London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206767)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206767

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s video doorbell.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 29 June 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor.
The landlord has recorded no known vulnerabilities for the resident, but in correspondence he has advised he suffers from depression and anxiety.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a resident CCTV guidance document. It includes the use of video doorbells. It says that:
1. If the footage captures an area outside the resident’s private boundary, for example, a communal area, then the data protection act 2018 will apply. The information commissioner’s office (ICO) are the regulatory body who are responsible for enforcing compliance.
2. If residents are capturing footage that extends beyond the boundary, then there must be a “clear and justifiable” reason for doing so. In addition, residents will need to:
  1. Let people know that there is CCTV by having sufficient signage in place.
  2. Ensure no one can watch the footage without good reason.
  3. Keep the footage for no longer than is necessary.
3. Failure to comply could result in enforcement action by the ICO.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It will review all reported incidents and consider the risk in each case. If it is unable to take action on behalf of the reporting party, then it will explain why and point residents towards agencies or information which can provide support
2. It will seek to identify if there are any vulnerabilities, support needs or circumstances related to all parties involved and adjust its approach as necessary
3. It will keep in regular contact with the complainant, provide advice and agree an action plan. It will work in partnership with the police, environmental health team and local authority as appropriate
4. A risk assessment matrix (RAM) will be completed on high priority cases, or relevant standard priority cases. It takes a holistic approach to assessing the support needs of perpetrators as well as victims. It may refer residents to specialist support
5. It will close an ASB case where:
  1. The reporting party has failed to engage with the landlord.
  2. There is insufficient evidence.
  3. Investigations lead it to conclude that no further action is needed.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint policy which states:
1. At stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within ten working days
2. If the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

Records show that the resident made contact with the landlord on 12 April 2021. He reported that he was being regularly disturbed by screaming from his neighbour that went on throughout the day and into the night. He believed that his neighbour was schizophrenic and took drugs. He stated he had not slept for the past 3 months due to the noise and wanted compensation from the landlord as a result. He said he had completed diary sheets but wanted the matter dealt with urgently.
The landlord tried to contact the resident the same day without success. It noted that it would try and contact him the following day. There is no further recorded contact between either party until July 2021.
On 7 July 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident to ask how things were. He said that the noise had quietened down a bit and it was not happening after 11pm anymore, but he could still hear noise through the walls. He was advised to keep recording and reporting incidents, and the landlord would maintain monthly contact with him.
On 28 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. The call handler noted:
1. The resident called his neighbour various abusive names and when asked if he had approached them to discuss the issues, he said he would stab his neighbour “not once, but 15 times”.
2. The call handler offered to transfer him to the housing team, but the resident said he would call back another time. He said that various staff of the landlord were “good for nothing”.
On 10 August 2021 the landlord noted that it had tried to contact the resident several times without success. It stated the last time it had spoken to him, he had advised the issues was “something he would sort out by talking.” The ASB case was closed.
On 13 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. He said that he wanted the issue of noise nuisance escalated to “someone higher” to consider his request for compensation. During the call, he made several threats to kill his neighbour. The landlord dialled 999 and the police confirmed they would attend within the hour. Around this time, his neighbour installed a video doorbell.
The landlord spoke to the resident several times throughout October 2021 as part of its “monthly contact”. It noted that:
1. The resident reported his neighbour was constantly screaming, and had been playing music in the early hours of the morning. The landlord agreed to speak with the neighbour.
2. The resident was unhappy that his neighbour had installed a video doorbell. He felt it was a breach of his rights and it made him feel as though he could not leave the property. He made threats to remove it himself but was warned against this by the landlord, advising him that would be considered criminal damage. In response to his concerns, the landlord consulted a data protection officer. They advised that:
  1. Given recent events, the actions of the landlord were “exactly in line with expectation” and there was no need to remove the doorbell.
  2. Concerns over the management of the recordings should be managed through the ICO.
The landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 27 October 2021 with regards to his concerns about the doorbell. It said that:
1. It was not upholding his complaint. Whilst it understood that the doorbell was making him feel anxious, permission was granted for his neighbour to install it for a justifiable reason and was in line with its CCTV guidance.
2. Permission had been granted for temporary use and would be reviewed again at the end of January 2022. If it was no longer deemed appropriate then permission would be withdrawn.
3. The system fell under data protection regulations and his rights were detailed within the included CCTV guidance document.
4. If he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint, he could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process or contact the Ombudsman.
On 3 November 2021 the landlord held a multi-agency meeting with the local council ASB and noise team. The resident was updated about the meeting, and advised that the landlord would be asking other neighbours of their experience with noise. It asked the resident if he had made contact with the noise team directly. The resident responded to the landlord and said:
1. He did not want the other neighbours involved. He had tried to record the noise on the app but the screams were for a split second at a time. He had not called the noise team because it was “pointless”.
2. He “did not want a peep out of his neighbour”, and wanted to be financially compensated because the noise was making him physically sick.
3. He wanted the review of the doorbell brought forward as he could not continue to live with it.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to make contact with the resident several times in November 2021 without success.
On 18 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He said that:
1. That morning he was woken by “blasting music” at around 7am. No one had responded to his request to escalate the doorbell matter to stage 2 of the complaint process. Things were getting worse and he was unable to sleep.
2. The doorbell was an invasion of his privacy and there were days when he felt he could not leave his home.
The landlord responded and apologised he had not heard anything further in regards to an escalation of his complaint. He would be updated following the review of the doorbell, due to take place around the end of the month.
On 20 January 2022 the landlord spoke with a relative of the neighbour. He stated he would not be removing the doorbell as there were ongoing threats of vandalism. He had consulted the police who had confirmed it was not illegal to have the doorbell. The guidelines were being followed as per data protection rules.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to ask how the noise had been. It said that it had contacted the neighbour about the noise and reminded him that excessive noise was unacceptable. It wanted to know if the situation had improved. The resident responded and said:
1. He had recorded noise on the app but it was a “low sound, and light compared to how it usually is”. He had several videos where the noise was clearer than the app, but the landlord would have to “literally witness” it to fully understand how bad it was.
2. The neighbour was making noise on purpose to be antagonistic, at times he sounded like a “caged animal”. He wanted to be moved.
3. He would not stop complaining until the doorbell was removed. The landlord had not responded to him and he wanted compensation.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord received legal advice from its inhouse legal team with regards to the doorbell. They advised that each case needed to be looked at in relation to the relative specifics, and further investigation needed to take place before it decided whether the doorbell should come down or not.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised that it had not yet dealt with his complaint escalation request. It said that its new approach was to thoroughly investigate complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The new approach was taking longer than expected, and someone would be in touch as soon as possible.
No further contact was seen between the landlord and the resident until 11 April 2022. The landlord asked the resident if the neighbour had removed the doorbell, and whether he was still calling out in the night. The resident responded to say he was still screaming but it had reduced, and the doorbell was still in situ.
The resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions in June 2022 for a response to his concerns. He said that:
1. It had failed to resolve the situation with his neighbour, and no one had got back to him.
2. The landlord’s staff were “incompetent and evil”. He referred to a particular member of staff as an “ape”.
The landlord noted that the resident was warned about his own behaviour and language on 22 June 2022.
On 4 July 2022 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman prompted the landlord to make contact with the resident. Records show that it tried to call him the same day.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord’s records show that it consulted its legal team again. It noted that:
1. It had contacted the neighbour to establish:
  1. What steps he was taking to ensure that that visual and audio information was processed correctly, and sought confirmation of its deletion period
  2. What area the bell covered and what the sensitivity was of the microphone. Photographs of the area it covered were provided
  3. Confirmation that signage was visible around the device
  4. That no one was to watch the footage without good reason
  5. Whether the external ringer volume could be lowered
2. The stage 2 response had been drafted. The solicitor reviewed the response and confirmed it was reasonable. It had been able to demonstrate it had reasonably considered representations for both residents.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process about the doorbell. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delayed response. It referenced a call that had taken place with the resident earlier that day in which he expressed as a resolution, he wanted the doorbell completely removed.
2. Permission for his neighbour to have the doorbell had been granted only to capture images within the boundary of the resident’s property and was subject to compliance with the data protection act 2018. Where the doorbell captured images outside the boundary of the home, for example the limited view of an adjacent communal area or wall, it still considered its use to be justifiable.
3. There was a visible sign up by the front door and the neighbour was aware that no one could watch the footage without good reason. The footage was being kept for as long as it was needed and deleted securely.
4. It had requested that his neighbour lower the external ringer volume if possible.
5. Any new incidents would be reviewed in line with its policies and procedures. The resident could also contact the ICO for further guidance.
6. His complaint was not upheld, but he could contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
On 2 occasions in July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about his neighbour and demanded £30,000 in compensation. The landlord noted that his communication become abusive. He made derogatory personal remarks about its staff and discriminatory comments. Both calls had to be terminated.
The landlord tried to call the resident on several occasions in July and August 2022. The resident noted in his correspondence that he suffered with signal issues from his network provider.
On 20 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. The call handler advised that he was calling them a series of expletives, and the call was ended. He called back to apologise however continued to use foul language and expletives, referring to several of the landlord’s staff. The call was terminated for a second time.
The landlord tried to call the resident again on 30 September 2022. He informed it he was “too tired, just listen to the voicemail I left you” and hung up. It tried to make contact a further 2 times without success
On 30 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process about the ASB. It said that:
1. He had been asked to download the noise app to record what he was experiencing. As an alternative, he could use diary sheets.
2. When reviewing noise, the legal test for any potential enforcement is whether the noise was excessive and continuous. A sample of noise submissions he had supplied had been listened to, but they were not considered to be excessive noise. Living in flats, it was reasonable to hear noises from a nearby neighbour.
3. There was no third-party evidence, for example from an environmental health officer, to substantiate that the noise was unreasonable. However, the landlord had still arranged for a multi-agency meeting to take place to discuss the issues he had reported.
4. His neighbour had been contacted about the reports of noise. He had personal circumstances relating to his personal health and was being supported by the appropriate agencies. He denied that any noise the resident could be hearing was a deliberate attempt to make him feel uncomfortable.
5. His neighbour acknowledged that he had screamed out on occasion when he was not in the best of health. He was not always in the property because of this. The installation of the doorbell was for his personal safety, following an incident of vandalism in the past. Due to data protection, it could not share further information on the installation of the doorbell as it was not relevant to the complaint.
6. Overall there was insufficient evidence to consider tenancy action against his neighbour. This was because there was a lack of independent evidence to suggest that the noise was deliberate or excessive, and the neighbour had provided evidence that they were unwell at the time of the event. It would not be proportionate to consider possession of his neighbour’s home.
7. It had tried to support the resident in various ways since he had made a formal complaint about the issues. Housing and tenancy sustainment officers had tried to make contact to discuss the ASB and his own wellbeing, as it was understood that the noise was affecting him as he had anxiety.
8. The resident had not been contactable when the landlord had tried to speak with him. It was noted that his interactions with staff were sometimes hostile and accusatory, especially when sending an email. This had made it difficult for staff to support him effectively.
9. Whilst his complaint was acknowledged, it had failed to provide him with a timely stage 1 response. To recognise this, it wanted to offer him £100 in compensation, to be credited to his rent account.
10. If there was ASB that was outstanding, it would be grateful if he could communicate with the landlord and follow the advice he had been given in terms of supporting evidence. In the absence of this, it would consider closing his ASB case.
11. If he was dissatisfied with the response, he could escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint process or contact the Ombudsman.
The same day, the resident left the landlord a voicemail. He said he felt the landlord was purposely avoiding his calls when his number came up. The landlord noted he made derogatory remarks, using several expletives.
On 12 October 2022 the resident’s tenancy sustainment team attempted to offer support to the resident. The resident referred to the staff member as “evil” on several occasions and became abusive. The call had to be terminated.
On 21 October 2022 the resident said that the banging had not stopped, it had been happening every single day for 2 years. He said that:
1. The landlord could add £100 to his account but it would make no difference and he wanted to be compensated thousands of pounds.
2. The noise app recordings he had taken were tiny examples of what he could hear. It happened “24/7, literally all day”. Heavy banging noises like a hammer was being used happened “today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year”.
3. His personal life was suffering and he had not slept. He felt trapped in his flat because his neighbour was using his doorbell to spy on him. He wanted his neighbour moved.
Around the same time, the Ombudsman informed the landlord the resident had reported:
1. The resident felt that the amount of time he had been reporting noise from his neighbour had not been considered in the stage 1 response.
2. Members of staff at the landlord had changed or moved a number of times, and as a result, it failed to recognise the impact on him. Whether or not the noise was accidental, it should not matter given the amount of time it had been going on.
3. The landlord had been unsympathetic to the effect the noise had on him, and its attempt to contact him for support were inadequate. He disputed that he had been hostile and accusatory.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident and he was not being realistic in what the landlord could achieve. He informed the landlord “he would not stop until he was paid £30,000”. He referenced several staff, using a number of expletives and derogatory terms. The landlord’s tenancy sustainment team wrote to him the same day and offered to arrange a meeting to discuss support. It asked him to make contact within 10 days or his case would be closed.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord noted that it had reviewed the ASB case for the resident and there had been no complaints from other neighbours about the noise. The neighbour was also able to demonstrate he was away from the property on several occasions.
On 8 November 2022 the landlord tried to arrange an appointment to visit the resident. He said that he “did not need to do this, and did not see the point”, the landlord had all the information it needed. He wanted compensation and began to make derogatory comments about the landlord, referring to it as “evil”. The landlord followed up the conversation in writing. It said that:
1. The purpose of its call was to discuss his request for an escalation of his complaint in more detail. Its stage 1 response had already explained that there was a lack of third party evidence to support that there was excessive noise and he had not engaged with the ASB process.
2. It accepted that he was upset with his current circumstances, but without engagement it could not take further action. He had not submitted any diary sheets, completed any recent noise app recordings and no one else had come forward to say that noise was an issue.
3. It wanted to offer tenancy sustainment support. The officer had been in contact several times without success. It asked that he made contact by 11 November 2022 or his support case would be closed.
Both the landlord’s tenancy sustainment and housing team tried to make contact with the resident in November 2021 without success. It left voicemails explaining that it wanted to arrange a visit to discuss his concerns and what support it could offer him.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process about the ASB he was reporting. It said that:
1. There was a lack of third party evidence that there was excessive noise coming from his neighbour’s property. There was insufficient evidence to take any action against his neighbour and no breach of tenancy had been identified. It could not see that he had recently submitted diary sheets or noise app recordings.
2. It was sorry if he felt staff who had since left the organisation had impacted progress on his case. However recently he had not fully engaged with its staff during the ASB process. It had tried to contact him on approximately 13 occasions between July to November 2022, and provided him with each date an attempt at contact was made. It had frequently left voicemail messages requesting that he call back to discuss the matter further.
3. Various emails and phone recordings showed that some of his communication could be interpreted as accusatory and hostile. This had made it difficult for staff to support him appropriately. Its staff were “100% committed” to supporting the resident and wanted to continue to work with him to investigate his concerns.
4. Its tenancy sustainment officer could provide support to sustain his tenancy, if he fully engaged with them. This would involve an initial assessment of his current support needs. It encouraged him to make contact with the officer by 29 November 2022 or his case would be closed.
5. His housing officer was also willing to continue to support him and advise of any action plan to further investigate his concerns of ASB and consider what further support he may need.
6. It was providing details of moving options if this was something that he wished to pursue.
7. Taking everything into account, it wanted to make a total compensatory payment broken down as:
  1. £100 for the delay at responding to his complaint at stage 1 of its process
  2. £100 for the delays and distress caused by staff leaving the organisation and new staff taking over the case
  3. £50 for time and effort bringing the matter to the landlord’s attention
8. The compensation would be paid onto his rent account to offset any arrears. If he remained dissatisfied he could contact the Ombudsman.
Several attempts were made by the landlord to arrange a visit to see the resident in December 2022. The resident initially declined the visit, stating that there was “no point” as the only solution he was interested in was for his neighbour and the doorbell to be removed. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2022 and reiterated the contents of its complaint response. In addition, it said that:
1. The purpose of the home visit was to see if there was any support it could offer him. It was not its intention to “wind him up”, it sympathised with his concerns and wanted to help.
2. It would keep his case open for a further 10 days and close it if it heard nothing further. It encouraged him to reconsider a home visit.
The resident agreed to a home visit on 16 December 2022. The landlord noted it was attended by 2 members of staff. It recorded that:
1. It explained to the resident that whilst it could not overturn the decision of the stage 2 response, it wanted to offer him support and to help him.
2. The resident said he had already explained the outcome that he wanted. He closed the living room door and stood over where the members of staff were sat, making them feel uncomfortable. They noted that he was presenting as agitated, he said his thoughts were getting to him.
3. They advised that they would look at the position of the doorbell in order to make their way out of the property. They told him if he wanted further support he could contact its tenancy sustainment team.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case. It said that the resident had emailed twice, repeating the same issues that had been addressed in the final complaint response with no new supporting evidence.
Records show that the resident continued to contact the landlord on at least a further 4 occasions in January 2023 to advise of screaming and disturbance from his neighbour. In response, the landlord:
1. Arranged for police disclosure.
2. Provided the resident with move options.
3. Sent the resident diary sheets and agreed fortnightly contact.
4. Spoke to other neighbours, and investigated counter allegations.
5. Noted that it was difficult to engage with the resident. Every time it spoke to him, he continued to make derogatory remarks about its staff. He commented that he wanted them “shot or hit by a bus”.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that:
1. The situation has had a severe detrimental effect on his mental and physical health. He has been on anti-depressants and unable to sleep. His eyes and throat felt like they were burning. He felt trapped in his own flat, had become a recluse and did not want to leave because he did not want to be captured on his neighbour’s doorbell.
2. His landlord insisted on him using the noise app and nothing else to record the ASB. It had purposely disadvantaged him as he did not want to use the technology. He had taken video evidence of the noise “a couple of years ago” but the landlord was not interested in watching it. It had “bullied” him into a joint visit in December 2022 which achieved nothing. He believed the landlord would have withheld the true level of his contact when providing evidence for this case.
3. The walls were “paper thin”, he could hear his neighbour sneezing, coughing and switching on the lights. In order for anyone to witness the screaming noise, they would have to live with him for a period of time and keep quiet “like a fly on the wall”. He felt the neighbour knew he lived alone and was unable to have someone witness the noise. He had a similar situation with a previous neighbour before becoming a tenant of the landlord .
4. He feels that his neighbour’s ethnicity plays a part in his ASB as “people from [his ethnic] background talk with piercing squeeky sounds”. He is aware that his neighbour has sensitive medical conditions, but believes he has more than enough support and the landlord should be “more heavy handed” with him.
5. As a resolution, he wanted the neighbour and the doorbell removed. He wanted members of the landlord’s staff sacked and £30,000 in compensation. He stated he was willing to continue to complain until he got the money he felt he deserved.
On 21 August 2023 the landlord informed the Ombudsman that its tenancy sustainment team withdrew their support to the resident because of ongoing hostility, racial abuse and inappropriate language.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited by the availability of evidence. The resident has said that he raised ASB concerns from the beginning of his tenancy. No records have been provided from either party that date back as far as June 2020 – when the resident’s tenancy commenced. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from 12 April 2021 onwards.
This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress, and as a result he is seeking considerable financial compensation from the landlord. Case law has shown that an occupier cannot claim damages against nuisance that is non-deliberate, for example noise caused by poor sound insulation, because no nuisance arises as a result of the ordinary use of the premises, and the landlord is not able to authorise it expressly. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately and reasonably.
When the resident reported on 12 April 2021 he could hear his neighbour screaming and shouting, the landlord made an attempt to contact him the same day which was reasonable. Within this correspondence, he references having already completed diary sheets for the landlord. No further attempts at contact were made by the landlord and there was a gap of approximately 3 months where there appears to have been no contact from either party. This is consistent with both parties advising that there was a changeover of staff within the organisation.
The purpose of the landlord’s contact with the resident on 7 July 2021 was to discuss the case and devise a plan of action. Being clear on how a noise report will be handled is key to good communication between the landlord and the resident, and aids expectation management. The resident has said that he is able to hear his neighbour sneeze, cough and switch on the light, and by his own admission, the walls are thin. It would be reasonable for him to hear some daily living noise from others when he lives in a flat.
It is recognised that his reports of frequent screaming were different, and therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to request evidence in the form of noise recordings to establish the date, time and frequency it was occurring. The resident’s initial contact suggested he had already been doing this and therefore was aware he needed to evidence his reports. The onus was on the resident to provide the landlord with corroborating evidence of what he had experienced, however no evidence of detailed diary records were seen. The landlord’s records suggest the resident then informed it he would speak to the neighbour himself and the case was closed on 10 August 2021.
Records show that the resident reported the issue was ongoing and a result a new ASB case was opened again shortly afterwards. The landlord agreed to keep in monthly contact with the resident and it largely honoured this contact, however the evidence shows that it experienced considerable difficulties communicating with the resident. It is understood that the resident suffered from signal issues from his network provider which meant that the landlord had to leave several voicemail messages for him. When the resident made contact with the landlord in return, he made several derogatory and discriminatory remarks about several of its staff and provided little evidence of what he was experiencing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to request supporting evidence from the resident so that it could effectively investigate his concerns. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has purposefully disadvantaged him by insisting on noise app recordings alone to take action on the ASB. There is no evidence that was the case. It is clear from the landlord’s correspondence that in the absence of the app, he also had the option of completing paper diary sheets. This service is aware that despite the lack of evidence, the landlord still approach the neighbour to remind them of their tenancy obligations, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman has seen reference to vulnerabilities of the neighbour, and evidence was seen that multi-agency meetings had taken place at the request of the landlord to sensitively tackle the noise nuisance the resident had been reporting. The landlord was not obliged to share further detail of non-legal interventions with the resident about his neighbour in this regard. There was no evidence to suggest his neighbour was behaving in a deliberate way so as to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
The neighbour presenting as vulnerable would not prohibit the landlord from pursuing further tenancy action. However, in order to do so, the landlord would require support and evidence from partner agencies. In this case no evidence was seen that the resident had had contacted the local authority noise team, and no partner agencies have supported further action against the neighbour. Further, the landlord was able to establish that there were no reports of concerns from other neighbours.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. Evidence shows that the landlord offered mediation to the resident in the past but was met with resistance. In any event, given the nature of the threats the resident had made against his neighbour, it is reasonable that the landlord had not pursued mediation further at this time.
The landlord’s responses have been empathetic and considerate of the impact the reported noise has had on the resident. Despite the resident’s behaviour towards its staff, records show that the landlord has tried to engage with him to offer appropriate support in accordance with its ASB policy. It has tried to do this through several methods including during a visit that took place on 16 December 2022. The Ombudsman recognises the behaviour of the resident made it difficult for the landlord to complete a RAM to understand how best it could support him. It is reasonable that its current offer of tenancy sustainment support has been withdrawn due to the ongoing abuse its staff continue to face. Should the resident provide medical evidence of his vulnerabilities, then the landlord should update its vulnerability records and reconsider its offer of support.
Overall, there was an initial failure to respond or record the actions the landlord had taken to investigate the ASB, particularly between April and August 2021. This service failure is reflected in the landlord’s complaint correspondence where it recognised that there had been delays as a result of members of staff leaving and new staff taking over the case. The resident was appropriately compensated £100 for the delay, which the Ombudsman deems sufficient to put matters right for the resident.
Outside of the above-recognised failure, the landlord has been consistent in its approach and has acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It has made clear its expectations of what is required in terms of supporting evidence. It has appropriately liaised with partnership agencies and has made several offers of support to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s video doorbell.

The ICO is the relevant regulatory authority in relation to data protection and information rights. Its 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”. For devices which this applies, such as the doorbell in this case, it says that certain rules must be followed. The same rules are reflected in the landlord’s resident CCTV guidance document.
Although video doorbells are allowed under current legislation, the presence of his neighbour’s device still caused understandable concern to the resident. He said he was worried that his neighbour was able to monitor his movements, and believed it to be a breach of his privacy. In the interest of good neighbourhood management and to avoid neighbour disputes it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate his concerns and manage the competing interests of the two neighbours.
In this case, the landlord recognised that the doorbell had been initially set up following a separate incidence of vandalism. The resident complained about the doorbell soon after it was installed, in October 2021. The landlord responded promptly to his concerns by way of a stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2021. Whilst the response advised that permission had been granted for the doorbell and that it met data protection requirements, it was not clear from its records how the landlord established this.
Evidence shows that landlord spoke to the neighbour in depth about his responsibilities as the data controller on at least 2 occasions. However, it was not until 7 July 2023 that it was able to confirm that it had fully reviewed the installation, following advice of its legal team. Whilst the outcome of its investigations demonstrated that the device was in line with its CCTV guidance, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed at an earlier time that the responsibilities were being upheld. A recommendation has been made in regards to this.
The landlord has explained to the resident that the actual use of the doorbell is the neighbour’s responsibility as the data controller. There was no evidence of a specific incident of misuse at the time of this investigation, and the complaint is focussed solely on the resident’s dissatisfaction of its presence. The resident has questioned the landlord’s efforts and continues to make repeated requests for it to remove the doorbell altogether. If the resident has further concerns about a breach of privacy, then he can refer the matter to the ICO.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord. Its communication with the resident on the matter has been consistent and clear. It was able to confirm that the doorbell had been installed in line with its CCTV guidance and the framework of accepted use, as monitored by the ICO.

Complaint handling

In assessing the landlord’s complaint handling, it is important to recognise that the resident had 2 complaints with the landlord. The first complaint related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the video doorbell. The resident first told the landlord in October 2021 that he was unhappy with the presence of the doorbell and a stage 1 response followed promptly on 27 October 2021.
Prior to writing to the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by consulting its data protection officer to establish it had acted appropriately and in accordance with its resident CCTV guidance. Its response was empathetic to the resident’s situation but informed him that it had no concerns about the position of the doorbell. It agreed to review the situation again at the end of January 2022 and included appropriate guidance for the resident to review. This was a reasonable approach to take.
When the resident stated he was dissatisfied with the response on 3 November 2021, he experienced difficulties in obtaining an acknowledgment of an escalation of his complaint. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, residents can request an escalation and expect to receive a final response within 20 working days. Any delays need to have been agreed with the resident. No evidence was seen to show that the landlord did this, and he had to chase it on several occasions, causing him inconvenience and distress.
The landlord’s correspondence on 1 March 2022 was inappropriate. The landlord’s implementation of the Housing Ombudsman’s Code should not have impacted its ability to conduct a “thorough investigation” or respond within a timely manner. A stage 2 response followed on 8 July 2022, 170 working days later, significantly outside of the timeframe to be expected within the landlord’s complaint policy.
The stage 2 response itself was clear, comprehensive and appropriately signposted the resident to the ICO with regards to his concerns about his data rights. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 of its process, it did not go far enough to recognise the extent of its complaint handling failures. It did not acknowledge its delayed actions prolonged conclusion to the resident’s concerns and it failed to offer compensation reflective of the time and trouble he had experienced in bringing his complaint.
The second complaint referred to this Service was in relation to the ASB the resident reported. It is evident that the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB concerns on 12 April 2021. When receiving a complaint about ASB, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the ASB itself, or the handling of the landlord’s ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay of formally investigating the matter as a complaint, as was seen in the handling of this case.
Whilst the landlord continued to correspond with the resident throughout 2021 about his dissatisfaction with the way his ASB case was handled, it failed to register a formal complaint. Of particular note, the resident said on 13 September 2021 that he wanted the issue investigated by “someone higher”. This should again have been taken as an expression of dissatisfaction which warranted a complaint investigation, but it was not until 30 September 2022, over a year later, that the landlord issued its stage 1 response.
In the response, the landlord recognised that there had been a delay in formally recognising his complaint and appropriately compensated him £100 for this. Its response was empathetic and explained why his ASB case could not be progressed further. It was reasonable in its explanation of why it needed further supporting evidence, and encouraged the resident to get in contact so that it could try to support him. Its response was appropriate and provided advice consistent with its ASB policy.
It is understood that the landlord experienced considerable difficulties in communicating with the resident about his complaint, as on several occasions he allegedly became challenging and abusive towards its staff. This impacted the landlord’s ability to act quickly and gain sufficient understanding of all that the resident remained dissatisfied with. It was reasonable for the landlord to highlight to the resident how his behaviour was affecting its investigations, and made it difficult for it to effectively offer him support.
When the resident expressed that he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, the landlord made reasonable attempts to discuss the matter further with him. It continued to be met with abusive language which made it difficult for the landlord to understand the resident’s ongoing concerns, and the Ombudsman had to intervene. The stage 2 response about the ASB followed on 17 November 2022. It was issued within an appropriate timeframe and the landlord was able to demonstrate that it had made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to discuss his concerns. It made it clear that despite the resident’s behaviour towards the landlord, it was “100% committed” to support him through its tenancy sustainment and housing teams.
The landlord’s response was empathetic, appropriate and reasonable in recognising its own complaint handling failures. Its offer of £100 for the delay in handling his complaint and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble was reasonable and sufficient to put matters right.
While the landlord did take steps to recognise its handling of the resident’s second complaint, there was still no recognition of the significant delay which occurred at the time of his first complaint. There was a delay of 9 months between the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses about the doorbell and the landlord’s explanation for the cause of the delay was inappropriate. This service has subsequently concluded that in view of this, there was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s video doorbell.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were initial failures by the landlord to communicate regularly with the resident about his reports of ASB. This was consistent with staff leaving the business and the case was closed prematurely. The landlord recognised and made an appropriate offer of compensation for this. Once it reopened the case in September 2021, it made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident to investigate his concerns. It was clear in terms of its expectations and threshold for taking further action. The resident failed to engage with the landlord and frequently became abusive towards its staff. This hindered its ability to support the resident and progress his ASB case in the absence of any supporting evidence.
The landlord was consistent in its communication with the resident about the doorbell, and provided him with appropriate advice. Though there were delays in it concluding the matter as part of its complaint response, the decision to allow his neighbour to continue to utilise the doorbell was reasonable. The landlord signposted the resident appropriately to the ICO if he remained concerned.
There were delays in the landlord recognising the resident’s concerns about ASB as a formal complaint. Once it did, the landlord was able to demonstrate that it had tried to contact the resident several times to engage with him about his complaint and its offer of redress for its complaint handling failures was sufficient to put matters right. However there were failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint about the doorbell. Although the advice it gave to the resident was consistent and comprehensive, it failed to recognise it impact the formal response delays had on the resident, causing him unnecessary frustration.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling, within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to update its vulnerability records for the resident upon receipt of information from a medical professional.
The landlord is recommended to review its internal process for resident CCTV to ensure that it is aware what investigations need to take place to support the framework of accepted use as monitored by the ICO, at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord is recommended to review its procedures in relation to record keeping. In doing so, it should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
The landlord is recommended to review its procedures in relation to handling complaints about noise. In doing so, it should have regard to “Recommendation 31”, noted in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints