Torus62 Limited (202222258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222258

Torus62 Limited

21 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for installation of CCTV in relation to Anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she resides in a 2 bed bungalow.
3. In July 2022, the resident reported concerns about children playing in the street and litter being thrown into her garden. The landlord provided her with diary sheets and agreed to review the case 2 weeks later.
4. On 8 August 2022, the landlord closed the case as it had not received any further reports nor had the resident completed any diary sheets.
5. On 16 September, the resident reported that she had been threatened by a neighbour’s relative. This incident was also logged with the police and the landlord agreed to carry out a joint visit to the resident to discuss the incident further. The report was subsequently closed by the police due to a lack of evidence and on the basis that the resident did not wish to pursue it. The resident has advised that the police initially agreed to install CCTV but then declined directing her back to the landlord.
6. Following the resident’s request for CCTV she was informed in November 2022 that there was not enough evidence to support this. The landlord advised that it had limited resources, and the provision of CCTV was decided on a case by case basis. The resident was unhappy with this decision and raised a complaint.
7. In its stage one response on 7 December 2022 the landlord explained that it had taken appropriate steps to investigate the ASB reports but without diary sheet evidence it was unable to consider CCTV. The resident escalated this complaint adding that the concerns for her safety were having a detrimental impact upon her health. Furthermore, she raised inaccuracies in how the complaint had been defined and was displeased with the tone of the communication.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 25 January 2023. It upheld its stage one decision regarding CCTV, stating that isolated incidents did not meet the required criteria. However, it said that the resident could install her own CCTV with the relevant permissions. It went on to say that her concerns regarding safety would be addressed as part of the ongoing ASB case and that her comments regarding the tone of the communication had been passed on.

Scope of investigation

9. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident reported the impact this situation has had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this but we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the ASB and the resident’s mental health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she the wishes to pursue this.

Assessment and findings

10. I understand that the resident does not agree with the landlord’s decision not to install CCTV in this case. The Ombudsman is aware that landlords have limited financial resources and need to ensure best use of these and that it is not possible to agree all requests. It does seek to ensure however that all requests are given appropriate consideration and an explanation provided to residents about any decision made.
11. The landlord has a specific policy in relation to the provision and use of CCTV, it states that it shall only use CCTV where it is a proportionate and necessary measure to achieve a defined business objective, and it will only be used where required for the prevention / detection of crime and the apprehension / prosecution of offenders or for the protection of people and property.
12. The tenancy agreement does not state any obligation for the landlord to install CCTV for its tenants. The resident has the right to ask for written permission to make alterations, including installing CCTV, which the landlord ‘will not unreasonably withhold’. 
13. Following the resident’s initial report in July 2022 the landlord appropriately responded and provided her with diary sheets. Based on the information at the time they were unable to identify the perpetrators but committed to supporting the resident by agreeing to review the case in 2 weeks’ time. The evidence shows that the landlord kept the case open for a reasonable amount of time before closing in September 2022, by which time 8 weeks had passed without further incident reports.
14. Following a further incident in September 2022 where the resident reported receiving threats from a neighbour’s relative, a new case was opened. Due to the nature of the allegations the resident was appropriately advised to report the incident to the police, this is in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and is good practice in such circumstances. Based on the evidence provided by both parties the police were unable to investigate due to a lack of evidence and referred the matter back to the landlord. The landlord did speak to the alleged perpetrator but was unable to substantiate the allegation without evidence.
15. The resident’s initial request for CCTV was refused in November 2022, as a result she raised a complaint, she reported feeling ‘stressed’ and afraid to leave her home. In its stage one response the landlord explained that there was not enough evidence to warrant the provision of CCTV. This was a reasonable and proportionate response based on the evidence at the time and was a decision it was entitled to make in accordance with its CCTV policy. The landlord encouraged the resident to complete diary sheets demonstrating a commitment to monitor the case.
16. The landlord’s final complaint response in January 2023 upheld the original decision and further explained that isolated incidents did not meet the criteria for CCTV. The landlord informed the resident that she could install her own CCTV with the relevant permission, this was an appropriate recommendation by the landlord, however, this advice could have been given at stage one.
17. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for CCTV was fair and proportionate. It considered the resident’s request and provided reasonable justification in line with its policies and procedures. While it is recognised that these events have had a detrimental impact upon the resident and she continues to report feeling unsafe in her home, the landlord demonstrated good practice in its handling of the resident‘s reports of ASB and followed its policy. It appropriately worked in partnership with the police and offered support referrals to the resident. Furthermore, it provided alternative methods of evidence gathering.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for installation of CCTV.

Recommendation

19. It is recommended that the landlord arranges to meet with the resident to discuss any ongoing ASB concerns and to further explore any additional support that may be available.