Leicester City Council (202217141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217141

Leicester City Council

29 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s request for the resident to remove the ring doorbell.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
This resident has informed this Service that she commenced legal action about the perpetrator of the anti-social behaviour. In October 2023, the Magistrates Court issued a restraining order covering a period to October 2024. The term within the order prevents further contact which amounts to harassment or will cause fear of violence. The restraining order prevents the son of ‘Tenant A’ (referred to below) making direct or indirect contact with the resident. This was further to earlier orders dated January 2020 and February 2021, which applied until January 2022.
Therefore, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour will not be considered as part of this investigation given that the resident has taken steps to obtain a resolution to the matter through the courts.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 30 July 2018. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is described as a mid-terraced property converted into two flats. The resident occupies the upstairs flat. For the resident to access the property, she has to enter the communal hallway passing the downstairs flat.
The resident has told us that she has a mental health condition and suffers from anxiety.
The investigation relates to the neighbour’s son who stays at the downstairs flat. The neighbour will be referred to as ‘Tenant A’ within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation, however, it is assumed that the tenancy conditions are the same as for the resident.

Policies

The tenancy conditions for the property showing on the landlord’s website took effect from 2 March 2020. These advise that residents must obtain written permission before making any changes or alterations. This includes the installation of CCTV or other surveillance devices.
The landlord’s complaint procedure available online defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about its services that it has been unable to resolve. This includes policies or procedures that have not been correctly followed.
The complaints procedures also states that the landlord will respond within 10 working days at the first stage of the complaints procedure and within 20 working days at its final stage.

Scope of investigation

The council operates a community safer partnership scheme. As part of this arrangement, it works with different services to resolve anti-social behaviour. The council’s Anti‐Social Behaviour Unit (CASBU) responds and deals with the most serious cases of ASB in partnership with other agencies, including the landlord and the Police. The CASBU will investigate, collate and progress the case to a satisfactory conclusion and the landlord retains responsibility for tenancy management. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate the actions of the council as this would be a matter for the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman.

Summary of events

On 4 May 2021, the resident communicated with the council’s anti-social behaviour officer (CASBO) handling her reports of anti-social behaviour. The resident advised that the intimidation and harassment was ongoing and shared footage of a visitor to Tenant A making an offensive gesture towards her ring doorbell camera. The CASBO suggested that the gesture by Tenant A’s visitors reflected Tenant A’s objections to being filmed in the communal hallway.
The CASBO went on to advise that monitoring of the anti-social behaviour would continue and that the resident should consider removing the doorbell as the son of Tenant A was no longer living at the property. Also, it was not aware that the injunction against the son of Tenant A had been breached since it had been issued. The CASBO stated it would consider asking the landlord whether it would consider installing CCTV outside the communal hallway which would still provide evidence if a breach of the exclusion order stipulated in the injunction were to occur.
On 19 May 2021, the CASBO emailed the landlord’s Neighbourhood Housing Officer (NHO), advising that the anti-social behaviour case was to be closed as the injunction had been obtained against the son of Tenant A. The CASBO advised that the resident had been informed that she may need to move the ring doorbell as the reason for its installation was the harassment from Tenant A’s son who had been excluded from the property until February 2022. Also, the CASBO had not been notified of a breach of the injunction since that date.
The NHO was also informed that the CASBO had spoken to Tenant A who had raised objections about the ring doorbell since its installation. CASBO informed the NHO that the camera remaining in place could be considered harassment and that Tenant A had stated she believed the location of the camera invaded her privacy. The CASBO advised the NHO to write to the resident to inform her that the ring doorbell needed to be removed as its location could be invading the privacy of Tenant A.
There is a gap in communication until 8 November 2021 when the landlord contacted the police. The landlord advised that it was waiting to receive video evidence following a report that the injunction had been breached. It referred to an incident that occurred on 25 September 2021 and that it had assessed that the incident did not meet the threshold to be considered a breach of the injunction, therefore it was unlikely to progress the matter to court.
The police responded the same day, advising that they had spoken to the resident hours after the incident had occurred. The police provided its opinion that the resident was concerned about reporting the incident rather than the presence of Tenant A’s son.
On 10 November 2021, the resident reported to the CASBO that she believed Tenant A’s son was present in his mother’s property. In response, the CASBO advised that the police had informed her that they had attended the property and the son of Tenant A had not been present.
The CASBO contacted the police on 10 January 2022 as the injunction expired on 18 January 2022. The CASBO informed the police that the son of Tenant A was likely to return to the property once the injunction expired and that the NHO was aware. The resident was anxious about this and had been advised to report any new incidents. If the anti-social behaviour restarted then tenancy enforcement would need to be considered.
On 22 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her ring doorbell had recorded a visitor to Tenant A making an offensive gesture at the camera. The incident had been reported to the police and the crime reference number was provided.
The CASBO responded to the NHO on the same day (22 February 2022) and confirmed the injunction named the Tenant A’s son only. The resident had been spoken to and was aware that she was required to remove the ring doorbell. Tenant A’s concerns about the doorbell were discussed and the NHO was informed that the police had stated that the resident was concerned about the action that the son of Tenant A would take if it was removed. The NHO was also informed that Tenant A had been advised to make a complaint regarding the privacy concerns that she had raised. The entrance to the property had a small communal corridor and the range of the camera captured a small area of Tenant A’s flat when the door was open. The CASBO agreed to write to Tenant A, advising that a new report of harassment had been received and to remind her that she was responsible for the actions of her visitors.
The following day (23 February 2022), the resident reported to the CASBO that Tenant A’s son had returned to the property.
That same day (23 February 2022), the CASBO contacted the NHO and provided information about ring doorbells. The NHO was advised that ring doorbells are activated by motion. Therefore, each time Tenant A or her visitors entered the communal corridor, the camera would alert the resident. The CASBO was not aware of a corporate approach regarding the installation of doorbells so she could not comment on whether they are permitted. However, it was noted that each case should be considered on its merits. The CASBO went on to say that Tenant A had a strong case to request the removal of the camera due to the intrusion of her privacy. However, she also recognised that the resident had been severely impacted by the anti-social behaviour and crime that she had experienced and the resident felt unsafe in the property.
The CASBO closed the anti-social behaviour case on 15 March 2022 as further incidents had not been reported.
There were no further incidents reported until 10 June 2022, when the resident shared a video of an incident that occurred on 29 May 2022. The resident provided the crime reference number to the CASBO of an offensive gesture being made to the ring doorbell camera. The police informed the CASBO that the incident could not be treated as a public order offence as the property was a private dwelling.
The landlord’s submission to this Service showed that Tenant A made a complaint to the landlord in July 2022. A copy of the complaint has not been provided to this Service.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord checked with a building services team whether the resident required permission to install the ring doorbell. In response, the NHO was informed that permission was required and an inspection of the property was needed. Also, as the ring doorbell was located in a communal area, it was unlikely to be approved.
Later that day (5 July 2022), the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that a visit would take place regarding the ring doorbell.
The building services team wrote to the resident on 15 July 2022, following the visit to the property on 8 July 2022. It advised that permission had not been agreed for the ring doorbell. The reasons for its decision were:
1. The vision from the camera must not be allowed on neighbouring properties.
2. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act gives the right to respect for private, family life, home and correspondence. Breach of the Act could result in police action.
3. Pointing the camera on a pavement, road or a neighbour’s property could result in a breach of the Data Protection Act and/or harassment law.
4. The ring doorbell did capture footage of the neighbouring property and communal area.
The letter concluded by informing the resident that it required the ring doorbell to be removed and the NHO had been informed.
On 30 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the contents of the letter. The resident advised of the need to retain the doorbell as she had previously received threats to her safety and had experienced intimidation from Tenant A and her visitors. The resident also stated that Tenant A’s son had visited the property while the injunction was enforced and visitors had made offensive gestures towards the camera. Furthermore, she was feeling vulnerable and unsafe in the property, the CASBO had been informed and she would be contacting her councillor.
The resident wrote to the landlord and to the councillor on 10 September 2022, giving a history of the anti-social behaviour that she experienced. She set out that the injunction was obtained on 19 February 2021 and that she had heard (and the ring doorbell had captured) Tenant A’s son at the property in November 2021. 3 other incidents recorded on the ring doorbell had been reported to the police. The resident also gave reasons why it was not reasonable for her to remove the ring doorbell, stating it offered some protection and enabled her to evidence the abuse and intimidation she experienced.
The CASBO contacted the police regarding an incident at the property on 27 September 2022. The police advised that it attended the property in response to a call from Tenant A that her son was intoxicated and would not leave the property. Her son was arrested and the police attendance was recorded as a domestic incident. The police confirmed that a machete, which was not involved in the incident, was removed and destroyed.
The landlord contacted the police on 29 September 2022 to request an update since the issue of the injunction. The police were informed that the resident had been informed to remove the ring doorbell and requested its opinion on this.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 November 2022, following receipt of an enquiry from a Member of Parliament (MP). The resident explained that she was unhappy living in the property and she had been asked to remove the camera as a result she felt unsafe.
The same day, the landlord responded to the MP. It stated that it had not received any further reports of incidents in the communal area and that it would investigate any new incidents that it received. It confirmed that the ring doorbell camera had to be removed as it was located in a communal area.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. Among other things, it acknowledged that the resident wanted the ring doorbell to remain for her safety but confirmed that this was not permitted in a communal area. Also, its technical team had requested that the ring doorbell be removed.
The following day, the CASBO emailed the landlord to advise that the resident had requested that the ring door bell be retained as she was scared that Tenant A’s son or his associates would target or trap her in the communal area. The range of the camera had been changed so that it only captured the corridor.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2022. She informed the landlord that she disagreed with its response to the MP. With regard to the request to remove the ring doorbell, the resident stated:
1. On 27 September 2022, there was an incident at Tenant A’s property which was captured on the ring doorbell. This showed Tenant A running through the communal hallway with a machete in their hand, shouting and swearing. The police attended and arrested Tenant A’s son.
2. The incident brought back memories of the abuse and threats of how she would be murdered in the communal hallway by Tenant A’s son.
3. She remained unsafe in the property and unhappy with the way the landlord had addressed the issue.
The landlord’s internal records from 18 November 2022 show that it considered:
1. It did not allow CCTV in communal areas.
2. The latest incident at the property involved Tenant A and her son. The police arrested those involved.
3. The injunction had ended and the incident that occurred in September 2022 was the first since the injunction ended in January 2022.
4. The resident had said that there had not been any further incidents.
5. It could offer the resident a security package, additional locks and chains. The resident could record any new incidents in an incident diary.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 28 November 2022. It referenced the resident’s contact with the MP and acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with its response. The main findings were:
1. It had not received further reports of Tenant A’s son visiting the property or that he had returned to the address since 27 September 2022.
2. It acknowledged that the situation had caused anxiety to the resident.
3. It provided different ways to report new incidents and then it could act regarding the anti-social behaviour.
4. It confirmed that the camera doorbell was not permitted as the resident’s door was located in a communal area and it would capture footage of Tenant A’s property.
5. It offered an appointment with its technical services to provide additional security such as strengthening door fittings.
6. It advised the resident to record any new incidents and to keep an incident diary.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 1 December 2022. With regard to the ring doorbell, the resident advised that:
1. On 6 November 2021, she had reported to the police that Tenant A’s son had entered the property that day. A video recording of the incident was also sent to CASBU.
2. It was not an isolated incident and she did not need additional door fittings but wanted to be safe in the property.
3. She had experienced verbal abuse in the communal area from Tenant A’s son and intimidation from Tenant A’s visitors.
4. The landlord should set out what measures were in place to protect her in the communal area and give reasons for her to remove the ring doorbell that was assisting in keeping her safe.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 2 December 2022. It advised that it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 30 December 2022. With regard to the resident’s concerns about the ring doorbell, it advised that it could not investigate the resident’s concerns about the CCTV as its complaint procedure says that it cannot consider matters outside of its control. It confirmed that the installation of a door camera is covered by the Human Rights Act and in particular Article 8. Therefore, it could not act outside the law by giving permission for the ring doorbell camera to remain in place.
The landlord explained that the installation of a recording device would become a police matter which the resident could be prosecuted for. Also, the tenancy agreement prevented the use of CCTV and surveillance equipment where this would affect the privacy of other people. Furthermore, it had responded correctly regarding the incident in October 2022 and its service standards had been met.
The landlord concluded that the injunction against Tenant A’s son had been successful in the prevention of insulting and threatening language against the resident and it had prevented Tenant A’s son visiting the property. It had not received reports of any other incidents that would require it to take legal action. However, it would act if a serious incident occurred in the future and repeated its offer to provide additional security measures to the property. The landlord recognised that the actions of Tenant A’s son, and of visitors, had caused the resident distress.
After the complaint response was exhausted, the following occurred:
1. The landlord communicated with the MP. It advised that it was aware that the resident felt unsafe in the communal hallway but it had not received evidence of further incidents that it could act on. Also, the threshold for the installation of CCTV had not been met and it had to act reasonably. It stated that it intended to write separately to the resident about the removal of the ring doorbell.
2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2023. It advised that its correspondence was a final warning and that the installation of the ring doorbell was a breach of tenancy. The resident had 14 days to respond otherwise it may serve a Notice of Seeking Possession or obtain an injunction or court order.
3. The landlord sent a separate letter to the resident on the same day. Among other things, it confirmed that the installation of video doorbells fell within its policy and that it did not intend to install CCTV. The resident’s current tenancy conditions had been superseded by a previous one.
4. On 23 March 2023, the outcome of a community trigger was sent to the resident. It advised that on 27 January 2023, the landlord had advised the resident to remove the camera from the communal area as it was a breach of the tenancy conditions. The review of the reported anti-social behaviour had shown that the reported incidents related to those captured on the ring doorbell and were not directly made to the resident. The resident was advised that reported incidents would be investigated and that the ring doorbell had to immediately removed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s request for the resident to remove the ring doorbell

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that CCTV must be used for legitimate personal security only and it must not be used in a way that can cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
The landlord was aware that the resident had installed a ring doorbell and was using this to capture evidence of the anti-social behaviour that she experienced. An injunction relating to this behaviour was obtained in February 2021. The reported anti-social behaviour continued to be monitored by the CASBO but the resident was informed by May 2021 that the ring doorbell should be removed as its location was impacting Tenant A.
The landlord was advised by the CASBO in May 2021 that Tenant A had raised objections to the camera, citing harassment and breach of privacy. Once it was aware of Tenant A’s concern, the landlord was obliged to ensure that the location of the CCTV complied with the relevant guidance, including that issued by the Information Commissioner. The landlord had to consider and balance Tenant A’s concerns about her privacy and the resident’s expressed concerns about her safety. The landlord was also provided with information about the functionality of the ring doorbells and informed its current settings would capture all of Tenant A’s visitors and part of her property.
Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to assess whether it should request that the resident remove the ring doorbell. It checked the corporate position regarding the installation of ring doorbells and was advised that each case was considered on an individual basis. Further advice was obtained by its technical team which appropriately visited the property and assessed that the location of the ring doorbell did not comply with the relevant guidance. Reasons were given that demonstrated that the ring doorbell impacted on the privacy of Tenant A. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional advice that it received as a result of this inspection. Further, the landlord’s communication appropriately confirmed and explained its position to the resident.
The resident made reports in November 2021 and February 2022 of Tenant A’s son being present in the property. Also, there were 2 incidents captured by the ring doorbell in May 2022 and on 27 September 2022. This Service appreciates that the resident found these incidents distressing.
The resident expressed her concerns about her safety should the ring doorbell be removed. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to this by contacting its partners, including the police to obtain their opinion. The landlord was advised that the resident was concerned about her safety and that she saw the ring door bell as a security measure.
The landlord was advised in November 2022 that the resident had taken steps to change the range that the camera of the ring doorbell so that it only captured the communal area. There is no evidence that, on receiving this information, the landlord organised a reinspection of the property. This was a shortcoming albeit there is no evidence that this would have resulted in a different outcome for the resident as the landlord has to act fairly and proportionately to all of its residents.
The landlord acted reasonably within in its complaint responses when it offered additional security to the resident. This was resolution-focused and showed that it was willing to consider and install alternative security measures to address the resident’s concerns about her safety.
This Service has noted that the resident requested a community trigger and this was completed by the council. The outcome informed the resident to remove the ring doorbell which reinforced the landlord’s decision.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to complaints in 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage. The landlord acted appropriately as it responded to the resident’s complaint within its published time limits.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says that it will investigate where a policy or procedure has not been correctly followed. However, in its final complaint response, it informed the resident that it could not consider her complaint as its complaint policy excluded factors outside of its control and gave examples of such factors.
This was not a correct interpretation of its policy as the resident was not complaining about its policy but how it had applied this to her particular situation. Nevertheless, the landlord acted appropriately by explaining in its final complaint response the factors that led to its decision to advise her to remove the ring door bell.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its request for the resident to remove the ring doorbell.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by contacting members of the Safer Partnership Team and relevant colleagues to obtain advice before informing the resident that she could not retain the ring doorbell. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns by offering to provide additional security equipment to her front door.
The landlord’s final complaint response showed that it had not correctly interpreted its complaint procedure when it responded to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failure identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the failure in its complaint handling.
3. Review its complaint handling in this case and provide training to ensure the complaint procedure regarding issues excluded under its policy is understood.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.