Southern Housing (202229345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229345

Southern Housing

26 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of communal CCTV and window cleaning at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour was obstructing access to clean the windows.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns that a good neighbourhood agreement had not been implemented.
4. Handling of the resident’s request for the neighbours CCTV to be removed.
5. Handling of installing a 6ft fence to separate the resident’s garden.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in May 2011. The property is a 3-bedroom flat in a house that has been converted into 2 flats. For the purpose of this report the neighbour will be referred to as neighbour A. The landlord has no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In May 2022 the resident raised a complaint. She was dissatisfied with her landlord’s response to her reports that neighbour A was refusing access for her window cleaner to clean her windows. She was dissatisfied with the way in which her landlord had handled her reports of ASB about neighbour A. She said it had failed to implement a good neighbour agreement as it said it would.
She considered the landlord had taken too long to address the removal of neighbour A’s CCTV. She had previously requested that the garden was split but this was refused. She had recently had a visit from the landlord’s contractor who said they were looking into changing the layout. She wanted her tenancy agreement to be changed to include access to the garden.
The landlord responded. It said it had visited neighbour A in respect of the window cleaning and it provided alternative options to resolve. It was waiting for neighbour A to return the permission for CCTV request. It would then assess and update by 30 June. It apologised for failing to impellent a good neighbour agreement as it said it would. It acknowledged that it had failed by not updating the resident. It said it was unable to separate the gardens in 2020 due to budget. It now agreed that the garden should be separated.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for the time it had taken to respond to the resident regarding the good neighbour agreement. It said this amount factored in the time the resident had taken to raise the matter.
The resident requested a panel review. She said the landlord had not followed its policy in respect of the CCTV. She did not accept the options offered to resolve the window cleaning issues. She considered the landlord had been bias to neighbour A in agreeing to split the garden now. She had not been involved in agreeing how the garden should be split. The landlord had not confirmed whether the garden was communal or not.
The landlord responded it said it was happy to consider a good neighbour agreement again. It was taking action to get the CCTV removed and would keep the resident updated. It would be implementing quarterly window cleaning. It would be erecting a 6-foot fence for the division of the garden by 16 December. It apologised for the delay in installing the fence. It agreed that it could install CCTV in the communal areas as she had suggested. It would complete this by 30 November. It offered £250 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £15 failure to follow process.
2. £10 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
3. £25 the delay in getting the fence panels erected.
4. £200 for the trouble and inconvenience caused.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the CCTV issue had still not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction.

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of communal CCTV and window cleaning at the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident notified this service that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the implementation of window cleaning and a communal CCTV installation.
The installation of communal CCTV and window cleaning were part of the agreed outcomes made by the resident and the landlord as set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response. These were therefore actioned after the internal complaint process had been exhausted.
While the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of these matters are acknowledged. This element of her complaint has not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The resident may wish to now raise a complaint directly with the landlord about its handling of communal CCTV installation and window cleaning at the property.
While the landlord’s response to the above matters have not been considered as part of this investigation, all other elements of the complaint have been considered.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour was obstructing access to clean the windows.

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint because she had been informed by the landlord that it could not force neighbour A to provide access to clean the windows. The resident was unhappy that the landlord would not write to neighbour A to enforce access. The resident said that she was aware that there had been an incident between neighbour A and her window cleaner in July 2021. She had however been given permission by the landlord to clean her windows on several occasions.
The landlord explained within its stage 1 response that it had visited neighbour A who had advised that the window cleaners had damaged her plants and were very rude when she confronted them. When the landlord visited the resident regarding the matter it had suggested the resident clean her windows from the inside. This option was rejected by the resident.
The landlord then went further within its stage 1 response. It presented more options. This was appropriate. It showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It offered to purchase a magnetic window cleaner so that she could clean both sides of her window. It said it could fit a self-cleaning film so no cleaning would be required. Alternatively, it said it could arrange for one of its own contractors to attend to clean all the windows in the block. It would however include a charge for this.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and considered appropriate solutions. It is acknowledged that the resident disagreed with neighbour A’s version of events. However, a landlord has to remain impartial where there are differing versions of events. The landlord considered ways in which it could intervene, and matters could be resolved. It offered options to the resident which were reasonable. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour was obstructing access to clean the windows.

Response to the resident’s concerns that a good neighbour agreement had not been implemented.

This Service has not seen any records showing when the landlord agreed to put in place a good neighbour agreement. The resident states that it relates to a case in 2020 which was left incomplete. The landlord agreed with this within its complaint response. It acknowledged that it had not done what it said it would and apologised. It said that it had spoken to the relevant teams and asked them to ensure that they diarise follow up actions in future. It said that it understood that there had been no further altercations since.
The landlord reiterated its apology within its stage 2 response. It went further and explained that the case regarding the alleged assault in 2020 had been closed due to insufficient evidence. This is supported by the evidence provided to this Service. It also said that there was a challenge to implement the good neighbour agreement at the time, but it failed to communicate this to the resident. It said that given that there were still challenges between the resident and neighbour A it was happy to consider a good neighbour agreement again. It said that it would contact her in respect of this.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and considered how it could put matters right moving forwards. This was appropriate. Its compensation policy states that it can consider compensation payments in recognition of distress and inconvenience. Its failure to update the resident about the good neighbour agreement would have caused some distress. The resident then had the inconvenience of raising a formal complaint. The landlord awarded £50 in its stage 1 response. It then offered a further £215 in its stage 2 response. £15 for failure to follow its process and £200 trouble and inconvenience caused.
The compensation award of £265 was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from its failing by ensuring that follow ups were now diarised by the team. It also sought to remedy the matter by offering the option to implement a good neighbour agreement moving forwards.

Handling of the resident’s request for the neighbours CCTV to be removed.

The landlord’s CCTV policy outlines its approach to CCTV and the action a resident must take before installing CCTV. Failure to meet the requirements within the policy may result in the landlord asking the resident to remove it. If a resident fails to remove it will take action to remove it.
This service acknowledges the resident was frustrated that neighbour A had installed CCTV without requesting permission. She also considered that the CCTV installation was in breach of the landlord’s policy. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the CCTV was a breach but how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The records show that the resident first requested that the CCTV be removed on 21 March 2022. The resident said she was unable to use her garden as she was being filmed continuously. She sent in additional information about the CCTV on 28 March 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 30 March 2022. It said it had sent a letter to neighbour A asking to arrange a home visit so that it could inspect the CCTV. It explained next steps should the installation not meet its policy requirements. It also explained its legal position should neighbour A refuse. Its response was timely and appropriate in the circumstances. Its communication was clear and managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident chased up the landlord on 19 April 2022 as she had not heard anything. She was told that the landlord was in the process of arranging a visit, but it could not provide a specific date. The landlord should have ensured that it had kept the resident updated as several weeks had passed. Its lack of communication led the resident to raise a stage 1 complaint on 5 May 2022.
When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she said that she had reported the neighbours CCTV 7 weeks previously, but the landlord had failed to respond. The evidence provided shows that the landlord had kept the resident informed initially. However, its communication had fallen short as it failed to keep the resident updated of when it would be visiting to assess. If there were delays it should have ensured that these were communicated to the resident. The landlord failed to assess its response times within its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to assess its handling of the matter at an earlier stage which was a failing.
The landlord had however visited neighbour A shortly after the stage 1 complaint was raised. It explained to the resident that the camera was operating as a motion detect rather than continuous recording. It said that it was waiting for neighbour A to complete the permission request form. It would then be in a position to assess the application and decide if the cameras could remain. It said it would update the resident by 30 June 2022. This response set out the action it was taking and managed the resident’s expectations.
There is no evidence however to show that the landlord provided any further update in respect of the CCTV as it said it would. The resident raised the issue about the CCTV again on 3 August 2022. The landlord responded on 16 August to advise that it had sent a letter to neighbour A asking her to remove the CCTV. It said it would check the following week to see if it had been removed.
The evidence does not show any further correspondence in relation to the CCTV until the landlord issued its stage 2 response in November 2022. The landlord’s response again failed to investigate its handling of the matter. It failed to evidence that it had done it all it could to resolve the matter in a reasonable time frame. The evidence did not show that it had kept the resident informed. The stage 2 response was 8 months after the resident first raised the issue. The issue was still unresolved, and the resident had not been updated since August 2022. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident said that she was unable to use the garden as she was uncomfortable about being recorded. The landlord sought to find a resolution within its stage 2 response. It confirmed it was taking steps to remove the CCTV and it assigned an officer to be a point of contact and provide regular updates moving forwards. This was appropriate action to take moving forwards.
In summary the landlord’s communication was poor. The resident had to spend time and effort having to chase the landlord for updates. The matter had been continuing for over 8 months, but the landlord has failed to show that it had done all it could. The resident was distressed as she felt that she was unable to use her garden. She had also had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. This Service considers that the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
This Service asked for an update to establish whether the issue had now been resolved. The evidence provided showed that the matter was passed to its legal team after the complaint process. The landlord has recently advised this Service that its position has now changed, and that the CCTV installation now met its renewed CCTV policy. It is unclear whether the landlord has communicated its position to the resident. An order has therefore been made in respect of this below.

Handling of installing a 6ft fence to separate the resident’s garden.

Part of the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaint was that the landlord had not responded to her request for clarity on which part of the gardens were communal. It is unclear how the landlord responded as it did not provide any details within its complaint response. The evidence provided shows that it had agreed to separate the gardens and define the areas within the tenancy agreement.
The correspondence provided shows that in July 2022 prior to the stage 2 being issued. It had been agreed that a 6ft fence would be installed to separate the gardens. It also agreed that the tenancy agreement would be amended to confirm the agreed sole use and shared use areas.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022. She said that the garden had been separated but the panels were not all 6ft as agreed. The landlord included this issue within its stage 2 response dated 4 November 2022. It did not explain however what had gone wrong within its response, but it did apologise that it had not installed the fence panels when it should have. It offered £25 compensation for its delays.
There is no evidence to show that it kept the resident updated in respect of any delays or whether it responded when she raised her concerns that the works were not completed as agreed. This is a failure in its record keeping. This Service is unable to fully assess its handling of the matter because of the lack of clear records.
The landlord’s delays to rectify the fence to the agreed height were for a period of 3 months at the point of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed and offered compensation which was appropriate. The landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response. Its stage 2 offers a review hearing. It states it will arrange set dates and times to review. Following the review, it states it will respond with its decision within 10 working days.
The landlord’s policy at the time is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the time frames to respond. These being 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for a stage 2. It is acknowledged however that since this complaint the landlord has merged, and its combined complaint policy complies with the code.
In this case, the landlord took 25 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was not in accordance with the Code and its own timescales which was a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did seek to find resolutions to the matters raised. This showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
Its stage 1 response did not however show a thorough investigation into its own handling of all of the matters raised. By failing to investigate where it had gone wrong it failed to offer reassurance that the failings would not happen again.
Furthermore, the code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s concerns about what areas of the garden were communal. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The resident submitted her review panel request form on 19 June 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 4 November 2022. This was 98 working days after the resident’s initial request. It is acknowledged that there were some delays in arranging a review hearing and the landlord informed the resident of this. The timeframe however was unreasonable and protracted the complaints process substantially. The landlord offered £10 compensation in respect of its delays. This amount however is disproportionately low given the duration of the delay period.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the failings within its stage 1 response right. The landlord explained its position in respect of its handling of the ASB case and implementing the good neighbour agreement. It considered compensation in respect of its failings which was appropriate. It also provided a learning outcome to put in place a process to flag follow up actions on its systems. This went further to offer reassurance that the failing would not happen again.
The landlord did not however show that it had investigated its own handling of the removal of the CCTV or its delays in erecting the 6ft fence within its stage 2 response. This did not evidence a thorough investigation which was a further failing.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint response failed to put things right. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of communal CCTV and window cleaning at the property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour was obstructing access to clean the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that a good neighbourhood agreement had not been implemented.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the neighbours CCTV to be removed.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to in the landlord’s handling of installing a 6ft fence to separate the resident’s garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £450. £10 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for the neighbours CCTV to be removed.
  2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position in respect of removing neighbour A’s CCTV. The letter should include details of any action it will be taking and timescales where appropriate. A copy of the letter should be shared with this Service also within 4 weeks.

Recommendation.

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £290 as offered in its complaint responses if it has not done so already.