Cornerstone Housing Limited (202126945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126945

Cornerstone Housing Limited

30 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

The complaint is about
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to their car.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated parking space.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to use CCTV.

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.
Part of the resident’s complaint concerns her request for compensation for damage to her car. The resident alleges the landlord is liable for this, due to the way the resident’s request for CCTV was handled, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as this service cannot determine liability or award damages, this is something only a court can do. The resident may want to seek legal advice on this issue.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The landlord has an anti-social behaviour policy (ASB); its overall objective is to prevent and resolve anti-social behaviour wherever possible through a three-step approach: 1) Prevention, 2) Intervention, and 3) Enforcement. It encourages a degree of tolerance for the needs and choices of others, whilst accepting a duty of care to tenants, to ensure they can have quiet enjoyment of their homes.
Its policy adopts the definition of ASB as set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. It provides a list of behaviours it does not consider to be ASB, these include: children playing, minor personal differences, such as receiving dirty looks, children falling out or comments on social media. Minor situations where residents are inconsiderate, such as parking disputes.
Under its ASB procedure it will assess the ASB complaint against the following criteria:
1. The allegations cannot be substantiated based on the current evidence.
2. The allegations have been substantiated by either witnesses or information received from an agency such as the Police.
3. The allegations are believed to be untrue/malicious.
4. There are counter allegations that require investigation. The case will not be progressed if there is no evidence.
The landlord has a parking policy, which outlines how it will deliver parking management services for parking areas and garages owned by it. Parking management is defined as any measure introduced by the landlord to aid the management and identification of vehicles authorised to park on its schemes, in a designated bay, garage or other defined area for parking that it owns. The resident’s estate does not have a parking management scheme, as parking spaces are not allocated, as preferred in a previous resident consultation. The landlord has indicated that it may review the need for parking management in the future.
Guidance on installing CCTV is set out in the landlords published tenant’s handbook. It states if a resident wants to install a CCTV camera at their home, they will need to ask the landlord for written permission before installing it. Normally the landlord will allow one fixed camera per property, as long as the camera only covers the residents entrance door or garden area and not communal areas, roads, pavements, other homes or other people.

Background

The resident was assigned the tenancy on 24 February 2020, following a mutual exchange. She moved in with her daughter who was four years old at the time, has complex needs and has since been put on the autism pathway at school.
The records show a history of a long running neighbour dispute between the resident and neighbour A pre-dating this investigation. Reports have been made to the landlord by both parties about each other. The reports included car parking, verbal abuse, filming, and photographs being taken, watching from the window, walking past the house.
There is evidence the landlord looked into all of the allegations at the time, made by both parties and determined they were part of an ongoing neighbour dispute and there was no ASB to be investigated.
On Monday 3 August 2020, telephone mediation was arranged. Both neighbours participated, and consented to a mediation agreement, the terms are as follows:
1. To adhere to parking regulations at all times.
2. Live a normal civil life.
3. Neither to cause, nor to allow members of her household or visitors to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the local area. This amounts to but is not limited to: being verbally abusive to, shouting at, pointing at another tenant.
4. Please ensure that the terms of the mediation are adhered to as this will allow you all to live in your own home peacefully.
The historical events of the neighbour dispute and the resulting mediation will not form part of the investigation, any reference made to it further on in the report will be for context only.

Summary

On 27 July 2021, neighbour A made a complaint to the landlord about the resident. The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint on 2 August 2021, the resident made a counter report that she had been suffering ongoing harassment from neighbour A. Most recently neighbour A had taken to stopping her car outside the resident’s home and sounding her horn or getting out and shouting “beep” by her daughter’s bedroom. Neighbour A also stands at her window staring at them in the garden, her daughter had become scared to go in the garden. The resident said she had tried to speak to neighbour A, but she just stares at her. She offered to send in a video of neighbour A placing a speaker on the fence.
The landlord offered mediation, but the resident stated that had not worked previously, so the landlord issued the resident with diary sheets to log any further incidents of ASB.
Throughout early August 2021, the landlord received emails and allegations of ASB, reported on its online reporting system, from a number of the households on the estate, this was mainly complaints about children’s behaviour on the estate. Both the resident and neighbour A made reports, but they were not about each other. As a result, the landlord logged an ASB case.
On 22 August the landlord received an ASB report from neighbour B, about the resident and a family member, parking by their house, revving the car engine, singing loudly, reversing at speed, and then demonstrating intimidating behaviour.
The same day, neighbour A reported to the landlord that the resident was being provocative, taking photos of her car, and was then overheard saying “see what happens now”. Later she reported that the resident and her relative, were outside when she put her recycling out. The relative was aggressive towards neighbour A and continued to swear at her even though she was ignoring her. Later that night neighbour A reported that the resident’s relative was shouting abuse and swearing outside her lounge window, she said this had been reported to the police.
On 23 August 2021, neighbour C, emailed the landlord to complain about the behaviour of the resident and her relative, reporting that they shout abuse at other neighbours at every opportunity. The resident had made a comment to her and another neighbour “that something big was going to happen this week” which she found threatening. She also reported that the resident had driven her car at her and another neighbour when they were sitting outside their properties. She also provided the landlord with copies of WhatsApp messages from the resident, that she felt were relevant to her complaint.
On 23 August the resident emailed the landlord to report that neighbour A and her friend were parking across two parking bays and there was nowhere to park. Later on, that evening she reported noise nuisance from neighbour A and her friend blasting music from her car, video evidence was sent in.
The same day neighbour C complained that the resident had installed a camera from her bedroom window.
On the 24 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident, it spoke to her about the CCTV she had added, and told her she needed to request written permission. The resident said she felt intimidated and threatened by neighbours A, B and C, there were threats to fire-bomb her house. She advised that she had also instructed her local Councillor (Cllr) to act on her behalf.
The same day the landlord called resident A, who advised she had resolved everything with all of the neighbours except the resident; she said she felt intimidated by the resident’s threat that “something big was going to happen”, and felt she could not take anymore.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s Cllr, advising that a number of incidents had been reported, that it was currently investigating, but it intended to write to all residents on the estate to arrange community mediation, to try to resolve the situation.
The same day the landlord contacted the police, regarding the resident’s statement to the landlord, that she had received threats to burn her house down. The police confirmed this had not been reported to them, it also confirmed that recent activity on the estate, had no criminal element as far as they were concerned. The landlord advised the police that the only course of action they could take at this stage was community mediation, as no other trigger had been reached, but it was concerned at the residents’ comments that she was being forced out of her home, that this might have some element of truth, and needed to be looked into further.
On 31 August 2021, the landlord responded again to the resident’s Cllr. It noted the comments about the resident wanting to take her case to the Ombudsman, but suggested that she might want to submit a formal complaint to them first. It advised it had looked into the complaints of ASB from the previous resident. These were received after the former resident had moved; they were in relation to parking only, which it recognised causes problems within communities, but it was not classed as ASB. It welcomed the resident’s interest in participating in community mediation and noted the Cllr’s suggestions about allocated parking spaces, advising that this often does not resolve parking issues either.
The landlord received an update from the police, confirming residents had been advised that despite the number of incidents reported, there was not enough evidence for the police to take any criminal action.
On 3 September 2021, neighbour A reported the resident and her relative being abusive and challenging her.
On 6 September 2021, a number of emails were received from both the resident and neighbour A, complaining about each other in relation to CCTV, parking and noise nuisance.
The landlord received an email from the resident’s daughter’s school, special educational needs co-ordinator. It advised how the current conflict with the neighbours was not conducive to the daughter’s educational needs and well-being.
On 6 September 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, in summary it said:
1. She was disappointed that she had only just been given diary sheets to log ASB, and considered the landlord negligent in the way it had tackled her complaints of ASB and intimidation, since March 2020 from three of the neighbours.
2. She had made numerous complaints in writing and by telephone that had either been ignored or not had a satisfactory response.
3. The landlords’ complaints procedure did not make reference to residents being able to contact the Ombudsman.
4. The landlord’s policy of sending out blanket letters to all residents when incidents were reported, had escalated the situation and she requested the landlord stops this practice.
5. She referenced a large number of complaints against her immediate neighbour and requested neighbour A, be warned and threatened with eviction for breach of tenancy.
6. The landlord should consider a fairer parking regime, allocating each property one parking space.
7. The landlord should have a physical presence on the estate to prevent the behaviour that was happening there.
8. She wanted the community mediation arranged quickly.
9. If the behaviour towards her did not change after community mediation, due to the impact on both her mental health and her daughter who has complex needs, the landlord should agree she meets the criteria for a “house-swap”.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord became aware that the majority of households were not prepared to participate in the community mediation, the resident was the only household that had agreed. The landlord emailed the resident to advise her of this outcome and make arrangements to meet with her to discuss how they might be able to help her moving forward.
The resident’s Cllr emailed the landlord and advised that the resident not seeking permission for her CCTV was an oversight, he did not generally advocate the use of CCTV by residents, but where there was a need for capturing ASB such as this he felt it gave credibility to the decision.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised her that it had investigated her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB. In summary the letter said:
1. There had been a number of allegations and counter allegations made by the resident and neighbour A between 6 May 2020 and 12 December 2020. ASB had been investigated on two occasions and after liaison with the police they were closed. Mediation had taken place and both residents were reminded to keep to the agreements made at that mediation.
2. The landlord received a complaint from neighbour A about several households on the street. This complaint was logged as an ASB case by the landlord.
3. During the investigation, into that complaint it had received reports of harassment, inconsiderate use of parking spaces and verbal abuse, which is part of an ongoing investigation, which included counter-allegations about the resident’s CCTV.
4. On 8 September 2021, it received a report from the resident that she had received threats against her, and it was liaising with the police over the matter.
5. It advised the resident that she could make a subject access request (SAR) if she wanted information on the details of the investigation and advice how to do that.
6. It advised there was no evidence to support a breach of tenancy, eviction can only be decided by a court and eviction would be an outcome of last resort. There were other measures the landlord could take as and when appropriate, in line with policy, the possibility of a “community trigger” was being considered.
7. Generic letters were sent out because, there were a number of complaints involving a number of households; the landlord made the decision to inform the whole estate accordingly.
8. Parking is an issue the landlord previously consulted on, and the system in place is what residents wanted. To change parking arrangement a consultation with residents would need to be completed.
9. It agreed that a presence on the estate was called for and partially upheld the resident’s complaint on this basis. The landlord’s office was some distance away, so a permanent presence was not possible, but they did want to pursue this suggestion with the resident.
10. The community mediation could not be pursued as the resident was the only household willing to attend.
11. The resident could move, by making an application to the local home choice scheme, for a transfer or mutual exchange. The resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria for a “direct match” transfer by the landlord.
The same day, the resident’s Councillor contacted the landlord and the police on the resident’s behalf. In his email to the landlord, he mentioned that he was aware of “the petrol bomb post on social media”, and how intimidating this was for the resident, that others think it was a serious threat to the resident. There was evidence that the landlord had investigated this issue with other third parties involved on the estate.
There is evidence a meeting was arranged for 5 October 2021, at the Citizens Advice (CA) offices, with a CA support officer, the resident, the landlord and the resident’s Councillor. There are no records detailing the outcome of this meeting. There was a later reference to it by the resident in her formal complaint.
On 13 October 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two. In summary her reasons for escalation were:
1. That the ASB had escalated since the stage one response, her car had been vandalised beyond repair, leaving her having to pay off £1200 as the insurance only covered a third of the cost, plus a £250 excess, and the additional cost of buying another car. Her Cllr witnessed neighbour A sitting on the highway a few hours before it was vandalised.
2. Her ASB complaints had not been investigated properly, more resources needed to be put in place to look into serious issues, staff needed to be present in the evening when a lot of the ASB happened.
3. At the Citizens Advice meeting the landlord handed her a letter regarding her CCTV, which she felt singled her out and was inappropriate.
4. She does not know how the landlord could be gathering any real evidence when it did not visit the estate. She provided evidence from the previous tenant that these problems were historical and not just experienced by her.
5. The landlord’s CCTV policy was not publicised properly, it was not in the tenancy agreement or prominent in the tenant’s handbook. The resident put up her CCTV after reading the ICO guidelines. The landlord’s approach contradicted ICO guidelines, and how could she gather evidence if she was not allowed to film it. If she had, had the permission for her CCTV, she was sure her car would not have been vandalised.
6. She was not happy with only a long-term commitment to consulting on parking, the landlord was not accepting the gravity of the situation and the impact on her.
7. She wanted the landlord to allocate her a parking space for her safety, whilst she looked for an alternative home.
8. She felt if the landlord had done more the situation would not have escalated as it had done, and they should provide her with alternative accommodation.
9. She wanted compensation for her car, because if the landlord had not made her take down her CCTV whilst waiting for permission to have it, the vandalism might not have happened.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and allocated it to a senior member of staff to investigate.
There were email complaints throughout September 2021, from the resident, reporting to the landlord that neighbour A and her friend had been following her in her car, neighbour A has taken pictures of her bin, swore at her from the street when she was in her child’s bedroom and parking.
There were also a number of complaints from neighbour A about the resident which included, installing CCTV again, where she was leaving her bin, leaving dirty nappies outside her window and a family member threatening her.
During September 2021, the landlord tried to arrange community mediation to assist in resolving the issues on the estate. On 16 September the landlord’s internal emails show this was not possible as everyone invited except for the resident had refused to participate.
The allegations and counter allegations of ASB to the landlord continued throughout October 2021, nine were received from neighbour A and 14 from the resident.
On 26 October 2021, the resident provided the landlord with CCTV footage of neighbour A making obscene gestures to the resident. The resident gave permission for the landlord to show neighbour A, the footage when called in for interview.
On 27 October 2021, a multi-agency meeting took place between the landlord, the police, the council and supported by the community trigger admin officer. The police reported that they had received six recent reports of ASB that they determined required no further action. It was agreed before considering a community trigger, mediation should be offered again. A warning letter was approved by the group to be sent to all households involved, including the resident and neighbour A. The next step would be arranging acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC).
On 27 October the landlord interviewed neighbour A with regard to the complaint and footage received. Neighbour A then showed the landlord video footage of the resident’s family member making threats to her. The landlord asked neighbour A to sign an ABC as she was in breach of the warning letter. Neighbour A refused, so the landlord warned her of the implications of not signing the ABC if there were any further complaints. This was followed up with an ABC refusal letter.
The same day the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to contact it to discuss the evidence it had received, in relation to her family member threatening neighbour A.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that as she had not responded to its request for her to contact them, they would be visiting her at her property on 4 November 2021.
The resident did not attend the appointment to discuss the ASB on 4 November 2021. The landlord left an ABC at the property for the resident to sign and an explanatory letter. The landlord also noted that her refuse bin, that neighbour A had complained about, was not where it should be.
On 5 November 2021, an internal email noted that the resident was applying to the local council for alternative housing.
The landlord carried out a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint and sent her its stage two response on 5 November 2021. In summary the response said
1. During the course of the resident’s case the landlord had investigated a number of complaints she had made about neighbour A and counter allegations neighbour A had made about the resident’s behaviour. It had advised the resident some were not considered ASB and some it was not possible to determine who was at fault. It was not reasonable for the landlord to take any action on this, given the level of evidence required in the legal process.
2. Mediation has been provided in the past, and resident and neighbour had been reminded to keep to the agreement made.
3. Since the stage two complaint the resident had provided evidence which was actionable, and neighbour A was being interviewed to discuss it.
4. A counter allegation has been made about the resident, but she had not responded to a request for her to contact them about it.
5. The case now involved a number of households, and the landlord had held multi-agency meetings, issued all residents with warnings about acceptable behaviour and invited all parties to take part in independent mediation, which was unsuccessful.
6. There was an incident where the resident was threatened, and reasonable action had been taken in response.
7. It was confident it had followed its ASB policy correctly and been clear about what is and is not ASB.
8. It was neither reasonable nor practical for the landlord to attend the estate in the evening. It was reasonable for the landlord to visit and talk to residents in business hours, something which the stage one complaint had acknowledged with the pandemic and staff shortages, had not happened as it would have liked, but was being addressed by adding extra resources to the team.
9. With regards to CCTV, its tenant’s handbook stated that permission was required before installation and only one camera was allowed covering the tenant’s own entrance.
10. In August it had received a complaint about the resident filming with CCTV and a phone. It approached her about obtaining permission to install CCTV, the only person who asked her to remove the camera until permission was sought was her Cllr, not the landlord. Permission for your installation of CCTV was granted on 9 September 2021, which was before her car was vandalised. It agreed however that the guidance in the tenant’s handbook was contradictory and information on the website had since been amended.
11. Its stage one response to parking was to manage the resident’s expectation, it was committed to consulting on one space per property, but it would take time. It also wanted to point out, many residents have more than one car and might not support this idea, the outcome of the consultation might not be what the resident hoped for.
12. It felt if it allocated the resident an individual parking space, even as an emergency measure, it could further alienate her in the community and it was not willing to do that.
13. Action for inconsiderate parking can be taken under the terms of the tenancy. However, this would need to be persistent and clearly evidenced; action should be proportionate and start with an informal approach.
14. There was no evidence that they were liable for the resident’s car, so would not be paying compensation.
15. The landlords’ allocations policy did not operate an internal transfer system, residents had to apply via the council or through home-swapper for a mutual exchange, so it could not make her a direct offer as requested.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

On receiving a complaint from neighbour A, about its resident in July 2021, the landlord was obliged to investigate the matter in line with its ASB policy. As part of its investigation, it contacted the resident on2 August 2021 to discuss the complaint and give her a chance to respond,which was timely and appropriate. It took the details ofthe resident’scounter allegation that she was experiencing ASB and harassment from her neighbour to investigate.
There was no evidence or witness statements to support either the resident or neighbour A’s complaint; and whilst the alleged behaviour from both parties could be deemed inconsiderate, it did not constitute ASB as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord appropriately issued the resident and neighbour A, diary sheets and advised them to report any further incidents. It also reasonably offered to revisit mediation between the two, but this was declined.
A number of reports came in throughout August 2021 from a number of different households, with allegations of ASB. Most of it was in regard to children playing, which does not constitute ASB under the landlord’s policy, so did not require an ASB investigation or enforcement action. However, it was clear to the landlord that things had escalated on the estate, and it appropriately considered arranging community mediation as a way of improving the situation.
On 23 August 2021, complaints came in from three separate households, neighbour A, B, and neighbour C. The reports alleged intimidating behaviour from the resident and that she had installed CCTV. The landlord contacted the resident, as it was a requirement to request written permission for any form of CCTV and the resident had not done so.
The resident made a further counter claim in this interview that she felt threatened by all three neighbours, due to threats to firebomb her house. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the police at this point, as claims of intimidation, and threats to burn down or firebomb a residence, were potentially criminal activity, that it would reasonably expect the police to be involved in.
The police confirmed that the threat had not been reported by the resident, and whilst it had been involved in some recent events on the estate, no further action was necessary. With the threat unsubstantiated and no criminal activity identified it was appropriate for the landlord to continue to work to its own policy and guidelines for ASB and neighbour disputes.
As so many residents were involved and there was no evidence to support that any one household was the instigator, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to all the residents on the estate, warning about the behaviour.
The landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint that a lack of presence by the landlord on the estate was adding to the problem. It acknowledged lock down had seen less staff visiting the estates and committed to do more inspections and engagement.
The landlord made every effort to arrange and encourage community mediation, which was appropriate, but this is voluntary for participants. The landlord was not at fault when this course of action did not proceed, this was as a result of so many households refusing to take part, which was out of its control.
There is evidence the landlord continued to work to support the resident, liaising regularly through her local councillor, which led to her formalising and escalating her complaint, arranging to meet with her to discuss solutions and giving her permission for the installation of her CCTV.
When evidence of ASB was received, the landlord appropriately arranged a multi-agency meeting to take a co-ordinated and combined approach to resolving the ASB on the estate.
At this point there was video evidence that both neighbour A and the resident along with her relative, had committed ASB. A joint multi-agency decision was taken to adopt a more formal approach, in the form of obtaining signed acceptable behaviour contracts. These can be a useful tool for tackling ASB without resulting to enforcement and were appropriate in this case.
When neighbour A refused to sign the acceptable behaviour contract, the landlord appropriately followed up with a refusal to sign warning, which advisedof the more significant consequencesfailure to sign entailed.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for a designated parking space.

The resident’s estate had no formal parking management arrangements in place. The landlord had previously consulted residents on this issue, and they voted in favour of no allocated parking. This meant parking spaces were taken on a first come first served basis.
With this parking arrangement, when residents did not use the parking facilities appropriately the landlord deemed action should be proportionate, and an informal approach taken. It wrote to remind all residents to have consideration for their neighbours when parking, which was reasonable. It also appropriately explained to the resident, whilst action for inconsiderate parking can be taken under the terms of the tenancy, possession is an action of last resort and evidence would be needed to support this was a persistent occurrence, which it was not.
The landlord took on board the resident’s suggestion to consider a revised parking regime, of one space allocated per property, and committed to further consultation, which was reasonable.
It was understandable that the resident was distressed at her car being vandalised and concerned that it may happen again to the courtesy car she had been provided with or the replacement car she later purchased. Her suggestion to allocate her an emergency parking space until further consultation had been completed, was considered by the landlord. It determined however, that this was not appropriate for a number of reasons.
1. thisrequest did not align with any policy on parking.
2. parking was already a contentious issue on the estate.
3. there was a possibility that even in a consultation, residents would want to keep the parking as it is.
4. tensions were running high between the resident and her neighbours and giving the resident preferential treatment of an allocated parking space would in all probability enflame the situation further.

This was a rational conclusion to come to and therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to deny her request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to use CCTV.

The landlord has a requirement that is set out in the tenant’s handbook, that the installation of any CCTV requires written permission before a resident installs it. If permission was granted only one camera would be allowed.
When the landlord became aware that the resident had installed CCTV without requesting the appropriate permission, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact her, and advise her she needed to apply for written permission.
There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident to remove the camera, whilst she requested permission for the installation, although it was entitled to do so.
The landlord received the reports of the resident installing CCTV in late August 2021 and permission had been granted by 9 September 2021, the landlord’s decision was both timely and appropriate to its policy.
Part of the resident’s complaint concerned whether the landlord’s CCTV guidance was in line with ICO guidance. This is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider, how the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) for CCTV would be a matter for the ICO to consider. The resident may wish to contact the ICO for further advice, if she has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV.

Reasons

With regard to the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, the landlord responded to all reports of alleged ASB, it investigated a series of claims and counter claims from the resident and neighbours, that did not amount to ASB, but was in fact a neighbour dispute. With no clear evidence of who was perpetrator and who was victim, contacting all residents and offering mediation was the appropriate action to take. When evidence of ASB was provided the landlord acted promptly and in accordance with its policy, working with partners and taking a fair and proportionate approach. It also provided support and advice for the resident and acknowledged areas its service could improve to help resolve the situation.
With regards to the landlords handling of the resident’s request for designated parking, the landlord was empathetic to the resident’s situation, however in making decisions such as this, the landlord must adhere to its policies and be seen to be fair to all of its residents. Its policy did not support designated parking on this estate, and as parking was the cause of much of the friction on the estate, it was not appropriate to make an exception.
The landlord’s guidance for residents who want to install CCTV was clear that written permission must be sought prior to installation. It was therefore obliged to act when reports of CCTV being installed, without prior consent were bought to its attention; to insist the resident sought permission and adhered to the one camera rule was not unreasonable.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carries out its commitment to increase its presence on the estate and improve its community engagement.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carries out its commitment to embark on further consultation on the parking arrangements on the estate.