Housing Solutions (202119634)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119634

Housing Solutions

28 February 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from neighbours, including recording and filming, blocking his disabled bay, property damage and garden issues.

Background and summary of events

The residents (husband and wife) occupied their property, a semi- detached three-bedroom house, together with their 8-year-old daughter under a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy which began on 21 June 2021. However, the evidence indicated that the resident had moved into property in March 2020. The residents were housed after a period of temporary accommodation. Their daughter had had a diagnosis of cancer which affected her mobility. As a result, the local authority had provided a disabled parking space that was in front of the residents’ and the neighbour’s property. The parking belonged to the local authority.
The neighbouring household consisted of a husband and wife and their adult son. Their daughter and her children were visitors. For the benefit of brevity and clarity, the neighbour will be referred to collectively as N unless it is relevant to distinguish the individual. The report will refer to the residents as the resident, again unless it is relevant to distinguish them individually.

Policy and legal framework

The term of the resident’s tenancy agreement provided as follows:
1. Not to cause nuisance or annoyance to other persons to any other tenant. Examples included: verbal or physical abuse; unreasonable noise such as playing loud music, criminal damage to a neighbour’s property. The resident was responsible for the behaviour of every person living in or visiting the premises including on surrounding land. The resident was also prohibited from committing any form of harassment. In particular any form of noise should be kept to a minimum between the hours of 11pm and 7am and at a reasonable level at all other times.
2. Not to block local roadways or other vehicular access.
3. Not to park any vehicle motorcycle, caravan, boat or trailer where it was likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance.
While the Ombudsman has not had sight of N’s tenancy agreement, it is reasonable to assume that the terms and conditions are the same or very similar, as social landlords, as a matter of good practice, utilise standardised tenancy agreements.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out as follows:
1. ASB officers were responsible for the day-to-day management and progression of serious and medium level ASB cases and incident investigations, while “Resident Liaison Officers” were responsible for the day-to-day management of low level ASB cases and incidents as well as reports of nuisance, neighbour disputes, and other low level disruptive activity.
2. ASB included verbal abuse (intentional or unintentional), harassment, actual violence, drug use, inconsiderate parking of vehicles, damage to property, including graffiti and vandalism.
3. The landlord would “seek to adopt a problem-solving approach to (its) case management of incident reports and work towards resolution wherever possible through investigation and evidence gathering. In most cases it would seek to resolve incidents using early intervention, negotiation, and mediation. Where behaviour remains unchanged or entrenched, the investigating officer could work with partner agencies to agree alternative approaches including the use of tools and powers.
4. A case would be closed when it has been successfully resolved by mutual agreement, there was insufficient evidence available to support the allegations, despite its investigation. Clarity was essential.
5. In all “other cases”, residents would receive an acknowledgement of their report and an indication of the next steps in investigating the incident within five working days.
6. Its approach to vulnerability was set out in detail in its vulnerable customers policy. The policy does not appear to be published on the landlord’s website.
It facilitated the provision grant-funded major adaptations by the local authority and directly-funded minor adaptations. There was no reference to parking and driveways in its adaptation policy.
Under GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018) (the “Act”) personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. Images of people are personal data. There are more stringent requirements when storing, rather than merely capturing, personal data.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights. Its website explains that if an individual sets up a CCTV system so it captures only images within the boundary of their private domestic property (including the garden), it does not breach the Act. However, if the system captures images of people outside the boundary of the property, for example, a shared space, then the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 will apply. In this case the individual needs to ensure their use of CCTV complies with these laws. If an individual stores personal data, there are further provisions regarding being registered as a data controller. This applies to domestic premises.
The ICO website Domestic CCTV systems | ICO gives advice about the use of domestic CCTV including:
1. People should try to point their CCTV cameras away from their neighbours’ homes and gardens, shared spaces or public streets. But this was not always possible and it was not illegal to do so.
2. When people capture images and audio recordings outside of their property boundary, they should consider how intrusive this activity is. They should consider whether they can point their cameras elsewhere or, if possible apply filters or privacy blocks. In these circumstances, data protection law also requires them to follow certain rules–although these were difficult to enforce.
The Act requires individuals who capture images (of people) or audio recordings from outside their property boundary using a fixed camera, such as a CCTV, to take certain steps including alerting people that the individual is using recording equipment. The CCTV user should also regularly or automatically delete footage.
This is a very brief, approximate and non-exhaustive summary of a very complex area of law.
The landlord’s complaints procedure consisted of three stages. The landlord would respond within 10 working days unless it was complex in which case it would aim to respond within 15 working days, or, in exceptional circumstances, within a timeframe agreed with the resident. The resident could, within 21 days of the stage 1 letter, request to escalate the complaint and would need to give their reasons. The landlord would respond with its stage two response within20workingdays. The resident could request escalation to stage three, with the points that were disputed or remained unresolved. The complaint would be reviewed by a panel including a member of the board member and specific teams.

Chronology

The evidence indicated that the resident began making reports about his neighbour’s conduct not long after the resident moved in. In order to proportionate, this investigation has focussed on the period from September 2020 to the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
Throughout the period of complaint from September 2020, the resident made a number of reports summarised as follows:
1. N filming with CCTV, his phone and a secret camera, recording conversations, stalking, watching the resident’s movements, including in September 2020, on 2 October 2020, 11 November 2020, 16 January 2021, (a further post on social media of his car in the disabled bay) 18 March 2021, 24 April 2021 and 4 November 2021.
2. N was either blocking or encouraging others to block the resident’s disabled parking space and/or or parking on yellow lines, including in October and November 2020, 3 January 2021, 28 February 2021, 24 April 2021, 28 August 2021, 3 September 2021 and, after yellow lines were painted next to the space, on 5 and 8 September 2021, and 2 October 2021. The resident provided photographs.
3. N walking past house/peeping, staring, giving “dirty looks” including on 25 January 2021, 16 January 2021, 12 September 2021, and in November 2021
4. Noise reports during the day, consisting of music and banging deemed to be retaliatory, being overheard, and being watched.
5. Using abusive language, including on 13 June 2021, the resident heard swearing in N’s back garden.
6. The resident also submitted diary sheets during most of the complaint period.
7. The resident stated that it did not understand why the HO could not visit because of the pandemic, yet repairs could be carried out. The landlord had investigated whether the resident had cameras but not it had not investigated N.
8. There was no CCTV camera sign outside N’s property.
9. Throughout the period, the resident explained the impact of feeling he was being filmed, watched and voice recorded. His wife and daughter were distressed.
In the same period, October 2020 to June 2021, a housing officer (HO) of the landlord responded to the resident as follows: (The ASB policy indicated that the HO was a member of the landlord’s ASB team and dealt with the lower level reports):
1. The Police would not be investigating his reports further as the case has been classed as ASB and the resident had been referred to mediation.
2. The landlord stated that it was unable to take any action about the parking.
3. It was not able to visit due to the pandemic to check how many CCTV cameras N had as the proximity of staff and customers presented an increased level of risk. The landlord would not be able to visit tenants until the risk level of the pandemic was reduced to ‘Level Two’.
4. The landlord was not able to tell its residents what to do in their own garden.
5. On 17 February 2021, the HO sought guidance from the ASB team.
6. On 18 March 2021, the HO explained that there has not been an on going investigation. The landlord would not be evicting N.
7. The landlord wrote on 24 March 2021 that the HO had visited N the day before to inspect a tree in N’s garden. It was agreed that the landlord would reduce the tree by at least 30% within six to eight weeks. He had paid a “surprise” visit in order to monitor N’s CCTV feed and the number of cameras. There were three CCTV facing the entrances.
8. It stated that “dirty looks” were subjective and difficult to prove.
9. On 3 June 2021, according to its systems records, the landlord visited N’s property and identified three cameras. N requested permission to install a six-foot fence in the rear garden to help alleviate the situation. It discussed mediation but this had already been attempted and failed as N did not engage.
10. The landlord confirmed on 23 June 2021 that there was no evidence of any hidden cameras. There were three CCTV cameras at the property. A CCTV camera would be unable to record through foil or black paper as it had understood the resident had stated. The footage regarding the garden has been verified by the Police as having been taken on N’s son’s phone and the Police advised N’s son not to do this again.
11. In respect of the parking, it had noted that the resident had contacted the local authority regarding the misuse of the disabled space and the supermarket regarding their deliveries. As they are only there for a short space or time, this was not considered to be an issue. The supermarket agreed that they would move their vehicle, if they were asked to do so and he needed to leave in the event of an emergency.
Also, during the same period, third parties agencies wrote as follows:
1. On 16 November 2020, the local authority advised the resident that the vehicle shown in the photograph was obstructing the highway and should be reported to the Police. The Police considered that one photograph did not show an obstruction, as there was enough space for the car to safely leave the bay. A second photo did show obstruction. It also suggested there was some loading and unloading from the van taking place. In situations like this, should the Police attend, it would most likely request the driver to move the van before considering enforcement, unless the van was left unattended for a period of time.
2. The Police wrote to the resident on 16 November 2020 stating they had attended and viewed N’s CCTV cameras and what they filmed and found no reason for concern over their position. It witnessed an altercation between the resident and N using “questionably inappropriate language” and both families took part in the altercation. N had posted a photograph of the resident’s daughter’s trampoline in the resident’s garden and the post was removed from social media. Both households agreed to be referred for mediation. The Police did not have power to search N’s house for CCTV. Its visit did not highlight anything that it considered to be criminal regarding their use of CCTV. It would investigate if there was clear evidence of wrong doing.
3. On 11 May 2021, a local authority councillor passed on a suggestion to the landlord that a driveway be built into the resident’s front garden. The next day, the landlord stated that, subject to the local authority, it could give permission for a parking space, but would be unable to finance the works. It was noted that there were grants available to cover the cost.
On 25 June 2021, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s perceived lack of action in relation to the resident’s report of N blocking the disabled car park space, secret filming and the impact on his family.
The landlord wrote with its stage one response on 14 July 2021, summarising that the resident’s complaint was in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord’s investigation into CCTV, and parking issues and stated as follows:
1. It had had regular contact between the parties, undertaken visits including with the Police, and liaised with the Police who had also attended N’s property. The Police had determined that photos taken from the window were from a mobile not CCTV. There had been a follow up visit to advise the neighbour to cease taking pictures of the resident’s garden. N’s CCTV had been reviewed and areas covered were addressed with N. The landlord had contacted the supermarket regarding the vans blocking the disabled space. There was no evidence that N had any voice recordings.
2. It explained that the landlord was not able to proceed with any action based on allegations without evidence. The ASB process could be lengthy in order to gather the information and it would explore the appropriate avenues and remedy measures before proceeding with any legal action. It would have to exhaust all avenues to evidence the appropriate action taken prior to any legal action in order to satisfy the courts.
3. Proportionate action was taken depending on the evidence including warning letters, mediation referrals if appropriate, and home visits to address concerns raised.
4. Legal action was always the last option, the social landlord strived for “tenancy sustainment” and assisted as best it could to resolve ASB complaints. It understood how the information the resident had provided with relation made the resident and his family feel.
5. It had investigated, provided updates and actioned the allegations the resident reported in line with our ASB policy.
The resident was not satisfied with the investigation and reported that N allowed his grandchildren to spray water over the trampoline and were “hiding with camera phones to see if (the resident) reacted for entrapment purposes”. On 19 July 2021, he reported that N had removed the warning sign for CCTV.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord wrote private individuals who install CCTV were not governed by the same legislation as companies who erect CCTV. Therefore, the N was not obliged to display signage.
On 5 August 2021, the resident wrote referring to a visit the day before by the landlord and his local councillor. He agreed to a suggestion of removing the hatch lines and replacing with double yellow lines. He was happy to go ahead with the driveway and the dropped kerb. The resident stated it was a “modification for a disabled person” and asked the landlord to fund it and for the local authority to pay for the dropped kerb.
On 13 August 2021, the resident reported that his daughter’s ball landed in N’s garden and was not returned. He considered this to be theft and criminal damage.
There followed correspondence with the resident asking him to keep his dog out of the garden while the installation of the six foot fence took place. The landlord reassured the resident that it was not paying for the works and explained it would be better as the parties would not be able to look through a chain link fence and would prevent interaction between the households.
On 30 August 2021, the resident reported that he had found his daughter’s ball jammed into the hedge.
The next day, the landlord consulted the Police. The landlord then wrote to the resident to stated that the retention of the ball did not fall under ASB and was not breaching the tenancy agreement but did not “show (N) in a good light”. It added that “you both seem very fair and nice people”, “I do not doubt you” and it understood the resident’s “fears”. It explained that even if the resident were evicted, N’s daughter would not be allocated the property. It explained that it was “extremely difficult” to take tenancy action, i.e. evict someone for ASB as the “judges try everything to sustain a tenancy” and “it is also hard to evidence it”. The “judges would throw the case out of court” should it attempt an application. The advice was from a member of the ASB team who “would know what is serious” but it didn’t “mean that badly/negatively, as all incidents are serious to the complainant”.
On 3 September 2021, the resident’s wife reported that N’s son’s friend parked on the yellow lines and the son“(stuck) his finger up at (her)”. The son’s friend drove off and came back round past slowly staring in the window.
The landlord wrote on 6 September 2021 that the ASB officer had confirmed that while music being playing in the morning could be very annoying, N was not breaching any laws or tenancy clauses. The hours considered to be unacceptable/unsociable were between 11 pm and7 am.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord wrote with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to a lengthy telephone call of 14 September 2021 and that it had “heard the emotion”.
2. It did not uphold the complaint and set out its reasons.
3. It was satisfied that its housing officers had engaged with the resident appropriately and that they had dealt with all the allegations properly and in proportion to the issues raised. The role of the landlord was to remain neutral and impartial and to independently assess the evidence and information provided and then decide on what action it believed was appropriate. It did not take sides or protect people if they have behaved badly. Similarly, it would not take action where it believed that an allegation was unfounded or so minor that it would be disproportionate to act. “Dirty looks” and peeping out of window was not something that it can action as it was subjective. Even if provable, the most it could do would be to speak with N, which the officers had done.
4. The landlord had not financed the installation of the fence in N’s garden.
5. Children pulling faces was not an actionable allegation. The allegations N was directing the children to do so is speculation and impossible to prove. There was no further action it could take.
6. The landlord has asked the N to return the ball and been into the back garden but was unable to locate it. It added that “Whilst not a friendly or helpful, this incident comes after 18 months of your neighbours feeling provoked by the resident. Further action would serve to antagonise the situation”.
7. The landlord had been inside N’s home and looked all around it including upstairs. They were satisfied that there was nothing unlawful or wrong with the cameras that were present and/or the way they were being used.
8. “Everyone has parked on a double yellow line as a means of expediency”. The landlord has spoken to the supermarket asked that their delivery drivers park up the road to delivery to N. It disagreed that N neighbour saying “why have you parked up here and not by my house?” was tantamount to asking the delivery driver to park outside the resident’s house.
9. Both parties have reported verbal abuse. The Police have attended and investigated and on every single occasion apart from one, which one concerned the resident) they had marked the allegation as NFA, meaning No Further Action.
10. N indicated that he does not want to have anything to do with the resident’s household. It concluded that N was not intimidating or persecuting the resident. It considered that the resident was the perpetrator and not the victim.
11. The times of day that the music was played were not anti-social and the allegations of this nature were very few and far between. It was not a habitual, persistent or regular problem and that in all probability it was “just the son turning the volume up to listen to his favourite tunes while his dad was away”. The resident had thought that N’s initial invitation for the resident’s daughter to play in the garden was “strange” and “weird” but N might just have been being friendly.
12. The overwhelming majority of the allegations were based on assumption, interpretation, and perception that N’s actions and intent were malicious. It was unable to agree that N had been persecuting the resident or that his actions were malicious. It agreed that there have been a very small handful of occasions when N may have shouted in anger, but those instances had happened after considerable provocation from the resident. That provocation was the sheer volume of unfounded allegations and causing unnecessary interruptions to the life of N and his family by the Police and the landlord whilst it investigated the allegations. N had had no prior record of any allegations of ASB with any other neighbour.
13. It had offered appropriate help and support in addressing the allegations including setting up formal mediation between the parties. Unfortunately, the mediation broke down and was not successful. It had investigated each allegation and taken action where appropriate to do so.
14. It had requested that the supermarket delivery drivers did not park outside the resident’s house or block in his car.
15. It gave permission to N to put up a fence to separate the gardens to reduce the tension between the households, replacing a transparent chain-link fence and would stop the feeling as if the resident was being constantly watched.
16. It liaised with the Police, carried out joint visits, and consulted with them about the case and their actions/views on what has been happening.
17. It offered alternative accommodation but the resident had declined that offer during their telephone call.
18. It tried to encourage the resident to engage in a positive agreement with the landlord and N to promise not to engage with the resident and not to make any reports about the resident, and vice versa. That was refused.
19. It understood that having a daughter with cancer was a very stressful and an “anxiety inducing burden”. Any person would sympathise with the worry the resident must have to deal with every single day. It asked whether the resident received any talking or other therapy “to help (him) process the feelings that come with caring for a sick child”? It offered to try and access this and help to better cope with the stress from living with his daughter’s cancer and help his day-to-day living and his relationship with his neighbour.
20. There is a pattern here of two households who do not get on. In order to try and resolve the situation, it “needed to change something about how everyone is behaving” and to draw a line and move on from the past. The best suggestion to do that was the proposal that both households try and ignore each other and take a “live and let live” approach, and to “stop reporting on things”.
21. It appreciate that some things “might seem serious”, but in reality much of what they talked about and he had reported were minor and transient infractions, such as parking temporarily on a double yellow line or children pulling faces out of a window.
22. It understood that he felt that N was not being punished. But, as a responsible social landlord, the landlord could not take action against someone when it does not think they were the cause of a particular problem.
The resident sent detailed emails on 19 September 2021 which included his reports, a further report of N’s son watching the resident’s household from his bedroom window with phone in hand.
1. He felt bullied, he had wanted to meet the landlord face to face, his impression was that the landlord did not want to upset N, which he felt was unfair, and it was unfair it referred to the police action taken against him.
2. He objected to the landlord stating that the allegations were “assumption, interpretation and perception”. He was offended by the suggestion his responses were due to his daughter’s illness, as well as by its offer of support.
3. He considered that the parking on double yellow lines/blocking in a disabled bay was serious and not a minor infraction.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage three and explained the process which would include a remote meeting, due to the ongoing pandemic restrictions.
On 1 October 2021, the resident reported that his satellite dish has been damaged. He had heard banging in early hours. The satellite company stated that it had been tampered by neighbours and had been hit with something like wood. There had been a similar occurrence the month before. On 27 September 2021, the Police informed him that N had made accusation they were filming or taking photos of grandchildren. He denied this and no further action was taken.
A third stage panel meeting took place on 15 November 2021. The notes of the meeting included as follows:
1. It noted the resident’s account of his complaint including N filming the resident’s garden, blocking the disabled bay, verbal abuse and N having secret cameras.
2. The notes confirmed the parking spaces were on local authority land and was subject to parking enforcement, dependent on the wardens being in the area at the time.
3. The local authority had received emails from the other party in regard to the disabled bay which were aggressive in nature, demanding it be handed back to them.
4. N had informed the landlord that the cameras were for his personal protection.
5. The resident referred to a photograph of N’s son Facebook page with a video of the resident’s garden, including his daughter’s trampoline. He explained the impact on the family.
6. The resident had called N a paedophile but was provoked: N’s son had called the resident the same, had been shouting and swearing, while father stood “ready to film trying to entrap (him)”. N called the Police who asked N’s son to stop swearing.
7. The landlord had not informed N they would not get the resident’s property even if the resident moved out.
8. The landlord stated that it did not condone filming other people but it was “legally” very difficult to take any action without supporting “documentation” from the Police.”
9. One of the councillors queried the action by the Police, given restrictions on recording people. The Councillor also suggested the landlord wrote to N asking them not to do it, even if there is no legal stance and write to all residents to reinforce that it was communal parking and if there was a disabled bay it should be respected and in accordance with the highway markings in the roads and surrounding areas. The landlord questioned if it was possible for the landlord to write to the Police on behalf of the residents.
10. The Council or offered to speak to the Police on the resident’s behalf. The PCSO would deal with balls in N’s garden. The landlord stated that HO had asked N to return the ball, but they refused. The landlord confirmed that a solid wooden fence had been installed and replaced the chain-link fence paid for by N. The landlord explained it was paying for the works to N’s over grown tree as it posed a risk to neighbouring land and it had a responsibility to mitigate and remove that risk. There had been delays to the work due to the impact of the pandemic and it was still scheduled to be done.
11. The resident was willing to engage in mediation but N was largely not. The landlord stated it could not make the parties engage.
12. The resident reported that they had not been informed that they had an open ASB case against them. They feel they are getting the blame for being “antagonisers” and that N wanted the property for their daughter.
13. The landlord explained it could not inform the resident of what has been done always as it had a duty of confidentially to all residents. But “a lot (had) been done”.
14. The councillor felt that there had been a communication breakdown, whilst understandably the landlord had to respect confidentially, they felt there has been missed opportunities to reassure the resident. For example, the landlord could state it was looking into the resident’s reports and had spoken to N without divulging details.
15. The physical and mental anguish that the resident was going through was very real. The councillor strongly advocated putting a driveway in and understood it was a cost but felt in this instance to make matters better for all involved that it would be the best thing to do. She advised that she was happy “to pick up the cost to have the curb dropped” herself, in an effort to get this resolved if the landlord would contribute funds to try and get the driveway in and help resolve this.
16. The landlord responded that the situation was quite involved as there did not seem to be much police support. A lot of people had CCTV, which can take some privacy away, but it canal so help if there are any issues in the area.
17. The landlord apologised if the conclusion in the previous complaint response had been upsetting, “It was about trying to understand what is going on in any given situation in order to try and reach a resolution that makes all happy and if (it was unable to) get to that, then at least a resolution that (dealt) with the issue one way or another. It was not able to share information that could answer some of the queries raised that was personal and specific to N.
18. It was agreed that the landlord would encourage the local authority to increase the level of enforcement and consider a temporary enforcement camera.
19. The landlord had spoken to the supermarket and others about not parking on the hatch and double yellow lines. It would continue to discuss the installation of a driveway with the local authority. The PCSO would collect any further balls that go into the resident’s garden, as she had offered. It confirmed the landlord did not pay for the fence and that the tree lopping was being funded by the landlord as this was a risk based decision.
20. The panel agreed they were not in favour of including mediation into a contract as people do not attend mediation for a variety of reasons. It could not offer mediation without speaking to N. The housing officers (with one from the ASB team) would attend to reports of ASB in pairs where a visit is required. The ASB case was still open and ongoing. It confirmed that the landlord had not received a housing application from N’s daughter. It was confirmed there have been no complaints from other neighbours. The panel confirmed the Police have investigated a number of things and resulted in no further action. The landlord agreed to write to the Police to chase. It was agreed that harassment and stalking were all Police matters and should be reported direct to the Police.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 November 2021 with its complaint response as follows:
1. It had limited options open in terms of enforcement as parking was on local authority land. It would write to other residents asking them to respect the disabled bay and not to block access at any time. It would discuss the possibility of having the curb dropped and driveway access installed as a disabled adaptation further with the local authority, but it was complicated due to other considerations. It would send its surveyors to assess the impact of this on the overall parking availability and the cost of this against its budgets for disabled facilities grants with the Council which grants it would have to prioritise. It had agreed to investigate the possibility of installing a driveway following a survey and a review of its disabled adaptations funding. In the meantime, it would write to residents asking them not to block access to the disabled bay.
2. The Police had visited N on several occasions. They had confirmed they had inspected upstairs in N’s home, and were taking no further action, which meant there was little the landlord could do. It had also visited together with a police officer and also by themselves and found nothing untoward. The councillor would contact the Police to see if there was anything further that could be done. The landlord would write to all of its residents asking them not to film their neighbours.
3. There was nothing on record that indicated N had any interest in the resident’s home for his daughter.
4. It confirmed that the landlord did not fund the cost of the new fencing. It dealt with the tree on the basis of the level of risk they presented to other properties or cars. If the condition of the tree was due to lack of maintenance by a resident, it recharge that residents. It had not yet undertaken any work. The Police had stated that they were happy to come and collect the balls.
5. It encouraged the resident to continue to report any incidents to both the landlord and the Police and it would continue to investigate and liaise with the Police over what action should be taken.
6. In relation to including mediation into its tenancy agreements, its agreements were in line with those approved by its regulator and are taken following extensive legal advice. To change them would require consideration by its lawyers and the Board. It was not therefore ruling this out, but this was not an undertaking it could give at present.
7. The panel was sympathetic as it understood that issues with neighbours could be very upsetting but the landlord had to be realistic as to what it could and could not do as a landlord.
8. The relevant manager at the landlord apologised at the meeting for how she handled the second stage response. The stage 2 complaint was carried out in accordance with the guidelines but accepted that some of the language may have been “clumsy”, but the objective was to be supportive and not to cause offence.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord wrote to its residents on the resident’s road. Under the Highway Code, residents should not park anywhere that prevented access for Emergency Services or on spaces reserved for specific users such as Blue Badge holders, unless entitled to do so. Parking issues could cause friction between neighbours. Any issues relating to parking should be addressed in a polite and respectful manner. It asked that residents respected each other’s privacy and refrain from doing recording/taking photographs other residents. This could be perceived as trying to antagonise the situation and things could easily escalate. It recommended contacting the Police on 101.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 January 2022 stating that it did not have the power to penalise any members of the road if they ignored its letter. As Highways look after the parking and the Police would look after the filming side of things, it had no authorisation/power to get involved.
The resident reported the issues continuing and submitting diary sheets.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord asked its surveyor for a report on the viability and impact of converting the resident’s garden to a driveway, in order to consider whether to agree to the works. It would also need to consider its budget constraints.
The surveyor reported on 25 January 2022 that it had given advice in August 2021 on the basis that tenant was seeking consent to do this themselves.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 January 2022 with its update.
1. It apologised for the delay in progressing the matter due to staff sickness absence. It had instructed a external firm of surveyors to undertake the site visit and to produce a report on the costs and viability of installing a driveway on which it would decide whether or it was able to install a driveway. It hoped to be able to provide a further update on that within the next two weeks.
2. It had reviewed the diary sheets. Almost all of the incidents related to named individuals looking at the resident, holding a mobile phone up as if they might be filming or taking a photo, or driving past their house slowly. They were a couple of instances of reports of cars being parked on double yellow lines and one instance of a taxi picking up and dropping off near to the front garden. There was one instance of music being played in the middle of the day for a short period of time. The types of behaviour either did not constitute harassment or ASB, or were so minimal in nature that landlord could not take action.
3. No indication of actual detriment other than his own feelings. The landlord could not act on assumption, perception or conjecture. To reiterate, the role of Housing Solutions as your landlord is to remain neutral and impartial and to independently assess the evidence and information provided and then decide on what action it believed was appropriate. Dropping off and picking up a taxi is not harassment or anti-social behaviour, for example.
4. It recognise that the resident felt distressed in their home and invited the resident to reconsider a management transfer to a new property in order to have a fresh start away from N. If it did not receive any information about incidents that were actionable by the landlord it would close the ASB case.
While the events postdate the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman has noted further events.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord sent a detailed analyses of the resident’s reports and why they did not constitute ASB or were not actionable while also stating it wished to find a resolution given it was a difficult situation.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident that a social media screenshot was unacceptable and a clear tenancy breach. This was being acted upon immediately and would contact N that day.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord wrote to N following its visit, a formal warning letter. The contents of the letter is confidential but has been shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 May 2022, that the space in his garden would not comply with standard driveway parking guidelines due to its proximity to the property but it was pursuing further investigation
On 10 May 2022, it wrote stating that it was liaising with the local authority for funding which required an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment and provided information in order to progress this.
In a date in or around June 2022, while there were some initial difficulties, the local authority agreed to the resident leaving a cone in the disabled space.
On 8 July 2022, the Police informed the resident that N’s daughter had received a Out of Court Disposal in the form of a Community Resolution on the 27 June 2022 in relation to a Public Order occurrence on 18 March 2022. According to the resident, it related to N’s daughter verbally abusing the resident’s wife while blocking access. The landlord stated it would explore any appropriate action that may be available. Out of court disposals are utilised for low level situations, and any appropriate action would be in line with this. On 8 August 2022, it decided that the matter had been dealt with appropriately by the Police and there was no further possession action required. The matter has been recorded on file, but on its own did not provide sufficient court evidence for proceedings.
The resident continued to report issues regarding N taking photographs and verbal abuse.
On 13 February 2023, the resident informed this service that while the local authority had agreed to the dropped kerb and the OT to the plans, the landlord would not fund the driveway application modification.

Assessment and findings

The landlord acted reasonably in consulting with the Police, updating the resident and responding to him on a regular and frequent basis. It was reasonable of the landlord to visit N, inspect the camera feed and where it was pointing and to seek to locate any “secret cameras”. There was no reason to doubt the landlord’s assurance that it did so. Its explanation that it was not able to attend while there was a Government risk alert about the pandemic was appropriate as guidance differed for repairs.
There was no evidence of secret cameras and no further steps the landlord could have taken in carrying out a search, therefore the landlord could not be expected to take further steps in that regard. It reasonably said it would review any new evidence. The landlord would not have a right to carry out searches without N’s consent and would have to consider what was intrusive. Even the Police are not entitled to search premises without a warrant or proper authority.
The evidence indicated that the landlord was able to make sufficient enquiries to satisfy itself and to have secured the cooperation of N. The landlord was entitled conclude it was satisfied with its own enquiries as well as those of the Police that the viewing zone of the CCTV remained within N’s property. It also reasonably considered and addressed the resident’s reasoning why he believed the taking of photographs was by CCTV rather than a mobile phone, but it could do no more, given the lack of evidence of secret cameras. The landlord was entitled to rely on the Police’s conclusion that the relevant camera used was that of a mobile phone. In any event, while taking images of the resident’s garden, and in particular the trampoline, was intrusive, there was no evidence that any images of people were captured and that the Act was breached.
However, there was no indication that the landlord properly considered whether N ought to have a sign stating it had CCTV. Its explanation that private individuals who install CCTV were not governed by the same legislation as companies was inappropriate. While this is theoretically correct, in that the provisions differ, it did not take into account of the advice on the ICO website and that individuals are also subject to the provisions of the Act. While the landlord checked the use of CCTV, and that its viewing zone did not extend beyond the user’s property, there was no clear indication of any rules or standards being imposed in relation to the use of CCTV. CCTV, while a useful tool, its use can be a source of ASB complaints. It was not satisfactory that the landlord did not appear to have a policy in relation to CCTV and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
There was no dispute that the parking was under the control of the local authority, and, in certain scenarios, such as obstructing a vehicle, within the remit of the Police. In the circumstances, the landlord was limited in its options of how to address the parking. It was reasonable of the landlord to liaise with the Police in that regard. But there was no evidence that the landlord considered the term in the tenancy agreement stating that a tenant is not to “block local roadways or other vehicular access” and “not to park any vehicle motorcycle, caravan, boat or trailer where it was likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance.” However, while distressing, there was no clear evidence of the blocking being of any meaningful duration, so that even the Police would not have acted.
However, given the vulnerability of the household, the landlord could have considered an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, written to N sooner setting out the limits of what is acceptable behaviour and what may constitute a breach of tenancy and use its authority to impress upon N not to block the disabled parking bay. A letter in broad terms can be written to all residents and or the specific individual without having made a definite finding but which is sufficient to set out the landlord’s expectations of behaviour, an approach adopted in the panel review.
Both possession proceedings on the basis of a breach of tenancy and injunction proceedings are decided on discretionary grounds, where the landlord would have to show that the order it was seeking was reasonable and/or proportionate. It was entitled to consider that actions such as looks, retaining toys, peeping, and motives were difficult to prove. The landlord was entitled to assess the evidence and conclude that even if N had breached its tenancy agreement, the case was not sufficiently robust. The landlord’s policy reasonably made it clear that eviction was a last resort and its approach to ASB was through negotiation, wherever possible. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord not to serve a notice seeking possession either. However, while the landlord was managing a difficult neighbour relationship, the landlord could have considered writing to N in any event sooner, as suggested by the counsellor. Again, a letter setting out the boundaries of behaviour, can be effective even though such a letter would have no legal weight and the resident considered that a letter in broad terms was not successful as regards N.
The Ombudsman is of the view that that it would have been of benefit to have reassured the resident as far as it was able to without breaching confidentiality, what contact it had had with N, as suggested by the counsellor. It may also be of benefit to obtain permission from the parties to share information that may be helpful for the parties’ mutual understanding.
The landlord explanation about why it was funding the lopping of the tree, given the risk implications, was reasonable. There was no reason to doubt that it had not funded the fence. It was reasonable of the landlord to give permission to erect the fence and its explanation of the advantages was also reasonable. The landlord was also limited in what action it could take about the ball. The landlord’s approach of asking for the ball back and offering mediation was reasonable. It is not known why the ball was not returned to the resident. Even if ill-intentioned of N, it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider it to constitute ASB or a breach of tenancy, It was beyond the landlord’s remit to resolve this behaviour beyond seeking an agreement by the parties and offering mediation. It was also reasonable of the landlord to have addressed the resident’s suspicion that N wanted his property for themselves on a number of occasions and its explanation that there was no live housing application by N’s daughter was reasonable.
The resident considered that N’s behaviour constituted harassment. Harassment is a course of conduct capable of causing harassment, alarm and distress to the victim. It is both an offence and a civil wrong. To constitute harassment, the perpetrator would have to be made aware that it was causing harassment. While it is both objective and subjective, there would have to be evidence that the behaviour was serious and that it was designed to cause alarm and distress, which is difficult to prove. While the conduct caused the resident distress, in particular the blocking of the disabled bay, the landlord was entitled to conclude it was unable to determine there was harassment. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to review this from time to time and to explain why, where it did so, it did not consider N’s behaviour as harassment.
The landlord reasonably considered inserting a provision into the tenancy agreement that a tenant was obliged to agree to mediation. Its explanation for not doing so was reasonable. In addition, the essence of mediation is that it is voluntary and the parties approach it with the spirit of compromise and a willingness to resolve differences and change behaviour. Therefore the landlord’s decision not to adopt the idea but to review it was reasonable.
While the issue was not raised at the panel meeting and was not part of the complaint, the landlord was in difficulties in relation to the damaged satellite dish. While the resident referred to an engineer’s report, there was no definitive indication that it evidenced N had damaged the dish, though it was not disputed that the dish was damaged. However, while the landlord should consider evidence on the basis of the balance of possibilities rather than the criminal criteria, there was no indication there was sufficient or any evidence that it was N who had damaged it.
It was reasonable of the landlord to consider giving permission to install a driveway in the resident’s home. The landlord is, however, entitled to consider all of the implications and also to consider the limitations of its funds. Even if this were to be deemed to be a reasonable adjustment to a child with a disability, the landlord is entitled to have regard for costs. There was an unexplained delay from the date the Counsellor initially raised the idea in May 2021 before the landlord made serious enquiries. Once addressed by the landlord’s surveying team, the Ombudsman will understand that this would be a lengthy process, given the number of factors involved and given that a grant application would be required. It is understood that the landlord has since declined funding the disabled bay. As this is a new, albeit connected issue, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to address it within its complaints process, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter, however, it is open to the resident to raise a fresh complaint in this regard.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to consult with its ASB team, it was not clear whether an ASB case was open throughout the period of the complaint and whether there was an action plan. What appeared to happen was that the HO was carrying out a watching brief. The benefit was that the HO’s correspondence was attentive, reactive, sympathetic, and supportive in tone. Its approach allowed for a continuous “conversation” between the parties so that the resident continued to receive fulsome feedback and support. While this did not give the resident the outcome he wanted, there was benefit in that responsiveness as it demonstrated that the landlord took note of the impact the resident and his household were experiencing from the situation.
The disadvantage is that, while the HO set out limits of what it was and what it was not going to do, it raised the resident’s expectations. There was no evidence that the HO explained his role and how the “lower level” service interacted with the ASB team and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. A case review would have been of benefit as the approach lacked structure. However, throughout, the landlord explained it would not be taking legal action against N and gave its reasons for not doing so.
It was reasonable of the landlord to explain in its second complaint response that a number of the allegations were based on interpretation, for example that N was inviting the supermarket vans to block the resident’s disabled bay. However, the landlord did not demonstrate neutrality in making comments such as the reasons N shouted at the resident was because of “considerable provocation” from the resident, its suppositions about N’s son playing music. It implied that the landlord would condone such behaviour. Moreover, if there had been reports about the resident, as the evidence indicated there were, the landlord should have addressed them openly and separately, with specific evidence The landlord is entitled to take steps to manage behaviour, but when doing so it should provide very clear examples of behaviour and information. At the same time, it should judge each party’s action by its own merits rather than seek to class one side of a neighbour dispute as a victim and one as a perpetrator.
Finally, there were actions of N which, while not actionable, were unjustified and concerning, such as posting photographs of the trampoline on social media and writing aggressive emails to the local authority regarding the disabled parking space. This demonstrated that the landlord was not entitled to blame one side over the other or to take the view there was no bad faith on the part of N.
While the landlord was entitled to explain any link between the behaviours of the respective parties, it was inappropriate to first inform the resident there was an ASB case open against him at the panel meeting. Either the landlord should have addressed N’s reports separately or not at all. Its approach implied that the resident was reacting to N because his child was unwell, which was presumptuous and unhelpful, and not its place to do so. However, the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was seeking to offer support and that it apologised for its stance.
It is noted that in August 2022 the Police made a finding that N’s daughter abused the resident’s wife. While after the conclusion of the complaints process, it is sufficiently closely connected to the resident’s complaint that it would be reasonable to make a finding upon. While this on its own, the out-of-court disposal may not have been successfully actionable in the civil courts, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider whether to write to N to express its stance and warn N against any repetition, likewise in relation to the posting of photographs on social media.
The Ombudsman finds, given the particular circumstances of the resident, the landlord could have been more proactive in writing to N to set out the boundaries of behaviour, such as the blocking of the parking bay, and the use of CCTV. However, the evidence also showed that the landlord took a number of steps to alleviate the situation. It made enquiries with N to establish N’s use of CCTV and secret cameras, it offered mediation and attempted to broker an agreement between the parties. The evidence showed occasions when the landlord spoke to N about changing his behaviour, such as asking N to cease taking photos. The landlord also liaised with the supermarket and the Police and offered the resident a move. While it was understandable the resident did not wish to move, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer that opportunity as a resolution.
While there were further steps the landlord could have taken sooner, as highlighted in this report, the landlord reviewed its approach in the panel review, if as a result of the counsellor’s suggestions. It took a number of steps to put things right, including considering installing a driveway, writing to the residents and to N. Much of the behaviour complained of, while upsetting, was not actionable, either because it did not constitute a breach of tenancy or the landlord was entitled to conclude it was not sufficiently serious to justify taking legal action, when balanced against the potential consequences of legal proceedings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from neighbours, including recording and filming, blocking his disabled bay, property damage, and garden issues.

Reasons

While the landlord took a number of steps to alleviate the situation, the landlord could have taken further steps at an earlier stage, in particular given the level of vulnerability of the resident’s household. However at the panel review, it reviewed its actions, undertook to take a number of further steps, and improved its approach as a result of the panel review.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review whether the blocking of the disabled bay is a breach of N’s tenancy conditions, consider its approach and take steps accordingly, within the context of what is proportionate and reasonable.
2. The landlord should explain, if it does not do so already, the roles of the particular officer in the ASB team and to ensure it is clear about its role and remit.
3. The landlord should consider an obligation that residents should seek the landlord’s consent to install of CCTV system so that the landlord can monitor its use and purpose and provide guidance.
4. The landlord should consider training to its ASB team in relation to the law in relation to domestic use of CCTV.
5. The landlord should consider adopting a CCTV policy.
6. The landlord should consider adopting a system of ASB case reviews, to ensure there are clear boundaries and an action plan in order to manage a tenant’s expectations.
7. The landlord should consider whether to include the use of social media in its ASB policy.
8. The landlord should consider, if it does already do so, publishing its vulnerable resident policy on its website.
9. The landlord should consider whether to amend its complaints procedure to a two-stage process, while retaining the benefits of a “panel review” such as including it as an optional stage. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
10. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.