Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Town and Country Housing (202120138)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120138

Town and Country Housing

29 April 2022


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of theft of his bike from the property car park.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. According to the landlord’s timeline of events, the resident reported his bike stolen on 29 September 2021. He said his bike was secured by a lock to the bike stands located in the gated car park at his property. The resident reported the incident to the police who requested access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the landlord. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord tried to access the CCTV footage; however, it said it had technical issues operating the CCTV functions. It notified the resident of the issue and had a contractor attend and repair the system on 6 October 2021.
  3. The landlord’s records state that the resident raised a formal complaint on 11 October 2021, regarding the length of time taken to access CCTV following the theft of his bike. He said that the bin store doors (side access to the garage) were left open, which was how the perpetrators got in. He said because of that, and due to the length of time taken to get access to the CCTV, he felt let down by the security of the building. The resident also said that staff had been unsympathetic towards him.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response in October. The landlord said that its equipment only kept CCTV recordings for 14 days due to data protection laws. It explained that the CCTV was viewed on the 12 October 2021, but by that time the footage available did not cover the period of time the incident took place. The landlord said that it did, however, gain footage of an intruder removing goods in the car park in October which was sent to the police for investigation. It said that it aimed to act within a reasonable timescale when retrieving the CCTV, but “when a mechanical breakdown occurs [it] is solely dependent on the schedule of [its] contractors”. The landlord advised that it had obtained quotes for a contractor to provide a fob entry for the bin store door to the car park, to prevent access to unauthorised persons entering the building. It also advised that it would look into extending the recording time of the CCTV from 14 to 28 days before it overwrites.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 29 October 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint to the next stage. The landlord’s notes of the call do not describe the grounds on which the resident requested the escalation.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 November 2021. It noted that the resident remained concerned about the security and accessibility of the car park; felt that he was treated with indifference and that the investigation was “bungled”; and felt he was owed compensation. The landlord repeated its previous explanation about the time taken to access the CCTV footage. It said that the car park displayed signs to state that items left there were at the owners’ risk, and that it did not provide any guarantee of security for personal belongings. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern that the lack of CCTV video might affect the police investigation. However, it advised that that did not make it liable for his loss because it did not guarantee the security of the resident’s possessions at the property, or have publicised timeframes for downloading CCTV footage. It offered to support the resident in making a claim on his household contents insurance. The landlord advised that it was training staff to operate the CCTV and increase its response time in the future. It provided contact details for this Service if the resident was dissatisfied with its response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement details the responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. It states that the landlord is responsible for ensuring the structure and exterior of the property is kept repaired; including the integral garages and all mechanical and electronical equipment owned by it.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to insure the building and the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of their home.
  3. The landlord’s CCTV policy states that CCTV systems are used to promote the health, safety and security of residents, users of the building, communal areas and open spaces. The policy states that the landlord will operate observation and retrieval type systems which allow operatives of the system to view footage from cameras, and also the ability to retrieve archived footage which would be kept on the system for a period of 30 days before being securely destroyed. The CCTV policy states that access to the system will be limited to the landlord’s data controller and other staff authorised by it. The CCTV policy advises that images recorded are kept for a period of 30 days, before being securely destroyed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of theft of his bike from the property car park

  1. The resident reported his bike stolen from the property car park in late September 2021. He said that his bike was secured to the provided bike stands inside the gated car park. He said the bin store doors to the car park were left unlocked which resulted in the theft of his bike. The landlord advised that the car park displayed signs to state that “items are left there at the owners risk” and said that it had not provided any guarantee of security for personal belongings. It said it was not liable for the resident’s loss because it did not guarantee the security of his possessions. It offered to support him in making a claim on his household contents insurance. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. However, the landlord’s advice was reasonable and in line with its tenancy agreement, which encourages residents to take out home insurance for their belongings as the landlord is not responsible for any losses the resident may suffer. Consequently, the landlord would not be responsible for the theft of the resident’s bike. The landlord arranged to install a fob entry system to the bin store doors to the car park to prevent unauthorised persons entering, it extended the CCTV recording time from 14 to 28 days; and arranged to train staff to operate CCTV system. Although the landlord was not responsible for the security of the resident’s personal belongings, it was reasonable to make improvements to help prevent incidents reoccurring.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord because he was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to access to the CCTV. The landlord advised that it was having technical issues with the CCTV system and had a contractor repair the issue on 6 October 2021. The landlord said that it aimed to act within a reasonable timescale when retrieving the CCTV, but “when a mechanical breakdown occurs [it] is solely dependent on the schedule of [its] contractors”. According to the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping all mechanical and electronical equipment owned by it repaired. Technical issues are often unforeseen and outside a landlord’s control, and therefore it would be reasonable for it to rely on the schedule of its contractors. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a contractor to repair the issue.
  3. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that by the time the CCTV system was repaired, the footage had already been overwritten. It said that the DVR only recorded for “14 days and overwrites any footage due to data protection laws”. However, the landlord’s CCTV policy states that footage will be kept on the system for a period of 30 days, before being securely destroyed. This Service requested further information from the landlord regarding its CCTV policy at the time of the resident’s report. The landlord advised that it found that the recorder at the resident’s property was defaulted to the factory settings of storing recordings for 14 days. It said that following his complaint it had reset the system to store recordings for 28 days (the apparent maximum). There was an obvious discrepancy between the landlord’s advice to the resident and its policy. The landlord’s CCTV recordings were not in line with its CCTV policy; because of this, the footage was overwritten prematurely which reduced the resident’s chances of recovering footage of the incident taken place. The landlord also misinformed the resident regarding the time period the recordings should be kept i.e. 30 days. Therefore, this constitutes service failure, although not one that can in any reasonable way be said to make the landlord responsible for the theft. It may, potentially, have impacted in some way on the police’s investigation of the theft, and the knowledge of that possibility will have undoubtedly added to the resident’s frustrations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation in light of the incorrect information it gave about the CCTV records retention time, and the additional distress that will have been caused to the resident by not adhering to its CCTV policy. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord must ensure that its CCTV policy accurately reflects the recording retention timeframes of its equipment, i.e. 28 days rather than 30.