Lewisham Council (202313145)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313145

Lewisham Council

30 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV camera.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and resides in a 1st floor flat.
  2. The resident raised concerns about his neighbour installing a CCTV camera on 3 March 2022. The landlord logged this concern as a stage 0 complaint.
  3. The landlord responded on 7 March 2022. It told the resident it had written to the neighbour asking them to remove the camera and would update the resident with the outcome.
  4. The resident lodged a stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2022 as the landlord had not updated him and the CCTV was still in place. The landlord visited the neighbour on 21 July 2022 and they told the landlord that the police had recommended installing CCTV after their vehicles were vandalised several times. The landlord asked the neighbour to provide a police report to evidence this and advised the resident of this in its stage 1 response on 29 July 2022. It said it would keep the resident updated.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022. The landlord had not got back to him and he reported feeling extremely uncomfortable with the CCTV in place. The landlord responded on 26 January 2023 saying that it had written to the neighbour asking for the police report and was waiting for their response. It said it would update the resident with the outcome.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2023 to express his frustration that the landlord had not updated him yet. The landlord told the resident it was unable to escalate his complaint further and that the resident should contact an external independent adjudicator to request a stage 3 escalation. Instead, the resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 July 2023. Although it had not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure the landlord told us that the stage 2 acted as the final response so the case was accepted for investigation.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not updated him as promised after each complaint response and the CCTV was still in place, which made him feel vulnerable. As a resolution, he would like the landlord to have the camera removed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV camera

  1. The landlord’s CCTV policy states:
    1. Residents must get written permission from the landlord before installing surveillance equipment.
    2. If a resident installs equipment without permission the landlord will ask them to remove it until permission is obtained.
    3. If the proposed equipment will, or could, capture images from a shared area the landlord will not grant permission. This means it is unlikely that it will grant permission for surveillance in flats. The landlord will consider such cases on an individual basis.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 March 2022 to report that his neighbour had installed a CCTV camera outside the property, which he was unhappy about. The landlord logged this as a stage 0 complaint and responded on 7 March 2022. The response said the landlord had written to the neighbour and asked them to remove the camera. It promised to update the resident with the outcome by 14 March 2022. This was an appropriate response, however the landlord failed to follow through on its promise. This was inappropriate and led directly to the resident escalating the complaint.
  3. On 23 June 2022 the resident lodged a stage 1 complaint. It said that the landlord had told him it would deal with the CCTV in March, it was now June and it had still not been addressed. He told the landlord that it made him very uncomfortable knowing his comings and goings were being watched. He asked the landlord to investigate and take action as a matter of urgency.
  4. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint which is discussed further in the complaint handling section of this report. This caused the resident to chase the landlord again on 14 July 2022. The landlord responded by arranging to visit the neighbour on 21 July 2022. This was an appropriate action however the resident should not have had to chase the landlord again.
  5. At the visit the neighbour told the landlord that the police had recommended they install CCTV after their vehicles had been vandalised several times. The landlord asked the neighbour to provide evidence of this by the following week. The landlord should have asked the neighbour to remove the camera in the meantime, as per the CCTV policy. While the neighbour may have been able to provide justification for it, they installed it without permission and it covered areas that were shared with the resident. The Ombudsman is aware that landlords sometimes decide to grant permissions retrospectively. If that was the landlord’s intention then it should have explained this to the resident and ensured it obtained the information it needed to make the decision promptly.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 July 2022. It said it was waiting for the neighbour to provide police evidence and it would update the resident by 5 August 2022. As the landlord had not acted in accordance with its CCTV policy, this was an inappropriate response. The landlord could also have managed the resident’s expectations by advising when the neighbour was expected to provide the evidence by and what action it would take if they did not.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 August 2022 and said he was uncomfortable with his neighbour having access to images of him that could be shared with others. He said that the neighbour had made a comment to his partner that he perceived as a threat and suggested that if CCTV needed to be in place, the landlord could operate it instead.
  8. The landlord did not respond to this email, nor did it follow up with the resident by 5 August 2022 as promised. As well as responding to the resident’s email with the promised update, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s comment about a perceived threat and considered whether it was appropriate to apply its ASB policy. The landlord could also have taken the opportunity to try and mediate between the neighbours to prevent bad feeling between them escalating. This could also have helped alleviate the resident’s concerns about the CCTV.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022 as the landlord had still not got back to him with an update. He was feeling extremely uncomfortable with the CCTV in place and like he was being watched. It had been more than 4 months since the landlord’s stage 1 response and it had not contacted the resident at all since then, despite promising that it would and the resident chasing. The stage 1 complaint had been about lack of communication and the landlord clearly did not take any lessons from this or show any commitment to improving its service to the resident.
  10. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2023 saying again that it had written to the neighbour asking for police evidence and was waiting for their response. It said its technical services team would inspect the CCTV location and the landlord would update the resident by 3 February 2023.
  11. By this point the landlord had been promising to update the resident for almost a year, in 3 separate complaint responses. To respond and still not provide a definitive answer to his query was unreasonable, especially as the CCTV should have been removed from the outset. Although allowing it to remain in place was inappropriate, the landlord could still have resolved matters by being proactive and contacting the police itself when the neighbour kept failing to provide the police evidence. This would have enabled the landlord to decide whether to give permission or not and to give the resident an outcome in the stage 2 response.
  12. Concerningly, the landlord failed to update the resident yet again. The resident chased again on 1 March 2023. The landlord responded the next day and said it was unable to escalate past stage 2 as stage 3 complaints were handled by an independent adjudicator, which it gave the resident details of. It did not give him any further update on the CCTV. This was another failing which exacerbated the resident’s frustration with the situation and led him to escalate the complaint to this Service.
  13. The landlord failed at every stage to answer the resident’s query or to follow through on its promised actions. It failed to follow its own CCTV policy and to take any ownership of the situation. It seemingly did not follow up with the neighbour when they did not provide the information by set deadlines and did not show any commitment to resolving the matter by trying to obtain the information directly from the police itself. This left the resident feeling frustrated and let down by the landlord’s lack of professionalism and caused him to spend time and trouble escalating his complaint. The resident clearly felt very uncomfortable with the CCTV and the landlord did not take any steps to allay his concerns or find a solution.
  14. The landlord has made us aware that it recently asked the neighbour to remove the camera by 22 August 2024 and if they do not, the landlord will do so in the week beginning 26 August 2024. This is positive action in line with the CCTV policy but it is a shame the landlord did not respond in this way at the outset. Had it done so, the resident would have had no cause to make a complaint and request an Ombudsman investigation, which has caused unnecessary damage to the landlord-resident relationship.
  15. There was maladministration and the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation. This reflects the distress and inconvenience the matter caused the resident and the time and trouble he has spent progressing his complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount for maladministration with an adverse but non-permanent impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place at the time stated that:
    1. A complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.
    2. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages, such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’, as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents.
    3. Within the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking.
    4. The stage 2 response should include details of how to escalate to the Ombudsman or to stage 3 if the resident has a 3rd stage in its complaints procedure, should the resident remain dissatisfied.
    5. Complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested a third stage review of their complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time included timescales that exceeded those in the Code due to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was reasonable in the circumstances and amending the policy so residents would be aware was appropriate action. The policy included 3 stages and said that the landlord will:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.
    2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 25 working days.
    3. Acknowledge stage 3 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 35 working days.
  3. The resident raised concerns about the CCTV on 3 March 2023. It is not clear from the evidence exactly what the resident said but the landlord’s internal communication indicates he was making a service request about the CCTV and some other issues, which have not formed part of this investigation. As the resident was not expressing dissatisfaction about the landlord then it should have dealt with it as a service request in the normal way and not labelled it as a stage 0 complaint which is confusing for residents. This was inappropriate and in contravention to the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. Extra stages before a stage 1 complaint mean residents are obstructed from accessing the landlord’s complaints procedure and should not be used.
  4. The resident logged his stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge it until 9 July 2022, after the resident had been in contact again. It should have been acknowledged within 2 working days according to the landlord’s complaints policy – instead it took 18 working days, an inappropriate delay. The acknowledgement also failed to set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident was seeking, as required by the Code.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint 8 working days later on 29 July 2023. This was within the appropriate timeframe of 20 working days after acknowledgement, although the delayed acknowledgment meant the resident did not get the response as soon as he should have.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged it 14 working days later on 29 December 2022 which was another inappropriate delay and it failed again to set out the key elements of the complaint and the outcome sought.
  7. The landlord responded 19 working days later on 26 January 2023 which was within the appropriate timeframe but again, the delayed acknowledgement had the knock-on effect of delaying the response. The stage 2 response also did not include details of how the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 3 if he remained dissatisfied. This was not appropriate and meant the resident was unaware of what recourse he had to take his complaint further.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2023 to raise the fact that the stage 2 follow up actions had not taken place. Rather than dealing with the issue the landlord advised the resident of how to escalate his complaint to stage 3. While this was appropriate due to the resident expressing dissatisfaction, the landlord missed another opportunity to resolve the complaint by dealing with the query.
  9. The landlord told the resident “we are unable to escalate your complaint beyond stage 2. Stage 3 is handled externally by the independent adjudicator.” This phrasing was confusing for the resident who did not realise stage 3 was part of the landlord’s complaints procedure and instead tried to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  10. Although we initially advised the resident to escalate the complaint to stage 3, the landlord then told us that the stage 2 acted as the final response and so we accepted the case for investigation. If the landlord had intended the stage 2 to be its final response and for stage 3 to be optional this should have been clearly set out to the resident in the stage 2 response along with signposting him to the Ombudsman for further escalation, as the Code requires.
  11. Alternatively, if stage 3 was not optional then it should have escalated the complaint to stage 3 at that point. Had it done so the resident would have had the benefit of an independent adjudicator investigating the complaint and responding within 35 working days, rather than having to wait longer for the outcome of the Ombudsman investigation.
  12. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the principles in the Code and its own policy. It should pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the delays it caused in him being able to bring his complaint to this Service. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount for complaint handling failures that have an adverse but non-permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV camera.
    2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failings in handling his CCTV concerns and the related complaint.
    2. Confirm in writing to the resident when the CCTV has been removed. If for any reason the CCTV is not removed the landlord should explain the reasons why in writing to the resident, being mindful of the CCTV policy.
    3. Pay the resident £400 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £300 for the failings related to the CCTV.
      2. £100 for the failings related to complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its staff training in relation to its CCTV policy to ensure that residents’ concerns are responded to in an appropriate and timely manner.