The Riverside Group Limited (202108674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108674

The Riverside Group Limited

28 September 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 that she was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour’s CCTV was impinging on her privacy.
This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a semi-detached house. She purchased 25% of the property in October 2018 and rents the remaining proportion from the landlord.
The resident has told this Service that she has been experiencing ASB from her neighbour who lives opposite her since 2020. She states that issues began when they started to run a car valeting business from their property, this caused a noise nuisance as they used industrial pressure washers and vacuum cleaners. She reported the issue to the landlord in March 2021 and was asked to record further incidents. The resident stated that after her neighbour was spoken to by the landlord, she made threats to harm her which the resident also recorded. The resident states that her neighbour also called her father and partner “perverts” and she had reported this to the police as advised by the landlord. The resident states that the neighbour has installed a CCTV camera on the side of her home which points directly at the resident’s property and follows her when she moves around her driveway. This neighbour will be referred to in this report as Neighbour One.
The resident also states that she has been experiencing harassment from the neighbour who lives next door her with whom she shares a driveway. The resident stated that this neighbour also has a CCTV camera which points directly at the resident’s property. This neighbour will be referred to in this report as Neighbour Two.
In response to an information request from this Service the landlord has stated that the landlord was aware that both Neighbour one and Neighbour Two had CCTV. No prior checks had been completed and permission had not been sought or granted.
The landlord does not have a CCTV policy. The landlord’s tenancy agreement does however stage that “You must not carry out any improvements or alterations to your home without obtaining our prior written consent”. The landlord has stated, in response to an information request from this Service, that it considers that this includes the installation of CCTV.

Landlord policy and procedure

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
1. “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; or
2. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The ASB policy and procedures state that the landlord will:
1. take all ASB complaints seriously “and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner”
2. deal with complaints of ASB in the “strictest confidence”
3. work in partnership with other agencies
4. take a harm-centred approach and provide appropriate support to victims and witnesses
5. use a risk assessment for all cases and formulate an action plan which should include how to gather evidence and referrals for support.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy states that it may restrict the method or frequency of a residents contact with the landlord. The policy describes the following as making “unreasonably persistent demands”:
1. repeated complaints about the same issue when it has already been dealt with
2. continuing to pursue a case without presenting new information.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. Stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days. Complainants have 30 working days to request an escalation to stage two of the process, if they complain about the same issue after 30 days, a new stage one complaint will be logged. Stage two complaints should be responded to within ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure provides suggested levels of compensation dependant on the level of impact a service failure had on a resident:
1. Low impact – £25 to £50
2. Medium impact – £50 to £200
3. High impact – Up to £500

The procedure states that higher amounts may be agreed if “it is in the best interest of [the landlord]”.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement contains the following clauses (which apply to Neighbour One and Neighbour Two):
1. “You must not use your home or any part of it for any business purpose or as a workshop or for the purpose of trade, without our prior written permission.”
2. “You will not behave in a way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to your neighbours…Examples of behaviour that will or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance include…The use of noisy machinery”.

Summary of events

The landlord’s ASB records show that on 7 May 2021 it contacted Neighbour One regarding the resident’s allegations that she and her partner were running a car valeting business from their property. Neighbour One denied the allegation and said that she had a job and did not need to make money from valeting cars. She made counter-allegations that the resident was harassing her.
The landlord’s ASB records show that on 12 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to again report that Neighbour One was valeting cars. She stated that she had reported the issues to the local authority who had offered to install recording equipment in her property but that she had refused this due to fear of retaliation. The resident said that the landlord had advised it would carry out a visit to see if it could witness Neighbour One valeting cars but this had not been done.
On 28 May 2021 the resident reported noise nuisance from Neighbour One carrying out car valeting at 7.10pm. She also reported that Neighbour One had been drinking outside their property with other neighbours being “extremely loud”.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord sent a letter to Neighbour One. The letter stated that the landlord had received complaints that she or members of her household has been causing a nuisance to neighbours and were operating a car valeting business from the property. The landlord said that this was a breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement and if she failed to comply with the tenancy agreement the landlord may apply for an injunction against her or take possession or demotion proceedings against her.
On 5 June 2021 the resident reported that, after Neighbour One received the warning letter from the landlord, Neighbour Two had knocked on her door drunk and said, “go pack a bag we all want you off the estate”. The resident stated that Neighbour Two was being “egged on” by a group of around seven other neighbours and was repeatedly banging on her door and ringing the doorbell. The resident stated that she was in “constant fear” and had called the police during the incident. The police confirmed to the landlord later that it had recorded harassment and public order offences and that on 11 June 2021 Neighbour Two was given “strong words of advice”.
Email communications between the police and the landlord demonstrate that the resident had submitted an audio recording of the incident of 5 June 2021 but that the landlord could only hear a group of people laughing. The landlord stated that it had heard on the recording someone say the word ‘pervert’ but that it was not clear what this was in reference to.
Between 5 June 2021 and 9 July 2021 the resident reported ASB from Neighbour One and Neighbour Two to the landlord on 11 occasions. The reported behaviour included drinking outside in the street and causing a noise nuisance by laughing, shouting, and swearing.
On 9 July 2021 Neighbour One advised the landlord, in response to them putting the resident’s allegations to her, that she had installed CCTV outside her home. She advised that she was happy for the landlord to advise the resident of this as it may prevent her from “making these false allegations”. She stated that the cars that her partner had washed belonged to friends and family members and that she could provide statements from each of them. She also advised that four of her neighbours were willing to give statements in her support.
Also on 9 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated that, as she did not want the landlord to share the photographs she had sent of Neighbour One allegedly valeting cars, it was unable to properly address the matter. It also stated that it had received “numerous written statements in support” of Neighbour One and therefore was “not in a position where we can say that this has been proven in your favour”. The landlord stated that it could hear someone using the word ‘pervert’ in a recording recently submitted by the resident and would raise this with Neighbour One but that “the majority” of the recordings submitted by the resident did not “reach the threshold” of ASB.
On 14 July 2021 the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. On 29 July 2021 this Service contacted the landlord and asked that it to investigate the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint.
Neighbour One contacted the landlord on 15 July 2021 and complained that the resident was making false accusations against her and had been seen taking photographs of her, her family, and other neighbours.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2021 and advised that the recordings that she had submitted did not evidence ASB and that all that could be heard was her neighbours talking between themselves. The landlord advised the resident not to take photographs of her neighbours “unless it is in the service of capturing evidence of anti-social behaviour”.
On 21 July 2021 the police advised the landlord that it would be offering mediation to Neighbour One, Neighbour Two and the resident.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response letter. This stated:
1. The resident had been reporting ASB since March 2020. The landlord apologised for the long period of time it had taken to resolve and would “learn from this case and implement development actions”.
2. The landlord had investigated allegations that a neighbour was running a car valeting business and the issue had now stopped. The resident had been asked to provide photographs to evidence the allegations that her neighbour was running a business. She had provided over 100 photographs. The landlord apologised that she had not been advised that she did not need to provide such a large amount.
3. The resident had reported tenants calling her and her family a “pervert and other rude names”. The resident had been advised to report this “unacceptable…verbal abuse” to the police who had warned the alleged perpetrators.
4. The resident felt the community safety officer (CSO) had been “nasty and…dictatorial”. The CSO apologised if he came across this way.
5. The resident reported high levels of noise outside her house. She had been asked to record the noise on the Noise App. The noise she had recorded had been assessed as not “loud enough to take any action”.
6. The police had organised mediation for the resident and alleged perpetrator. The resident had agreed to try and “find solutions” but would be represented at the sessions by another party.
7. The landlord understood that there was an issue regarding CCTV and the CSO would be in touch to discuss this.
In February 2022 the landlord allocated the ASB case to a new ASB officer to review the case “with a fresh pair of eyes”.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord’s ASB records show that it completed a risk assessment in relation to the resident. The assessment categorised the level of risk as ‘high’.
Also on 8 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident by email and stated that it had no evidence that Neighbour One had received payment for washing the cars and so it would be difficult to prove that “on the balance of probability that this is in fact a business”. The resident replied and stated that she did not believe that Neighbour One was valeting vehicles for “10 to 12 hours a day” on a weekend without taking payment. She also stated that she had submitted a recording the year previously in which Neighbour One could be heard discussing payments and how much he charged.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 March 2022 asking her to confirm the date when she had submitted a recording of Neighbour One discussing charges for car valeting as “they do not appear to be on the system”. This Service has not seen evidence that the resident provided the date of this recording.
The landlord discussed the case with the police on 24 March 2022 and agreed that a joint visit should be arranged to both the resident and Neighbour One as the situation was “getting out of hand”.
On 28 March 2022 the resident contacted this Service and stated that she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaint process approximately three weeks earlier but had not received a response. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s request. This Service advised the resident to allow the landlord 20 working days to respond and to contact us again if she did not receive a formal response in this timeframe.
The landlord’s ASB records show that on 12 April 2022 it carried out a number of joint visits with the police to various properties on the street. The landlord and Police visited Neighbour Two and noted that when they were walking towards her house her CCTV camera followed them, she was advised to change the settings on the camera to ‘static’. They also visited a number of other residents who reported experiencing issues with the resident and her partner taking photos or videos of them.
The landlord has provided an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABC) made between itself and the resident. The agreement is undated and unsigned. The agreement states the resident:
1. will not do anything, or allow her visits to do anything, likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress
2. will not speak to neighbours in an antisocial manner
3. will not report ASB incidents “without substantive evidence”
4. will not “engage or retaliate” with neighbours
5. will “make efforts not to continually observe any actions taken by my neighbours and their visitors and report to [the landlord], Police, Local Authority unless I am categorically certain that the behaviour meets the definition of Anti-Social behaviour as described under the Crime and Policing act 2014”.
The landlord has provided an ABC made between itself and Neighbour One. The agreement is dated 12 April 2022 and is signed by the landlord and Neighbour One. It contains the same clauses as in the resident’s ABC.
Between 15 April 2022 and 9 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on four occasions to report ASB from Neighbour One. The reports included a child playing loudly, that Neighbour One had friends round and were drinking loudly, and that they were washing a neighbour’s car.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident, it stated:
1. Both the landlord and police had investigated the resident’s complaint regarding Neighbour One washing cars. This was not ASB and Neighbour One had been advised they could continue to do so.
2. Further reports from the resident that her neighbours were washing cars would “be treated as perpetrating the situation”. The landlord said, “This must cease from yourself, if further reports are received then I would have no option but to find your reports as malicious and further perpetrating the situation.”
3. Both the resident and her neighbours were “entitled to a life” and so could have parties and “allegations of neighbours enjoying themselves only come from yourself”. No other neighbours had complained, the landlord had spoken with others in the area who did not feel that Neighbour One impacted on their standard of living. No further action would be taken.
4. Neighbour one had been spoken to by the police regarding calling the resident’s partner a ‘pervert’. Neighbour One had not since repeated this allegation “No Further Action to be taken, reports from you must cease”.
5. “it is your perception that ASB is happening in Hill Top View, if you feel that it is having a determinantal effect, then I suggest you speak to Home Ownership in regards to you wanting to leave”.
6. “any further reports of your neighbours allegedly causing Anti-Social Behaviour to this team will be disregarded and aforementioned will be treated as malicious, and will seek legal advice regarding your leasehold. I must stress again to you that you cannot keep reporting allegations to Home Ownership, they cannot and will not take any action.”
The resident replied to the landlord on 10 May 2022 and said she did not agree with the landlord’s opinion and felt “let down”. She said that she should not have to sell her home and felt she was being treated like “a moaner or a liar”. She said that Neighbour One had in fact continued to call her partner a pervert after being spoken to by the police. The landlord replied on the same day and stated that the ASB case was closed and if she continued to make complaints her actions would be deemed “unreasonable” and enforcement action would be taken against her. The landlord signed off by saying “You must cease in reporting”.
On 26 July 2022 the resident emailed this Service and copied in the landlord. She stated that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process as the ASB continued and the landlord had not followed up on her previous reports. She added that she wanted the alleged perpetrators “evicting” and they continued to cause ASB.
Also on 26 July 2022 this Service contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had stated that she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The communication from this Service specified “This is not a request for action”.
The landlord responded to the resident on 4 August 2022 and advised that her complaint would be investigated at stage one, not stage two. This was because it had provided a stage one response to the same complaint in August 2021 so “too much time has lapsed in between”. On 5 August 2022 the landlord emailed this Service. It stated that it was happy to escalate the resident’s complaint however its complaints process stated that if the escalation request was not made within 30 days a new stage one complaint should be logged. The landlord asked that this Service clarify whether it was to log a stage one or stage two complaint as its previous stage one response had been sent over a year previously. It does not appear that this Service responded to the landlord’s query.
On 14 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that Neighbour Two had a CCTV camera on the side of their home which they had pointing at her property, her front door, and the street. She said that this violated her privacy and also covered a public space.
This Service contacted the landlord on 27 September 2022 and asked that it provide a response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded to this Service on the same day and asked for clarification on whether the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. It does not appear that this Service responded to this request for clarification.
On 12 October 2022 the resident contacted this Service and said that none of her family or friends visited her because of her neighbour’s intimidation. She said that she and her partner felt like “hermits” as they stayed inside the house with all the blinds closed and windows shut. The resident described the house as having gone from her “forever home to nightmare neighbours from hell”.
On 13 October 2022 the resident contacted this Service to advise she had not received a stage two complaint response from her landlord. This Service wrote to the resident on 26 October 2022 and told the resident that the landlord had been given until 23 November 2023 to provide her with a stage two complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2022 and stated:
1. She had previously been advised by the landlord’s ASB officer that the case against the alleged perpetrator fit the criteria for enforcement action to be taken.
2. The landlord then spoke to its solicitor and “did a complete U-turn” because it felt if it went to court it could cause reputational damage to the landlord.
3. The landlord had passed over to the alleged perpetrators “all the photographic evidence that I was asked to take” which put her in a “horrific” position and made her a target for further ASB.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2022. The letter stated that:
1. There was insufficient evidence to support that the alleged perpetrators were causing noise nuisance.
2. No action could be taken against the alleged perpetrators at that time as there was no evidence of ASB.

Events following the final complaint response

Following the landlord’s final complaint response letter the resident has continued to report experiencing ASB from Neighbour One and Neighbour Two. The reported behaviour has included:
1. Neighbour One calling her a “stalker” because she opened her window.
2. Neighbour One valeting cars.
3. Neighbours One and Two standing at the back of her property looking into her bedroom window and shouting and laughing.
4. Neighbour One and other neighbours and their children standing outside talking and screaming.
5. Verbal abuse from Neighbour Two due to her complaint regarding her CCTV.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and advised her to “ask your witnesses to email me a detailed version of what they heard”. The landlord said that there would “be no legal action of possession” as its solicitors had advised that the historic incidents “did not warrant legal action”. It said that if the evidence provided was “categoric” it would issue a warning to the other party.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2023 and said that she and her partner were being harassed and that her partner had a mental health condition and had threatened to take his own life as a result the incident. The landlord replied on 8 February 2023 stating that whilst the situation was “unfortunate and concerning to you and your partner”, it had informed her on many occasions of its decision regarding the “ongoing dispute” between the neighbours.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord organised and attended a meeting with the police and the resident. During the meeting the resident said that her partner was experiencing poor mental health and that she was struggling to support him. The landlord offered to refer the resident for further support but she declined as she stated the NHS crisis team was now involved. The police discussed with the resident that some of the issues she was reporting (children playing and people looking at her) were not ASB and that there was no evidence to support her claims. They explained that a level of tolerance was expected from all residents and discussed the potential for serving all parties involved (including the resident) with a Community Protection Warning (CPW). The resident agreed to follow the requirements of the CPW and the landlord agreed to provide the resident with a CCTV doorbell.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
Definitions of ASB, including that within the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 which the landlord employs, are subjective and whether a behaviour is considered to be antisocial or not depends on the impact that it has on others.
The resident in this case describes a variety of alleged behaviours, some of which are certainly ASB (such as verbal abuse), some may be ASB depending on the circumstances (such as noise nuisance) and others generally are not considered ASB (such as children playing). The behaviours described by the resident clearly caused her a nuisance and annoyance and the resident has described feeling harassed, alarmed and distressed.
The landlord has provided a copy of a risk assessment carried out in March 2022. This Service has not been provided with any risk assessments completed prior to this date though reference is made in the landlord’s records to a further assessment completed in March 2023. Risk assessments are considered a fundamental tool that allow landlords to understand the risks posed to an ASB victim and respond appropriately. It is therefore of concern that no formal assessment has been seen to have taken place before March 2022.
Whilst the landlord should have regard for the impact of the reported behaviours on the resident, it does not necessarily follow that it is able to take enforcement action in all cases where a behaviour has a negative impact. It is therefore important that landlords effectively manage the expectations of those reporting ASB in order to avoid giving them false expectations of what can be achieved which may lead to further distress.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, this Service would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord should also measure a resident’s expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fail to meet a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms this approach and states that it will create an action plan for its investigation.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord drew up and followed an action plan in managing the resident’s ASB complaint despite this being part of the landlord’s procedure. The landlord therefore failed to follow its own procedure and missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations more effectively.
The resident has reported that the landlord made a “U-turn” in its approach to the case. Having initially said it would look to take enforcement action, following advice from its solicitor, it decided that no action could be taken. This is an example of failure to effectively manage the resident’s expectations and she understandably felt disappointed and frustrated as a result.
Very little information has been provided relating to actions carried out by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports prior to February 2022 when a new ASB officer was assigned to the case. It was at this time that a risk assessment was carried out, the landlord liaised with the police, visits and interviews were completed and ABC’s drawn up. Prior to February 2022 the extent of the landlord’s investigations appears to have been contacting the alleged perpetrators to discuss the allegations and writing a warning letter. This Service has not seen evidence that proactive investigations such as home visits, unannounced inspections to witness alleged ASB, or joint working with other agencies were completed prior to this. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took timely action to adequately respond to the ASB reports prior to February 2022.
This Service considers that there was a notable increase in the amount of proactive casework that took place on this case when a new ASB officer took over in February 2022. After this time a number of visits were carried out with the police and there was an attempt to utilise non-legal ASB management methods such as mediation and ABC’s.
The landlord’s ASB records demonstrate that it liaised with the police in responding the resident’s reports. This was appropriate as some of the behaviours reported by both sides included potentially criminal behaviour. The records show that the Police had offered to conduct mediation between the resident and Neighbours One and Two but that the resident had declined to engage in mediation. Mediation can be an extremely effective method of conflict resolution, especially in cases involving lower-level nuisance. For mediation to be effective however, it should be offered at the earliest opportunity to prevent issues from escalating and all parties must be willing to engage in the process.
The resident also declined the local authority’s offer to install recording equipment in her property. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s reluctance and fear of retaliation, this hampered the ability of partner agencies to investigate the resident’s allegations.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure states that it will tailor its response in ASB cases and offer appropriate support to victims. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord signposted the resident to appropriate support prior to its multi-agency meeting with the resident and the police in August 2023. This was a failing to adhere to its own policy and procedure and to fully consider the wellbeing of the resident and her household.
It is of concern that, despite the resident referencing her partner’s mental health conditions and stating that he was suicidal as a result of the ASB, the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge these concerns. In February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that her partner was suicidal. The landlord responded that this was “unfortunate” and “concerning to you and your partner”, but that it had already explained its position on the case. This response was lacking in empathy and compassion. This Service considers that, in accordance with paragraph 52 (f) of the Scheme, the landlord treated the complainant personally in an unsympathetic manner and that this was a serious failing.
The landlord also behaved in a heavy-handed and unsympathetic manner towards the resident when it advised her that if she made further reports of ASB, it would take enforcement action against her. The language used by the landlord was inappropriate and suggested that the resident was trying to stop her neighbours from “having a life” and “enjoying themselves”.
It may have been more appropriate for the landlord to consider managing the resident’s reports through its unacceptable behaviour policy which it states it employs when it considers ASB reports to be vexatious. The Ombudsman recognises that there have been a high number of reports from the resident, not all of the reports meet the threshold for ASB and it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to every communication given its finite resources. The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy allows for the landlord to put in place measures to manage the resident’s communications. Such measures are not intended to be a ‘punishment’, and instead serve to help a resident by managing their expectations and focusing the landlord’s ability to respond. The landlord’s failure to implement measures such as a single point of contact or to outline how frequently it will respond left the resident with a false expectation of how the landlord would respond. This caused her distress as she considered that her concerns were being ignored.
In May 2022 the landlord stated that it, and the police, had investigated the resident’s allegations. It said that Resident One was only “washing cars”, this was not ASB and that they had been told they could continue to do this. As this Service has not seen any evidence of what investigations the landlord carried out, we are unable to establish that this conclusion was reasonable.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that residents must seek permission to run a business from their property, it is therefore expected that the landlord would carry out reasonable investigations to evidence whether this was the case. It would have been sensible for the landlord to carry out unannounced visits to the property, look up business addresses online, and work with the local authority environmental health team. No evidence has been seen by this Service of such actions being taken. If the landlord carried out thorough investigations, it should have recorded its actions to substantiate this.
This Service considers that occasionally washing cars belonging to a family member is not the same as running a car valeting business from your home and these behaviours would have very different impacts on neighbouring properties. The resident reported that Neighbour One was using “industrial” equipment to valet a large number of cars and provided over 100 photographs of cars being valeted or cleaned.
The resident has raised concerns that the photographs she took of Neighbour One valeting cars were shared with the alleged perpetrator without her prior agreement and that this caused her to experience further harassment. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will deal with reports in the “strictest confidence”, it was therefore reasonable that the resident believed that the photographs would not be shared with Neighbour One.
The landlord, in response to an information request by this Service, has stated that Neighbour One made a Subject Access Request (SAR) under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) legislation to see the photographs. SAR requests and matters relating to GDPR in general fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues.
It should be noted that, when a landlord takes legal action, the alleged perpetrator has the right to see the evidence against them. In such cases, the landlord should explain this to the victim or witness prior to submitting the evidence. In this case, the landlord was not taking legal action and therefore there was no necessity for the photographs to be shared and the landlord should have been aware that doing so could have put the resident at risk of further harassment. The actions available to the landlord however would have been limited by being unable to put the evidence to the alleged perpetrator.
The resident and her partner reported receiving verbal abuse from Neighbours One and Two. The landlord, in its stage one complaint response, stated that this allegation had been dealt with by the police who had issued the alleged perpetrators with a warning. The suggestion being that, as the police had taken action, there was no need for the landlord to consider taking further action itself. Whilst it is good practice to avoid duplication of work between agencies, the landlord and police demonstrating their cooperation may have strengthened the impact of the warning making it more effective. This was a missed opportunity to take a multi-agency approach at an earlier stage.
This Service considers that some of the clauses of the ABC drawn up for both the resident and Neighbour One were inappropriate and poorly worded. It was not the place of the landlord to prohibit the resident from “continually” reporting her neighbour’s actions to the Police or Local Authority, whether or not they met the definition of ASB contained in the Crime and Policing Act 2014. The resident had the right to contact either of these organisations if she felt it necessary, and in telling her otherwise the landlord was operating outside its power. Such a statement was also irresponsible as it could have deterred the resident from reporting serious concerns to the proper authorities.
Overall, the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of what action is would take in response to her reports of ASB. The landlord failed to agree with the resident what behaviours amounted to ASB and what behaviours were not, and therefore were a matter of differing lifestyles and would require tolerance. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports. Finally, on a number of occasions the landlord’s response to the resident lacked empathy and was heavy-handed. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s ASB handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour’s CCTV was impinging on her privacy.

Matters pertaining to data protection and GDPR fall within the remit of the ICO. Whether the resident or her neighbour are legally entitled to have CCTV filming parts of the communal area is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues. What the Ombudsman has investigated is how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s CCTV.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that residents must obtain permission before carrying out improvements or alterations to the property, this includes installing CCTV. The landlord has not provided evidence that that it enforced this policy when it became aware that both Neighbour One and Neighbour Two had installed CCTV.
Whilst the records demonstrate that the landlord advised Neighbour Two to make their camera ‘static’, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord sought to confirm that this had been done. This Service has also not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out any visits to Neighbours One to confirm where the cameras were pointing. Such action would not have taken an unreasonable amount of resource on the landlord’s part and failure to do so was a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
The resident described feeling “terrible anxiety” as a result of feeling watched by the neighbours she was involved in an ongoing ASB case with. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord not to carry out any investigations.
The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour’s CCTV camera and its impact on her privacy. The landlord therefore failed to attempt to reassure itself that the cameras were not unreasonably infringing on the resident’s privacy. Consequently, there was maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Importantly, this Service acknowledges and apologises for our own shortcomings in this case which have added to the delays experienced by the resident. The landlord, one more than one occasion, contacted this Service to request clarification and guidance on how to manage the resident’s complaint. This Service failed to respond properly to these requests, we acknowledge that this added to the resident’s frustration and we are sorry for this.
In July 2022 this Service contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had stated that she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint but had not received a response. The landlord replied to this Service ten days later and asked for clarification on whether it should log a stage one or stage two complaint as its previous stage one response had been sent over a year previously. This Service does not appear to have provided advice to the landlord as requested.
Seven weeks later this Service asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord again asked for clarification about whether to raise a stage one or stage two complaint due to the time since the resident’s first complaint. It is acknowledged that the lack of response from this Service caused confusion however it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take some action. To take no action at all was unreasonable and unhelpful.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response in November 2022. The response explained that the landlord felt that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the resident’s reports of ASB and that the evidence that had been reviewed did not meet the threshold for ASB. Whilst this conclusion may have been correct, it is not possible to determine this based on the scant evidence seen by this Service. Had the landlord outlined within its responses what investigations it had carried out and what evidence it had based its assessment on, the resident may have had more insight into the decision. This was a missed opportunity.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint policy states that residents have a period of 30 days following the landlord’s stage one complaint response in which to request an escalation. This Service has an expectation as per the Complaint Handling Code that the landlord will escalate a complaint (unless it can provide good reason not to do so). The landlord’s imposition of a 30-day timeframe in which to request an escalation is arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting. An order has been made regarding this.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidance on the amount of compensation that may be paid dependant on the level of impact on a resident. Whilst it is sensible for the landlord to provide some guidance to staff, the amounts specified in the guidance are not in line with the Ombudsman’s financial redress guidance. An order has been made in regard to this.
It is also noted that the compensation procedure does allow for higher amounts to be paid if “it is in the best interest of [the landlord]”. This Service would remind the landlord that the purpose of a complaints process (including financial redress) is, as outlined in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, to “put things right”. Therefore, higher amounts of financial redress should be paid when it is fair in all the circumstances of the case and would provide the appropriate level of redress to the resident. An order has been made to review this wording.
Whilst this Service accepts that it has added to the delays in this case by failing to respond to landlord queries in a timely manner, the landlord should have provided some form of complaint response (whether it be stage one or stage two) to the resident. It was not acceptable that in the absence of a response, it did nothing. The landlord’s final response failed to provide sufficient information to support its decision not to uphold the complaint and this was a failing. This Service has ordered the landlord to review its complaints and compensation policies in relation to the 30-day escalation timeframe, compensation amounts, and wording.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour’s CCTV was impinging on her privacy.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to evidence that it had proactively investigated the resident’s reports of ASB prior to February 2022. The landlord missed opportunities to effectively manage the resident’s expectations and failed to carry out adequate investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB. Its communications with the resident were, at times, lacking in empathy and heavy-handed.
The landlord failed to evidence that it carried out investigations to ascertain whether the alleged perpetrators had CCTV cameras pointing into the resident’s property.
It was not acceptable that in the absence of a response from this Service the landlord did not take any action in regard to the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s final response failed to provide sufficient information to support its decision not to uphold the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy unreasonably restricts residents rights to request a review of their complaint and the guideline compensation amounts are not in line with the Ombudsman’s financial redress guidance.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident and her partner for the failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £950 comprising:
1. £600 for the inconvenience, time and trouble, and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of its ASB handling;
2. £200 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failure to sufficiently investigate the alleged perpetrator’s CCTV;
3. £150 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in failing to escalate the resident’s stage two complaint in a timely manner.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a full review of its ASB training to staff, with a particular focus on the effective use of risk assessments and action plans.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint policy with consideration of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should particularly consider whether the requirement that a resident escalate a complaint within 30 days is unreasonably restrictive.

Recommendation

Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its compensation policy to include:
1. The guidance levels of compensation – the landlord should consider increasing these in line with the Ombudsman’s financial redress guidance.
2. The statement that higher amounts may be paid if “it is in the best interest of [the landlord]”. The landlord should consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.