London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202121266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121266

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 December 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2001. The property is a 1 bedroom flat and the resident lives there with her child.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy at the time said:
1. Harassment or intimidation and noise, including loud music were types of ASB.
2. It would assign a priority for cases based on the type of ASB reported and assess reports using evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party and the apparent motivation.
3. High priority cases would be logged and assessed within 1 working day and all subsequent incidents reported would be assessed within 1 working day.
4. Standard priority cases would be logged and assessed within 3 working days. Subsequent incidents would only be assessed “where the substance of the report justified the need for a further assessment”. In all cases, the decision should be recorded in the case.
5. A vulnerability risk assessment matrix would be completed on all high priority cases and where relevant, on standard priority cases to measure the harm caused and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
The landlord’s ASB policy at the time committed that it would:
1. Keep in regular contact with the resident, or as agreed.
2. Provide advice and support which could include making referrals to other agencies.
3. Keep under review information about cases, including vulnerabilities and circumstances relating to all parties, and adjust its approach to managing the case as necessary.
4. Follow safeguarding procedures where children were involved.
5. Agree an action plan with the resident and keep them updated throughout the case. The action plan would be updated to reflect new information or incidents.
6. Address the behaviour with the alleged perpetrator and use whatever powers and remedies were available; which could include warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.
7. Take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB. Information sharing protocols were in place with key local agencies to allow information sharing relating to the prevention, detection and reduction of ASB.
8. Contact the resident before closing a case to discuss it with them. If it was unable to make contact, it would write to explain why the case was being closed. It would close the case where it had delivered the actions that were appropriate and there was no further action necessary or where there was insufficient evidence.
The landlord’s CCTV guidance for residents says that if CCTV is set up so it only captures images within the boundary of the individual’s private, domestic property, then data protection laws will not apply. If the CCTV captures images outside of the individual’s boundary, then they will need to ensure their CCTV complies with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) are the regulatory body who are responsible for enforcing compliance with the Data Protection Act 2018.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Where it could not respond in these timeframes, it would explain why and provide a written update in a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 5 May 2021 the resident reported ASB from a neighbour that included, leaving a bike in the communal hallway and lots of visitors to their property. The landlord noted that it advised her to report her concerns around visitors to the Police. Five days later the landlord contacted the neighbour and asked them to remove the bike from the communal hallway and provide photographic evidence that this had been done, which they did. The landlord noted that it tried to call the resident to confirm this had been done.
The resident chased a response to her previous report on 8 July 2021. She also reported the neighbour had prevented her from using the communal hallway light by removing the bulb, put junk mail under her door, interfered with her mail, not properly used the shared bins and played loud music.
On 4 and 6 September 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour had put wheelie bins in the communal hallway in front of her door. She said this blocked access to her property and because of medical issues it was difficult for her to get in and out of the property. She also reported an incident 4 days before where the neighbour had been aggressive towards her. On the same day the landlord:
1. Raised a works order to attend within 24 hours to remove the bins.
2. Tried calling the neighbour to discuss the reports and sent a warning letter to them.
3. Spoke to the resident about her concerns and provided a written response, which apologised for not responding in July 2021, and confirmed the actions taken.
Two days later the resident asked for confirmation of what had been addressed with the neighbour and for a sign to be put up in the communal hallway about not blocking the area. The resident chased a response to this on 13 September 2021. She also reported a further incident involving the neighbour, which had been reported to the Police; and that they had put a large plant pot in the front communal garden which was causing an obstruction. The landlord responded the same day confirming its expectations regarding the use of communal areas.
The landlord contacted the resident to assess her case on 16 September 2021 and carried out a risk assessment. It said that it told her how to record details of further incidents, to use the Noise App to record incidents of noise nuisance and report any threatening or intimidating behaviour to the Police. The following day it updated the resident that a sign for the communal areas had been ordered and this was put up the following month.
On 17 September 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour had put up a doorbell CCTV camera. She referred to a phone call the previous day where the landlord had told her that joint agreement was needed before this type of camera could be put up. Six days later, the resident reported that the neighbour had put up a second CCTV camera in the communal area and asked for guidance on the use of cameras in communal areas. The landlord replied that a full response would be provided in 10 working days.
Between September and November 2021, there was internal landlord communication regarding the case ownership, with the case being allocated between departments.
The landlord noted that it tried calling the resident on 3 November 2021 but was unable to speak with her. It wrote to her the same day advising that the sign in the communal area would be removed and the case closed. The resident replied the same day that the issues she had raised had not been addressed and asked why the sign was being removed. The landlord explained that the sign needed to be removed due to inappropriate wording, as it made reference to the neighbour’s property.
On 5 November 2021 the resident asked if a more generic sign could be put up. The landlord advised that it would not put up a sign in that type of property as it would be “excessive”. Where there were issues, it would speak to the residents involved and address via a warning and enforcement action. It advised a written response to her ASB reports would be provided later that week.
The resident chased the written response to her ASB reports on 16 November 2021 and the following day the landlord provided its response, which said:
1. The plant pot was no longer causing an obstruction and provided a photo which showed this.
2. The neighbour had not been given permission for the 2 CCTV cameras but had said neither one was operational. Both devices were still up and the landlord had no objection to this. Lights would come on, on the devices if they were in operation and asked her to let it know if this was the case and it would take this up with the neighbour.
3. Where CCTV cameras overlooked shared areas, permission had be obtained from neighbours. While permission had not been given on this occasion, it recognised these types of devices could be beneficial and increase security.
In November and December 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails, which included:
1. The resident reported that the neighbour’s cameras were operational and provided videos and photos supporting this. The landlord agreed to investigate this and provide a response by 5 January 2022.
2. The resident reported that the plant pot was still in the communal garden, causing an obstruction. She raised a concern that the plant pot meant there was nowhere to store big items for disposal and could be a hazard for maintenance workers or window cleaners. The landlord offered to liaise with the neighbour when she needed to dispose of large items. It did not consider the plant to be a hazard or obstruction but if her window cleaner had an issue, it could revisit this.
3. The resident asked the landlord to provide its policies on CCTV and communal areas. The landlord provided its CCTV guidance and referred the resident to her tenancy agreement regarding shared areas, as there was no specific policy which covered planting. Unless prohibited by the tenancy agreement, it took a best practice approach, which meant it would not unreasonably refuse this type of activity.
4. The landlord suggested mediation.
5. The resident asked for the matter to be referred to a “neutral party”.
On 24 December 2022 the landlord advised it was looking into the process of mediation and would provide an update in the New Year. Two weeks later it told the resident it was still working on her case and on 13 January 2022 it confirmed that a mediation referral had been submitted.
The resident told the landlord on 26 January 2022 that she had not given consent to be referred to mediation and that her request for the matter to be referred to a neutral party was in reference to the Ombudsman, which she had been in contact with. The landlord explained that it had interpreted her request as an expression of interest in mediation and this was why the referral had been made. It apologised for the misunderstanding and confirmed the mediation referral would be cancelled.
In February 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour had locked her and her daughter out of the property by putting the latch on the communal front door. The landlord replied 12 days later that it had spoken to the neighbour, who had denied locking them out. It would arrange for the door lock to be checked and report back. The resident suggested the landlord visit to check this first and chased a response regarding the CCTV cameras that had been promised by 5 January 2022.
In early March 2022 the landlord told the resident that the neighbour’s doorbell CCTV camera had been removed and asked to arrange a meeting with her to discuss her concerns. The resident reported that the neighbour had removed the lightbulb in the communal hallway light. The landlord said it contacted the neighbour and asked them to replace the bulb and advised this should be left active. The resident reported that the neighbour did not replace the lightbulb and asked the landlord to do this because she could not due to medical reasons. The landlord confirmed the following day that it had attended and replaced the bulb.
This Service asked the landlord to take action under its complaints procedure on 17 March 2022 in relation to the resident’s complaint about ASB handling.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and on 29 March 2022 it provided its stage 1 response, which said:
1. It wanted to visit to discuss her concerns but had been unable to agree a suitable date for this so further attempts would be made to arrange this. A visit to the neighbour would then follow to remind them of the terms of their tenancy.
2. It had been in monthly contact with her as per its ASB policy but it had not agreed an action plan or frequency of contact with her. It would follow up to agree these and a manager would carry out monthly reviews going forward, to ensure her case was managed in line with its ASB policy.
3. It identified learning and offered £120 compensation.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint 3 days later. She said the landlord had failed to respond to her initial reports and promised updates by certain dates, which had not been provided. It had not followed its policies and procedures and was treating the neighbour favourably. She had not been contacted monthly and the landlord had failed to support her, which had negatively impacted her mental health. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 4 April 2022 and said it might take it longer than the 20 working day timeframe to respond, due to an increased demand for stage 2 complaints.
The landlord visited the resident on 19 April 2022. The landlord has not provided a record of this visit but a written follow up was provided to the resident a week later. This said that the neighbour had been informed not to reinstate the doorbell camera on the communal front door. The other CCTV camera was facing towards the neighbour’s property and it would visit to check the angle. It had informed the neighbour about a number of additional allegations she had made but there was no evidence to prove these. If she got locked out again, she should report this to the landlord and the Police. It reoffered her the option to take part in mediation and would draft an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) for the neighbour to sign. It would make contact monthly and asked her to record incidents on diary sheets.
On 27 and 29 April 2022 the resident asked for an update on the landlord’s investigation into the CCTV camera. She said this was a breach of her privacy and a safeguarding matter as her daughter was a minor and had been recorded without consent. She reported that the neighbour used drugs in their property. The landlord responded on 11 May 2022 that it had inspected the neighbour’s CCTV and confirmed it was facing their property only and did not cover any communal areas, so it could be left in operation.
In early May 2022 the resident reported a new incident of intimidation by the neighbour, which had been reported to the Police, and asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour about this. Three days later, the landlord confirmed that it had done this and that it had received contact from the Police who were looking into the matter.
On 16 May 2022 the resident said she did not give consent for the landlord to tell the neighbour she had reported the incident to the Police and this had breached her confidentiality. The landlord replied that it was the Police who had told the neighbour about the report and it had only made the neighbour aware of the incident, as requested. In late May 2022, the resident reported a further incident of intimidation by the neighbour, which the landlord acknowledged and confirmed would be put on record.
In June 2022 the landlord issued the neighbour with an ABC and had contact with the Police, who advised the issues reported were not Police matters and no further action would be taken. The resident reported her concerns about data protection breaches to the landlord’s data protection team and on 4 July 2022, it acknowledged this and confirmed it would investigate.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord provided the resident rehousing advice and told her that the case was being closed as it had taken steps to address her concerns, which included warning the neighbour not to put the doorbell camera back on the communal front door, but it was unable to take legal action at that time.
The resident replied the following week that the ASB was continuing and asked that the case was not closed. She reported an incident that occurred on 30 June 2022 and said that the camera were continuing to record her and her daughter and asked for an independent specialist to check this. She asked why the bracket for the doorbell camera had not been removed and why she had not been informed the neighbour had been issued a second warning regarding the doorbell camera.
The resident chased a response to her stage 2 complaint on at least 3 occasions in May, June and July 2022. On 7 July 2022 the landlord responded that it could not guarantee a date when the response would be provided but this delay would be reflected in the compensation payment at stage 2. The resident asked for an indication of when the complaint would be reviewed and the landlord advised it could not give a timeframe and suggested she contact this Service to escalate the matter; which the resident did on 11 July 2022.
On 13 July 2022 this Service asked the landlord to provide a final complaint response by 28 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged this with the resident the following day and on 15 July 2022 the resident provided additional information to the landlord regarding the ASB reports and the complaint.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. The evidence provided on 15 July 2022 did not constitute ASB and was “merely a case of feuding neighbours”. The photos provided by the resident showed items in communal areas, but did not prove that it was the neighbour who had put them there.
2. It was satisfied it had handled her case fairly and without bias and “the stage 1 decision is upheld”.
3. It offered her £50 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response.
The resident replied the next day that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it had not considered all of the evidence provided or responded to all the issues raised. The landlord replied that she could approach this Service, if she remained dissatisfied.
Between August and November 2022, there were a number of communications between the resident and the landlord, which included:
1. The landlord agreed to contact the neighbour for the doorbell camera fittings to be removed from the communal front door.
2. The resident reported that she was still being recorded by the neighbour’s CCTV as the light on the camera came on when she walked past it. The landlord replied that this did not mean it was recording her. It had revisited in September 2022 and confirmed the camera was still facing towards the neighbour’s window.
3. The resident reported a new incident on 12 August 2022 and the landlord advised it had spoken to the neighbour who had denied the allegation.
4. The landlord advised it had issued 1 warning to the neighbour and no second warning had been issued, and this was a misunderstanding.
5. The resident chased a response from the data protection team in October 2022.
6. The landlord offered to visit the resident.
7. The resident asked for a new member of staff to deal with the matter and in October 2022 the landlord confirmed a new member of staff was taking over the case due to a restructure.
In an update to this Service in December 2023, the resident advised that:
1. The doorbell camera bracket is still on the communal front door.
2. The ASB is ongoing including the CCTV camera recording her, harassment and intimidation. She had reported ASB to the landlord in September 2023.
3. She has not received a response from the landlord’s data protection team.
In an update to this Service in December 2023, the landlord advised that the resident had not raised any new ASB cases.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that the ASB and the landlord’s handling of this has had a negative effect on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns in relation to data protection breaches. This Service would not investigate or determine whether there had been a breach of data protection by the landlord because these matters are better dealt with by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
The resident has said that one of her desired outcomes of the Ombudsman’s investigation is to be moved from the property. The evidence provided shows that there have been some discussion between the landlord and the resident regarding her rehousing options. However, the landlord’s response to the residents request to be rehoused has not been addressed via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, which means that this issue falls outside of the scope of this investigation. Where a resident requests to be rehoused, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s handling of this request to determine whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Where service failure is identified, orders can be made for the landlord to address this; however, this would not include an order for the landlord to move the resident. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident a written response to her request to be rehoused. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this, she can make a complaint to the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The concerns reported by the resident in May 2021 would not be classed as ASB as per the landlord’s ASB policy, detailed above. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not deal with the report as ASB, at that time. While the landlord took timely action in response to the resident’s report, it failed to tell her this, which left her believing nothing had been done. It noted that it tried to call her but it should have followed up with further contact to ensure that it communicated what had been done, in response to her concerns. When the resident chased this up 2 months later and reported further concerns, it failed to respond. This meant the resident had to chase the landlord again for a response and resulted in a delay of around 2 months in action being taken. This amounts to maladministration and would have left the resident feeling ignored and as though the landlord did not care about the problems she was experiencing.
From September 2021, the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports as ASB, which was appropriate. While some of the individual issues would not have been fallen under the definition of ASB, the resident had reported noise nuisance and aggressive behaviour, which would have been defined as ASB in line with its policy, as detailed above. For consistency, it was sensible that all the issues were dealt with as a collective, rather than separating these out; meaning some non-ASB issues would be addressed as part of the wider ASB case.
When the resident reported that bins were blocking her front door in September 2021, the landlord arranged to remove these. This would not be something the landlord would normally be expected to do; however, as the resident had highlighted medical issues that impacted her being able to get in and out of the property, it was appropriate that it arranged to remove the bins so she could easily and safely access her property.
Between September and November 2021, the resident’s case was allocated between teams on a number of occasions. The internal communication seen by this Service suggests this was due to confusion over which team should be handling the case and whether it should be dealt with as ASB. Due to the complex nature of this subject, it is understandable that in some cases, there can be confusion over whether a case should be dealt with as ASB or not. Where this confusion occurs, landlord staff should take steps to clarify this in the shortest time possible to ensure the case is allocated to the correct team and progressed. In this case, that did not happen and the case was allocated between teams, with no one taking ownership of the issue. This resulted in a 6 week delay in the matter being progressed, which amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on how to define ASB in line with its ASB policy and how to clarify any confusion, to ensure cases are progressed quickly.
When the resident reported ASB in September 2021, the landlord spoke with her the same day, which was appropriate. However, there is no record that it formally assessed the case or carried out a risk assessment until 10 days later. This was outside of the timeframes committed within its ASB policy, as detailed above. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord revisited this risk assessment at any point, as is committed in its ASB policy, as detailed above. Considering the nature of some of the incidents reported by the resident and the impact she said this was having on her, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review the risk assessment. Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration and meant that it missed opportunities to identify and implement support for the resident and her child. This would have been particularly upsetting for the resident as she told the landlord on a number of occasions that she felt unsupported and so its lack of action in response to this would have been disappointing. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on ASB case handling with reference to its ASB policy.
In response to the resident’s ASB reports the landlord spoke to the neighbour on a number of occasions, issued a warning, offered mediation, liaised with the Police, visited the resident at home and implemented an ABC. All of these were appropriate interventions and in line with its ASB policy, as detailed above. While the resident had declined mediation, it was appropriate for the landlord to continue offering this as an option, particularly, as it did not have evidence to pursue further enforcement action.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said that the behaviour reported was not ASB and was “merely a case of feuding neighbours”. Where the landlord determines that issues being reported are not considered ASB, it is appropriate that it sensitively explains how it reached this conclusion. In this case, the landlord provided an explanation, which was reasonable but was not delivered in a sensitive way and would have come across as dismissive. This would have been particularly upsetting for the resident as she had told the landlord repeatedly the impact this was having on her mental health.
The landlord took practical steps to address some of the resident’s concerns, including moving bins from outside her front door and replacing a missing lightbulb in the communal area, which were appropriate. When the resident raised concerns about being locked out of the property by the neighbour, the landlord agreed to inspect the door. A visit was carried out in April 2022 but no record of this has been provided and it is not clear whether the landlord considered any practical solutions to this issue, such as removing or disabling the latch function on the door; which would have been appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to consider whether there are any practical solutions to this issue and provide a written update to the resident regarding this.
As part of the stage 1 complaint investigation, the landlord identified that no action plan or frequency of contact had been agreed with the resident. This meant that it had not followed its ASB policy, as detailed above; which was an accurate assessment. Three weeks after the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the action plan and frequency of contact following a visit with the resident. However, there is no record that the landlord formally reviewed this action plan in response to further reports made, as committed in its ASB policy, as detailed above. The landlord also committed as part of the stage 1 response that monthly manager reviews would be carried out, but there is no record that these were ever done. Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration and meant that the landlord missed opportunities to identify further issues with the case handling and put these right at an earlier stage.
When the resident asked for the landlord’s policies regarding CCTV and communal areas, the landlord provided its CCTV guidance and explained it approach to plant pots in communal areas; which was appropriate. From the evidence provided, the landlord referred to its CCTV guidance on a number of occasions and provided this to the resident to support its decisions, which was appropriate.
When the resident asked for a sign to be put in communal areas, the landlord did this, but later removed it and declined to put one back up. While the landlord was entitled to decline to put up a sign, the fact that it initially put one up and then changed its position would have been frustrating and confusing for the resident, as its responses were inconsistent.
When the landlord suggested mediation to the resident, she responded asking for the matter to be referred to a “neutral party”. The resident later explained this was a reference to this Service but the landlord interpreted this as an agreement to the suggestion of mediation. With hindsight, it may be clear that the resident and landlord were referring to different agencies. However, at the time, and considering the resident’s request for a referral to a “neutral party” came in response to the landlord’s suggestion of mediation, it is understandable that confusion occurred and that it progressed with the mediation referral. While upsetting for the resident that the landlord made this referral without her consent, the evidence suggests this was done in error and once this had been highlighted, it took immediate steps to cancel the referral and apologised to her.
The landlord is not responsible for determining breaches of the data protection act as set out above; however, it is appropriate that the landlord investigate any concerns a resident has about CCTV cameras in communal areas, to try and address these, where possible. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV cameras in November 2021 was inconsistent. It suggested permission needed to be granted for cameras overlooking communal areas but that permission had not been given and it did not object to the cameras remaining. Its reason for not requiring permission on that occasion was not clear and it is understandable that the resident was confused by this. While the landlord indicated that it had spoken with the neighbour, who had said the cameras were not operational, there is no evidence that the landlord checked the cameras itself. This would have been appropriate considering they were overlooking communal areas, and to provide reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
When the resident highlighted that the cameras did appear to be operational, the landlord agreed to inspect these, which was appropriate. The landlord records are incomplete and while it makes reference to having inspected the neighbour’s cameras on several occasions, it is not clear how this was done and what checks were carried out. The landlord confirmed that the doorbell CCTV camera had been removed and the neighbour “warned” not to reinstall this. When the resident later asked about the warning issued, the landlord said there had been a misunderstanding regarding this. This Service has not seen the landlord’s communication with the neighbour regarding this so it is not clear whether a formal warning was issued or simply an instruction given not to reinstate this. The landlord’s failure to properly document its contact with the neighbour regarding this, meant that it could not properly respond to the resident’s queries about whether a warning was issued or not. It is important that landlord records are thorough and detailed so it can account for and explain its actions to residents and this Service, where required. In this case, it has not been able to do that, which amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records in ASB cases.
When the resident raised concerns about the bracket for the doorbell CCTV camera still being on the communal front door, the landlord agreed to contact the neighbour about this, which was reasonable. This Service has seen no evidence that this was done and the resident has said that the bracket is still on the door. An order has been made below for the landlord to contact the neighbour to request the bracket is removed and provide a written update to the resident setting out what action it will take if this is not done.
The resident has reported that the remaining CCTV camera is motion detected and lights up when she walks through the communal areas, and so believes this is recording her, which is understandable. The landlord said it had inspected the camera and that it was not recording communal areas, but it is not clear how it has determined this and whether it has physically checked this from within the neighbour’s property, which would have been a sensible action to take. If it had done this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident this in order to provide reassurance that she was not being recorded. An order has been made below for the landlord to inspect the neighbour’s camera from within their property to check whether it is recording communal areas, and provide a written update to the resident confirming the outcome of this.
In addition to reporting her concerns regarding the CCTV to the housing team, the resident reported this to the landlord’s data protection team. While the landlord acknowledged this, the resident has said that it has not provided a response to her concerns, despite chasing this in October 2022. It has now been over a year since the resident first raised this concern with the data protection team and its lack of update or response amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord’s data protection team to provide a written response to the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV cameras.
The resident said repeatedly that her child being filmed without consent was a safeguarding concern. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether this was or was not a safeguarding concern, but to determine whether the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concern. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord addressed or responded to this specific concern, other than to say that the camera was not recording the resident or her daughter. As the resident had made specific reference to a safeguarding concern, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to this concern to reassure the resident that it had considered this. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide a written response to the resident on this issue.
When the resident raised concerns about a plant pot causing an obstruction in the communal garden, the landlord inspected this and responded that it did not consider this to be an obstruction. While frustrating for the resident, this was a reasonable response, as it was not on the main walkway in the communal areas. The resident has raised concerns about the storage of bulk rubbish items for removal and the landlord responded that it could liaise with her neighbour as and when this was required. This was again, a reasonable response as the removal of bulk items is likely to be sporadic.
From the records provided, there was a lot of email contact between the resident and the landlord. It is understandable that landlord’s may not be able to respond immediately to email enquiries, particularly if they contain multiple queries. In this case, the landlord took the sensible step of providing holding responses, with a future date a full response would be provided. While appropriate, there were a number of occasions where it failed to provide the full response by the date given. This resulted in the resident going to further effort to chase the landlord for a response and amounts to maladministration.
The resident said that the landlord breached her confidentiality in May 2022 by telling the neighbour she had reported them to the Police. The landlord records are incomplete as there is no note of its conversation with the neighbour to confirm exactly what was said at the time. While it is noted that the landlord denied this in email communication with the resident, without a record of the landlord’s conversation with the neighbour, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to fully investigate this issue, and so no further comment can be made in relation to this. The importance of record keeping has been set out in the report above and an order made in respect of this.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord communicating with the Police about her reports, without her consent. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will work with partner agencies and share information in line with information sharing agreements. This meant that it may not require the resident’s consent to share information or communicate with the Police. While it was reasonable for the landlord to be in contact with the Police regarding the resident’s reports, it would have been useful for the landlord to explain its position to the resident, to offer reassurance on why it was doing this.
On 2 occasions the landlord told the resident it was going to close her ASB case. The first time it did this in November 2021, it noted that it tried to call her, which was in line with its ASB policy, as detailed above. However, on the second occasion in June 2022, there is no record that it attempted to speak with her prior to this, which meant it was not following its ASB policy, as detailed above. An order has already been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on ASB case handling and it should ensure the case closure process is covered as part of this.
The resident has said that the landlord has been biased towards her and treated her neighbour favourably. From the evidence provided, this does not appear to be the case; however, due to some inconsistencies in the landlord’s responses, it is understandable that the resident may believe this. The landlord acknowledged there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s ASB case and offered £120 compensation for this. While appropriate that it acknowledged this, it did not go far enough in its offer of redress, considering the resident’s circumstance and the impact she said this has had on her. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of her ASB case and pay her the £120 compensation already offered and an additional £380.
The resident has said that she has recently reported to the landlord that the ASB is ongoing; however, the landlord has said that no new cases have been reported. An order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns regarding ASB, carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan in line with its current ASB policy. A written update to be provided to the resident following this contact.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage complaint 1 response to the resident in 9 days, which was in line with the committed timeframe in its complaints policy, as detailed above. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord warned her that its stage 2 response may be delayed, which was appropriate and would help to set the resident’s expectations. While appropriate that it gave this warning, it did not provide any further updates and it took the resident chasing on at least 3 occasions before a further update was provided. When it did provide an update, this did not include an estimated timeframe for the response to be provided, which would have been appropriate and in line with its complaints policy, as detailed above. As part of its response, it said the compensation offer would reflect the delay, which was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. While appropriate that it consider any redress required in respect of delays, the landlord should not see this as a way to excuse or accept delays to the complaint handling process.
It was only after the resident escalated to this Service that it progressed with the investigation into her stage 2 complaint. This would have been frustrating for her and indicated that the landlord prioritised complaints that came via this Service. This was unfair as the landlord should give equal priority to all complaints, regardless of the source. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response to the resident in 79 days, which was significantly over the committed timeframe in its complaint policy, as detailed above and amounts to maladministration. The resident had to chase this on at least 5 occasions, including escalating to this Service, before a response was provided. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its poor complaint handling and pay her £400 compensation in addition to the £50 already offered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its ASB policy in its handling of the resident’s reports as it was delayed in carrying out a risk assessment and did not revisit this in response to further incidents. It also failed to agree an action plan at the initial stages or review this throughout the case once it had been agreed. The landlord did not keep to its committed timeframes for providing responses and there is no evidence that it thoroughly investigated her concerns regarding the neighbour’s CCTV camera. Its responses about several issues were inconsistent, which has led to the resident believe it was treating the neighbour favourably.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was significantly delayed, which resulted in the resident chasing it on at least 5 occasions and escalating to this Service to get a response. The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and used the potential offer of compensation as a way to excuse the period of delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Inspect the neighbour’s CCTV camera from within their property to check whether it is recording communal areas and provide a written update to the resident confirming the outcome of this and any subsequent action it will take.
2. Provide a written response from the data protection team to the resident’s concerns regarding the CCTV cameras, raised on 6 June 2022.
3. Provide a written response to the resident that her child being filmed without consent was a safeguarding concern.
4. Consider whether there are any practical solutions it can implement to address the resident’s reports that the neighbour has locked her out of the property using the communal front door latch. The landlord to provide a written update to the resident confirming the outcome of this and what, if any, action will be taken, including a timeframe for any actions to be completed.
5. Contact the neighbour to request the doorbell CCTV bracket is removed and provide a written update to the resident setting out what action it will take if this is not done and a timeframe for this.
6. Apologise to the resident for its handling of her ASB case.
7. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £120 already offered for its handling of her ASB reports.
  2. An additional £380 for its handling of her ASB reports.
  3. £50 already offered for its complaint handling.
  4. An additional £400 for its complaint handling.
8. Contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns regarding ASB, carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan in line with its current ASB policy. A written update to be provided to the resident following this contact.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. How to define ASB in line with its ASB policy and what action staff should take to clarify any confusion to ensure cases are progressed quickly.
2. ASB case handling with reference to its ASB policy, including the risk assessment and case closure process.
3. The importance of keeping detailed records in ASB cases, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which can be found here KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
4. Complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide a written response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, including any and all options she can explore herself for a potential move.
The landlord to provide an update to this Service on its intentions regarding the above recommendation within 4 weeks.