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

Derby City Council (202300055)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300055

Derby City Council

27 February 2025


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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to install CCTV.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of a flat from 2016. The resident moved to a different property owned by the landlord in January 2025.
  2. Between 2018 and 2022 the resident reported to the landlord her car had been vandalised on two different occasions. She said the incidents took place in the communal car park which is also the landlord’s property.
  3. On 30 September 2022 the resident reported another incident where her car had been vandalised in the car park. The landlord said it would check CCTV cameras in the area.
  4. The resident asked the landlord on 14 October 2022 to install CCTV over the car park. She reported on 27 October 2022 her car had been vandalised again.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 6 January 2023 it would not install CCTV.
  6. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 1 April 2023. The complaint was forwarded to the landlord on 12 July 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It said it would ask residents if they would agree to pay the costs of installing CCTV at the car park.
  7. On 2 August 2023 the resident said she wanted the landlord to review her complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 August 2023. It said it had asked residents if they agreed to install CCTV, and it would let her know the results.
  8. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 11 September 2023, as she remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised the issue of vandalism to her car and the repair costs she has incurred as a result. Whilst we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability. The resident is advised to consult with her motor insurer if she wishes to recoup the cost of repair to her car for damage caused by a third party.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of vandalism to her car and the reasonableness of its responses to the formal complaint. 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.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident reported her car had been vandalised several times since 2018. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. In this case, the landlord provided limited records before 2022. The evidence provided by the landlord referred to earlier reports of damage to the resident’s car, so they are included in this investigation report to give context.
  4. We have investigated the matters raised from September 2022 to when the landlord concluded its internal complaint process in August 2023, as well as including reference to relevant events after that.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for CCTV to be installed.

  1. The landlord’s records show the resident reported her car had been vandalised in the communal car park by her property on 27 October 2018 and 24 June 2019. The car park is also the landlord’s property and is for residents only. The landlord has not provided information if it took any action following those reports.
  2. Property damaged by crime is anti-social behaviour (ASB) according to the landlord’s ASB policy. The policy states in ASB cases the landlord will contact the resident regarding an incident within 5 days of it being reported and it will risk assess the ASB case. The policy also states the landlord can install fixed or temporary CCTV systems to assist it with gathering evidence of possible ASB and crime. The policy does not give any detail on restrictions to where the CCTV can be installed, or if residents will be charged for the installation and/or maintenance of CCTV.
  3. On 30 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. She reported her car had been vandalised in the communal car park between 27 and 29 September 2022. She also reported the matter to the police. The landlord replied the same day. It said it would check if any cameras by the car park had footage of the incident. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 October 2022. It said the cameras on the buildings nearby did not overlook the car park, so the incident was not recorded.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 3 October 2022 to report the vandalism incident to its ASB team. There is no record of the resident doing so.
  5. It is fair to conclude the landlord identified ASB was present from the resident’s report. Having identified an issue, its unreasonable that the landlord relied upon the resident to contact one of its internal departments, rather than arranging for a callback or passing the information internally. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord should be proactive when an issue is reported and should have the means and systems to pass information between departments.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 14 October 2022. She said her car had been damaged several times in the car park over a number of years. She asked for CCTV to be installed to deter vandalism in the car park or gather evidence against those committing the acts. The landlord did not respond. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October and 12 November 2022. She said her car had been damaged again on 26 October 2022. She said the police had not taken action as there was no evidence of who vandalised her car. She again asked for CCTV to be installed. The landlord took no action. The resident emailed the landlord again on 19 December 2022. She said she wanted the landlord to pay the £4,449.36 repair costs for her car. The landlord did not reply.
  7. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails on 6 January 2023. She again asked it to install CCTV at the car park. The landlord said it would not do so as the car park was secured by a padlock and only residents had access to it. It said nobody else had complained about vandalism. It told her to contact the police if her car was damaged. The resident said she had already reported the incidents to the police. She said the car park was not secure. She said the gate had been left open, and her car window was smashed. She said she had a video of the incident, taken by her vehicle’s dashboard camera. She asked the landlord to visit her to watch the video, as the file size was too large to send by email. The landlord said it was not responsible for the damage to her car, but it would contact the other residents to tell them to lock the car park. It did this on 2 March 2023. The landlord did not visit the resident to view the video.
  8. On 1 April 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had ignored her requests to install CCTV at the car park following the vandalism of her car. We forward the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 12 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 17 July 2023. It told the resident it would reply to her by 31 July 2023.
  9. The landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 28 July 2023. It said it could install CCTV to cover the car park, but it would not be monitored live. It added all residents would be charged £2.92 a week for the costs in maintaining the CCTV. It said it would ask the other residents if they agreed to pay for the service. It again said she should report incidents of criminal damage to the police. It confirmed no other residents had reported cars had been damaged.
  10. A review of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows it agreed to take action to see if residents would agree to pay for CCTV. However, this was only prompted by the resident’s complaint about its lack of action. The landlord failed to apologise for not responding to her many requests to have CCTV installed since October 2022. Based on the history of her complaints, it was also unreasonable that the landlord did not have any record of action taken under its ASB policy as she had clearly been reporting incident’s which met the criteria as defined by the landlord. As part of its handling of the resident’s complaint, the failure to consider a response in line with its ASB policy was inappropriate.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023. She said she was not happy with its complaint response. She said when she reported her car had been damaged, the landlord just told her to contact the police. It said criminal damage in the car park was a police matter regardless of whether there was CCTV or not. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 7 August 2023. It said it would reply by 4 September 2023.
  12. On 16 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the residents. It asked if they would be willing to pay £2.92 a week for CCTV to be installed over the car park.
  13. The landlord’s records say it visited the resident on 23 August 2023 to discuss her complaint. It sent its stage 2 complaint response to her on 25 August 2023. It again said if it installed CCTV it would not be monitored. It acknowledged though that it may be a deterrent to future incidents of vandalism. It also repeated it had not received any reports of vandalism in the car park from other residents. The landlord said it would inform her if it was going to install CCTV when the other residents had replied to its letter.
  14. Analysis of the complaint response shows the landlord said it was yet to make a decision on if it would install CCTV. The response also failed to identify or address the same issues that were present at stage 1. Those being the landlord’s inability to apply its ASB policy to its response.
  15. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 September 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 October 2023. It said it had asked the residents if they would pay towards the CCTV, but less than half agreed. It said it would not install CCTV.
  17. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 September 2024. She said her car was vandalised again on 9 August 2024. The landlord has told this Service an ASB officer was allocated to the case, but it was treated as criminal damage and reported to the police. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2024. It said the case had been closed by the police, and they were not taking any action.
  18. On 20 January 2025 the resident emailed this Service. She said words had been scratched into the paintwork of her car whilst in the car park. The landlord has told this Service she did not report the incident to it.
  19. The resident moved to a different property owned by the landlord on 31 January 2025.
  20. In summary, the resident informed the landlord on several occasions that her car had been vandalised in the communal car park. It is reasonable to conclude the incidents reported by the resident met the criteria for ASB. The landlord only appointed an ASB officer to the case after its complaint process had ended and after further instances of criminal damage to the resident’s property.
  21. It is appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police in these circumstances. However, there is still a role for the landlord to play alongside the police in identifying and tackling ASB reported by its tenants. By the landlord’s own admission, no other residents had reported damage to their cars. There is no evidence the landlord placed any significance on this fact whilst the resident was reporting incidents over a sustained period.
  22. It is unlikely that in these circumstances other residents would opt to install CCTV at a financial cost to them. By placing this as the sole condition to install CCTV, it was unfair upon the resident, who had been let down by the landlord’s inability to investigate any of her reports in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord showed a lack of professional curiosity to the resident’s reports. Its ASB policy states installation of CCTV is an option to gather evidence in ASB cases. Ultimately, by failing to investigate the resident’s complaints as ASB, it denied her the only realistic chance of having CCTV installed. The landlord’s handling of her complaints was unfair.
  23. The landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy when the resident reported her car had been vandalised, and it not recognising this in its complaint responses leads to a determination of maladministration. An order for compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to install CCTV.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £600 compensation to the resident or the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to install CCTV. That must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance of these orders within the timescale set above.