Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Leeds City Council (202117047)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117047

Leeds City Council

17 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour including their use of CCTV, the installation of a shed in their garden without permission and the removal of the dividing fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported that her neighbour had installed CCTV in July 2019 and she subsequently raised concerns that the CCTV was voice activated on 10 September 2020. On 21 September 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour had built a shed in her garden without permission and on 22 July 2021, she confirmed that it had been dismantled. From October 2021, the landlord attempted to arrange an inspection of the neighbour’s CCTV but was unable to gain access until 25 January 2022.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 12 November 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of the neighbour’s CCTV. This Service contacted the landlord and it raised a complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 January 2022 expressing her dissatisfaction with the length of time the issue with the neighbour’s CCTV had been ongoing. She stated the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had informed her that the use of voice activated cameras was illegal. She also raised concerns that her neighbour had built a large shed in their garden without permission and her neighbour had removed the dividing fence between the properties.
  5. In the landlord’s final response, it advised it had visited the resident’s neighbour, and confirmed that the necessary conditions had been met to grant permission for the CCTV. It advised that the audio software had been disabled and it only captured images within the boundary of the neighbour’s property. It stated it would complete ad hoc visits to ensure the conditions were complied to. The landlord agreed that it had not taken sufficient action when the resident initially reported the unauthorised shed in her neighbour’s garden, which it had identified as a further staff training requirement. It stated that the relevant tenancy action had since been taken, and the shed had been removed.
  6. It advised that the neighbour had agreed to return the boundary fence to its original condition, as the landlord had informed the neighbour removing it was a breach of tenancy. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenienced caused due to the delays in resolving the issues regarding the unauthorised shed and CCTV and acknowledged that its communication should have been more consistent.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied that her neighbour’s voice activated camera was still installed and pointed towards her property. She wanted the camera to be removed and the landlord to resolve the anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s overall handling of her ASB reports about her neighbour. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. This report will therefore only investigate the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour that were raised as part of the complaint. If the resident still considers the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports as an outstanding issue, it is recommended that she raises the concerns with the landlord so they can be progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour including their use of CCTV, the installation of a shed in their garden without permission, and removing the dividing fence

  1. Upon receiving the resident’s reports of concerns with her neighbour’s CCTV, the landlord was obliged to ensure that the neighbour’s use of CCTV adhered to the relevant guidance, including General Data Protection Regulations and any relevant advice from the ICO. The ICO website states that “the use of recording equipment, such as CCTV or smart door bells, to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law”, although attempts should be made to point CCTV away from neighbours’ properties.
  2. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s complaint regarding her neighbour’s use of CCTV. It had inspected the neighbour’s CCTV to ensure that the audio software was disabled and that the footage only covered the neighbour’s property. The landlord also stated that it would complete ad hoc visits to ensure that her neighbour continued to adhere to the agreed conditions. In line with the guidance by the ICO, the landlord was not necessarily obliged to take actions to restrict the neighbour’s use of CCTV; however, given the resident’s concerns it was appropriate that it did.
  3. The resident has advised this Service that she wanted the cameras to be removed, but this is not something the landlord would be obliged to enforce, as there is no evidence to suggest the neighbour was misusing the CCTV or having a negative impact on the resident. The resident has since reported to this Service that the CCTV is pointing towards her property, so it is recommended that the landlord addresses these concerns and complete an ad hoc visit if required.
  4. Although the landlord’s actions to resolve the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV were appropriate, it failed to seek a resolution at the earliest opportunity. It is recognised that there were some delays that were out of the landlord’s control, as it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property between October 2021 and January 2022. However, there was a significant period of time from the resident’s report on 10 September 2020 until the inspection on 25 January 2022, in which the landlord failed to take any actions to resolve the resident’s concerns or reasonably manage her expectations regarding the actions it could take. The resident also advised the landlord on numerous occasions that she thought her neighbour’s use of audio recording was illegal, and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord made attempts to assess any legal obligations or confirm its position to the resident.
  5. As a result of the delays to address the CCTV concerns in full, the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions, which led to time and trouble in her pursuing her concerns. Furthermore, the landlord’s poor communication will likely have caused distress to the resident, as she had not been updated on the actions it intended to take. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised for any distress or concern caused, but in light of its failings, compensation would have been appropriate, which will be addressed below.
  6. The resident also raised concerns about her neighbour installing a shed without permission. The landlord has not disputed that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports as it acknowledged it had not taken strong enough action to resolve the issue at an earlier stage.
  7. The landlord initially took appropriate action following the resident’s initial report on 21 September 2020 that her neighbour had built a shed without permission as it advised the neighbour she would have to request retrospective permission. The landlord continued to discuss the issue with the neighbour, but the resident was not provided with any meaningful updates, despite the landlord advising it would keep her updated.
  8. The resident subsequently confirmed that the shed was removed on 22 July 2021. As a result, there was a period of over ten months before the shed was removed, which exceeded a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to resolve the issue. The landlord identified its handling of the issue as an area where additional staff training was required, and stated it had implemented a plan to ensure it mitigated further delays in its service delivery. This was appropriate as the landlord has demonstrated it has learned from the outcome of the complaint and took steps to improve its service.
  9. The resident raised in her complaint that her neighbour caused a noise disturbance when the structure was being built; however, there is no evidence that this was reported to the landlord at the time, so it was not given the opportunity to resolve the issue. There is no evidence that the resident outlined any additional impacts of her neighbour’s shed on her to the landlord, so it is unclear whether there was a detrimental impact due to the landlord’s delayed actions for it to be removed. Despite this, it is noted that the resident experienced time and trouble in pursuing the issue, due to the landlord’s poor communication. As a result, compensation is warranted to resolve the complaint, which will be further assessed below.
  10. In her complaint escalation, the resident had raised concerns that her neighbour had removed the dividing fence between the two properties. In its response, the landlord advised the resident that it had raised the issue as a breach of tenancy and her neighbour had agreed to return the fence to its original condition. This was reasonable, as it was in line with the tenancy agreement conditions. Following the completion of the complaints process, on 28 March 2022, the landlord agreed to reinstate the fence as a gesture of goodwill. As the dividing fence had been identified as the neighbour’s responsibility, the landlord exceeded its obligations by reinstating the fence. The landlord has therefore reasonably handled this element of the complaint.
  11. It is noted that additional issues regarding painting the fence have since arisen. As the issue was not raised as part of the resident’s complaint and occurred after the final complaint response, the landlord has not been given the opportunity to address the concerns. If the resident still considers the issue to be ongoing, it is recommended that she raises the issues with the landlord, and progresses it as a complaint if necessary.
  12. Overall, there were delays in resolving the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s use of CCTV and installation of a shed without permission, which the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response. However, it failed to acknowledge its limited communication in the interim, which resulted in failing to keep the resident reasonably updated on the progress. The landlord’s failings have likely caused distress to the resident, as well as additional time and effort in pursuing the issues. The landlord in its complaint response acknowledged this and is therefore ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the service failures identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour including their use of CCTV, the installation of a shed in their garden without permission and removing the dividing fence.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. As a result of the failings outlined in the report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.
  3. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her additional concerns regarding the CCTV pointing toward her property and painting the fence.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements, to ensure that residents are kept regular updated when issues are ongoing.
  3. The landlord should confirm compliance with the recommendations to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.