Castle Point Borough Council (202203862)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203862

Castle Point Borough Council

12 December 2022

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 theft and his request to install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in sheltered housing.
3. The resident had approached the landlord about the possibility of installing CCTV in the communal kitchen, because he believed that another resident was stealing items from the communal kitchen, that he and other residents had paid for. The landlord had initially agreed to the resident’s request to install CCTV equipment, and the resident had gone ahead and paid for the CCTV equipment and its installation. However, installation was paused due to Covid-19, and subsequently, the resident was informed by the landlord that it no longer gave permission for the installation of CCTV equipment.
4. The resident then made a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident’s overall complaint was that he did not understand why the landlord had initially granted permission for him to install the CCTV equipment and had then subsequently revoked that permission.
5. The landlord’s overall response was that, due to internal miscommunication, it had wrongly given permission to the resident to install CCTV equipment. It explained that the permission had been inappropriate because the request for CCTV was a disproportionate response to the alleged incidents that had taken place, and that there were strict guidelines about the use of CCTV to monitor private individuals, and that in this case, the resident’s reasons for wanting CCTV, did not meet that criteria. It also explained that it had looked into providing CCTV itself, but that it was a cost prohibitive measure. It apologised for its mistake, and noted that it had previously offered to reimburse the resident for his costs relating to the CCTV equipment and installation of the CCTV equipment.
6. The resident then contacted this Service, as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, and the outcomes that he sought, were either for the landlord to allow him to install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen, or for the landlord to reimburse him for his costs related to the CCTV equipment and its installation. When this Service advised him that the landlord had already reimbursed him for his costs, in relation to the CCTV equipment and its installation, the resident advised this Service, that his complaint against the landlord was not about compensation, but about its handling of the alleged theft.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports to theft and his request to install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen

7. The landlord did not dispute that had it failed to follow its own CCTV policy, when it had initially, incorrectly concluded that it was permissible for the resident to install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen. It acknowledged this failing and reimbursed the resident for his costs related to the CCTV equipment and its installation. This was reasonable redress by the landlord, as it acknowledged its mistake, apologised, and reimbursed the resident’s costs, while also explaining why its original decision had been incorrect.
8. When explaining why it had revoked the resident’s permission to install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen, the landlord pointed out that the resident’s reasons for requesting the installation of CCTV equipment, did not meet the criteria of its CCTV policy, because of the strict guidelines that were in place in relation to the recording or surveillance of private individuals. Under section three of its CCTV policy, the landlord carried out an assessment on what the impact would be on the privacy of the residents of the communal building, and whether that impact would be reasonable in response to the alleged thefts from the communal kitchen that the resident had reported.
9. The landlord then explained to the resident why it had determined that installation of CCTV equipment, in the communal kitchen, was a disproportionate response, and it explained the criteria that it had used; that being whether there had been serious wrong doing and/or whether there had been a threat to the resident’s personal safety, and since neither of those concerns were present, the installation of CCTV equipment was disproportionate. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it had clearly explained its reasoning for revoking the resident’s permission for the installation of the CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen. Therefore, there was no failing by the landlord in this regard.
10. In relation to the resident’s query about why he could not install CCTV equipment in the communal kitchen, if he was willing to take responsibility for the cost, and maintenance of the equipment; the landlord did explain that even if that were to be the case, it would not negate any of its responsibilities that existed, pertaining to the rights of privacy that other residents in the communal building were entitled to. It argued that even if the other communal residents were to give consent, there was no guarantee that they would still possess the capacity to continue giving consent at a later stage, and therefore, without consent, it would be unlawful for CCTV equipment to be used in the communal kitchen. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it set out the landlord’s legal obligations and legal standing in relation to the consent of a private individual in regards to being filmed.
11. The landlord also explained that it would not support the use of its staff’s time, nor take responsibility to monitor and maintain a “tenant “owned” CCTV system, and therefore it was not appropriate for the CCTV equipment to be installed. It would also not have been appropriate for a resident of a communal building to have access to CCTV footage and recordings of communal residents in communal areas. The landlord advised the resident that it had also looked into the possibility of installing its own CCTV equipment, however, this had been assessed as a cost prohibitive measure, and additionally, it had previously installed CCTV equipment for the resident’s communal building, which had eventually fallen into disrepair. Therefore, this was an appropriate response by the landlord, as it clearly managed the resident’s expectations as to what the landlord was not willing, nor obligated to do, and this was partially based on its own previous experiences with CCTV equipment for the same communal building.
12. The question that then must be asked, is whether the landlord did enough, in relation to the resident’s reports of the alleged thefts from the communal kitchen. In response to his reports of alleged thefts from the communal kitchen, the landlord informed the resident, that it had spoken to some of the other residents that shared the use of the communal kitchen, where necessary, and would continue to respond to any further allegations of theft appropriately. It had also put up a notice to all residents to advise them of the situation, remind them of the behaviour that was expected of them, and advised them that it would act against any resident found to be taking any items that did not belong to them. It also advised the resident that since he was reporting alleged theft to it, that he should also report the alleged thefts to the police, as theft was a police matter.
13. In light of the communal residents’ rights to privacy, the landlord did all that it reasonably could to remedy the alleged thefts, by putting up a warning sign, talking to residents, and advising the resident to contact the police. It also assured the resident that it would continue to act appropriately to any further allegations of theft. Therefore, these were appropriate actions by the landlord, and so, there was no maladministration by it in this regard and the reimbursement of costs incurred reasonably resolved the complaint.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, prior to this investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.