Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202210065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210065

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

15 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the residents installation of personal CCTV cameras.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom, upper floor flat. She has children and has lived at the property since 2012, when she moved there via a mutual exchange. The resident has advised the landlord that she takes medication for anxiety.
The landlord’s ASB policy (August 2021) states as follows:
1. ASB is defined in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
2. The policy sets out examples of ASB, which include:
  1. Persistent noise.
  2. Intimidation and harassment.
  3. Misuse of alcohol or drugs.
3. The landlord works to develop ways of preventing and discouraging ASB by using a range of early intervention strategies including mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals, and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts.
4. It will work with partner agencies to ensure early intervention where appropriate.
5. It actively works to safeguard children, young people and vulnerable adults from harm and will respond appropriately if this occurs.
6. It will consider how alleged perpetrators who are vulnerable, can be supported.
7. Residents should behave in a manner that does not cause nuisance and annoyance to their neighbours and the wider community. Residents are also expected to understand and be tolerant of different lifestyles.
8. In order to support residents who complain of ASB, it will consider the following measures:
  1. A full investigation and evidence gathering.
  2. An action plan.
  3. Interview with the alleged perpetrator.
  4. Interventions that may help resolve the issue, for example mediation.
  5. Working with the police.
  6. Installation of CCTV if required.
The landlord’s CCTV policy (September 2020) states as follows:
1. The landlord may use and operate CCTV for the prevention and detection of crime and to facilitate community safety for issues such as persistent noise, intimidation and drug issues.
2. It will consider installing CCTV systems if there is a specific need that cannot be met through other reasonable methods.
3. Residents who intend to install their own CCTV must apply to the landlord for permission before installation. The CCTV must capture only the resident’s property and must not capture either communal areas or other properties.
4. Should a resident’s own CCTV installation become part of a neighbour dispute or an allegation of harassment is made, then the landlord may withdraw permission and request the cameras be removed.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 days and at stage 2 it will respond within 15 working days. If further time is required it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

On 24 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that a person had let themselves into the block via the trade button and had sprayed an offensive word on a door. She stated that the police had been informed and that she was worried for the safety of her children. The police confirmed to the landlord in July 2021 that there was not enough evidence to take the matter further.
On 7 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. She and other residents had been experiencing issues with one of the neighbours in the block who had been sending abusive messages to them. The person living with the neighbour had caused criminal damage in June 2021.
2. The issues with the neighbour were causing her increased anxiety.
3. The police had attended the neighbour’s address on at least 6 occasions.
On 8 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a meeting to discuss the neighbour’s behaviour. She stated that the situation had “seriously affected” her mental health and her medication for anxiety had been increased.
The resident sent the landlord an incident log on 11 October 2021 and stated as follows:
1. She had increased anxiety and high blood pressure for fear of repercussions from the neighbour and her lodger. Her two children were also “very frightened” that the person they witnessed causing criminal damage was now living so close to them with the neighbour.
2. A number of “random, undesirable” men would attend the neighbour’s property throughout the night and they slammed the doors. She could hear loud music and shouting and swearing throughout the night. It worried her that she did not know who was attending the property.
3. The neighbour had been verbally abusive to her and other residents when they tried to speak to her about her behaviour.
4. The neighbour appeared to have “gone missing” and the lodger had unrestricted access to the property.
5. She explained that she was at the end of her “tether” and no longer wanted to live at the property.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord completed a case file report into the matter. It noted internally that it would interview the resident, agree an action plan, inform the resident of what would happen and the timescales. It would also complete a risk assessment matrix.
On 18 October 2021 the landlord updated its case file report and noted that it had requested a member of staff attend the neighbour’s address to speak to her about the allegations. It updated the case file report on 20 October 2021 that it had conducted a joint visit with the police at the neighbour’s property. It had reminded her that she was responsible for the behaviour of her visitors under the tenancy agreement.
The following day the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had been staring at her. She said her daughter had been “in tears” and that it was “pure intimidation”.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the police officer “on the case” had recommended that she contact Crimestoppers with any such information. It advised that its fraud team was also investigating the matter but that any outcome would not be shared with the resident.
On 2 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated as follows:
1. There had been doors banging just before midnight.
2. Someone had propped the main door open just after 1am. She stated this put residents at risk.
3. A male had been talking on his phone near her open window at around 2am. She had shouted to him that he was on camera.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day and stated that her family had COVID-19 and the “constant flow of undesirable people” could be the cause of it. She stated that the neighbour would be claiming benefits as a single occupant although the lodger was still living at the property.
That same day (3 November 2021) the landlord sent a letter to the neighbour and explained that it had received reports of excessive noise during the night which would be classed as ASB. It stated that it would be investigating the allegations. It advised her to remind guests not to leave the front door open.
On 6 November 2021 the resident advised the landlord that males on a moped had stolen her security lights. She believed this was related to having reported ASB. She requested that the landlord install security lighting.
On 15 November 2021 the neighbour (complained about by the resident) contacted the landlord and advised as follows:
1. She apologised for the actions of her visitors.
2. She advised that a different neighbour had been causing ASB.
3. The resident used to be her friend but they had fallen out.
4. She believed the resident had made comments about her sexuality.
5. She was scared to leave her property due to intimidating behaviour from the resident.
6. The allegations about her taking drugs was untrue.
On 19 November 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had video footage of the neighbour’s lodger letting herself into the property. She asked for an update on her reports of ASB.
The landlord responded on 24 November 2021 and advised that the neighbour was permitted to have visitors. It advised that it had spoken to the neighbour to remind her of the tenancy agreement. It explained that the police and fraud team were conducting separate investigations. The resident stated that the level of crime had increased since the neighbour had “random hoodies attending her property at stupid times”. The landlord advised her to report the criminal matters to the police. It explained that it may look at installing additional lighting.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord completed a monthly case review. It noted that it had undertaken another joint visit with the police to the neighbour’s property. It noted that it would look into whether security lights could be installed.
On 3 December 2021 the resident informed the landlord that a police officer had been in the area as the neighbour had reported that she had been filmed through her windows. She stated that this this was a “blatant lie” and that the neighbour was wasting the emergency services time due to her “constant storytelling and need for attention”.
On 6 December 2021 the resident sent the landlord video footage from November 2021 which she stated showed the neighbour not letting paramedics in and being abusive to another resident.
On 29 December 2021 the resident advised the landlord that visitors to the neighbour’s property had slammed the doors in the early morning and had propped the main door open. She stated that her Christmas break had been ruined by the neighbour’s visitors and that she could not “physically or mentally” deal with anymore of the behaviour. She asked to be updated on the ASB case and submitted ASB logs and video recordings.
On 6 Janaury 2022 the resident advised the landlord that a male had been living at the neighbour’s property since Christmas and that his vehicle was not taxed. She subsequently reported that the neighbour had her sofa removed and then alcohol was delivered. She questioned why the neighbour needed alcohol delivered on a Sunday afternoon and whether she had sold her sofa to purchase alcohol. She stated there was a “clear alcohol problem” and asked the landlord to take action.
On 10 Janaury 2022 the resident asked the landlord for details of her new contact as the previous staff member had left. She stated she had reported further incidents but had heard nothing. The landlord responded the same day and stated that it had made contact with the neighbour but could not go into detail. It provided details of the new staff member.
The following day, the resident advised the landlord that someone had been taking pictures near her vehicle. The landlord responded the same day and advised that the video footage did not show the person taking photos.
Internal correspondence from 13 Janaury 2022 between the landlord and the police noted that the police were satisfied that there was nothing “suspicious” happening at the neighbour’s property and there were no concerns about the male at the property. The notes also confirmed that the police had discussed their findings with the resident.
On 14 Janaury 2022, in a further monthly case review, the landlord noted that the resident had sent in further videos of the neighbour and visitors arriving at the property. The landlord noted that that the recordings did not show ASB but that the resident had reported that she could hear doors being banged. It noted that the police had advised the resident that the recordings did not show ASB.
On 20 Janaury 2022 the resident asked the landlord what the rules were on the male living with the neighbour. She stated that he had large cars which were causing parking issues for other residents.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord conducted an online meeting with the resident and another tenant. The resident advised that the neighbour’s behaviour had improved and there was nothing new to report.
The following day the resident sent the landlord video footage which she stated showed the neighbour’s partner deliberately moving his car to take up two parking spaces. She also stated that the neighbour’s sister had attended without any facemask or PPE to protect against COVID-19. She stated there was no need for the neighbour’s sister to have been at the property during the lockdown period.
On 4 February 2022 the resident sent the landlord video footage of the neighbour talking on her mobile phone which she stated she would not have been able to do if she had breathing difficulties (associated with COVID-19). She stated the neighbour was a “compulsive liar”. The resident sent further video footage which she stated showed the neighbour did not have COVID-19 on 6 February 2022. She reiterated in further emails that the neighbour was committing fraud by having her partner live with her.
On 23 February 2022 the resident reported that she had been woken up by loud talking on the pathway, the buzzer and doors slamming. That same day the landlord noted internally that it would write to all parties to advise of the extent it could be involved and that it’s role was not to pass messages back and forth.
The resident advised the landlord on 28 February 2022 that if it did not confirm what action it was taking, she would take legal action and raise a Community Trigger.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and stated as follows:
1. It had been dealing with other unrelated emergency issues as a priority.
2. It did not get involved with parking disputes.
3. Residents could have guests staying and this was a matter for the landlord, not the resident.
4. None of the matters reported recently were ASB and therefore there was nothing to be investigated.
5. Residents needed to be respectful of each other without a constant “back and forth”.
6. It advised that she could take legal action or commence a Community Trigger.
The resident responded that the matters she had reported were ASB. She also reiterated that having someone live in the address was a breach of the tenancy.
On 3 March 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had heard the neighbour and her partner return to the property around 1am. She stated this was ASB and asked for a copy of the ASB policy.
On 12 March 2022 the resident reported that the buzzer had sounded around 11:20pm and doors had slammed. The neighbour had then gone out and arrived back around 1am.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had advised the resident not to monitor every movement of the neighbour. It noted that it would send a letter to all residents asking them to be mindful when entering the building.
On 26 March 2022 the resident reported that she had heard the sounds of the neighbour being intimate which she stated was “inappropriate and unacceptable”. She stated she had still not received a copy of the ASB policy.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord issued the neighbour with an official caution for breaching the tenancy agreement by making noise and slamming doors in the early hours of the morning. That same day the resident advised the landlord that mediation would not be appropriate as she had previously spoken to the neighbour about her behaviour but it had continued.
On 1 April 2022 the resident received confirmation that her Community Trigger submission had been received.
The following day (2 April 2022) the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had locked the communal window and removed the key. She stated this was a fire risk.
On 4 April 2022 the neighbour contacted the landlord and stated that she felt victimised and provoked by the resident and another tenant. She stated that they had been abusive and had recorded her without her consent. The neighbour advised the landlord of her vulnerabilities.
On 9 April 2022 the resident sent video recordings to the landlord which she stated showed the neighbour staring and carrying alcohol through the communal area. She stated this was “distasteful” and brought the block “down”. The following day she sent a further recording which she stated showed a “random male” calling up to the neighbour’s window around 3am.
On 11 April 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the footage did not show the visitors drinking alcohol in the communal areas. That same day the resident contacted the community safety team and asked to be referred for coaching as she was struggling with unknown males going into and out of the property which was impacting her sleep.
On 13 April 2022 the Community Trigger took place and an action plan was agreed as follows:
1. The resident was referred for support coaching.
2. Another tenant would be spoken to, to see if they reported any issues.
3. It was recommended that the parties take part in mediation.
4. The landlord and police would visit the resident to discuss her CCTV cameras.
5. The landlord would conduct a home visit with the neighbour.
6. Police reports would be completed about the males as appropriate.
7. The landlord would investigate the entry door to see if it could be fitted with a soft close or stopper to prevent banging.
8. The landlord would continue to monitor incidents on a monthly basis.
9. It would follow safeguarding procedures as necessary.
On 15 April 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the lodger had returned to live at the neighbour’s property as the neighbour’s partner had moved out.
On 24 April 2022 the resident stated that the landlord had not taken action to resolve the locked communal window. She stated this health and safety risk was impacting on her anxiety.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. The case had been discussed on 3 May 2022 at the Community Harm and Risk Management Meeting (CHARMM). It was decided that a review of the case did not need to be undertaken. It would however continue to monitor the situation monthly.
2. The resident had raised concerns about the neighbour’s property not having a gas safety certificate. The landlord confirmed that it had a valid certificate.
3. The landlord had logged the lost communal windows key with its maintenance team.
4. Several counter allegations had been made against the resident regarding harassment and verbal altercations along with concerns about her CCTV cameras capturing the communal areas.
5. It concluded that the Community Trigger was closed.
The resident responded with a number of queries as to why the Community Trigger had been closed. She advised the landlord that her CCTV was not directed at communal areas and that she did not need the police and landlord to visit her. She stated that any counter allegations against her were untrue. She explained that she would engage in the coaching support but not mediation.
On 27 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord when it would be actioning the soft close door and the new window key. She stated that people had still been entering the block late at night. The following day she advised that landlord that the situation had impacted her health and she had again been woken by loud voices and banging doors in the night. She stated she had a recording of the neighbour and her new partner running down the communal pathway.
In July 2022 the landlord noted internally that the ASB case had been closed.
On 10 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had video footage of the neighbour waving and blowing kisses at her children and that there were loud noises from the property. She stated that her anxiety was “through the roof”. The landlord advised the following day that it had created a log of the report and it would be investigated.
The following day the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had again returned in the early hours and was drunk or under the influence of drugs. She stated that the landlord needed to safeguard her and the other residents. She advised that she had reported the matter to the police who had advised that the Community Trigger should be revisited. The Community Trigger team advised the same day that she should wait for the outcome of any of the landlord’s enquiries before the matter was referred to CHARMM. The landlord responded the same day and stated it had spoken to the neighbour and her behaviour had been “childish” but was not intimidating. It concluded that it would not be investigating further and that the case was closed.
The resident responded the same day and stated that behaviour was intimidating in the context. She reiterated the impact it was having on her and requested to move. The landlord advised that the only move available would be via a mutual exchange. It reiterated that on the evidence provided, it could not take further action. The resident stated that the video of the neighbour blowing kisses clearly showed she was “off her head on something” and that she could hear the neighbour “snorting cocaine” but the noise app did not capture such sounds. She stated she was emotionally drained and asked to escalate the matter or make a formal complaint.
The landlord noted internally on 12 August 2022 that it had spoken to the neighbour and reminded her not to be “antagonistic”.
On 15 August 2022 the resident submitted a compliant and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had taken too long to give the neighbour a tenancy caution.
2. She had been subjected to ASB for over a year which had caused her mental health to suffer.
3. The landlord had ignored tenancy breaches and had “explained away” ASB.
4. The landlord had not safeguarded her or her children.
5. The landlord did not address that a male had been living at the neighbour’s property.
6. The landlord had issued a tenancy caution but did not follow its ASB policy by taking any further action following further ASB.
7. She requested that the matter be looked at by a different member of staff.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord confirmed that it was closing the ASB case and outlined that it had taken the following action:
1. It had followed its action plan.
2. It had spoken to the neighbour about her actions and issued a tenancy caution.
3. It had referred the case to CHARMM.
4. It had referred the resident for support coaching.
5. It had completed a Community Trigger.
6. It had liaised with external agencies to try to find a long-term solution.
7. It advised that if further incidents were reported and supported with evidence in the following 3 months, it would reopen the case.
On 19 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the lodger was again living at the neighbour’s property and that the neighbour had tried to intimidate her by waving. She also heard sounds which she believed were drugs being taken. The landlord advised that it had seen no evidence of drug taking and that legal action was not warranted.
The landlord arranged for a case meeting at the end of August 2022. The resident stated that there was “no point” in the meeting if the other tenant could not attend.
On 30 August 2022 the resident reported that she had been woken by banging and shouting from the neighbour’s lodger. She advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response (this has not been provided to this Service). She requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. At no time had the police told her that her CCTV cameras were intrusive. She only installed them to evidence the ASB.
2. The neighbour’s behaviour was not caused by having cameras in the area but were due to her “drug and alcohol fuelled nocturnal lifestyle”.
3. The landlord had not supported her.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 2 September 2022 and advised it would respond within 15 working days
On 14 and 24 September 2022 the resident reported further incidents of a male arriving and the door slamming and voices from the neighbour’s property.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The police had advised the landlord that the resident’s CCTV was “intrusive”. It apologised if the police had not told the resident as such.
2. It was not the resident’s responsibility to install CCTV. The cameras needed to be removed as the resident should not be monitoring every movement of other residents. The CCTV covered the communal pathway, the car park and other houses.
3. It was not for the resident to “police the area”. If a crime had been committed this should be reported to the police.
4. What the resident referred to as “nocturnal lifestyle” and people attending the neighbour’s home was not ASB, it was a difference in lifestyle. It had not received any evidence of ASB. It had seen one recording of the neighbour making gestures to the camera but that was because she felt she was being watched.
5. It had been fully supportive of the resident and had made several attempts to meet with her.
6. It acknowledged that the situation was causing distress to the resident. It stated that it had been trying to arrange a meeting but a date had not been agreed.
7. It had looked into the accusations made, appropriately investigated them and had taken action if required.
8. It signposted the resident to this Service.
The resident responded that she did not agree with the response and that her CCTV was not intrusive. She referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had stated that there was no ASB yet it had given the neighbour a tenancy caution.
2. She had provided evidence of ASB and drug activity on many occasions.
3. The landlord had made untrue statements that her CCTV was intrusive.
4. The ASB had caused her mental health to suffer.
5. The landlord did not consider her children or safeguard them.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

In late September 2022 the landlord conducted a meeting with the resident. It reiterated that having visitors late at night was not ASB. The landlord suggested a joint visit with the police to discuss the CCTV cameras but the resident declined this. She stated she would send screenshots of what the CCTV covered to the landlord. The landlord subsequently liaised with its legal team about the cameras on 13 October 2022.
In late October 2022 the landlord advised residents of the block that it would be installing its own CCTV with audio recording for a period of 3 months. In November 2022 the landlord noted that since this CCTV had been installed, no further issues had been reported.
On 6 November 2022 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. There was a bad smell from the neighbour’s property. The landlord should enter by force if necessary to investigate.
2. The ASB was ongoing and the landlord should take enforcement action.
3. The landlord should acknowledge that the neighbour was not capable of living in general accommodation and it should move her to assisted housing.
On 13 November 2022 the resident advised this Service that her mental health had suffered due to the ASB. She stated she could not leave her property as she was in fear and her children had been sleep deprived.
On 14 January 2023 the resident reported that a male had entered the neighbour’s property in the early hours and she had heard them being intimate. She noted that the soft closed door had not been actioned and asked for an update.
The landlord met with the resident on 30 March 2023. It sent a follow-up email to the resident as follows:
1. The resident had confirmed that things have improved since the CCTV cameras were installed in November 2022 and there had only been one isolated incident in January 2023.
2. The CCTV cameras provided by the landlord had been extended until June 2023 when it would review whether they were still required.
3. It would investigate if any local charities could offer the resident a ‘victim support’ service.
4. It would investigate whether the resident could be offered more support coaching.
5. It would send an email each month to check in and get updates from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that she believes the neighbour’s behaviour has impacted on her health. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the reports of ASB and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord. Whilst this investigation cannot decide on the causation of health conditions, it can consider if any general distress and inconvenience has been caused to the resident as a result of any errors by the landlord.
This Service is generally limited to investigating matters which were brought to the landlord by way of a complaint at the time or within 6 months of the issue occurring. This reflects the dispute resolution principles where landlord’s should be given the opportunity to investigate, which is made significantly more difficult when time has passed. This Service does however have the discretion to consider historical matters when appropriate to do so. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB since June 2021 as this time period is directly linked to the ongoing reports of ASB the resident had complained of.
The resident’s concern reported to this Service about a smell coming the neighbour’s property was not raised until after the completion of the internal complaints procedure in respect of the ASB. The dispute resolution principles state that landlords should have the opportunity to investigate matters and put things right before the involvement of this Service. As this has not been considered as a complaint by the landlord it is not included as part of this investigation.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports. Rather it is to assess the landlord’s response to the reports with reference to its policies and what is fair and reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.
In cases of ASB, landlords have a number of powers available to them in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and enforcement action under the tenancy terms. These include injunctions and possession orders. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of anti-social behaviour, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support any such formal action. In this case it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not take any further action against the tenant without evidence to support the reports.
During 2021 when the reports of ASB began, the landlord considered the behaviour complained about (banging doors and visitors and shouting in the night) to be ASB. It appropriately spoke to the neighbour about this behaviour and followed this up by giving her a tenancy caution. When such behaviour by the neighbour continued to be reported by the resident, the landlord advised that it would not constitute ASB. This led to frustration and confusion for the resident who felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns.
The landlord explained why the behaviour being reported, on an almost daily basis, was not considered to be ASB or that it required supporting evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegations. The landlord could however have been clearer to the resident that legal enforcement action was a significant step for it to take and that it would not do so without a significant amount of supporting evidence. The landlord should have done more to manage the resident’s expectations that banging doors and visitors in the night would not justify such action.
Although the landlord could have been clearer and could have managed the residents expectations better, it did act appropriately in response to the reports of ASB in the following ways:
1. It visited the neighbour to remind her of the tenancy conditions and issued a tenancy caution.
2. It referred the resident’s concerns about fraud to the appropriate team and advised the resident she would not hear further about this.
3. It practical solutions such as the installation of security lights, changing the entry door to a soft close and it installed its own CCTV.
4. It advised the resident of the option of a mutual exchange.
5. It completed a Community Trigger and undertook monthly case reviews and CHARMM meetings.
6. If offered mediation. When this was declined it referred the resident for support coaching and looked into whether this support could be extended. It also considered local “victim support” charities to help the resident.
These were appropriate actions for the landlord to have taken and were in line with its ASB policy. Whilst the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of both parties and tried to balance these differing needs, it could have gone further to acknowledge the impact that the ongoing situation was having on the resident in light of her disclosed vulnerability.
It is noted the landlord generally responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable timeframe however on the occasions when it did not do so, this added to the resident’s frustration. For example, the resident had requested a copy of the ASB policy. This was not provided which led to her having to request it again. She also had to chase up the landlord for updates on the soft closing door and the replacement window key. The landlord should have been proactive in responding to the resident’s requests and in carrying out the actions it had promised. It is encouraging that, since referral to this Service, the landlord’s CCTV reduced the incidents being reported. This however is something the landlord could have considered much earlier given the frequency and nature of the reports being received.
In conclusion, whilst the landlord took many appropriate steps in following its ASB policy and in responding to the residents’ concerns, it should have been clearer in managing her expectations that legal enforcement action would follow her reports. The landlord could also have been more proactive in taking practical steps to resolve some of the issues at an earlier stage. This could have prevented the reports from escalating and the associated distress experienced by the resident. The landlord’s failures amount to a service failure. To acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, compensation of £150 has been ordered. This takes into consideration the distress caused to the resident who was vulnerable and the period of time this continued, which could have been reduced had the landlord been more proactive.

Response to the residents installation of personal CCTV cameras

It is not clear when the landlord gave the resident permission to install her own CCTV cameras, or if it gave its permission at all. It is clear however that the landlord had been aware of the resident’s personal CCTV cameras since November 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the appropriate use of CCTV cameras when she installed them.
The landlord advised the resident in March 2022 that recording all of the neighbour movements was not appropriate. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to ensure that the resident had changed the position of the CCTV cameras. The issue of the resident’s cameras was subsequently discussed at the Community Trigger in April 2022 however again there is no evidence of follow up action to ensure the cameras were adjusted or removed. Despite receiving a counter allegation of harassment from the neighbour in regards to the cameras filming her, the landlord did not ask the resident to remove the cameras until September 2022. After telling her that the cameras should be removed, there is no evidence that the landlord checked that this had been done despite having involved its legal team.
The landlord should have been clear with the resident about the appropriateness of the CCTV cameras. When it had cause to believe that the cameras were not installed in accordance with its CCTV policy, the landlord should have acted in a timely manner to discuss this with the resident and ensure compliance or removal. In allowing the cameras to remain for a number of years, this caused confusion to the resident when the landlord subsequently asked for them to be removed.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and suffered from anxiety, so it should have ensured that it’s advice was clear and consistent. It should have been clear whether the cameras were permitted, the appropriate use of the cameras and the reasons why it no longer felt her cameras were appropriate. It is noted that it was the other residents who were impacted by the presence of the resident’s cameras, however the landlord’s lack of clarity to the resident about the cameras caused her confusion and distress. As such this amounts to a service failure. The landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the distress this caused below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the residents installation of personal CCTV cameras.

Reasons

The landlord took a number of appropriate steps to investigate, respond and support the resident following her reports of ASB. It should however have been clearer in managing the residents expectations about whether it would take legal enforcement action against the tenant. The landlord could also have been more proactive in arranging practical solution to help resolve some of the issues reported at an earlier stage and could have demonstrated further acknowledgement of how the ongoing situation was impacting the vulnerable resident.
The landlord did not act in a timely manner to address the resident’s personal CCTV cameras to ensure they complied with its ASB policy. Despite speaking to the resident about the appropriateness of the cameras, the landlord did not take appropriate follow up action to ensure compliance with its policy. This inaction for a number of years then caused the resident confusion when the landlord asked her to remove them.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide evidence of compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £150 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident in how it responded to the reports of ASB.
3. Confirm to the resident whether her CCTV cameras comply with its CCTV policy and if not, what action it will take.
4. Confirm that a soft close door has been installed. If this has not been done, this should be arranged within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arrange staff training on how to respond to resident’s requests for personal CCTV and subsequent disputes.