Clarion Housing Association Limited (202205171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205171

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 August 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

1. The complaint is about:

1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the neighbours’ camera doorbells resulted in a loss of privacy for himself and his family, and;
2. complaint handling and the amount of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared owner with the landlord since September 2020. The resident resides in a 3 bedroomed house with his spouse and 2 children.
3. The resident complained to the landlord that two neighbours had camera doorbells which were intrusive and resulted in a loss of privacy for himself and his family.
4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that under its policy, residents were allowed to install a camera doorbell, signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office to seek advice on the alleged privacy issues, apologised for the delays in dealing with his reports, and offered £200 compensation for the delays in responding and investigating his concerns.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and dissatisfied with the offer of compensation for the delays and requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
6. In its final stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed its policy on camera doorbells and offered a further £100 for communication delays because it responded to his stage 2 complaint late. Taking the total amount of compensation offered to £300.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with this compensation offer and escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. The landlord carried out a further review after the complaint was escalated to the Ombudsman and offered an additional £200 for a misunderstanding and delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. This brought the total amount of compensation offered to £500.
9. The resident does not believe the landlord’s compensation offers reflect the extent of the delays and lack of communication he experienced. To resolve the issue the resident would like additional compensation for the delays, lack of communication, and for the stress the family experienced.

Assessment & Findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Information Commissioner is better placed to assess and determine the privacy issues described in this case. However, the Housing Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed its policy and procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the neighbours’ camera doorbells resulted in a loss of privacy for himself and his family.

11. The landlord’s CCTV policy permits residents to install CCTV/Ring Doorbells and similar technologies for domestic security purposes. The landlord’s policy also states “where we receive complaints about inappropriate use of CCTV we will investigate this”.
12. The resident first reported his privacy concern to the landlord in October 2021. The records indicate the resident spoke to the landlord’s contact centre who advised him that under the landlord’s policy, camera doorbells were permitted so they would not be taking any further action.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again in December 2021 to report his concerns about the two neighbours’ camera doorbells. The resident was informed the issue would be dealt with under the landlord’s tenancy breach procedures. The tenancy breach process was the appropriate process in the circumstances. The landlord also informed the resident that an officer would visit him to discuss the complaint in more detail.
14. The landlord visited the resident in February 2022 but has not provided any attendance notes of the meeting between itself and the resident. Ordinarily, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to keep records of a meeting where complaints are discussed, and actions agreed.
15. The resident informed the Ombudsman that during the landlord’s visit the landlord agreed to send a letter to the two households with the camera doorbells and agreed to liaise with the landlord’s internal legal team about the issues.
16. The documents provided indicate that after the meeting, the resident had to telephone the landlord numerous times and send several emails requesting an update on when the landlord intended to carry out the actions it said it would.
17. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it liaised with its internal legal team and did not send the letters to the neighbours as promised until ten months later. This was an unreasonable timeframe.
18. In April 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he had come to an agreement with one of the neighbours about the positioning of their camera doorbell. The resident was then satisfied that the camera did not record his property and informed the landlord’s contact centre that the complaint about that particular household was withdrawn.
19. In respect of the second neighbour’s doorbell, the resident sent many emails and communications to the landlord requesting updates as the situation with the second neighbour’s camera doorbell was still unresolved.
20. The landlord’s customer service standards state “We will reply to your emails and online enquiries to our central contact centre within 5 working days on average”. The documents provided indicate the resident’s on-line chats and messages with the landlord were passed to the relevant team, but thereafter the resident did not receive a call back and his direct emails to the landlord’s tenancy breach team were unanswered. The landlord failed to abide by its own stated standards which represented a failure in service.
21. A few days before the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response it sent a strongly worded letter to both neighbours in the original complaint even though the resident had withdrawn his complaint about one of the neighbours. This led to a confrontation between the resident and that neighbour whereby the neighbour angrily accused the resident of reopening the complaint unnecessarily.
22. The resident advised the Ombudsman that he had to spend time and trouble explaining the landlord had made an error. The landlord’s actions put the resident in an awkward position at a time when the resident and his neighbour were working to rebuild good neighbourly relations after the initial complaint. The resident contacted the landlord and told it the situation was stressful and upsetting.
23. The level of service provided to the resident after the landlord’s first visit in February 2022 was unsatisfactory. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and information causing frustration and annoyance to the resident. At times the landlord simply did not respond to the resident’s requests for a callback which caused unreasonable delays in getting the matter resolved and resulted in the resident feeling ignored and unsupported.
24. The landlord did not deliver on the actions it said it would such as liaising with its internal legal team and only wrote to the households concerned 10 months after it said it would. The landlord overlooked that the resident had informed its contact centre that he wanted to withdraw one of the complaints and it wrote to that household placing the resident in a difficult and stressful position. This represented a clear failure in its service delivery and damaged the trust and confidence the resident had in the landlord.
25. However, when it did respond, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office, wrote to the neighbouring household where the complaint was still outstanding, apologised, and offered compensation that this service considers to be appropriate. This service finds the landlord offered reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the compensation offered.

26. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response late. The documents provided show the landlord experienced a cyber-attack in June 2022 which had a serious impact on its day-to-day operations. The Ombudsman finds the cyber-attack was unforeseeable and in the circumstances the landlord’s delayed complaint response was understandable.
27. In respect of the level of compensation offered to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states a compensation amount between £50 and £250 can be considered for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident and refers to “The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved”.
28. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process was £300. However, the stage 2 response did not acknowledge the impact of its mistake on the resident when it sent the strongly worded letter to the household where the complaint had been withdrawn.
29. The date the resident reported the issue with the neighbour being incorrectly contacted crossed over with the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. This service considers that due to the crossover, the landlord’s action to reconsider its position after the complaint process was completed, on this occasion was appropriate. When the resident informed the landlord that it had not considered its mistake in sending out the letter. The landlord’s response was to carry out an internal review of the case.
30. The result of the internal review was the landlord apologised for the mistake and sought to put things right by offering the resident a further £200 in compensation for the upset and distress caused. Taking the total amount of compensation offered to the resident to £500.
31. The Ombudsman considers the total amount of compensation offered by the landlord at stages 1 and 2 and the additional compensation offered to the resident as a result of its internal review, was proportionate to its failings and aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
32. Ordinarily where actions come after the stage 2 final complaint response, it would not be considered appropriate for a determination of reasonable redress as it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently. However, as the landlord responded to a concern raised by the resident in this case that crossed over with its stage 2 response and subsequently apologised, and increased its compensation offer in a timely manner, this service finds the landlord offered reasonable redress which resolves the complaint handling and compensation offered satisfactorily.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the neighbours’ camera doorbells resulted in a loss of privacy for himself and his family.
34. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of complaint handling and the compensation offered.

Recommendation

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should reoffer the resident compensation of £500 if it has not already been paid.