Six Town Housing Limited (202208139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208139

Six Town Housing Limited

15 February 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 request for disabled parking.
2. The landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV.
3. The landlord’s decision to place an alert on the resident’s tenancy file.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a housing adviser.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
6. The resident’s reports of a data breach by the landlord.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about the way an organisation is handling personal information fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such, the Ombudsman will not be considering this aspect of the complaint further and should the resident want to pursue this, he should do so by contacting the ICO. While this Service had not investigated the matters relating to the data breach, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

Background.

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property which is a 2-bedroom property with a garden. The tenancy started on 4 November 2019. The landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities noted for the resident, which included physical disabilities and mental health issues.
During the period from January 2021 the resident reported ASB from 3 separate neighbours. The neighbours have been referred to in this report as neighbour A, B, and C for ease of reference.

Summary of events.

The resident had made several reports of ASB between May 2020 and November 2020 relating to harassment and had requested a management transfer which had been refused in August 2020. During this time, the landlord had liaised with the police and made a safeguarding referral for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2021 and asked for a housing adviser to contact him about harassment from neighbours over the previous 11 months. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 10 February 2021. It contacted the resident again on 22 February 2021 and advised it had discussed the case with the police and no further action had been agreed. The landlord noted that during the discussion the resident reported further noise from several neighbours and said it needed diary evidence to substantiate the reports.
The landlord received a report from the resident on 15 March 2021 that neighbour B was recording videos of him and that he was experiencing issues with neighbours A and C. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 March 2021 and advised the resident that it had not received any completed diary sheets to investigate.
Between 15 March 2021 and 15 June 2021, a number of ASB reports were made by neighbours about the resident to the landlord. The incidents reported included parking on communal grass verges, shining security lights into windows, throwing stones at windows, pointing a CCTV camera at windows, shouting abuse, cutting a phone line, and threatening behaviour. During this timeframe, the landlord’s records noted a zero-tolerance letter was sent to the resident on 9 April 2021.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a tenancy breach letter which stated that reports had been received about the resident driving cars over the communal grass and footpaths. The landlord asked the resident to cease from driving on the communal grass and paths as this was against the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord said it would visit the resident on 28 July 2021 to check that the matters had been rectified.
The landlord sent a text message to all residents within the resident’s street about the rules of installing CCTV on 9 July 2021.
Between 7 and 13 July 2021, a number of reports were made to the landlord about the resident parking on the communal grass verges and footpaths.
The landlord noted a visit made to the resident on 28 July 2021. The landlord’s records stated the resident said the landlord had not dealt with neighbour B’s video doorbell which was recording him. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2021 to confirm its discussion with him. The landlord said the following:
1. In regard to the parking on the communal grass verge:
  1. It acknowledged the parking on the grass had reduced but it was still receiving reports of this. It reminded the resident he must not park on the grass areas.
  2. The resident had advised that he had been negotiating with the local council to apply for a disabled parking bay on the street.
2. In regard to the CCTV:
  1. It had advised the resident that it had not yet received an alterations form for permission to install CCTV. The landlord advised the resident to remove the extra cameras installed to a maximum of 3, and to adjust the viewing range to the edge of his boundary only.
3. In relation to the ASB reports about the resident:
  1. Reports of ASB had been received about the resident. The resident had denied the allegations and raised that his neighbours had caused him nuisance.
  2. It reminded the resident of his obligations under the tenancy agreement to not behave antisocially.
  3. The resident could report any ASB from neighbours by completing diary sheets and the landlord could then investigate the matter.
4. One large bag of rubbish had been noted to the front of the property. It asked the resident to clear all outstanding rubbish.
5. It would revisit the property on 25 August 2021 to check that the matters had been rectified.
On 15 August 2021, the landlord received a report that the resident had parked on the grass verge on 13 August 2021.
The landlord attempted to visit the resident on 25 August 2021 to re inspect the tenancy breaches. Its records states a contact card was left.
The landlord issued the resident with permission to install 3 CCTV cameras at this property on 5 September 2021. The letter stated the view of the CCTV camera must be made available on request and that the landlord had not given permission for the resident to record outside of the boundary of his property.
The landlord noted ASB reports received from the resident on 11 September about an incident with neighbour B. The landlord investigated this with the neighbour the following day and noted it was awaiting diary sheets from the resident. It received a further report from the resident on 13 September 2021 about harassment from a visitor of neighbour B. On this date, the landlord received a report from a neighbour that the resident’s cameras had been pointing at them and that the resident had made threats. The landlord discussed these incidents at a visit to the resident on 15 September 2021. The landlord investigated the complaint with the neighbour the following day. The police advised the landlord on 28 September 2021 that no crime had been logged in relation to this. Mediation was offered at this time, and it was noted that the resident’s neighbour declined this.
On 15 September 2021, the resident reported ASB from neighbour A to the landlord. This included noise, drugs, and violence. The resident was advised to contact the police to report the criminal issues and was sent diary sheets to record noise. The case file noted that no diary sheets had been received.
The resident provided the landlord with sound recordings of noise from neighbour A on 2 October 2021. The landlord’s records noted it had spoken with the resident and acknowledged receipt of the recordings. The records noted that the resident had agreed to complete diaries and use the noise app.
The landlord issued the resident with a formal tenancy warning letter on 5 October 2021. The letter stated that the landlord had visited the resident on 7 July 2021, 28 July 2021, and 15 September 2021 to discuss the ASB reports it had received from neighbours. It said that during the visits the resident had denied the allegations made against him and had made counter allegations against neighbours. The landlord said it had advised the resident on how to report ASB and issued diary sheets but had not received any completed ones. The landlord stated it had spoken to the resident on 30 September 2021 following a report received that the resident had scattered feathers over neighbouring gardens. The landlord asked the resident to refrain from any further incidents with his neighbours and to use the diary sheets provided to report any ASB.
The landlord’s records noted it had spoken with the resident on 12 October 2021. The resident asked for an update on the ASB he had reported on 2 October 2021. The landlord told the resident an interview had been done and for him to use the diary and noise app to collect further evidence.
The landlord visited the resident on 12 October 2021 with the police to discuss the ASB incidents reported. The records noted that a referral was made by the police to a support organisation. On 26 October 2021, the landlord discussed the ASB reports with an organisation supporting the resident.
On 8 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that neighbours B, C and another neighbour had parked cars in front of a public footpath and on the communal grass verge. He also provided photos of this. The landlord investigated the reports with the neighbours on 17 November 2021. It advised the resident during a visit on 1 December 2021 that it had been unable to take action because the resident had not been able to supply a date of when he had taken the photos.
The landlord issued the resident with a formal tenancy warning letter on 14 December 2021. The letter said the following:
1. The landlord had attended an appointment at the resident’s property on 9 December 2021 to check the CCTV cameras had been installed correctly. The resident had not been at home for the appointment. The landlord had noted an extra camera was back up at the front and there was now 3 cameras to the front and 2 security lights.
2. One of the security lights was shining permanently on the day of the visit.
3. The security lights shined past the boundary line and had caused a nuisance to other residents.
4. The resident needed to obtain permission to install security lights and it had enclosed a form.
5. The resident was currently in breach of his tenancy agreement conditions.
6. If the resident did not comply with the permission conditions, the landlord was able to make arrangements to remove the CCTV cameras and recharge to cost to the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 December 2021. It said that it had noted his garden was in an untidy condition during a visit to the area on 9 December 2021. It said general household rubbish was present to the front and back of the property. The letter reminded the resident of the terms of tenancy agreement to keep the garden tidy and not to keep rubbish. The landlord asked the resident to remove all rubbish and said it would visit the resident on 11 January to complete a reinspection of the garden.
On 2 January 2022, the landlord received a report of ASB about the resident. It said the resident had been throwing items at the windows of a neighbouring property on 01 January 2022. The report stated that this had been ongoing since March 2021.
The landlord visited the resident on 11 January 2022 and discussed a CCTV breach and rubbish to the side of the residents property. Following the visit, the landlord sent the resident a formal tenancy warning on 17 January 2022. It said during the visit it had noted that the resident still had 3 cameras to the front of the property. The landlord stated that during the visit on 11 January 2022 the resident had said he would not alter his CCTV cameras until he had proof that neighbour B’s video doorbell was not recording him, his garden, or the public footpath. The landlord said it had explained all cases were treated in the same manner but it could not share the details of other cases with him. The letter confirmed the landlord would visit the resident on 25 January 2022 to check if his CCTV was compliant.
On 18 January 2022, the landlord completed a check of the video doorbell with the neighbour. It advised the neighbour on the viewing angle of the doorbell.
The landlord issued the resident with a formal tenancy warning on 26 January 2022. The letter said the landlord had visited the property on 25 January 2022 for a prearranged appointment to re-inspect the resident’s CCTV cameras. The resident had not been in to provide access, and the landlord had identified 3 cameras to the front elevation and 1 to the gable end of the property. It said this exceeded the number of cameras allowed on the conditions letter sent to the resident on 5 September 2021. The landlord said it was withdrawing its permission to use excessive CCTV cameras, and the resident was allowed 1 camera to the front elevation, 1 to the rear and another to the gable end only. It stated an appointment had been made for the landlord to remove the 2 unauthorised cameras to the front elevation on Tuesday 22 February 2022.
The police confirmed to the landlord on 31 January 2022 that no further action was taken following the incident reported by the resident’s neighbour in January 2022.
The landlord told the resident on 9 February 2022 that it had made an appointment to remove his CCTV cameras that were in breach of permissions. The resident responded on 14 February 2022 and said he did not give permission for the landlord to enter his garden to remove the CCTV without a court order. He said the landlord was not to enter his property without this or the landlord would be “met with force.” There was no further evidence of progression by the landlord on the removal of the resident’s CCTV cameras.
The landlord received an ASB complaint on 7 March 2022 through the local council about the resident installing 3 CCTV cameras facing a neighbour’s property.
A report was made to the landlord on 4 May 2022 that the resident had made threats of violence towards a neighbour. The landlord visited the resident on this date. The landlord’s records noted that the resident said he had placed a large screen along his back garden fence due to a new camera installed by neighbour B, which he had reported to the police. The landlord advised the resident to use the ICO website and that civil action needed to be taken against his neighbour.
The landlord received an ASB report from the resident about neighbour A on 30 June 2022. He said a brick had been thrown through his window, his gate had been kicked, he was scared to leave the house, and his carers had refused to go to the property. The landlord’s records noted that repeated attempts had been made by the landlord to discuss the situation and the resident had declined this. The records noted the resident wanted to discuss his housing adviser during a call on this date. The resident said during the call that he felt the housing adviser had visited weekly, alone, unannounced and was “not very polite.” The landlord explained to the resident that the housing adviser would only visit if there was ongoing issues with the tenancy or to investigate complaints. The resident told the landlord he did not want the housing adviser to attend the property alone. The resident also reported the following:
1. A doorbell camera belonging to neighbour C was pointing at his property.
2. An incident on the previous night had occurred with neighbour A. He had received a threat and abuse which had been reported to the police.
3. He had sent an email to the landlord requesting a list of how many complaints and been made against him.
4. He felt the landlord was biased and not listening to him.
On 6 July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that neighbours B and C had CCTV cameras pointing directly into his personal space and back garden. He also requested that the landlord review the threats and abuse he was receiving from neighbour A.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 July 2022 and said he had raised a number of complaints with the landlord but had not received a response. The resident said he had raised the following issues:
1. The landlord had falsely accused him of ASB and placed an alert on his file.
2. A data breach had happened.
3. A member of staff had harassed him.
4. He was unhappy with the how the landlord had handled his request for disabled parking.
5. He had concerns about the CCTV installed by a neighbour.

This Service contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 and asked it to provide a response to the resident by 9 August 2022.

On 22 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord in regard to his reports of ASB. He said that 2 of his neighbour’s cameras were overlooking his property. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to arrange a visit to him on 28 July 2022.

The landlord noted that on the 28 July 2022 it visited the resident to discuss his complaint, the garden, and his CCTV cameras. The landlord asked the resident to reposition one of the cameras that was pointing beyond his boundary. The resident said the landlord had not dealt with neighbour B’s video doorbell which was recording him. The landlord spoke to the resident about recent ASB reports from neighbours. The resident made counter allegations about neighbour’s A, B and C. The landlord noted in an internal email on the same day that it had reminded the resident to complete the diary sheets during the visit, but he had told the landlord he was unable to complete these.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 18 August 2022. It said the following:
1. It was the responsibility of the local council highways department to assess the possibility of a dropped kerb or additional disabled parking facilities. Once approved by the local council the resident would need to provide quotes for the works and provide these to the landlord to provide approval. The landlord said it had checked with the local council and it had not been ale to find a record of the resident’s request. It said it was happy to liaise with them on the resident’s behalf if he could provide the details.
2. An ASB report had been received on 30 June 2022 by the resident about his neighbour. The landlord said the complaint was investigated and the issues were now resolved. It asked the resident to provide details of any further incidents to its customer services team.
3. The alert placed on the resident’s file was a do not visit alone marker. The purpose of this was to make landlord staff aware that visits to the resident’s property were to be conducted in pairs. It said the marker had been placed on the file following threatening behaviour, with the most recent incident in January 2022. The landlord said the incident of threats of violence towards a staff member had been logged with the police. The landlord said it had a duty to safeguard the health and safety of its employees.
4. It was aware of the ongoing tensions between the resident and his neighbours. It said it investigated all claims of ASB and had spoken to all neighbours involved. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if he had examples of incidents in which this had not happened or he felt wrongly accused.
5. The landlord said it acknowledged that a number of residents including the resident had installed cameras and were in breach of the tenancy agreement by consequence. It said it was seeking legal advice on how to proceed with the removal of the cameras. It said the resident should raise concerns in the meantime to the police. The landlord said it would speak to all residents who were using CCTV in an inconsiderate manner or recording beyond the boundaries of their property once it had confirmation of the action it could take.
The resident escalated his complaint on 19 August 2022. He said the landlord had not investigated his complaints and had not contacted him. The resident said the landlord had not taken action over his reports of ASB, CCTV cameras and neighbours parking on a grass verge. The landlord responded on 22 August 2022 and said the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and a response would be provided by 5 September 2022.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 August 2022. The landlord said it did not uphold the residents complaint and it said the following:
1. In regard to the alert placed on the resident’s file:
  1. The landlord said it had a responsibility to protect its staff and the alert was appropriate. It was due to review the alert and once it had completed this it would notify the resident of its decision.
2. In relation to the residents complaint about the handling of his reports of ASB:
  1. The landlord said it had responded to each report of ASB and had asked the resident to keep diary sheets of the incidents. It had also provided details of the noise app.
  2. The landlord had not received any further evidence from the resident and no diary sheets had been submitted since the first report in May 2020.
  3. 4 Noise App recordings had been submitted on 4 October 2021 which had evidenced shouting and banging in the street, but it did not include details about who had caused the nuisance.
  4. Neighbours had denied the allegations of ASB made and had raised counter claims of ASB against the resident. The landlord had offered mediation, but this had been declined by the neighbours.
  5. It was satisfied that its staff had acted in line with its procedures and had provided the resident with the appropriate advice and information in a timely and appropriate manner.
  6. The landlord said it had liaised with partner agencies, undertaken joint visits with them, offered mediation and made referrals on behalf of the resident.
  7. It was not able to progress matters further due to the lack of evidence provided by the resident.
3. In relation to the landlord’s handling of complaints about his neighbour’s CCTV installations and carparking complaints:
  1. It was aware that the resident had installed CCTV equipment without its permission and that one of the cameras was capturing images outside of the resident’s boundary.
  2. The landlord confirmed that residents needed to seek permission to install the CCTV equipment and had to ensure the cameras did not capture images outside of his boundary.
  3. Retrospective permission had been granted to the resident on 5 September 2021 to install 3 CCTV cameras.
  4. It was evident that the resident had made a number of complaints about his neighbour’s CCTV cameras and believed these were directed at this home.
  5. It confirmed that there were a number of CCTV cameras of the resident’s street which were inappropriately positioned and potentially capturing images outside of the property boundaries, including the resident’s camera.
  6. It was not able to comment on individual cases or provide an update on the list of addresses the resident had provided. The landlord confirmed that the correct procedures had been followed and all residents concerned had been given tenancy advice.
  7. If the resident believed a neighbour was capturing images unlawfully, he was able to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  8. It was seeking legal advice about the cameras installed by both the resident and the neighbours and the resident would be contacted once it had further information.
  9. It had received complaints about the resident parking on the grass verge on a number of occasions. This had also been witnessed by the landlord’s staff.
  10. The landlord had issued the resident with tenancy advice and it confirmed another resident was also issued with tenancy advice following a report from the resident.
  11. It was satisfied the resident had breached the terms of his tenancy and the appropriate advice was given.
  12. It was also satisfied that the residents reports about neighbours had been investigated and dealt with in line with procedures.
4. In regard to the resident’s complaint about the housing adviser:
  1. It said that it had discussed this with the resident at a visit to his home and confirmed that housing advisers only visit a resident’s home if there was an ongoing issue with the tenancy or to follow up on a complaint.
  2. It had found no evidence to suggest the resident had been harassed by the member of staff.
  3. The housing adviser was carrying out legitimate business and following up on complaints and potential tenancy breaches.
  4. The visits had been done in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  5. The homes of other residents had also been visited.
  6. There was no evidence to suggest the visits to the residents home was unreasonable or unwarranted.
  7. The advice offered to the resident by the housing adviser was in line with its procedures.
  8. Another member of staff would act as a point of contact for the resident going forward and 2 members of staff would attend visits to his home whenever possible. It would also try to make appointments for future visits and provide the resident with reasonable notice.
The resident confirmed to this Service in October 2022 that he was dissatisfied with the final response from the landlord and requested an investigation.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 December 2022 that it had visited both neighbour B and C’s properties to inspect the CCTV in place and was satisfied that the cameras did not point into his garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported concerns around anti-social behaviour in 2020. Whilst there may be references to information that was recorded in the landlord’s records between May 2020 and November 2020, this investigation primarily focuses on the events from January 2021, which lead to the resident’s formal complaint in July 2022.
The resident raised further reports of ASB after 25 August 2022. This report considered matters from the date of the resident’s reports in January 2021 up to the date of the landlord’s final response on 25 August 2022. In his submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has also referred to a number of issues regarding repairs to the property, which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. In the interest of fairness, and in accordance with the Scheme, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about privacy concerns with neighbours CCTV cameras. This is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider, how the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) for CCTV would be a matter for the ICO to consider. The resident may wish to contact the ICO for further advice if he has not already done so. We can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns when the matter was reported to it.
The resident has alleged the landlord has discriminated against them. It is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine that the resident has been the victim of discrimination as set out in the Equality Act. That is a matter for the courts. This Service’s role is to consider whether the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with policy and procedure, given all the circumstances of the case This includes consideration as to whether the landlord had demonstrated that it had accounted for any known vulnerabilities in its handling of the case

Policies, procedures & legal obligations.

The tenancy agreement states that residents must not behave antisocially or cause a nuisance to others. It said in response to reports of ASB it will provide help and advice and where necessary take action to deal with the problem. It states that the landlord may take legal action against a resident if they harass, victimise other people or break any condition of the tenancy agreement by behaving in a way that causes a nuisance or annoyance to others.
The tenancy agreement stated that a resident must not park anywhere on the property unless the property has an approved hard standing with a dropped kerb. It also says that residents must not park on grassed areas, including grass verges.
The tenancy agreement stated that a resident must keep their garden tidy. If the garden is overgrown it may do the work and charge a resident for it, or it may take court action against the resident.
The landlord’s alteration and improvement terms and conditions stated that the landlord would consider permission for a maximum of 2 CCTV cameras to be fitted to a property to either the rear or front. The cameras must not record or capture images or sound outside of the boundary of the property. A third camera may be considered on a gable end. It also says the landlord did not give permission to record outside of the curtilage of the property. It stated that if a resident inadvertently recorded outside of the curtilage of the property a resident must comply with their legal obligations under the data protection laws. The terms stated that if it received a notification that a resident had been recording outside of the boundary of their property, this was a breach of the terms and conditions of the permission, and it would ask the resident to remove the camera. If a resident failed to remove a camera, the landlord will do this with notice and recharge the cost to the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as including excessive noise, aggressive or threating behaviour, intimidation, harassment, and threats of violence. It says the landlord will judge each case on its merits when deciding what action to take. The policy says the landlord aims to do the following:
1. Respond to ASB complaints within realistic timescales.
2. Use a variety of methods to try to resolve problems before legal action becomes necessary.
3. Maintain confidentiality at all times.
4. Use of the appropriate legal action where necessary, including injunctions, anti social behaviour orders and possession proceedings in serious cases or where all other routes have failed.
5. Engage in multiagency working.
6. To provide a consistent and customer focused service that responds to the needs of each individual resident.
The policy says that when a report of ASB is received, it will interview both parties. It says the complainant must take responsibility and work in partnership to help build a case against the alleged perpetrator. This may include the complainant collecting evidence by keeping diary records of any nuisance that occurs, providing details of potential witnesses and reporting any problems to the police. As part of any investigations the landlord will assess the vulnerability of the alleged perpetrators and also assess the vulnerability of the complainants. During the interview with a complainant, a plan of action will be agreed and where appropriate, the complainant will be advised if no action can be taken. It states that if complaints are received where further action cannot be taken, for example where there has been no breach of the tenancy agreement or where the complaint is so trivial that there is no cause for action, the complainant will be informed of the reasons for this in writing.
The landlord has a zero tolerance towards abuse, threats, and violence against staff procedure. This sets out the landlord’s duty to safeguard the health and safety of employees and residents. The landlord defines unacceptable behaviour as including threats, intimidation, and aggression. It says that in relation to incidents of abuse, threats, and violence, the landlord must take practical steps to reduce / eliminate risk, identify safe working practices and maintain effective reporting systems. To reduce risks to employees, the landlord will take steps including using its ICT systems to ‘flag’ customers who are known to be abusive, threatening, or violent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for disabled parking.

It was not clear from the evidence provided when the resident had first raised the request for a disabled parking bay to the landlord. The landlord said in its letter to the resident on 2 August 2021 that the resident had advised the landlord he had been negotiating with the local council to apply for a disabled parking bay on the street.
The allocation and management of parking spaces was not the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord confirmed to the resident at both stages of his complaint that the local council highways department was responsible for the assessing the possibility of providing a dropped kerb or additional disabled parking facilities. The landlord said the installation of disabled parking was not a service it provided. The landlord provided signposting to the steps the resident needed to follow in order to apply for a disabled parking bay with the local council and offered to assist the resident with this. This was a customer focused approach from the landlord to support a vulnerable resident.
The allocation of disabled parking was not in the landlord’s remit to provide. It had provided guidance and support on the process which was a reasonable response. As such there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for disabled parking.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV.

The resident first raised concerns about a neighbour’s video doorbell during a visit from the landlord on 28 July 2021. He also raised concerns about the position of the CCTV cameras of a neighbour on 4 May 2022 and made further reports on 6 July 2022. It is not within our role to make a determination on whether this is a breach of privacy as this would be a matter for the ICO. What we have considered is the landlord’s actions when the matter was reported to it.
The landlord’s file evidences that the CCTV cameras and video doorbell the resident had raised concerns about had been installed with the permission of the landlord. While it is understandable that the resident had been concerned about the cameras facing his property, the landlord was not able to remove the cameras unless there was evidence that the cameras were breaching the landlord’s alteration and improvement terms and conditions.
The landlord’s records noted that it had completed a check of the neighbour’s doorbell on 18 January 2022 and provided advice on reducing the viewing angle to within the property boundary. In consideration that the resident first reported his concerns in July 2021, the landlord had significantly delayed in investigating this matter. It had also failed to inform the resident that it had done so. The resident also reported on 30 June 2022 that a video doorbell from a different neighbour was pointing at his property. It was not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord if this concern was investigated at the time of the report.
When the resident raised his concerns to the landlord on 4 May 2022 about a neighbour’s camera filming his garden, he was advised that civil action needed to be taken against his neighbour. It is not clear why the landlord had not investigated his concern in line with its alteration and improvement terms and conditions which stated recording/capturing images outside of the boundary of the property is a breach of the terms and conditions. The landlord had not demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. Given that the landlord had been investigating the positioning of the resident’s cameras, it was not unreasonable for the resident to raise concerns about the landlord not investigating his reports fairly. The landlord’s response here was not customer focussed or reasonable.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s concerns about the position of his neighbours cameras within a timely manner. While it was noted that the landlord confirmed to the resident in December 2022 that it had visited both properties and was satisfied on the position of the neighbour’s cameras, this was a considerable delay after the resident first raised his concerns. The landlord had not provided evidence to show it had engaged proactively with the resident prior to this about his concerns and updated him on any action it had or had not taken. While it was accepted that the landlord was not able to disclose any action taken against other residents, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident on the progress of his reports sooner.
The landlord said in its complaint response that it had taken the same approach to all reported breaches of CCTV permissions. It confirmed that a number of CCTV cameras in the area had been inappropriately positioned and were potentially capturing images outside of property boundaries, this included the resident’s own camera. The landlord said it was seeking legal advice on the matter. This action was appropriate and demonstrated a proactive approach by the landlord to attend to the number of concerns about the positioning of the CCTV cameras raised in the area.
The resident confirmed to this Service that he continued to have concerns about the position of 2 of his neighbours cameras. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and update him on the legal advice it said it was seeking on the matter in its final complaint response.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbours CCTV cameras was delayed and it did not act fairly. It did not demonstrate that it engaged with the resident following his concerns to investigate the position of the neighbours cameras in a timely manner. It did not provide the resident with a response to his concerns raised in 2021, until he had raised this as a complaint. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of handling of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV.

The landlord’s decision to place an alert on the resident’s tenancy file.

The landlord confirmed that it had placed a ‘do not visit alone’ marker on the resident’s file due to previous threatening behaviour. It said the most recent incident was an email sent from the resident in which he stated the landlord would be “met with force.” The landlord said it had a duty to safeguard the health and safety of employees. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. A do not visit alone alert on the resident’s file was a proportionate response to a perceived risk to its staff. The landlord here was acting in line with its zero tolerance towards abuse, threats, and violence against staff procedure.
It was not clear how the resident was informed about the alert on his file. The landlord’s records noted a zero-tolerance letter was sent to the resident in April 2021, however it was not clear if this was in relation to the do not visit alone alert. However, there was no obligation on the landlord at the time of the residents complaint to inform him of this. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had since approved a new policy to guide staff on the specific use of do not visit alerts. This procedure now included guidance on informing residents about a tenancy warning marker. The new procedure includes a review of the marker after 12 months, and also provided the resident with an appeals process. The landlord had here demonstrated a desire to learn from its outcomes and to improve the service it provides to its residents.
The landlord confirmed to the resident in its final complaint response that it was due to review its decision to place the alert on his file. This was appropriate action to take to ensure that the alert was in proportion to the current risk level. It said the resident would be informed on the decision. From the evidence provided to this service by the landlord, it was not clear if the resident had received the confirmation of the current status of the alert. As such, a recommendation has been issued for the landlord to provide the resident with confirmation of this in line with the do not visit alert procedure.
Overall, the landlord’s response was appropriate. While it was appreciated that it may have been distressing for the resident to note the alert placed on his file, the landlord had taken action in line with its zero-tolerance procedure in order to safeguard its staff. It had also appropriately explained why it had taken the action within its complaint responses. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to place an alert on the resident’s tenancy file.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a housing adviser.

During the complaint process, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a housing adviser. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
Over the period of time investigated, the landlord received a number of allegations by the resident’s neighbours in relation to the resident’s actions in regard to ASB, CCTV installation, rubbish placed in the garden, and parking. When potential tenancy breaches are reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its policies and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
While this Service appreciates that visits to the resident may have been inconvenient and caused distress due to the nature of the allegations, the landlord’s staff had an obligation to carry out investigations. The landlord was acting within the terms of the tenancy agreement when it issued tenancy warnings and tenancy breach notifications to the resident in regard to the parking on the communal grass, rubbish placed in the resident’s garden, ASB and CCTV installations.
The landlord said in its final response that housing advisers only conducted visits to a resident’s home if there was an ongoing issue with the tenancy or to follow up on matters such as complaints. This response from the landlord was reasonable and demonstrated practices in line with good tenancy management.
The landlord provided evidence to this service to demonstrate that it had also carried out visits to the resident’s neighbours to follow up on his counter allegations and concerns raised. This demonstrated a consistent approach by the landlord.
The landlord took the steps to discuss the resident’s concerns about the conduct of his housing advisor at a visit to the resident on 26 July 2022. The landlord confirmed in its final response, that another member of its staff was to be the resident’s point of contact. It also agreed that 2 members of staff would visit the resident whenever possible as requested by the resident on 30 June 2022 when he raised concerns about visits to his home. This was an appropriate action taken by the landlord. The landlord had here considered the resident’s request and found an alternative option. It also demonstrated that the landlord had put steps into place to rebuild the relationship between itself and the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s response was customer focused and appropriate. The landlord demonstrated to the resident that it had acted appropriately in conducting visits to investigate allegations of tenancy breaches. The landlord engaged with the resident following his concerns and was pro active in investigating a solution. It had also taken steps to rebuild the relationship between itself and the resident. In consideration of the above, the was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a housing adviser.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The purpose of this investigation was not to establish if ASB had occurred, or which party was responsible. It was for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
When ASB is reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies. The landlord must consider its obligation as a landlord to treat allegations from all its residents in a consistent and evidence-led way.
Following the resident’s reports of ASB about 3 different neighbours, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps in line with its policy to attempt to resolve the ASB through informal measures. It was evident that each time the resident had reported ASB, the landlord had investigated this. It discussed the reports with the neighbours involved, liaised with the police, and had asked the resident to provide diary sheets. It had also provided instructions for use of the noise app to collect evidence where appropriate. This action was proportionate and an action a landlord would be expected to use during the initial stages of an ASB investigation.
The landlord demonstrated that it had engaged with muti agency working. It liaised with the police in regard to incidents that had also been reported to them and services that were supporting the resident at the time. The landlord also offered the use of mediation in September 2021 with one of the resident’s neighbours, although it was noted this was declined by the neighbour. This action was in line with both good practise and the landlord’s ASB policy.
Given that there was an absence of evidence for the landlord to take further action against the resident’s neighbours, the request from the landlord for more evidence was appropriate. This Service had not seen evidence that the information available to the landlord at this time warranted further action against the neighbours.
The landlord said in its final complaint response that it had not received further evidence from the resident and was unable to progress its investigations due to this. While it was evident that the landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets after he reported each incident, it was not clear if the landlord had set the resident’s expectations about the actions it could or could not have taken without further evidence. The landlord should have taken further steps in order to set the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s ASB policy stated that following an initial interview with a resident about a report of ASB, an action plan would be provided. The landlord did not provide evidence to this service that an action plan or confirmation of no action to be taken was sent to the resident following his initial discussions about his reports.
The landlord said in its final response that it had been unable to take further action on the sound recordings taken by the resident in October 2021 in relation to his reports of ASB from neighbour A. It said the recordings noted banging and shouting in the street but did not confirm who had caused the nuisance. The resident had included details of who the noise related to in the email he sent on 2 October with the recordings. While the resident had been advised again to completed diary sheets, the landlord had not demonstrated that it had issued the resident with an action plan or confirmation that it could take no further action at that time. As a result, the resident was not clear on the action taken by the landlord in relation to the report made.
The resident told the landlord that he was not able to complete diary sheets during a visit by the landlord on 28 July 2022. Given that the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to look into ways it could have supported the resident to provide further evidence. The landlord had not demonstrated that it had taken this into consideration and had not provided the resident with a response to this. The landlord had also not provided evidence that a risk assessment was undertaken as part of the investigations to assess the vulnerability of the resident. This assessment may have identified if the resident needed any reasonable adjustments to provide evidence of the ASB he was reporting. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when making decisions about the actions taken.
In this case the landlord had followed steps in its ASB policy by interviewing neighbours, liaising with police on reported incidents, and offering mediation. It had responded appropriately to the incidents in consideration of the evidence it had at the time. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations on the limitations to the investigations without further evidence. It has also not demonstrated that it risk assessed the resident’s needs, provided him with an action plan or support on proving the further evidence needed to progress his reports. As such, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation of £300 is considered reasonable for the landlord’s failures here.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the data breach was outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for disabled parking.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV.
3. No maladministration in landlord’s decision to place an alert on the resident’s tenancy file.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a housing adviser.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord was not responsible for the allocation and installation of disabled parking. The landlord provided the resident with clear information on this and signposted the resident to service responsible for this.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns about the position of his neighbours CCTV cameras in a fair or timely manner.
The landlord took proportionate steps in line with its policies in its decision to place an alert on the resident’s tenancy file. The landlord had an obligation to ensure the health and safety of its staff.
The landlord had acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s concerns about a housing adviser. It explained clearly the duty of its staff to carry out investigations into allegations. It also took steps to rebuild the relationship with the resident and had taken into consideration his requirements.
The landlord had not demonstrated that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities fully into consideration when responding to his reports of ASB. The landlord could also have done more to manage his expectations around the limitations of the investigations without further evidence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £450 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV cameras.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

It is recommended that the landlord, if it had not already done so, review the ‘do not visit alone’ alert on the resident’s tenancy file in line with its do not visit procedure. It should update the resident of the status of the alert.
The landlord should provide the resident with an update on the outcome of the legal advice it was seeking in August 2022 about the removal of CCTV cameras which are in breach of the tenancy agreement.