it had suggested to the resident in the private rented sector. It is understood that the resident viewed some properties, but declined the offers, except one which the agent unfortunately retracted. The service noted in the investigation that an agent refused to deal with the resident because of his behaviour towards them.
  3. In March 2022, the landlord offered the resident a viewing of one of its own properties. This service notes that the resident initially made disparaging remarks about the suitability of the offer. However, the resident viewed the property and a few days after this decided he was interested. The resident suggested that he would need to withhold rent for one month to use the money for moving costs. The landlord refused to allow this, and in turn revisited the resident’s rent account under its transfer policy terms.  The landlord confirmed that, on 1 April 2022 the resident had rent arrears of £1143.59, so on 11 April 2022, it refused to allocate the property to the resident, due to the arrears.
  4. This service notes that the landlord’s transfer policy states that if a resident owes up to six week rent arrears, a transfer will be conditionally approved. This is subject to the tenant paying their full rent plus an amount towards the arrears and on transfer, the tenant will be asked to sign addendum agreeing to pay former tenancy arrears. Whereas where a tenant more than six weeks arrears, their transfer cannot be approved until the arrears are six weeks or below.
  5. In considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably in supporting the resident with rehousing opportunities. The landlord has exceeded its obligations, particularly in providing one-to-one support to the resident. This service acknowledges that, the resident will be disappointed that he has not yet been rehoused. However, in its stage one response, the landlord recommended that the resident pays off, or agrees a payment plan, to reduce his rent arrears. In doing so the landlord said that this would increase the likelihood of it making made another offer of housing. It also promised to continue to support the resident to find suitable alternative accommodation and advised him to contact local landlords or letting agencies to find privately rented accommodation in the area.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s means of contact is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.