Six Town Housing Limited (202107717)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107717

Six Town Housing Limited

27 April 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 reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s approach and subsequent decision to remove the resident’s CCTV.
3. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s handling of the above complaints.

Background and summary of events

Legislation

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights. Its website explains that if someone sets up a CCTV system so it captures only images within the boundary of their private domestic property (including the garden), then the data protection laws would not apply. However, if the system captures images of people outside the boundary of the property, for example, a shared space, then the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 will apply. In this case the individual needs to ensure their use of CCTV complies with these laws.
The Housing Act 1985 (section 103) permits landlords to vary a secure tenancy by way of a notice of variation served on the tenant.

Policies, procedures and tenancy agreement

The resident’s original tenancy agreement states that the tenant has the right to “carry out improvements and alterations (You may need the Council’s permission, and should consult your local Housing Office before starting any work.)”.
However, the landlord varied the resident’s tenancy agreement which added “You must not put up (either inside or outside your property) a CB, radio aerial, satellite dish, closed circuit television camera, microphones or recording equipment or similar items such as a flagpole unless you have our written permission” to the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement. It is noted that the landlord provided evidence of this variation to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy stated it considered anti-social behaviour to be:
1. excessive noise and repeated abusive language or behaviour.
2. harassment, damage to property and threats of violence.
The landlord did not consider ASB to include:
1. People being unpleasant towards one another, personal disputes, staring or other actions that it believes are not sufficiently serious enough to cause risk of harm
2. Issues relating to parking.
The landlord’s responsibilities under its ASB policy stated:
1. Inform the resident what action it can and cannot take and advise the resident on what it can do. If it decides to take no further action, it will explain the reasons why.
2. Contact the resident within agreed response timescales to gather information, explain available options and agree an action plan for investigating and resolving the problems the resident is experiencing.
3. Keep the resident informed of developments and explains that the resident’s case will be closed if no reports of ASB are received after 6 weeks, if the issue is resolved or when no further action can be taken by the landlord. It would confirm its decision in writing, but will reopen the case should any further incidents of ASB be reported or if new evidence is provided.
It outlined the resident responsibilities as follows:
1. Be tolerant and respectful towards neighbours and other people living in the community.
2. Try to resolve disputes with the neighbours themselves without the need for it to get involved, but confirmed a resident should only do so if it is safe.
3. Keep accurate records of incidents that occur, report these promptly to the landlord or other agencies such as the Police.
The landlord’s alteration and improvement application stated that an alteration is ‘Small additions and/or changes to your home that do not add to the value of the property.’
The landlord’s complaint policy considered a complaint to be failure or unacceptable delays to provide a service and to follow a policy or procedure. There is a stage one and stage two complaint process. It does not include an informal complaint stage.
Its complaint policy also stated – In all cases where an Investigating Officer decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation will be provided to the customer setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and advising the customer that they have the right to challenge this decision to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS). The HOS will then, if appropriate, instruct a landlord to take on the complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code

The Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five working days of receipt.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and has lived in a 2-bedroom end terrace house since August 1999.
The landlord is a local authority and its Arms-length Management Organisation (ALMO) was set up in 2005 to managethe local its housing stock. The term ‘the landlord’ in this report refers to both the local authority and the ALMO.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported concerns around anti-social behaviour between 2015-2019. Whilst there may be references to information that was recorded in the landlord’s records between 2015 to 2018, this investigation primarily focuses on the events from 2019, which lead to the resident’s formal complaint in January 2021 and in June 2021.
In early January 2019, the resident reported that her neighbour was swearing at her and the landlord arranged for a home visit. The landlord’s record show that this visit did not go ahead and no further action was taken.
In March 2019, the resident raised several reports of noise nuisance. In between those reports she also emailed and called the landlord and requested that it contact her. The landlord records show there were tasks on its system for it to respond to the resident however, the evidence shows it did not respond to the resident, noting on one task, “ongoing rift between the neighbours”.
In April 2019, the resident made a report that she witnessed a neighbour driving on the footpath, the task to contact the resident was closed without contacting the resident. The landlord notes state – “no further action, tit for tat complaint, one complains about DIY so the other complains about loud music.”
In May 2019, the resident also reported that ivy was growing in her neighbour’s garden which was affecting her shed. The landlord asked the resident whether she could approach her neighbour to speak about removing it. She confirmed that the relationship was fraught so could not do so.
On 3 June 2019, the landlord opened an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case, following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and drunken behaviour by her neighbours. The landlord issued diary sheets to the resident. The landlord’s records show that no further action was taken in June.
On 2 July 2019, the resident reported that her neighbours were playing loud music. She also reported that she was concerned that her landlord was “ignoring” her, as she had not received a phone call and/or no one had come to see her again. She explained that she had been in the office every week, but “still was being ignored”. She requested that the landlord’s chief executive consider her email about her neighbours, as she was not getting a response.
The landlord responded on the same day, and stated that the neighbourhood officer spoke to the resident on 17 June 2019 (the Ombudsman does not have evidence of this) and confirmed that it had sent diary sheets to the resident but had not received any back and therefore it was hard to proceed with the case. It stated that it was not ignoring her.
The landlord’s neighbourhood adviser followed up the resident’s email with a call and left a message. The landlord’s notes state “After phoning the tenant and leaving her a message to explain I am not a damp expert and I will request an inspection to see how bad the damp is in the shed and to establish if the ivy has anything to do with the damp”.
On 18 July 2019, the resident requested a meeting with the landlord about the problems she was having with her neighbours, she wanted to speak with someone in “authority” as she felt she was being ignored. The Ombudsman does not have evidence to support that the landlord followedupthe resident’s request.
In August 2019, the landlord put the resident and her neighbours forward for mediation.
In the same month the resident returned 16 diary sheets and reported on several occasions that her neighbour continued to play loud music. On one report the resident stated that, whilst she understood that she was going to have mediation with her neighbours in the upcoming weeks, she asked the landlord to speak to them about keeping the music down in the meantime. The landlord’s records show it did not respond to the resident’s request.
At the end of August 2019 the landlord’s records indicated that the cases were closed as the resident’s case moved to mediation.
On 2 September 2019, the resident reported that the neighbour was kicking the door in and being abusive, the police were called, but no arrests were made. It is not clear from the record whose door the neighbour was kicking and who he was being abusive to. A joint visit was carried out with the landlord and a Police Community Support Officer, the landlord stated that the case was with mediation and it was awaiting outcomes. The resident continued to report noise nuisance in the same month.
On 1 October 2019, the resident and her neighbours signed a mediation agreement. The parties agreed that they would not call each other names or swear at each other and would ensure all CCTV cameras were only pointing within the boundaries of the residents’ own gardens.
On 7 October 2019, the resident raised concerns about the mediation agreement, asked to speak with her neighbourhood officer, and requested a call back or visit.
The landlord responded on 7 November 2019, and advised the resident to speak to the mediator if she was not happy with the agreement, and noted that the case remained in mediation.
On 7 November 2019, the mediator told the landlord that she had spoken to the resident and apart from some banging which the resident felt was “annoying”, there were no other issues.
On the same day, the resident called the landlord and reported that she noted that a neighbour had driven on the communal gardens and “she could have been walking in the garden and killed”. The landlord’s customer adviser emailed the neighbourhood adviserthat they “had not bothered to put this [the call from the resident] on [the system]”.
The neighbourhood adviser noted that she had passed the information onto the relevant department, as “driving wasn’t a housing issue”.
On 11 November 2019, the resident reported that her neighbour was driving on the communal grass and sent in video evidence. The landlord noted that it was unable to open the video or save it to its records. The landlord’s records suggest that it did not follow this up with the resident.
The neighbourhood officer noted “tenant has complained about the mediation, about her neighbours and about driving vehicles over grass. Mediation has been completed and driving has been passed to the police” and noted that driving was not a housing issue. There is no evidence to suggest that there were further reports or correspondence between the resident and the landlord in November.
In December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord as she was trying to contact the mediator. A new neighbourhood officer started to manage the patch, and noted that he would look over all the notes and proceed to do a joint visit with the police. There were no further reports in December 2019.
On 3 January 2020, the resident visited the landlord’s office. The landlord’s notes state that:
1. The resident was upset due to the ongoing issue with her neighbours, the neighbours were deliberately leaning on her car and she had CCTV evidence to prove it. She was concerned that her car was going to get damaged or stolen, as on the CCTV the resident heard one neighbour state “if it gets damaged, it’s tough”.
2. The resident had recently been to mediation with her neighbours about the parking issues, and felt that she was “ganged up against” by her neighbours. She felt that the mediator had been influenced by the other neighbours and her opinions and comments were not taken into consideration.
3. There was not much of an outcome from mediation, and her neighbour called her “prostitute”, played loud music and complained when her partner did any DIY.
4. The resident felt harassed and bullied by her neighbours, with one particular neighbour being an instigator of the problems which were now affecting her mental health. The resident confirmed that she had sought medical support for her mental health.
5. The resident confirmed that she had applied for permission to keep the four cameras she already had installed, as she had an abusive ex-partner, and wanted her property covered as she was still anxious about him returning.
6. The resident agreed to complete diary sheets and the landlord agreed to investigate her allegations further.
The resident continued to raise issues about the on-going noise and parking issues in early January. The landlord noted that the resident’s neighbourhood officer was on leave and the resident wanted to speak to someone else and did not want to wait until the officer was back from leave.
On 30 January 2020, the landlord’s sustainability and investment department reviewed the resident’s retrospective application to install CCTV (this Service does not have a copy of the resident’s original application). It:
1. refused to grant the resident permission to install four CCTV cameras in and around her home.
2. acknowledged that the resident installed CCTV cameras following an incident of domestic violence ten years ago and that she believed the CCTV had assisted with preventing the incident from reoccurring.
3. stated it was better and safer for her to complete diary sheets for any incidents that impacted her whilst she was at home and report them to the appropriate body.
4. granted retrospective permission to install one CCTV camera to the front elevation and one CCTV to the rear elevation of the property. Permission was also granted to install one doorbell camera.
5. Advised if the resident inadvertently recorded or captured images and/or sound outside of the boundary she would be considered a “data logger” and would need to comply with data protection obligations.
6. The permission was granted providing the resident:
  1. did not record outside of the boundary of the property.
  2. kept diary sheets for any incidents that impacted her at home.
  3. disconnected and removed all other CCTV cameras by 28 February 2020.
7. The landlord was unable to grant permission for CCTV to be installed at the side of the property as this would record a public area outside of the boundary of the property.
8. The landlord was unable to grant permission for CCTV to record/capture images of vehicles parked on public roads and recommended that the resident kept a record and report any incidents caused to her vehicle on a public road to the appropriate bodies i.e. insurance provider/police.
9. Stated that the terms of her tenancy stated “You must not put up (either inside or outside your property) a CB, radio aerial, satellite dish, closed circuit television camera, microphones or recording equipment or similar items such as a flag pole unless you have our written permission.”
In February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked to confirm who her neighbourhood officer was and the name of their manager as she felt the landlord was not doing anything about her being intimidated by her neighbours. A task was raised for her neighbourhood adviser to action, there was no further information for February on the landlord’s records.
In March 2020, the landlord refused the resident’s appeal of its decision in January, reiterated its position outlined in its 30 January letter, and advised that she must remove the CCTV by 12 June 2020.
The next contact between the resident and landlord was on 25 May 2020, when the resident contacted the landlord to raise issues about her neighbour, which was passed onto its neighbourhood adviser to action.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 June 2020 as a result and opened an anti-social behaviour case, emailed the resident some diary sheets and noted:
1. Th resident confirmed that the issues had started up again, with her neighbours making “snide” remarks from their properties, loud enough so she could hear them.
2. It had informed the resident it had another ASB case open since January 2020, but it had not received any diary sheets from her.
3. The resident had said that it had got worse since the mediation and the harassment was getting too much and she could no longer enjoy her home.
4. The landlord stated the importance of completing diary sheets for evidence, so it could consider issuing warnings under the tenancy agreement, as it could not rely on calls and the case would stay open as long as the evidence was provided.
On 15 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord that she was unable to send the diary sheets due to her mental health but would be sending them within the week. The records show that there was no further contact between the resident and the landlord until August 2020.
On 10, 12 and 27 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord, stating she had not heard from the neighbourhood adviser and would like them to contact her about ongoing issues. There is no evidence on the landlord’s records that it contacted the resident.
The next information on the landlord’s records was on 18 November 2020, where its neighbourhood adviser states, “Unable to contact at the time – will keep an eye on further reports” in relation to the resident’s reports in August 2020.
On 15 January 2021, the resident made a formal complaint stating that:
1. She did not receive a reply about her appeal about her CCTV and no explanation as to why.
2. Whilst other residents of the landlord had CCTV up, she was the only one that was asked to remove hers, as a result she felt she was being treated unfairly, which she had complained about several times. She had her CCTV up for 10 years and felt she was doing nothing wrong as she was protecting herself and her property.
3. She felt that the person that was complaining about her CCTV was harassing her via the landlord.
4. She received harassment from neighbours for the past five years and the landlord had done nothing to resolve the issue.
5. To remove the CCTV would be upsetting to her, and this situation had not helped her mental health, as it felt as if the landlord would be taking away her “security”.
The landlord responded that it was looking into the resident’s CCTV request based on the denied appeal last year, as the situation involved different organisations, it would be arranging a meeting with all relevant organisations to discuss its position as the resident’s landlord.
The landlord raised the resident’s complaint as ‘informal’, noted it had spoken to the resident on 29 January 2021 and emailed her the following:
1. The resident agreed that she understood the need to register her camera if she was recording outside the curtilage of her home.
2. The resident would look into registering her camera with the ICO and provide the landlord with the certificate. Registering would protect her from being reported for recording public data without permission. If it did not receive the certificate, the resident would need to remove the camera that was recording outside the boundary of her home or re-position it to record within the boundary of her home.
3. If the resident’s CCTV was not registered then the cameras needed to face within the boundaries of her property until she had done so. It confirmed that it was notifying all of its residents of their obligations around CCTV.
In March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord stating that a neighbour “touched” her car, and the situation needed to be “sorted out”, as the neighbour was doing it on purpose. The landlord records state that it passed the information on to the relevant organisation as it was not a housing issue and it had informed the resident that it had passed the information on.
In April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was still waiting for a decision regarding the CCTV. The records show that it also told the resident that the issue regarding her car was a police matter and she should report it to the police.
In May 2021, the landlord visited the resident to discuss her CCTV cameras, the records state the outcome was:
1. The appointment was made to discuss the complaint that had been made about the resident’s cameras which had not been authorised by the landlord.
2. It confirmed how many cameras the resident was permitted to have, which was outlined in the January 2020 letter. The landlord reiterated that the resident must not record outside the perimeter of her garden and the landlord would remove the cameras that were not permitted by it.
3. It was following its policy and procedure and trying to solve the tenancy breach which not related to the ongoing issues between the resident and her neighbours and this would be applied across all of the landlord’s tenancies.
4. The resident felt that the other resident was bullying and harassing her, and that the landlord was not doing anything about it. She also felt victimised and stated it was having a negative effect on her mental health.
5. Although she completed the diary sheets and had undertaken mediation with her neighbours, she felt this did not work. The landlord referred to the ASB procedure and to call the police if she felt threatened by her neighbour. However the resident stated that she did not feel supported by the landlord.
6. The resident stated that she would not remove any cameras as they had been up for 12 years without complaint until a neighbour made a complaint.
In June and July 2021 this service was in contact with the resident and landlord. As a result of that contact, on 9 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response, stating:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was about her disagreement with the landlord’s decision that she must remove the additional unauthorised CCTV cameras as the resident felt harassed by her neighbours, and therefore needed the cameras to gather evidence.
3. It reiterated the permission and conditions outlined in the 30 January 2020 letter.
4. It stated that the resident needed to remove the additional cameras as she was now in breach of her tenancy agreement and, if she did not do so, the landlord would remove them and it quoted the relevant section of its tenancy agreement.
On 6 September 2021, the resident, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure because:
1. She was the only one that was only allowed two cameras, 1 doorbell camera and to only record in her boundary whilst many other households on the estate did not have to conform to the same rules and she wanted the landlord to explain why this was the case.
2. She did have permission 10 years ago for her CCTV, but now that her neighbours had complained, the landlord had asked her to remove them and she felt that she was being victimised and harassed by the landlord who had made many threats to remove the cameras.
3. She still did not have an answer to the information she provided the landlord about the harassment, nuisance, and intimidation she endured from her neighbours who had also mocked her mental health.
4. She had sent numerous emails and a formal complaint, which included one to the landlord’s chief executive, but still did not have a response and no action had taken place. She wanted confirmation as to how the landlord helped residents that had mental health issues and why no one had handled her complaints.
On 22 September 2021,the landlord issued its stage two response, stating:

CCTV

As part of its investigation it had reviewed all the relevant correspondence, read the file notes, and discussed the matter further with the staff concerned and it could not find any evidence to support the resident’s claim that she was given permission to install CCTV cameras over ten years ago.
The additional permission for additional cameras was refused because they were situated as such to record/capture images that were outside the resident’s boundary, which was not allowed due to the privacy and data protection rights of other residents. It confirmed that its position applied to all tenancies it managed.
It confirmed that the decision had nothing to do with the complaints it had received about the resident’s CCTV cameras, but was based on the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
It outlined that the resident was given a few deadlines to remove the CCTV and as part of the mediation agreement it was agreed that she would focus her CCTV solely within her boundary.
It confirmed that it did take action against residents that were found to have erected CCTV cameras without permission or where they were found to have recorded or captured images outside of the property boundary. It stated that it could not comment on individual cases but confirmed that some households had been visited and it was due to visit more over the coming weeks. It also confirmed that it had sent a general text message to all of its residents reminding them of their responsibilities around CCTV.
It could not find evidence to suggest that the resident had been harassed or victimised by its staff or any evidence to support the resident’s allegation that the landlord favoured another resident over her. It stated that it had followed its internal processes and advised the resident in accordance with its published guidelines.
It gave the resident until 15 October 2021 to remove the unauthorised cameras and confirmed if she did not do so, it would remove them.

ASB

It gave the resident appropriate advice at the time she made her complaints, issued her with diary sheets as appropriate and at times it carried out joint visits with the police.
The allegations that the resident made were refuted by her neighbours and could not be substantiated due to the fact that she did not complete or return the diary sheets in a timely manner, despite requests to do so. When complaints were received, these were investigated and the resident was advised appropriately.
Complaints were also received about the resident. It understood that the resident engaged in mediation with her neighbours which resulted in an agreement on how they would all respond to complaints of noise from one another’s homes.
As the police did not progress the resident’s complaints of criminal damage or harassment, there was no further action that could be taken by it.
It acknowledged that there were several occasions in 2019, where it could have communicated more effectively with the resident. In particular, it did not respond to the resident’s request for contact. Although it did not believe this affected the outcome of the resident’s complaint, it accepted that the lack of response fell short of its service standards and it could understand how this led the resident to feel ignored by it, and apologised.

Assessment and findings

ASB

It is clear that the resident contacted the landlord many times throughout 2019 reporting noise nuisance and other times asking for it to respond to those reports. The landlord’s records show that it consistently failed to return the resident’s calls and emails. The landlord acknowledged its lack of response in its stage two response, which it apologised for.
However,at timesthe landlord’slack of response was unacceptable, where it appeared it chose not to respond to the resident and on a few occasions it closed its tasks to contact the resident without contacting her, adding statements in its notes such as “ongoing rifts between the neighbours”or “tit for tat” situation with the resident’s neighbours.
This goes against its own policy outlined in paragraph 8 of this report. It failed to take into consideration the detrimental impact of it consistently failing to respond over a pro-longed period of time on the resident. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining to her, where relevant, that it would not act on her reports as it would not be proportionate to do so. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to explain which reports were considered to constitute ASB and which ones were not to the resident.
Moreover,in November 2019, when the resident reported an incident, the landlord made inappropriate remarks in its internal communication stating that “it could not be bothered to add the resident’s calls to its system”as well as other commentsthat the Ombudsman considers to be inappropriatein the records.
Paragraph 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may find maladministration where a landlord has ‘treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.’
In this case the Ombudsman has noted a number of inappropriate remarks in the landlord’s records, and considers the landlord’s overall treatment of the resident was inappropriate. Irrespective of officer’s views about her reports, the landlord should have treated her with respect and clearly communicated its position to her. This should have included managing her expectations as to what actions it could reasonably take in response to her reports.
Therefore it is understandable that the resident reported in 2019 and beyond that she felt that she was being ignored and not supported by her landlord.
In August 2019, the resident returned 16 diary sheets. The landlord’s records did not indicate that it had reviewed them. The Ombudsman notes that the diary sheets were returned just before the resident entered mediation with her neighbours, but it would still expect the landlord and/or its mediator to review them to establish any action it may need to take outside of mediation.
Moreover, the landlord stated that the resident needed to complete the diary sheets in a timely manner, but failed to provide the resident with an action plan and timescales which clearly laid out what it could and could not do and when it needed her to return the diary sheets in order for it to action them. This process is set out in its responsibilities in its ASB policy.
It also told the resident in June 2020, that it had an ASB case open since January 2020, but did not receive any diary sheets from the resident. This again, set unrealistic expectations that the landlord’s case would and should be left open, while it waited for the resident to contact it and provide diary sheets. The landlord again took a similar approachwhen in November 2020, it stated in its records that as it could not contact the resident earlier in the year it would keep an eye out for further reports, and left the case open. This again goes against its own policy, where it states ASB cases should be closed by six weeks if there is no information or contact from the resident.
In the same month, the resident stated that she was unable to send the landlord her completed diary sheets due to her mental health. The landlord did not follow this up to see if it could assist the resident, or consider if it should make reasonable adjustments and enquire if it could help her in this situation.
Although the landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident at times in 2019, it did not acknowledge that in 2020 there were also occasions when it repeated the same pattern. For example, in August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord several times and although the landlord stated in November 2020 that it tried to contact the resident “at the time”, there is no evidence on the landlord’s records that it did so.
Overall the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy and procedure. It failed significantly to provide the resident a satisfactory service, to take steps to manage her expectations as to what it could and could not do, and its inappropriate remarks meant that she was not treated appropriately. The combination of its failures caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience, and the cumulative failings and its overall treatment of her constitute severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of her ASB reports.

CCTV

The landlord’s records show that it was aware of the resident’s CCTV recording/capturing images. In 2015, the resident had reported an incident that she had captured that was clearly outside her boundary, and again in 2018. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not challenge the resident on whether she had permission or advised her that she should not be recording/capturing images outside her boundary. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that legislation in 2018 introduced new measures, it is important for a landlord to proactively ensure its residents are complying with relevant legislation in a timely manner.
The resident continued to mention that she had CCTV in 2019. It was highlighted in the mediation, when it was agreed with all parties that they would not record/capture images outside their boundary. The landlord’s records show that, at that time, it did not explain to the resident the implications and its position if the resident did not comply. It would be reasonable for the landlord at that time to have set its own expectations around the CCTV independent from the mediation agreement.
Moreover, the landlord stated twice in 2020 that it would remove the unauthorised CCTV cameras if the resident did not do so and gave her deadlines to remove them. The last deadline in 2020 was in June. Each deadline passed and the landlord did not remove them. It then visited the resident in May 2021, based on a complaint it received about the resident’s CCTV cameras recording/capturing images outside of her boundary. As it failed to remove the CCTV cameras within its own deadlines in 2020 coupled with the visit in 2021 based on complaints, it is understandable for the resident to feel that the landlord was pursuing the removal of her cameras due to the complaints.
However, it is clear that the resident agreed in her mediation agreement that she would only record within the boundaries of her home, and by continuing to record outside her boundary, broke the agreement.
Moreover, the landlord stated clearly its reasons why it could not grant the resident permission to have additional cameras which recorded/captured images outside her boundary, which were reasonable. It also gave the resident information on how to apply for permission to record/capture images outside her boundary via the ICO.
It is also outlined in the resident’s tenancy agreement that although she has a right to alter the property, she may need to seek permission and should consult the landlord before starting any work. The varied tenancy terms go further and included stipulations specifically around CCTV, which the landlord outlined in its correspondence to the resident. Nonetheless, it is also reasonable for a landlord to withdraw its permission to ensure it and its residents are complying with the updated law.
Overall, the landlord’s approach which led to its decision to remove the resident’s CCTV was satisfactory (although it is yet to act on it).

Complaint handling

In July 2019, the resident, asked her landlord to pass on her emails to the chief executive and in the same month she also asked for someone in authority to contact her, because she felt that she was being ignored. The landlord’s records show it did not explore and/or seek clarification on what the resident wanted.
It therefore missed an opportunity to speak to the resident to ascertain whether she wanted to make a formal complaint. It is important that the landlord recognises that its residents do not need to explicitly state that they want to make a formal complaint, as laid out in this Service’s complaint handling code. It is for the landlord to engage with the resident to seek clarification. The landlord failed to explore the reasons why the resident was dissatisfied and start the formal complaint process.
On 15 January 2021, the resident stated that she wanted to make a formal complaint and outlined her concerns. However, the landlord treated it as an informal complaint. The landlord’s records show it did not record the reasons why it did not pursue the resident’s explicit request to make a formal complaint, nor advise her that it had made that decision. This service’s complaint handling code suggests that – “A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process.”
Moreover, there is no provision in the landlord’s complaint policy for an informal complaint stage and as per this Service’s complaint handling code which states “The Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five working days of receipt.” The landlord also missed an opportunity to deal with the complaint promptly.
The landlord stated that it could not find evidence to suggest that the resident had been harassed or victimised by its staff. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, whilst we have not seen specific examples of victimisation or harassment in the landlord’s records, the overall treatment of the resident was inappropriate. This had a detrimental impact on the resident under paragraph 52 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which the landlord failed to identify in its investigation and review of the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the landlord apologised for the delays in its communication in 2019, it failed to take into consideration the impact that its consistent failures had on the resident. It also did not consider what it could do in the future to ensure its failures did not happen again to the resident or any other resident. Therefore its offer of redress, which was an apology, was not reasonable as it was not adequate in terms of taking steps to put matters right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52, including 52 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s approach and subsequent decision to remove the resident’s CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

ASB

The landlord’s accumulated failures were over a prolonged period of time, which included failing to respond to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, making inappropriate remarks in its internal communication, and failing to appropriately follow its ASB policy and procedure, caused the resident significant distress over a significant period of time. As a result, the resident understandably felt that she was victimised by her landlord.

CCTV

The landlord gave the resident clear advice, information and its reasoning why it could not grant her permission to have her cameras record/capture images outside of her boundary which was supported by the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to action the resident’s formal complaint in January 2021 and failed to seek clarification from the resident on whether she wanted to raise a formal complaint in July 2019. This caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience pursuing her complaint over a prolonged period of time.
It also failed in its own complaint investigation to acknowledge that it did not follow its own ASB policies and procedures and consider what impact that had on the resident.
It also failed to address how it would put things right in the future regarding its communication with its residents. An apology, was therefore, not sufficient or reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders within four weeks of the date of this report:
Pay the resident compensation of £1100, comprising of:
1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delays and inadequate complaint handling.
The landlord to apologise to the resident for its failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure and its inadequate complaint handling in line with this Service’s guidance that:
1. an apology should be made by the landlord’s chief executive.
2. an apology should acknowledge the maladministration; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
3. where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should provide clear guidance to its staff about the importance of objective record keeping, using professional language,to ensure it is providing a good service to all its residents.
Contact the resident and where appropriate support her with accessing mental health services, update its vulnerabilities records where relevant and appropriate with the resident’s consent, and provide evidence of compliance within four weeks of the issue of this report.
Review the resident’s current ASB concerns and where appropriate, implement a clear action plan and provide evidence of this to this service within four weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

Review its position regarding its decision to remove the resident’s CCTV and act in a timely manner regardless of its final decision, and update the resident.
All staff are trained and/or retrained on its complaint policy and procedure to ensure complaints are processed according to its policy.
All staff are trained and/or retrained on its ASB policy and procedure to ensure where appropriate residents are given action plans, clear timescales for returning diary sheets, and give clear information on what the landlord can and cannot do.
Review its complaint policy against this Service’s complaint handling code.