Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Brent Council (202007978)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007978

Brent Council

12 February 2021


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.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure flexible tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2015.
  2. The landlord’s Tenancy Terms and Conditions state no obligation for the landlord to install CCTV for a tenant. The Terms and Conditions state written permission from the landlord must be obtained if a tenant wishes to make property alterations, which will not be refused without ‘good reason.’
  3. The landlord’s Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) Policy advises CCTV can be used to obtain covert evidence of ASB. Where this is applicable, the landlord follows a formal process to seek approval from the Magistrates’ Court. Deployable CCTV is also used to deter and monitor areas of crime and antisocial behaviour.
  4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond within 20 working days and at stage two aims to respond within 30 working days.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord advises that due to poor record keeping, it cannot confirm occasions in 2019 when the resident requested CCTV. This Service notes that during periods of the complaint, the resident had multiple issues being dealt with by the landlord, for which there was a high volume of calls and emails at times.
  2. On 18 September 2019 the landlord issued a stage one response to a separate complaint referred by the Ombudsman.
  3. On 24 October 2019 the resident reported to this Service that police had advised him to put up CCTV after neighbours’ claims of anti-social behaviour against him. The resident reported the landlord would not let him do this and he wanted the landlord to put CCTV up as police advised.
  4. On 25 October 2019 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord about the prior complaint and the additional CCTV request. Following this, the landlord confirmed it had already responded to the separate complaint, which excluded the CCTV request.
  5. On 19 December 2019 the landlord issued its final response to the prior  complaint. It addressed the resident’s subsequent CCTV request and confirmed he would be written to about it. On 28 January 2020 the landlord then wrote to the resident to confirm it was obtaining quotes for CCTV. The landlord advised it would review the quotes against budget priorities and update the resident about the outcome.
  6. On 11 March 2019 the landlord raised a stage one complaint, following the resident’s demand to immediately complete CCTV works, as the landlord had agreed to fit CCTV at the Ombudsman’s ‘instruction.’
  7. On 9 April 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s CCTV complaint. The landlord advised the resident it was still currently getting quotes for works including CCTV installation.
  8. On 3 June 2020 the resident complained again, and on 1 July 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the CCTV complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident had not been given a final decision about the request to install CCTV, and confirmed it would write to him within two weeks with a final decision.
  9. On 8 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It informed him that the request for the landlord to install CCTV had not been approved, as it did not have a programme to install CCTV at its properties. The landlord explained it deployed mobile CCTV cameras where required, but these were used to temporarily target areas with high levels of crime or activity. However, the landlord gave approval to the resident to install CCTV himself.
  10. Following the landlord’s decision, the resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not adhered to instructions from this Service and the police in October 2019 and January 2020, to install CCTV within 28 days. The resident reported CCTV was required for safety and security reasons and he had lost earnings as a result of the landlord’s actions.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by its Scheme. This includes that it generally only investigates and makes orders in relation to issues which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman encourages residents to use their landlord’s complaints procedure for each issue and if they exhaust this they can ask this Service to investigate. If a resident has difficulty progressing a specific complaint, they can contact the Ombudsman and the Service can consider if it needs to intervene. When intervening, the Ombudsman generally asks a landlord to respond to the issue or complaint, and does not generally instruct a landlord on action to take in regard to a specific issue.
  2. The Ombudsman understands 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. The Ombudsman does seek to ensure however that all requests are given appropriate consideration and an explanation provided to residents about any decision made.
  3. The landlord’s tenancy conditions do 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, which the landlord is obliged not to refuse without ‘good reason.’ The landlord’s ASB Policy advises it can obtain court orders to conduct covert CCTV investigation and can deploy CCTV to areas of crime and ASB, which have not been stated considerations in this case. As there is no specific obligation on the landlord to install CCTV for tenants, the landlord was not obliged to comply with the resident’s request.
  4. There is also no evidence of a specific instruction from police or this Service for the landlord to install CCTV within a given timeframe, as the resident contends. In addition, no evidence is supplied of any adverse affect such as loss of earnings.
  5. Nevertheless, the landlord considered the resident’s request for it to install the CCTV, and obtained quotes. The landlord then confirmed approval for it to install the CCTV was unsuccessful and explained why; and confirmed the resident could install CCTV himself. This demonstrates the landlord sought to be resolution focused and explored if it could accommodate the resident’s request, and then communicated decisions which were in accordance with its obligations and reasonable.
  6. The landlord advises it cannot confirm occasions when CCTV requests were made. The Ombudsman would have expected to see records of such requests to record the specific nature of the resident’s queries and the landlord’s response to them. However, it is not disputed that after the resident reported he spoke to the landlord, he was dissatisfied with a verbally relayed decision not to install CCTV; which was reasonable since it is not a service it typically provides to tenants or is obliged to.
  7. There was then delay between October 2019 to December 2019, from when the Ombudsman referred the issue and the landlord confirmed it would write to the resident about the CCTV request. The overall time between October 2019 and July 2020 for the landlord to reach a decision was lengthy, which may have raised the resident’s expectations. It may have been helpful for the landlord to write to the resident sooner than it did in December 2019. After the resident formally complained in March 2020, it may also have been helpful for the landlord to include information about the timeframe the resident might expect to receive its decision.
  8. However, within this period, the March 2020 pandemic lockdown occurred and the landlord needed to obtain quotes and give them due consideration. The landlord followed up its December 2019 commitment to the resident in a timely way, when it confirmed in January 2020 that it was obtaining quotes. The landlord raised and responded to complaints within appropriate timeframes at both stages of its procedure, and then followed up its July 2020 final response commitment in a timely way to provide its decision about CCTV within a week.
  9. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s request to install CCTV was reasonable, as while the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision not to install CCTV, it is not required to.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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.

Reasons

  1. There is no evidence the landlord is obligated to install CCTV for its tenants and the landlord acted reasonably by initially taking steps to consider the resident’s request.
  2. There is no evidence to support the resident’s position that the landlord was instructed by the police or this Service to install CCTV.
  3. The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns is proportionate to any issues identified. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision, it is not required to do so, and has provided approval for him to install CCTV himself if he wishes to do so.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to:
    1. ensure better record keeping in regards to issues raised. The Ombudsman notes that a similar recommendation has been made to the landlord in case reference 201905225.
    2. ensure individual issues referred by this Service are dealt with in a timely way.