Bristol City Council (201915801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915801

Bristol City Council

29 July 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 resident complained about the landlord’s response to their concerns about the functionality of the CCTV cameras.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern 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.
In the complaint, the resident has expressed that they are seeking a refund of the service charges paid for the CCTV. In accordance with Paragraph 39(i), this Service cannot review this complaint as it falls within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives on an estate. On two separate occasions, two of the resident’s motorcycles were stolen. The first incident occurred approximately in March 2019 and the motorcycle was stolen from the resident’s garage. The second incident happened on 28 September 2019, outside of the resident’s block.
The complaint relates to three cameras located on the estate. A door entry camera to the resident’s block, which is fixed. And two pan-tilt- zoom (PTZ) cameras. PTZ cameras are a type of camera where a user can control the movement and position of the lens from a remote location.
The CCTV system is connected to and monitored by the local authority’s centralised Operations Team. CCTV footage captured is retained for a total of 28 days before it is deleted.

Residential Estate CCTV Standards

The landlord’s Operation Requirement for the CCTV states the following:

“The percentages are the desired recording/image level (where appropriate or reasonable to achieve).

These would form the basis of an estate operational requirement, with cameras having a role under one or several headings: Identity, activity, PTZ, ANPR

100% Identity coverage of individuals entering via communal access controlled doors.
100% coverage of block lifts.
100%* Identification of vehicles entering the estate.
90-100% Coverage of the external public areas by PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom).
90%* of the area covered by external PTZ cameras, that can provide an ID image on the estate.
100%* identification of persons entering the estate, where there are dedicated pedestrian access points.
100% of recorders connected to the central control room.

(Where appropriate or reasonable to achieve*)”

Complaints Policy

The landlord aims to issue a stage one response within 15 working days. It aims to issue the stage two response within 20 working days.
The policy notes that if there is going to be a delay in responding, the complainant will be informed of the reasons for this along with a revised date for a response.

Summary of events

The resident contacted their MP with concerns about the CCTV in place on the estate and the landlord’s response to the concerns. The MP emailed the landlord on 7 November 2019 with an enquiry.
On receipt, the housing officer called the resident the same day. They received no response but, visit the property and left a card. They spoke with the resident on 8 November 2019 and explained that they had not received any correspondence from them within the last 12 months. The officer agreed to get in touch with the resident the following week, as the resident was abroad at the time.
The landlord visit the resident on 13 November 2020. The resident expressed their concerns about the functionality of the CCTV. Particularly, that the cameras were either not working or not facing the appropriate way. After the visit, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2020. It explained that they could submit their complaint about the cameras to its Operations Team.
The resident submitted their formal complaint to the Operations Team on 16 November 2019. They explained that:
1. The landlord was charging for CCTV but, they did not believe that the door entry camera was working or, that the PTZ cameras were facing their block.
2. They believed that the first motorcycle theft occurred in an area which should have been covered by CCTV. However, they did not believe the theft was captured.
3. They did not believe the second motorcycle theft was captured on the door entry camera.
4. They said that they tried to contact their housing officer about the incidents but had not heard back.
The CCTV Operation Team responded to the resident the same day and:
1. Explained that it was not able to address the aspect of the complaint concerning the charges for the CCTV and advised this would be passed to the landlord.
2. Explained that it could, however, answer the concerns raised about the functionality of the CCTV system on the estate. It said that it had checked the system and confirmed that all the cameras were working.
3. It said that the door entry camera is fixed and served to identify callers, it was not intended to monitor the surrounding area.
4. It explained that another camera the resident had identified in their complaint, was for another block. It confirmed that while some garages were to the right of this cameras view, they could not be seen by the camera. Therefore, if the resident’s bike was stolen from there, no footage could have been captured.
5. It asked the resident to provide the date and time of the second incident so that it could check if it had the footage. It said that it could only review the footage if it occurred within the last 28 days.
The landlord issued its response to the resident on 26 November 2019. It explained that:
1. The Operations Team confirmed that the cameras were working. It reiterated that the team had offered to check the footage from the door entry camera but typically, the Police would carry out this task. It advised the resident that they could send the details of when the incident occurred, and it would forward this to the Operations Team.
2. As the cameras were fully operational, the complaint was not upheld.
The resident responded the same day and confirmed the date of the second incident. They said that:
1. The PTZ camera at the front of their block had not been looking at the block for over three months, as it was directed toward the main road. They noted that the camera was now spinning around and had been doing so, for over three days.
2. They understood that the landlord only held CCTV for 30 days however, said that it took the landlord over a month to respond.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and confirmed it had passed it to the Operations Team. The Operations Team responded to the landlord on 30 November 2019 and said that:
1. It no longer had the footage from the date the incident occurred.
2. The camera had not been pointing at the road for three months but, is on occasion, used to assist with the anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the area particularly, the bus stops.
3. The entire camera system was being updated and it was aware that the camera had begun to spin on occasion when the engineers were making adjustments. It confirmed that this had been rectified the same day.
The resident submitted another complaint to the landlord on 17 December 2019. They said:
1. That they did not believe the CCTV cameras captured the incidents, and this resulted in their wife not feeling safe in the property.
2. That they reported their concern to the landlord, Operations Team and other third parties, but were not satisfied with the responses received.
3. That they wanted a refund for the service charges they paid for the CCTV.
The landlord responded on 30 December 2019. It provided the resident copies of the previous responses that both it and the Operations Team sent. It explained that:
1. It was satisfied that its Operations Team’s response explained that the cameras were working. It said that it was not possible for the cameras to pick up every area or, incident that takes place.
2. It understood that after the resident provided the date the second theft occurred, the team informed them that the footage had been deleted as it was more than 28 days after the date of the event.
3. It could not refund the resident for the service charges they paid for the CCTV, as the cameras were working and, it did not uphold the complaint.
4. It was sorry that the resident’s wife felt unsafe and explained that the housing officer could meet with them regarding this matter. It advised the housing officer was aware of the ASB issues in the local area.
The resident escalated their complaint on 31 December 2019 as they were unhappy with the response. They reiterated the complaint points set out on 17 December 2019.
As the resident received no response, they followed up with the landlord. In March 2020, they approached this Service for assistance. Between March 2020 and October 2020 this Service repeatedly contacted the landlord in pursuit of its response to the complaint.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 17 November 2020:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had submit the complaint on 31 December and contacted it numerous times thereafter.
2. It said that on 8 September 2020, it replied to the resident with a copy of its response dated 30 December 2019.
3. It said that on 17 July, the Estate Management Supervisor contacted the resident’s local Councillor and looked into the resident’s concerns again. It said that the Supervisor confirmed that the CCTV footage was checked and neither the Council nor, Police were able to identify the perpetrators of the thefts.
4. It explained that the CCTV in front of the block is in place for the controlled entry system and was fixed so did not cover the surrounding area. It said that there were four other cameras which were used for security reasons. Two of which were fixed on the front and back entrance doors to the resident’s block. The other two PTZ were to the front of the block and to the side of the block.
5. It acknowledged the residents view that the cameras were not directed appropriately and explained that the cameras are patrolled at intervals. It said that when they are not being patrolled, the cameras are left pointed in a direction, deemed to be the most appropriate to capture any event, until the next patrol.
6. It acknowledged that the resident requested the manager’s details of the Estate Management Supervisor, who issued the previous complaint responses, and apologised that this was not provided.
7. It upheld its previous decision and said that the CCTV footage was working but just did not capture the thefts.
8. It apologised for the delay in its response and noted that this did not ultimately change the outcome of the complaint.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service as they remained unhappy with the outcome of their complaint. This Service attempted to resolve the complaint through an agreement between the parties, via our mediation process. The resident explained that to resolve their complaint, they wanted the landlord to provide an apology and explain how it assessed the direction the PTZ cameras face.
The landlord agreed to provide the outcomes the resident requested. It wrote to the resident on 10 March 2021:
1. It apologised for the time the resident spent pursuing the complaint and its complaint handling.
2. It provided the resident with a copy of the operational requirement for the CCTV located at the estate, as detailed above. It explained that within this operational requirement, it could leave the camera resting where it is most likely to capture any issues or concerns raised by stakeholders. It said without any noted concerns, the CCTV operators could leave the camera resting where they believe it is most likely to capture an event until it was next operated.
3. It said that the design of the system means that it did not give 100 per cent coverage to the outside areas, 100 percent of the time.
The resident informed the Service that it did not consider the landlord’s response of 10 March 2021, as satisfactory to resolve their complaint. They said:
1. That the landlord did not explain why the camera was not looking at their block despite them informing it of this previously.
2. They questioned why they had been refused the Estate Management Supervisor’s manager’s name, which they requested as they were not happy with the landlord’s response.
3. It asked the landlord to check the CCTV, so that it could see the cameras were not looking at their block.
4. They explained they did not feel that the CCTV was looking at the estate and had concerns about the way it was being used. They noted there were issues with ASB in the area and questioned again, why the camera did not face the estate.

As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the case was put forward for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the complaint about the functionality of the camera

The resident reports that they tried to contact the landlord with their concerns about the cameras before November 2019 however, there is no evidence of this.
It is understood that the landlord first became aware of the resident’s concern on 7 November 2019, when the MP contacted it. This was more than 28 days after the second theft occurred and the footage would have been deleted by then. Therefore, the landlord could not have investigated whether the CCTV captured the incidents.
This Service’s assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the concerns raised from when it became aware of them in November 2019.
In response to the MP enquiry the landlord promptly contacted the resident and visit the resident so they could discuss their complaint. It provided the resident with the relevant details of the team who could address their complaint.
When the resident complained, they indicated that they were not satisfied the cameras were working despite them paying a service charge for this.
The Operations Team, who manage CCTV, responded to the complaint about the functionality of the cameras. It checked the system on receipt of the complaint and concluded the cameras were working based on its check. It provided insight about how the cameras worked and what they covered.
The team requested the relevant information from the resident so that it could look into their concerns about the camera functionality at the time of the theft. It also referred the complaint about the payment of service charge to the landlord, which was correct.
The landlord’s response was also reasonable as it relied on the information provided by the CCTV Operations Team, who checked the CCTV, to make its decision.
When the resident sent information about the time of the incident to the landlord and raised concerns about the position and operation of the camera, the landlord promptly passed this to the Operations Team.
After the complaint was submitted on 17 December 2020, the landlord provided confirmation that both it and the Operations Team had responded to the resident’s concerns. It provided clarification on the use of the cameras, and it was a reasonable statement that the cameras could not possibly provide surveillance for every area or, record every incident that took place. The Operational Requirement sets out that the required percentage which the cameras are expected to cover, is where it is appropriate or reasonable to achieve. It is not reasonable to expect a PTZ camera to be fixed in a particular direction, 24 hours a day. The nature of the camera is such that it can be operated and serve to cover a larger area than a fixed camera would.
It confirmed it could not retrieve any footage from the date of the incident and explained the reasons why. And its decision to not refund the charges was justified by its Operation Team’s findings.
When the complaint was escalated, the landlord said it looked into the resident’s concerns again in July 2020 and found that the CCTV was checked. It said neither it nor the police, were able to identify the perpetrator for of the thefts. This Service has not been provided with the information about the investigation or, what was considered as part of this. The landlord have not been able to provide evidence of any requests for footage it received from the police, which raises further concern about the validity of this finding.
It provided further clarification about the cameras in place and how they operated which was reasonable.

Complaint Handling

Prior to the stage two complaint, the landlord responded to the complaint in accordance with its policy timeframes.
After the stage two complaint was submitted on 31 December 2020, despite the intervention of this Service, the landlord took 11 months to issue its final response. A significant delay and excessively outside of its timeframes.
Its finding that the footage of the theft had been reviewed, was not supported by any evidence. This is a service failure.
Its apology alone, was not an appropriate form of redress. It did not offer any explanation for the delay in its response, and it did not offer any compensation to the resident. It should have given more recognition to the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint and, the impact the delay had on the resident’s ability to pursue the complaint externally.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about the functionality of the cameras.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took prompt action on receiving the report about the resident’s concerns. In response to the resident’s complaint, it relied on the relevant information and provided details about the operation of the cameras, which justified how they were positioned.
It is noted by this Service that the resident considers the PTZ cameras in particular, are positioned inappropriately, as they do not believe the cameras face their estate.
They have provided this Service with several images of the cameras position however, this is not sufficient to determine whether the cameras are working. Nevertheless, as previously explained, it is not a reasonable expectation for the PTZ cameras to be fixed in a particular direction all the time.
The landlord’s response to the complaint at stage two was significantly delayed and it did not offer reasonable redress for this. In addition, its findings that the CCTV had been checked, was not founded on any evidence.

Orders

In recognition of the above finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, I order that the landlord pay the resident £100.

The landlord is to arrange for the payment to be made to the resident within three weeks of the date of this report. Once the payment has been arranged, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.