Torus62 Limited (202227428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227428

Torus62 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s reports about a neighbour installing closed-circuit television (CCTV).
3. The associated complaint, including the resident’s concerns that the landlord had facilitated a breach of his human rights.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 28 January 2013. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat. The resident is vulnerable due to long term anxiety and depression, a hearing impairment and arthritis. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident has no vulnerabilities.
On 9 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to tell it that a neighbour in the adjacent block of flats had sent him several threatening and abusive texts. He also said that the same neighbour had instructed a specialist company to install CCTV cameras. Two cameras had been installed on his block, one of which was positioned above his bedroom window. He said that he felt the neighbour was watching him and monitoring his movements. He explained that this was also putting his safety at risk because local drug dealers thought that he had installed the cameras to monitor them. He said that his internet cable had recently been cut, possibly by someone who thought the cable led to the camera.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident and confirmed the conversation in writing afterwards. It noted that the resident had reported the abusive and threatening texts to the police. It also noted the details of another threatening text that he had received from the neighbour that day. It agreed an action plan which said that it would:
1. Liaise with the police.
2. Provide an incident diary to the resident.
3. Speak to the resident after the police investigation was complete.
4. Investigate the ASB in accordance with its ASB policy and procedures.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 8 June 2022 and noted “advice given regarding the harassment issue.” It then sent a letter to her which said that she did not have permission to install CCTV cameras and advised her to remove them with immediate effect. It reminded her of her tenancy agreement which stated that she must get written consent before carrying out improvements. It said that there were conditions that she would need to comply with before it would grant permission which were:
1. She would need to request permission in writing detailing the number of cameras and where they would be placed.
2. She would need to consider advice from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and failure to do so might result in enforcement action by them.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had visited the neighbour and spoken to her about the text harassment. It told him that she had refused to remove the CCTV cameras and that its neighbourhood team would deal with this. The resident also approached his MP on 6 July 2022. The landlord advised the MP that the neighbourhood team would contact the resident about the CCTV.
The ASB team continued to liaise with the resident every month until December 2022. During this time the resident told the landlord that he had not received any further texts from the neighbour. However, he thought that she was using the CCTV to see when he was in his garden so that she could send her dogs out to bark every time he was in it. The landlord said it would speak to her about this. The resident also told it that no-one from the neighbourhood team had contacted him.
On 12 December 2022, the resident completed a complaint form on the landlord’s website. He said that the landlord had facilitated a breach of his human rights by failing to take action about a neighbour from a separate block installing a CCTV system “with 2 cameras on the wall of my flat”. He said that the system captured images beyond the neighbour’s boundary. He also said that he thought that if he, as a male, had sent a female neighbour threatening texts and installed CCTV on her flat the landlord would have taken it more seriously. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint by automated email on 14 December 2022.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 23 January 2023. The resident chased a response to his complaint on 6 February 2023. He asked for a senior manager to respond to it. On 7 February 2023 the landlord sent him an email to tell him that it would reopen the ASB case. The resident replied on the same day. He clarified that the complaint was not about the ASB, it was about the landlord, and it needed to be directed to a senior manager.
On 30 March 2023 this Service contacted the landlord and logged a stage 1 complaint on the resident’s behalf. The landlord responded on 18 April 2023. It said that it had not followed up his report of abusive texts with the police as promised and had not given the neighbour a warning about these. It said that it was currently investigating the CCTV situation and apologised that this was still ongoing. It apologised that it had not re-opened the ASB case as promised on 7 February 2023 and that it had not logged that contact as a complaint. It offered £150 compensation to reflect these failings.
On 25 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He pointed out that the landlord had not addressed:
1. That it had not responded to his original complaint in December 2022.
2. The lack of action taken against the perpetrator for the abusive texts and its failure to view these.
3. That it had “facilitated a breach” of his human rights by its lack of action relating to the installation of CCTV.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident about the complaint. It said that “unfortunately the case was not assigned correctly” and it therefore wanted to extend the deadline for the response by 10 days. The resident agreed with this.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 16 June 2023. It said that it had logged his complaint of 12 December 2022 against the ASB case and responded to it as part of that case. It apologised that it had not addressed this in the stage 1 response. It said that due to staff shortages the issue with the CCTV had not progressed since June 2022, however said that “steps are now being taken to bring this to a close.” It said it would update him on this once it had “concluded all relevant checks.” It offered £300 compensation to reflect the service failures it had identified.
The landlord sent a letter to the neighbour in August 2023, after the internal complaints process was complete. This confirmed that it would not give permission for the CCTV cameras “due to GDPR.” It then wrote to the neighbour another 4 times threatening legal action if she did not remove the cameras.
This Service contacted the resident in October 2024. He advised us that the last contact he had received from the landlord regarding the CCTV was in August 2023 and all the CCTV cameras, including the 2 on his block, were still in situ. He also said that he had not accepted any compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint was about privacy concerns with neighbours’ CCTV cameras, but this is not something that the Ombudsman can consider. How the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) for CCTV would be a matter for the ICO. We understand that the resident has already contacted the ICO for further advice regarding this. We can, however, look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns when the matter was reported to it.
The resident has told this Service and the landlord about the impact that the ASB and CCTV placement had on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this. However, we are unable to determine the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. We will, however, consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all public authorities – and other bodies carrying out public functions – to respect and protect individuals’ rights. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will typically complete an initial risk assessment as part of ASB case management. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it completed one for this case and no evidence for the rationale behind a decision not to complete one. The completion of a risk assessment at the start of the process would have highlighted the risk to the resident and may have prompted the landlord to request copies of all the texts sent by the neighbour. It would also have allowed the landlord to consider if the resident needed a support referral to other agencies.
The ASB procedure also says that a further risk assessment should be completed later in the process to see if the risk of harm has reduced. This would have provided valuable insight but again there is no evidence that it completed one. The landlord’s failure to follow its own procedure meant that it did not consider the risk the resident was under. Had it completed them the resident may have felt that it was taking the situation more seriously which may have alleviated his distress.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it should “consider whether there may be issues of vulnerability/disability/mental health. This applies to both complainant, perpetrator and all their household members.”
The landlord has told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which is not the case. This shows that the landlord did not consider whether the resident had any vulnerabilities. This failure to follow procedure meant that the landlord failed to consider how the abusive texts would affect the resident, particularly considering his mental health issues.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is compatible with statutory commitments including the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It defines ASB as “conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to some person (who need not be a particular identified person) or in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises and that directly or indirectly relates to or affects the landlord’s housing management functions”. It also says that “a key determinant in deciding whether particular behaviour is anti-social or not will be the impact of the behaviour on others”.
The landlord decided that its neighbourhood team would deal with the CCTV issue as an unauthorised home improvement. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it considered whether the action of installing CCTV cameras caused annoyance and nuisance to the resident and whether it could constitute harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Its ASB policy does not specify that it will not consider the installation of unwanted CCTV as ASB. Its failure to consider the impact of this action on the resident, although it says that it will in its policy, caused him further distress and possibly delayed appropriate action to remove the cameras.
The landlord completed an action plan to tackle the ASB which was a reasonable action to take and in line with its procedure. However, it failed to complete all the actions it set itself. It did not liaise with the police regarding the abusive texts. It also told the resident in the stage 1 complaint response that because of this “no subsequent tenancy warning was given to the neighbour in relation to any threats”. This failure meant that the resident felt that the landlord was not taking the situation seriously which caused him further distress.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will “support complainants and their families and encourage reporting of issues”. Despite the resident offering to provide all the neighbours texts to the landlord on more than one occasion it only recorded the contents of one of the texts in its notes. This text included abusive language and a threat to the resident from the neighbour’s adult son. Which the landlord’s policy defines as ASB. However, the only action that the landlord logged it took regarding this was that it gave advice “about the harassment issue” to the neighbour. The landlord did not log any reasons why it should not take action against the neighbour and did not keep the resident informed. This failure to act in accordance with its policy meant that the resident did not feel supported or encouraged to report issues. This caused him further distress.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord identified that it had failed to follow the action plan and to issue a warning and apologised for this. However, in the stage 2 complaint response it said that it was satisfied that it took “appropriate steps in line with its policy” regarding the ASB. This contradiction would have caused additional confusion to the resident. The landlord did not identify all the errors made or offer any redress specifically for these, which was a failing. Therefore, an order for the landlord to pay £350 compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failure to handle the ASB case in accordance with its policy and procedure has been made.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

CCTV

The landlord did not have a specific policy or guidance for tenants that wanted to install CCTV at the time of the complaint.
The neighbour’s tenancy agreement said that she must not carry out any improvements or alterations to her home without obtaining the landlord’s prior written consent. It is clear that the landlord decided that she was breaching this condition because it wrote to her on 8 June 2022 advising her to remove the CCTV cameras with immediate effect. However, it then failed to take any further action until after it issued the stage 2 complaint response, in August 2023. This unacceptable delay to act for over a year cost the resident considerable time and trouble chasing updates.
The landlord has subsequently refused retrospective permission for the installation of the CCTV cameras. It has also said that they “are in such a position that they are recording communal grounds and spaces and an area beyond your dwelling’s boundaries.” It has given the neighbour several deadlines for removal of the cameras and has threatened to take legal action if she does not remove them.
However, it has failed to act on these threats and the cameras remain in situ. This has caused the resident distress over a prolonged period because he feels that the neighbour is watching him. The resident told this Service that he previously enjoyed time in his private garden to help with his mental health, but this past time has been “spoiled” because the neighbour told him she could see him in it.
The resident has advised this Service that he has not had any correspondence from the landlord regarding the cameras since August 2023. Given that the landlord has not granted permission for the cameras, its failure to take action against a breach of tenancy that is adversely affecting another resident, or to keep him informed of its reasons not to do, so is a failing. This has caused the resident significant distress and is affecting his enjoyment of his home.
The ICO is the UKs independent body set up to uphold information rights. Its website explains that if someone sets up a CCTV system so it captures only images within the boundary of their private domestic property (including the garden), then the data protection laws would not apply. However, if the system captures images of people outside the boundary of the property, for example, a shared space, then the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 will apply. In this case the individual needs to ensure their use of CCTV complies with these laws.
The landlord correctly referred the neighbour to the advice given by the ICO and advised her that the ICO might take action against her if she was in breach of GDPR. It also gave the resident advice regarding this although he had already told it that he was aware of the ICO and their regulations. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in this regard.
The resident liaised with the ASB team who told him and the MP that the neighbourhood team would contact him about the CCTV. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it did. It is common for landlords to have separate teams that deal with ASB, other tenancy breaches and permission requests. However, they must ensure that their specialist teams do not work in silos and that there is collaboration and co-ordination in managing cases that span across specialisms. It is also essential that there is awareness of responsibilities across the wider organisation to ensure that it directs each case to the correct team. The ASB team asked the neighbourhood team for updates, but this had no effect, and the matter was not escalated. The landlord did not give the resident direct contact details for the neighbourhood team which meant that he had to keep contacting the ASB team. This led to further delays and distress and inconvenience for the resident.
It is unclear what proportion of the £300 compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaints process reflected the failures the landlord identified in its handling of the reports of CCTV. However, this did not adequately reflect the time and trouble, and distress caused to the resident over a long period. Therefore, an order to pay £500 compensation in this regard has been made.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbours CCTV cameras was severely delayed and it did not act consistently. It did not engage with the resident in a timely manner and has failed to keep him updated with its decisions. It has also failed to consider the impact that the feeling of being watched has had on him. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his neighbours’ CCTV.

The complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy said, “we will log a complaint when the customer requests that their issue is dealt with as a complaint even if there is no clear service failure or explicit expression of dissatisfaction”.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said that “landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning. Each complaint must be considered on its own merits”.
The resident completed a complaint form on the landlord’s website on 12 December 2022 and received an automated response to acknowledge it. However, the landlord did not log this as a complaint. Its failure to do so cost the resident time and trouble because he chased a response on 6 and 7 February 2023. Despite him making it very clear in these chaser emails that this was a complaint about the landlord that a senior manager should respond to, and not an ASB complaint, the landlord still failed to log the complaint. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble because he had to contact this Service for assistance. This also ultimately delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not mention that the resident had complained on 12 December 2022. It did, however, say that it considered his email of the 7 February 2023 to be a complaint. This failure to fully investigate and discover when the initial complaint was made cost the resident further time and trouble because he had to raise it again in his complaint escalation request.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had located a copy of the complaint of 12 December 2022 and discovered that it had been logged against the ASB case. It said that it had addressed this as part of the ASB case. However, this explanation was not acceptable because it did not address all the issues raised in the complaint as part of the ASB case. It also did not follow its own complaints policy when it failed to log the complaint. It also failed to acknowledge the full impact that this failure had on the resident and the delays this had caused. It is apparent from the resident’s chaser emails that this made him feel frustrated and unheard and that it caused him considerable distress.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this is not possible an extension of no more than 10 working days will be agreed with the complainant. This is in line with the Code.
Even after this Service logged a complaint on the resident’s behalf there were further delays at each stage of the complaint process. The stage 1 complaint response was 3 working days later than the policy stated it would be and the stage 2 complaint response was 15 working days late. The landlord wrote to the resident 25 working days after he asked for the stage 2 complaint to be escalated to agree a further extension of 10 days. The complaint response was already overdue at this time. It said the reason for the request was because the complaint was “not assigned correctly”. In reality, the resident had no other option but to agree to the request. These complaint handling delays caused him further distress and further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code said that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
The resident’s original complaint clearly stated that he felt that the landlord had “facilitated a breach of his human rights” because his privacy had been invaded. He also highlighted this in his request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. However, the landlord failed to address this in its complaint responses. The landlord should have considered whether its failure to act on the removal of the CCTV cameras had caused a breach in the resident’s human rights and if so, what action it could reasonably have taken to rectify this. It should then have communicated the decision and its reasons for making it with the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that the resident did not feel that his complaint had been answered fully. It was also a failure to adhere to the Code. This led to further frustration for the resident, and it cost him further time and trouble because he escalated the complaint to this Service for an investigation.
The landlord also failed to fully address the resident’s reports of indirect discrimination due to his gender. It merely said that it could give him “assurance that its ASB policy is applied the same way regardless of gender”. It’s failure to properly investigate this, to check if it had followed its ASB procedures correctly and provide a meaningful response caused the resident further frustration and distress.
The Code also said “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. These can include taking an action where there has been a delay”.
The complaints responses did not offer a solution to the CCTV issue. Despite admitting that there had been failings in its handling of it, the stage 1 response only said that it “was looking into the matter” and that it “would be brought to a conclusion in the near future”. The stage 2 response said that “appropriate steps are now being taken”. These vague promises were not sufficient to reassure the resident that the landlord had the situation under control. This caused him further distress and cost him more time and trouble escalating the complaint.
It is unclear how much of the £300 compensation offered at stage 2 reflected the landlord’s complaint handling failings. However, this was not proportionate to the distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. Therefore, an order to pay £500 has been made.
Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The resident’s reports about a neighbour installing CCTV.
3. The associated complaint including his concerns that the landlord had facilitated a breach of his human rights.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident directly a total of £1,350 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £350 to reflect the distress caused by its failure to handle the ASB case in accordance with its policy and procedure.
  2. £500 to reflect the time, trouble, and distress caused over a long period in its handling of the neighbours CCTV.
  3. £500 to reflect the distress, time, and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident and obtain an update on his vulnerabilities. Ensure that its databases are updated to reflect these so any reasonable adjustments can be made.
Given that the landlord has not given permission for the CCTV cameras it should take legal advice and clarify to the resident what action it intends to take. If it decides that it will not be taking action to remove them it must let the resident know the reasons for its decision in writing. A copy of this decision must also be provided to this Service. This to be completed within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
If it decides to take further action it must provide the resident with fortnightly updates until the intended action is complete.
A senior member of staff to carry out a review of this case to identify why the failings occurred and how it will ensure that they do not occur again. A report should be written regarding the findings which should be supplied to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include:
1. Consideration of its guidance on how requests for CCTV installation should be handled.
2. Whether illegal installations should be considered under its ASB policy.
3. How it will ensure that complaints are logged at the initial contact.
4. How it will ensure that complaints are responded to in line with the Code.
5. How staff respond to complaints about breaches of human rights and discrimination.
6. How it will address any training needs that arise from the review.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.