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

Southern Housing (202345478)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345478

Southern Housing

29 November 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 response to the resident’s request to retain her CCTV security system.

Background

  1. The resident lives in 1-bedroom ground floor flat and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
  2. On 5 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the security camera outside the building was not working. She requested for the landlord to install a hard-wired CCTV system which would run 24 hours a day inside and outside of the building. The landlord explained that it would not install CCTV at this stage.
  3. On 15 June 2023 the landlord identified that the resident had installed her own CCTV surveillance system and had not requested permission from the landlord. The system included 3 CCTV cameras and a wall box to the exterior of the building.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint with the landlord on 23 June 2023. She was dissatisfied with staff conduct regarding her antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports. On the following day, she expressed dissatisfaction at a letter before action she had received from the landlord regarding her CCTV installation. 
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023. In summary it said:
    1. The Ombudsman were investigating a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB, and it therefore could not comment further at this stage.
    2. Having reviewed the case, it could not find evidence of bias.
    3. It previously installed CCTV cameras to act as a deterrent.
    4. It contacted the resident on 16 and 20 June 2023 to consider the circumstances and reasons for her installing a surveillance system. The resident did not co-operate, and the landlord sought advice on legal action.
    5. As the surveillance system was installed without the landlord’s permission it was unable to withdraw its letters. The system could remain in place temporarily until 31 August 2023.
    6. To address the resident’s safety concerns, the landlord sent a survey to all residents in the building on 26 July 2023. It would review the responses and consider further action.
  6. The resident requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 October 2023. She provided further information during a phone call on 19 October 2023. She wanted to retain her surveillance system due to ongoing issues with residents.
  7. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 7 November 2023. In summary it said:
    1. The resident only requested to escalate the complaint about the CCTV and therefore this was the only complaint issue considered within its final response.
    2. It could not allow the resident to retain her own CCTV system due to data protection rules. Additionally, she was in breach of her tenancy agreement, home improvement policy, and CCTV policy as the landlord did not permit installation.
    3. It wrote to the resident on 20 September 2023 with the outcome of the survey and confirmed that the feedback did not support a security system.
    4. It could not allow the resident to retain her security system. It requested for the system to be removed by 1 December 2023 and outlined the sections of her tenancy agreement, its CCTV policy and home improvement policies which she had breached.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 July 2024. She remains dissatisfied that she continues to receive letters from the landlord regarding removal of her security system. To resolve the complaint, she wants to be allowed to retain the security system.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to retain her CCTV security system.

  1. The improvements and alterations section of the resident’s tenancy agreement outlines that, “you must get our written permission before you make improvements, alterations or additions to the property. This includes fitting things such as laminate and wooden flooring, satellite dishes, CCTV, television or aerials, showers”.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s CCTV policy, if the landlord identifies that a third party has installed CCTV or other surveillance in an area the landlord is responsible for without its knowledge or authorisation, it will:
    1. Begin investigations into who installed the CCTV and seek legal advice on its options for removing it;
    2. Initiate arrangements for clear signage to be placed in the affected area advising that CCTV is in operation;
    3. Contact all affected residents and advise its investigating who installed the CCTV with a view to legally remove it;
    4. Provide a timeframe for the removal of CCTV where possible. 
  3. It continues that if residents operate a domestic CCTV system or smart camera doorbell, it must be within the legal boundary of the property.
  4. Records show that the resident informed the landlord that she was obtaining a quote for CCTV on 1 June 2023. She reported that the existing CCTV provided by the landlord was unsatisfactory and frequently failed. The landlord inspected the camera and confirmed that its system was fully operational. It explained that it would not consider a request for permanent CCTV as there was insufficient evidence of ASB to support this. It added that permanent CCTV would require a formal consultation with all residents as the costs of installation and maintenance would be recoverable through service charges. It was appropriate that the landlord set the resident’s expectations at an early stage about additional CCTV measures.
  5. The landlord identified that the resident had installed a CCTV security system on 15 June 2023. It was her responsibility to obtain consent directly with the landlord prior to making alterations to her property in line with her tenancy agreement. However, records show that this did not happen. The resident told the landlord that she had asked the security company who provided her cameras to seek permission, but she did not made a request directly to the landlord. The landlord completed enquiries to confirm that the resident had not sought permission before it took further action. This was appropriate.
  6. Shortly after the landlord identified that the resident had not sought permission for the CCTV security system, it attempted to contact her to discuss the system and her reasons for installing it. The landlord phoned the resident twice on 16 June 2023, arranged a meeting for 20 June 2023, and requested further information by email about the security system. However, the resident did not answer the phone calls and informed the landlord on 2 separate occasions that she would not respond to questions about the security system. As the resident did not engage with the landlord’s communications, it sought leal advice. Following this, it issued a letter to the resident which outlined that the installation was not authorised. It asked for the system to be removed by 2 July 2023. The steps taken by the landlord were reasonable and in line with its process as per the CCTV policy. It was positive that the landlord attempted to communicate with the resident in the first instance. It was limited with options given the resident did not co-operate with the landlord’s enquiries at this stage.  
  7. The landlord met with the resident on 10 July 2023 and sent her a letter following this to clarify what had been discussed. It acknowledged the resident’s safety concerns and that she considered the need for CCTV due to ASB. It was fair that the landlord provided the resident with the opportunity to explain why she wanted the security system so that it could make an informed decision.
  8. The landlord told the resident that it was its responsibility to install a security system if it felt this was required. It also informed her that it had been made aware that not all residents were in favour of her installation. Based on the evidence and information available to the landlord, it had no obligation to approve the resident’s CCTV system. However, given the resident’s security concerns, it offered to conduct a survey with all residents to identify whether there was a need for a security system amongst residents. It allowed an extension for the CCTV to remain until the conclusion of the survey. This was a fair response.
  9. Given the landlord’s lack of information on the security system, it was appropriate for it to conduct further enquiries with the surveillance company. It identified that the system installed by the resident recorded 24 hours a day and included video and sound which would be accessible to her. The landlord informed the resident that it was unable to confirm whether her CCTV was compliant with data protection. It was appropriate for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations as it had asked the resident questions about the system, including how the information was stored and had not been provided with a response. In accordance with the CCTV policy, the resident’s security system should have only covered her legal boundary. The resident did not confirm that this was the case.
  10. On 25 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that the survey to residents in the block did not support CCTV installation and it would therefore not install its own system. Records show that 2 households were in favour of a security system, 3 were against, and 7 abstained from responding. The landlord updated the resident shortly after the results were collated. In light of the outcome, the landlord asked the resident to remove the CCTV and make good any damage by 23 October 2023. The landlord provided a timely update to the resident and was transparent about how it reached its decision.
  11. The resident expressed dissatisfaction throughout the complaint about letters she had received from the landlord. She felt that the landlord had been biased in its communications with her and she was unhappy that letters had not been sent to her neighbour despite the system being jointly installed. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to consider the landlord’s action against the neighbour and whether this was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s installation of the CCTV was proportionate to the evidence available to it and fair. The landlord made the resident aware of the policy/tenancy breaches and justified its reasoning each time it requested for the resident to remove the CCTV. It was positive that the landlord instructed a mediator to assist resolving the matter due to the deteriorating landlord-tenant relationship.
  12. The resident had not removed the CCTV security system when the final complaint response letter was issued. The landlord concluded that it could not allow the resident to retain her security system and requested for it to be removed by 1 December 2023. Since the final response, the landlord proposed early in 2024 to install 2 cameras following a further consultation with residents. Records show that this has since been carried out. This evidences that the landlord thoroughly considered the resident’s concerns and request for a CCTV system.
  13. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s CCTV system remains in place and the landlord issued a final letter before action on 19 November 2024. The landlord has continued to follow legal advice in relation to the removal of the resident’s CCTV system. This is what the Ombudsman would expect it to do given the circumstances of the case. 
  14. The landlord considered the resident’s safety concerns throughout the case. Within its final response, the landlord offered to discuss additional safety measures with the resident given her ongoing safety concerns. It took positive actions throughout the case in this regard whilst remaining clear on its position regarding her CCTV security system.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s request to retain her CCTV security system. It was transparent with the resident and clearly justified its decision within its communications. Further, it listened to the resident’s concerns about safety and took additional steps to investigate whether there was a consensus from residents for it to install its own security system. It ultimately installed 2 new cameras itself in an attempt to resolve the matter. As such, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to retain her CCTV security system.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to retain her CCTV security system.