Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202125917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125917

Optivo (now Southern Housing Group)

28 July 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 concerns about CCTV in a communal area.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect/s of the complaint is/are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service cannot make findings on actions taken by a local authority which in this case installed a CCTV system in a communal area. Such matters would fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
This Service also cannot make findings on any legal advice that the landlord may have obtained during its handling of this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association and her tenancy commenced in September 2009. The resident’s property is a one bedroom, first floor flat within a block. The landlord’s systems state that there it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
In December 2022, the landlord completed a merger with Southern Housing and is now known as Southern Housing Group. The landlord’s policies and procedures referred to within this report were correct during the timescales outlined within the case and all events took place prior to the landlord’s merger.
In September 2021, CCTV cameras were installed in the communal area of the block. It is confirmed that the landlord did not install the CCTV, this was completed by the local authority. Whilst this Service and the landlord are aware of the reasons why the CCTV was installed, these reasons are not outlined in this report. This is due to giving consideration to the General Data Protection Rules 2018 (GDPR).

Summary of events

On 21 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord via telephone as she was concerned about her privacy as CCTV cameras had been installed in the communal area of the block. The resident stated that she felt the landlord should have informed all residents of the block that CCTV was being installed.
The resident outlined her concerns further in a formal complaint letter to the landlord dated 27 September 2021. In this letter she also raised concerns about a new basement door being installed without residents being aware of this.
The landlord called the resident on 29 September 2021 and informed her that it was aware of the CCTV having been installed in the block. It stated that it may be some time until it could have the CCTV removed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 October 2021 and acknowledged her complaint. It stated that it would provide her with its stage one complaint response by 19 October 2021.
On 7 October 2021, the resident sent a letter to the landlord outlining the reasons for her formal complaint regarding the CCTV system.
On 11 October 2021, the resident called the landlord and asked for an update on her complaint. She confirmed that signs had been put up in the block the previous week which informed residents that CCTV was in operation. It is unclear from the evidence reviewed in this case who installed the signs and where they were placed.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord called the resident and informed her that it was unable to respond to her complaint that same day as agreed, but it would send its stage one complaint response to her via post within the next two days.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 21 October 2021, in which it outlines the following:
1. It had not installed the CCTV cameras in the communal area of the block.
2. It had not given its permission for the CCTV cameras to be installed in the communal area of the block.
3. It had not been notified that CCTV cameras were to be installed in the block and only learned of the installation via email on 30 September 2021, after the CCTV had been installed.
4. It was taking legal advice on how it could proceed.
5. It was not legally able to remove the CCTV at that stage.
6. It was aware that residents had privacy concerns regarding the CCTV cameras, and it shared their concerns.
7. It had been informed that the CCTV system was being managed within the publicly available guidance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
8. It stated that the situation was likely to take some time to resolve due to legal matters as its actions related to an individual.
9. It was also taking advice on what information it could give to all residents without breaching its obligations under GDPR.
10. It would keep the resident updated with timescales but would keep the legal details of the case confidential.
11. It would use any learning from this case as a guide for future cases of a similar nature.
Also on 21 October 2021, the landlord contacted the local authority via email as it was seeking clarity on the installation of the CCTV cameras within the communal area of the block. The landlord stated that the CCTV had been installed without its consent.
On 27 October 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a copy of its stage one complaint response. On 29 October 2021, having received the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident requested an escalation to stage two of its complaint’s process. The resident completed a review panel request form and asked the landlord to respond to the following:
1. She was unhappy that it had not provided her with a response by 19 October 2021.
2. She stated that she received its response on 27 October 2021 and the response was dated 25 October 2021.
3. She raised concerns about the lack of information from the landlord and its poor communications with her regarding her concerns.
4. She asked for assurance from the landlord that individual residents were not permitted to install CCTV and share images with other neighbours.
The landlord’s records show that on 29 October 2021, its officers attended the block for an inspection. It confirmed that there were four CCTV cameras in the communal area of the block and no signage to inform residents of the CCTV being in place. One staff member noted that they felt uncomfortable knowing that CCTV was in operation and that the landlord had no access to it. They also noted that it felt like a hostile environment.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord contacted the local authority again via email and was seeking an update to its email sent on 21 October 2021. It advised that it was now receiving multiple complaints from residents about the CCTV cameras.
The landlord’s records show that on 2 November 2021 it tasked a member of its staff with contacting the resident every two weeks. The officer was informed that the resident was only contactable on a landline number and did not have a voice mail facility. It was further advised that the best time to call her would be in the morning. The landlord’s records show that the officer called the resident that same day but there was no answer.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 November 2021 and invited her to attend a panel review meeting regarding her complaint. It stated that the meeting would be held virtually on 2 December 2021.
On 10 November 2021, the resident called the landlord and raised the following:
1. She wanted to know who had access to the CCTV system as she had concerns that a neighbour was recording hers and other resident’s movements within the communal areas of the block.
2. She stated that she had been informed by the landlord that it would be sending a letter to all residents about the CCTV, but it had not done so.
3. She stated that other residents were upset with the CCTV being in place and it was causing trouble within the block as rumours existed.
On 12 November 2021 the resident called the landlord and stated that she had not received contact from them with updates every two weeks as agreed. She was advised that the officer had arranged to contact her on 16 November 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 16 November 2021 and discussed her concerns about the CCTV, and it stated that due to it being a sensitive issue it could not give further details due to GDPR. It stated that it was working with other agencies including the local authority to try and resolve the situation. The landlord agreed to call the resident again on 1 December 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2021 and provided details of what she wanted it to discuss at the arranged panel review meeting on 2 December 2021. She had previously advised the landlord that she was unable to attend the virtual meeting and agreed for it to raise her concerns on her behalf. In her letter the resident shared her concerns and thoughts.
1. She felt the landlord was not respecting the rights of all residents in privacy and information threatened by the CCTV cameras which had been installed without its consent.
2. She understood that there may be complex legal matters for it to consider, but it should keep all residents informed about the situation.
3. She was unhappy that the landlord had not offered any apology.
4. She had contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office who had informed her that CCTV should not have been installed without the landlord’s permission.
5. She stated that the lack of information given to residents by the landlord had caused rumours to circulate between residents which had caused discontent. Concerns were also raised about who was viewing the CCTV images and if they were being shared.
6. Concerns were also raised around the recent lock change to the basement door and who had access to the key.
The landlord called the resident on 2 December 2021 and the resident advised that she was unable to attend the panel review meeting. It was agreed that the landlord would call her again on 15 December 2021.
The landlord held the panel review meeting on 2 December 2021 as arranged. Its records show that it considered the resident’s written complaints and concerns during the meeting. It called the resident on 7 December 2021 and confirmed that it would provide its formal response to her in writing within 10 working days of the date of the panel review meeting.
The landlord’s records state that on 15 December 2021 it called the resident and updated her verbally on the outcome of the panel review hearing held on 2 December 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 20 December 2021 and asked for an update on its written response. The landlord informed her that she would receive its response within 10 working days via post.
The landlord’s review panel outcome letter was dated 20 December 2021 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for its delays in providing its response. It stated this was due to staff absence. It also stated within the letter that the delays were due to it sending its response via the post, which could delay and be out of its control.
2. It did not install the CCTV or give permission for the cameras to be installed in the communal areas.
3. It was unaware the CCTV was being installed and was only notified of the installation by email on 30 September 2021, after it was installed.
4. It had been working with its in-house legal team and external providers to investigate the CCTV installation. It wasn’t legally able to simply remove the CCTV.
5. It stated it was not always able to share the work it was doing due to GDPR. It stated that once it was clear what information it could share with residents, it would do so.
6. It shared her concerns and other resident’s concerns about privacy and stated that it was informed that the CCTV was being managed within the guidance of the information commissioner’s office.
7. It confirmed that it had not changed the lock on the basement door. It stated it had raised a job for a new lock to be installed and it would provide all residents with keys.
8. It would be carrying out a further visit to the block and was happy to meet wit the resident in person.
On 23 December 2022, the resident called the landlord to chase it for its formal written response. The resident was informed that the letter was being sent in the post to her that same day.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 January 2022 and thanked it for the call she had received on 23 December 2021.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour, giving them fourteen days to remove the CCTV cameras from the communal areas.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 January 2022 and confirmed that its regional manager would attend the block on 26 January 2021. It stated that it was still working with its legal team to get the CCTV removed from the communal area.
The resident replied to the landlord via letter on 17 January 2022, confirming that she would be at home during their scheduled visit. She advised that she had contacted her local MP about her concerns.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 26 January 2022, outlining her ongoing concerns about the CCTV system.
On 23 February 2022, the resident called the landlord and asked it to provide a letter outlining what actions it had already taken and what it proposed to do next. She stated that she needed to provide her MP with an update.
The resident sent a further letter to the landlord on 28 February 2022 in which she chased it for an update as the CCTV had not been removed. She also outlined her hopes that the landlord had not forgotten about her as it hadn’t contacted her for some time.
The resident chased the landlord again via a letter dated 1 April 2022 as the CCTV had not yet been removed. Having not received a response, she called the landlord on 19 April 2022, again chasing it for an update.
The landlord’s records state that it attempted to call the resident on 7 April 2022 however there was no answer. Its records from the same date also state that arrangements had been made with its repairs team to have the CCTV cameras removed although its notes did not confirm any date for this.
The landlord’s records show that the CCTV system was removed from the communal area of the block on 14 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s CCTV policy states that residents must contact it before installing CCTV or a camera doorbell. It outlines that any such installations must comply with the law and only cover their own property, not any neighbouring property or communal areas. It further states that residents cannot have CCTV if they live in a flat with a shared entrance. Residents are also not permitted to have a doorbell which does not record or save footage, if it covers a neighbouring property or any communal areas. It outlines that if a resident lives in a flat with a shared entrance, they are only permitted to have a camera doorbell with a live video stream only.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy outlines the following:
1. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days.
2. It aims to respond fully to stage one complaints within ten working days.
3. At stage two (review) of its complaints process, residents can select one of the following options:
  1. A review including involved residents and its staff or;
  2. A review consisting only of its staff.
4. Following the review, the landlord will provide its response within 10 working days.
5. In “exceptional” cases, the landlord will defer the decision if further advice is needed, or if it needs to consult a specialist or take legal advice.
6. It will advise residents of any need to extend the response time.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that in cases where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service, it will consider a discretionary payment. It outlines that it may offer this to recognise distress or inconvenience caused for example, it may have taken repeated attempts to resolve an issue. Discretionary payments may be cash payments, gift vouchers or items such as flowers. It further states these payments are not admissions of liability.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV in a communal area.

The landlord took appropriate steps in seeking legal advice on the CCTV installation. It however could have communicated better with residents on the CCTV issue whilst it was seeking legal advice on its position.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had confirmed that signs alerting residents to the presence of CCTV in the block were put up in October 2021, although the exact date is unclear. This is however at odds with the landlord’s visit to the block on 29 October 2021 in which its notes state that there were no signs installed in the block. Whilst it is noted that the landlord did not install or give permissions for the CCTV to be installed in the communal areas, it could have ensured that signs were clearly displayed in the block whilst it sought legal advice on the matter. This could have gone some way to addressing the resident’s concerns and the concerns of other residents in the block regarding the presence of the CCTV cameras.
It was correct for the landlord to outline its own concerns and position in its stage one complaint response. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations by stating that it could take some time for the CCTV system to be legally removed, however this approach was open-ended, and this Service finds that it added to the resident’s frustrations. It would be reasonable to expect that where possible, the landlord could have provided the resident with an estimated timescale for it to resolve the situation. Also, the landlord could have provided updates on its progress to enable her to understand the steps it was taking and the time this may involve. Such actions could have assisted it in better managing her expectations.
Due to its obligations under GDPR, the landlord had limited information that it could share with residents about the CCTV. However, it did not contact the resident for significant periods of time which caused the resident to become frustrated. This was despite it agreeing that a member of its staff would contact the resident every two weeks. Its records show that whilst it did initially contact the resident every two weeks, its contacts then became more sporadic from early 2022 onwards. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations and failed to keep its promise to contact her every two weeks. This caused the resident to have to chase the landlord for updates, causing further frustration and led to her feeling that she had been forgotten about. In light of this, the landlord’s communications with the resident amount to a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s records show that it was late in acknowledging the resident’s initial formal complaint dated 27 September 2021. Instead, it acknowledged her letter dated 5 October 2021 as the resident’s formal complaint request. This meant that its stage one response date was incorrectly scheduled as 19 October 2021. As per its complaints policy, it should have acknowledged her complaint within five working days on 3 October 2021. It should have also provided the resident with its stage one response on 8 October 2021, keeping it in line with its ten working day response at stage one as per its policy.
Due to this, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest possible stage but instead provided her with its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2021, which was ten working days late.
It is noted that in its stage two panel review meeting response dated 20 December 2021, the landlord makes reference to delays being a result of the postal system. It is further noted that during a call the resident made to the landlord on 23 December 2021, it informed the resident that it had not yet sent the response in the post to her but would do so that same day. It was therefore incorrect for the landlord to cite postal delays as the reason for its delays. The landlord should also have factored in the resident’s request for it to communicate with her via letter rather than email. As the resident had to chase the landlord numerous times for its written responses, this Service finds that this caused further frustration and time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
Whilst is noted that the landlord apologised for its delay in providing the resident with its stage two complaint response, it did not make any offer of redress or apply its compensation policy which details the provision for it to make discretionary payments to resolve any service failure and to recognise distress or inconvenience caused. This Service therefore finds that the landlord’s complaint handling approaches amount to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV in a communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord was correct in not providing the resident with confidential information about the CCTV camera installation, it failed to communicate its position with her effectively. This caused the resident to have to chase the landlord for updates on its progress and caused frustration and inconvenience to her.
The landlord did not correctly follow the prescribed timescales outline within its own complaints resolution policy. It also stated that its delays in providing the resident with its stage two (review) response were partially due to delays with the postal service which were out of its control, however it informed the resident that it had not sent her response in the post three days after it was written. The landlord appeared to not factor in the additional time required to provide the resident with its responses in her preferred format, which was via the post.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its poor communications in this case.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £100 to reflect the landlord’s poor communication with the resident regarding her concerns relating to the CCTV installation.
  2. £100 to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident in chasing the landlord for updates on her complaint.
The landlord is to amend its CCTV policy to include clear references to how it will manage CCTV installations within its housing stock that are carried out by local authorities. The landlord is to also consider how it will communicate the management of such issues with its residents.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)– The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.