The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Network Homes (202219913)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219913

Network Homes Limited

31 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s;
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police following a burglary.
    2. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. It is noted that the resident’s daughter has communicated with the landlord throughout the complaint on behalf of the resident. For clarity, in this report both the resident and their daughter will be referred to as the resident.
  2. The resident has occupied the property since March 2004 under an assured tenancy.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on the 2 November 2021 to report a burglary that occurred at her property on the previous day, and requested access to the CCTV within the building.
  4. The police submitted a disclosure request for the CCTV on 8 December 2021. The landlord responded to this on 15 December 2021 and advised the police to contact the building’s security team to arrange access. The police responded on the same day and requested the landlord review the footage and advise if a suspect could be seen. The landlord therefore contacted its building security team and asked it to review and save the footage on 5 January 2022 however it advised that the footage was no longer available.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 April 2022 stating she was unhappy the footage had not been provided to the police, as the landlord had stated it would be saved.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 6 May 2022. It confirmed all parties had been spoken with and the incident had been reported in a timely manner. It advised that the CCTV footage had been reviewed and no suspicious activity was noted. The landlord explained that the CCTV footage had been overwritten due to the length of time that had passed. It stated that it had changed its procedure so staff would now automatically download footage and apologised that this had not been done in this case.
  7. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two on 4 June 2022. She challenged all of the landlords statements at stage one and requested compensation.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 31 October 2022. It confirmed that two security guards had viewed the footage, one which confirmed no suspicious activity and another who noted some suspicion, but could not be sure that this was related to the burglary. It acknowledged that the footage should have been retained in both instances but was not saved due to human error. It apologised that the incident had left the resident and her family feeling unsafe in her home and apologised for the CCTV not being retained along with the considerable amount of time the resident spent pursuing it. The landlord offered £127 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident has advised this Service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She is seeking £5,000 compensation to cover the financial loss of the burglary.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the CCTV would have allowed the crime to be solved. As such the Ombudsman is unable to order compensation to reflect the financial loss incurred as a result of the burglary. Instead, this service has considered whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s request for the CCTV, and whether the resident’s subsequent complaint was handled fairly and in line with the landlord’s obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police following a burglary

  1. The resident made the landlord aware of a break-in that occurred within her property on 1 November 2021 and requested access to the CCTV within the building. The landlord’s CCTV policy does not allow residents to access CCTV so a disclosure form was required from the police to allow them access. On 8 December 2021, the landlord confirmed to police that it would have the footage saved by its security team. On 15 December 2021, the landlord confirmed to police the disclosure form had been received and provided them with contact information for the security team so they could view the footage. The police responded to the landlord the same day and asked for it to review the footage and advise if any suspicious activity was seen. It was not until 5 January 2022, however, that the landlord emailed the security team and asked for the footage to be reviewed. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest this request was made at any time prior to this. When the police asked the landlord to review the footage it was still within the landlord’s 45-day timeframe for storage. The landlord’s subsequent delay in making this request meant that the footage could not be reviewed.
  2. This service notes that the footage was overwritten after 45 days. There is no evidence of this 45-day rule being communicated to either the resident or the police. Had it been this could have allowed the police to make an informed decision as to when it viewed the footage, and whether it would have been more appropriate for it to have simply reviewed the footage itself. This could have led to a decision to retain the footage.
  3. The landlord states, in its stage two response that the request from the police to have it review the CCTV and report back was “not standard process”. This service has seen no evidence, however, that the landlord advised the police of this, or that it gave them instruction on its usual process. This too may have resulted in a different outcome.
  4. The landlord’s CCTV policy sets out its responsibilities under the surveillance camera code. It states “When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is a pressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safety and law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value”. By failing to retain the CCTV the landlord did not follow this obligation.
  5. The landlord is also expected to follow through on any promises it makes to residents, or to provide timely and detailed reasons for why it cannot. While the landlord confirmed the CCTV footage had been reviewed and nothing suspicious had been discovered, it provided differing accounts. One security guard saw nothing suspicious, another saw something suspicious however could not say it was related to the burglary, this made this claim less reliable. Ultimately it is for the police to decide the relevance of any suspicious activity seen within the footage and clarity could only have been given had the footage been retained.
  6. In its stage two response the landlord states that it expects the security team to retain footage regardless of whether something suspicious is seen or not, once they are aware that the police may require it. This simply had not been done.
  7. The landlord has apologised and advised that it has changed its policy on how CCTV is retained when police request it. This is a reasonable and practical response.
  8. The landlord has offered £127 compensation at stage two for “the time taken to reach this stage and in view of the inconvenience you have had”. The landlord further makes reference to the amount of time the resident spent chasing it for access to the CCTV. This is an appropriate level of compensation for delays and inconvenience caused to the resident, however this Service would expect the landlord to offer further compensation for stating it would save the CCTV and then ultimately not doing so. As this was the main aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failing to offer compensation for this contributed to the resident’s uncertainty about whether the complaint was understood and being taken seriously.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one the complaint will be responded to within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord with the initial complaint on 12 April 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 6 May 2022, 16 working days after the initial expression of dissatisfaction.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days.
  4. This service has seen no evidence to suggest the resident was made aware of any delay in the stage one complaint response. This is not in line with the landlords complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code.
  5. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two on 4 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response on 31 October 2022, 104 working days following the request for escalation. The landlord stated this delay was due to it needing to confirm with the resident that his daughter could discuss the complaint on his behalf. On 30 September 2022 the landlord confirmed this authorisation had been given. The stage two response was then issued 21 working days later. While this is one day over the landlords policy it does not, in itself, amount to a service failure.
  6. Based on the evidence seen by this service, it is not clear if the delay in authorisation was due to the resident not providing authorisation or the landlord delaying the processing of the authorisation.
  7. The landlords complaints policy states “We only accept complaints from our named tenants, shared owners and leaseholders. Other members of the household and third parties such as the Citizens Advice Bureau can act as advocates, however, we require signed consent from the leaseholder, shared owner or tenant confirming their authorisation”.
  8. While the seeking of authorisation is in line with the landlords policy, this service has seen no evidence as to why this authorisation was not sought at stage one. This is therefore a service failure as the landlord failed to follow its own complaints policy which ultimately resulted in an extended delay in resolving the matter for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police following a burglary.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
    1. To pay the resident £477 comprised of;
      1. £427, inclusive of the £127 offered at stage two in recognition of the landlords failure in handling the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police following a burglary.
      2. £50 in recognition of the landlord’s complaints handling failures.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.