Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202213688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213688

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Payment of £200 compensation following an order by the Housing Ombudsman in December 2021 (case reference 202011120).
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s video doorbell in light of guidance issued by the landlord on 5 April 2022.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, which is a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2020 in respect of a video doorbell which had been installed by her neighbour (who is also a leaseholder of the landlord). The resident advised that it was a breach of her privacy as the doorbell covered her front door, private garden and the pavement. She referred her case to the Ombudsman (case reference 202011120). On 10 December 2021, the Ombudsman determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour caused by her neighbour installing a movement activated doorbell. There was, however, maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the landlord seek advice about its policy and procedure around the use of video doorbells. Following this, on 5 April 2022, the landlord published new guidelines on the use of video doorbells.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2022 and stated that in light of the new guidelines, it should instruct the neighbour to remove the doorbell. The landlord advised her that it would not be taking any further action regarding the doorbell and stated as follows:
    1. The Housing Ombudsman had found no maladministration in its consideration of the matter.
    2. The doorframe where the doorbell was placed belonged to the neighbour. Such installation was permitted under its guidelines.
    3. The neighbour had set privacy screens on the doorbell, which obstructed views into the resident’s property.
    4. It was reasonable for the doorbell to capture the pathway leading up to the door. The doorbell was being used legitimately to identify persons visiting the neighbour’s property.
    5. Concerns about use of such doorbell recordings should be referred to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) as they were the regulatory authority on the use of cameras and video doorbells.
  4. The resident disputed the ownership of the door and asked the landlord to consider her concerns as a complaint. The landlord subsequently advised as follows:
    1. Its guidelines stated that cameras could overlook areas, as long as there were privacy zones set and as long as the data controller complied with data protection laws. It had previously confirmed that the neighbour had appropriate privacy filters set up. It would update its guidelines to ensure this was clearer.
    2. It was not within its remit to monitor or determine whether the type of doorbell was continuously recording. As such it had removed this from its guidelines. It would ask the neighbour to ensure that audio was only available when the doorbell was pressed.
    3. Potential misuse of the doorbell would be for the ICO to investigate.
  5. The landlord advised both parties that the ownership of the door may need to be determined in a Court. Mediation took place on 1 November 2022 but was unsuccessful at reaching an outcome. It advised that as both parties had alleged harassment, civil action may need to be taken through the Courts.
  6. The landlord sent a final response to the ASB case on 30 November 2022 and reiterated its position. The resident sought the help of the Ombudsman who asked the landlord to respond via its complaints process, which it subsequently did.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Part of the resident’s current complaint relates to landlord actions following previous complaint which was referred to this Service. Following our investigation an order was made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation as part of the determination of the resident’s previous case considered by the Housing Ombudsman in December 2021 (reference 202011120). The landlord offered this compensation in January 2021, however, the resident declined to provide her bank details for this to be paid. The Ombudsman considered that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to comply with the order made.
  3. Paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which seeks to raise again, matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. As part of the administration following case 202011120, this Service is satisfied that the payment of compensation ordered, has already been considered by the Ombudsman as part of our monitoring of the landlord’s compliance with our orders for the case. As such, this aspect of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised this Service that the resolution she is seeking is for the video doorbell to be removed. It is not within the scope of this Service to determine whether the doorbell should be removed or instruct the landlord to do so. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to assess and determine the privacy issues described in this case. Instead, the investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident raised the issue of the impact of the video doorbell on her mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused where there is an identified landlord failing. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to acknowledge and consider the resident’s reports on how the issues raised in a complaint were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
  3. The resident stated that the landlord had treated her unfairly and not taken her reports of ASB seriously based on her personal characteristics. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of her reports and its response to her concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation.
  4. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (on 16 June 2023) the resident raised a concern about a window leaking (on 21 November 2023). As this issue did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, it is not a matter that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the concern via its internal complaints procedure. The resident may pursue this via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s video doorbell in light of guidance issued by the landlord on 5 April 2022

  1. It is evident that the presence of the video doorbell has been distressing for the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the residents reports of this being ASB and the reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour is responsible for ASB or whether the video doorbell should be removed. The investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against the neighbour.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2022 and stated that in light of its new video doorbell guidelines, it should instruct the neighbour to remove the doorbell. She stated that her neighbour was “recording 24/7”, joining private conversations and failing to display warning stickers about the presence of the video doorbell. The landlord responded to her concerns within a reasonable timeframe of 7 working days (on 8 July 2022). It advised that the installation of the doorbell was in line with its guidelines. It explained that it was legitimately being used and that privacy screens were in use so that it was not recording the resident’s garden. It also signposted the resident to the ICO . This was appropriate with ICO being the regulatory authority who consider the use of cameras and video doorbells operating in public spaces.
  3. Following the resident’s continued concerns of the use of the doorbell, the landlord investigated the matter further and addressed her concerns on 30 September 2022. It clarified its guidelines and explained how the use of the doorbell would not be contrary to its video doorbell guidelines. It identified that the guidelines could be clearer and so committed to amend this. It is noted as part of its review that the resident felt that such amendment to the guidance was unfair. The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt frustrated by its proposed amendment, however, in the circumstances it was appropriate for the landlord to be able to make adjustments and improvements to its guidelines based on operational feedback when identified. The landlord advised the resident, this was particularly relevant in this area of developing guidance.
  4. It is not clear when it occurred, but the landlord also advised that it had visited the neighbour and it was satisfied that the privacy screens were in place. It was appropriate for the landlord to have taken steps to have investigated the area being recorded in person. This demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It also informed the resident as to the limit of its ability to comment on the use of the doorbell, and reiterated its signposting of complaints to the relevant authority (the ICO).
  5. The resident raised her concerns (16 August and 7 October 2022) that the landlord was not fully investigating her concerns due to English not being her first language. The correspondence provided between the parties demonstrates that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns about the doorbell seriously in that it outlined the actions it had taken in response to her concerns and that it had sought legal advice in respect to her reports. In the absence of evidence of a failing, there is no evidence of any discriminatory element to the landlord’s actions. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded directly to her concerns about it treating her less favourably due to English being her second language. This is something the landlord should have addressed at the time and it was unreasonable not to explain why it considered there was no discriminatory element to its actions.
  6. Following the resident’s concerns as to the door the doorbell was attached to not being owned by the neighbour, the landlord appropriately sought the advice of its legal team. Although the legal team had initially advised that the door was communal, it later identified ambiguity in the ownership of the door. The landlord acknowledged that this had caused some confusion and frustration to the resident, who felt that it had “lied” to her. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its legal team at the time. Following further advice, it subsequently advised the resident that the ownership was ambiguous and that the matter would need to resolved via a civil claim in Court if she wished to pursue this.
  7. Following legal advice, the landlord advised the resident that it would not pursuing an injunction against the neighbour. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had decided not to take legal action. Whilst this was understandable, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the legal advise it had received. Its decision therefore not to pursue legal action was appropriate.
  8. The landlord offered mediation to both parties to try to resolve the dispute. This was appropriate and was in line with its ASB policy. It is noted that this took place but it was unable to resolve matters. The landlord advised the resident that as both parties had alleged harassment by the other, but had not provided evidence to the landlord of such, that she may wish to pursue civil action through the Courts. This was appropriate as it was not within the landlord’s power to determine that such had taken place or the legality surrounding use of the doorbell.
  9. The landlord’s records show in response to the resident’s concerns and it carried out an internal discussion and workshop to consider refining its process to be more efficient and decisive when such disputes arise. This demonstrated that the landlord was open to learning from the case and improving the experience of tenants should such a dispute arse again.
  10. In summary, the landlord appropriately considered and investigated the resident’s concerns. It appropriately sought legal advice and offered mediation to try to reach an agreement between the parties. It acted reasonably in advising the resident of the limits of its remit in respect of the use of the video doorbell and provided appropriate signposting to the relevant governing body to enable her to pursue her concerns if she wished to do so. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s video doorbell in light of guidance issued by the landlord on 5 April 2022.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a number of concerns in respect of the neighbour’s use of the video doorbell. In her correspondence of 15 August 2022 she specifically requested that her concerns be treated as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord responded to this the following day and advised that, as the matter had been considered by the Housing Ombudsman, it would not accept the new complaint. However, this failed to demonstrate an understanding that the resident’s complaint was about its consideration of the doorbell following its new guidelines from April 2022. As the complaint was about its application of the guidelines, which were not in place at the time of the earlier complaint, the landlord should have recognised that this was a new complaint.
  2. This failure to recognise the complaint as a different issue caused the resident to have to seek the assistance of this Service. This led to a delay in the internal complaints process being commenced and subsequently completed. This taking from August 2022 to May 2023, a period of around 9 months.
  3. In February 2023, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days (by 10 March 2023). The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 16 March 2023. This was 4 working days outside of the timeframe to respond at stage 1 as outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code (10 working days). Although this was not a significant delay, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay nor did it apologise for this. This was not appropriate. In addition, the landlord failed to address or acknowledge that it had not initially accepted the complaint for investigation, nor did it offer any apology or redress for the impact of this on the resident. This was not appropriate.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 March 2023 and chased a response to this on 11 May 2023. This Service contacted the landlord on 31 May 2023 and asked it to respond at stage 2. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 June 2024. This was a timeframe of 53 working days. This was significantly outside of the 20 working day timeframe to respond at stage 2, as outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered a total of £100 compensation for this (£75 for the delays and £25 for the resident’s time and trouble).  
  5. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. Given the failures identified in accepting the complaint, which the landlord did not acknowledge, and the subsequent delays to the internal complaints procedure, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. To acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused to the resident and the cumulative failings in its complaint handling, compensation of £200 has been ordered. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, where a resident had been adversely impacted by failures of a landlord.
  7. It is noted that in the resident’s earlier case involving the doorbell (case reference 202011120), the Ombudsman identified a similar complaint handling failure. In that case, it was found that the landlord had declined to accept the resident’s complaint for investigation. As a result, the Ombudsman made a recommendation within the Investigation Report in December 2021. This was for the landlord to review its staff training and policies around when it would refuse to accept formal complaints, to ensure they were in accordance with the Code. It is concerning that despite this recommendation, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had changed its decision making in when it would decline to accept complaints. As such an order has been made in respect of this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the payment of £200 compensation, following an order by the Housing Ombudsman in December 2021 (case reference 202011120), is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s video doorbell in light of guidance issued by the landlord on 5 April 2022.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Pay £200 compensation direct to the resident (this includes the £100 already offered). If the landlord has already paid £100 compensation, it is only required to pay an additional £100. This is to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the complaint handing failures.
    2. Review its staff training and policies around when the landlord will refuse to accept formal complaints, to ensure they are in accordance with the Code.