From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Abri Group Limited (202319362)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319362

Abri Group Limited

19 March 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to a neighbour’s video doorbell.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed–term tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a flat in a purpose-built block. 
  2. In April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord unhappy that a neighbour had installed a video doorbell. She said being constantly filmed when she passed the device infringed her privacy and that level of surveillance amounted to “harassment”.
  3. In July 2021, following contact with the neighbour, the landlord told the resident the video doorbell was only activated when someone walked past the door or when the doorbell was pressed. It said it was satisfied that the doorbell was not recording any images, and it was only for the neighbour to see who was at the door when it rang. It said it had given permission to the neighbour to install the doorbell as long as she complied with the terms of its tenancy permission procedure and gave details of those terms.
  4. On 10 August 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of her concerns about the neighbour’s video doorbell.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint procedures on 19 August 2021. It said it was satisfied that the video doorbell was not recording any images and was only being used for the neighbour’s safety to see who was at the door when it rang. The landlord said it was therefore reasonable for the neighbour to retain the video doorbell.
  6. Almost 15 months later in November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. On 8 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it was satisfied its decision to approve the neighbour’s video doorbell was correct. It added the resident should consult the information Commissioner Office’s website for guidance about domestic CCTV and gave a link to the appropriate page on their website.
  7. In January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour’s video doorbell “was trained towards” the entry to her flat. She also said the landlord’s response was incorrect as she believed the video doorbell recorded both video and sound and that this footage was stored in a cloud.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to assess and determine the resident’s concerns about her privacy. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed its policy and procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. This investigation considered the events from April 2021 (that led to the formal complaint in August 2021) up to the final complaint response in December 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to a neighbour’s video doorbell

  1. The landlord’s tenancy permission procedure says that residents can install CCTV or a smart doorbell subject to conditions and completion of an application. The conditions include that the owner of the device:
    1. Will be responsible for the camera and the legal implications of using it.
    2. Must only use the device for their own legitimate personal security purposes, and it should not intrude on the privacy of their neighbours or their visitors.
    3. Must not have the device pointed towards the door or entry of any neighbouring flat or house.
    4. Must read the Information Commissioner’s Office’s guidance for people using domestic CCTV systems.
  2. When the resident raised concerns with the landlord in April 2021 it responded reasonably by trying to visit the neighbour. When that visit was not successful, the landlord spoke to the neighbour who confirmed the doorbell did not record and they used it only to see who was at the door when the doorbell was activated.
  3. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had reason to doubt the neighbour’s account. We understand that video doorbells can be used without a subscription plan, and in those circumstances, the video clips are not stored anywhere; the device only provides a live feed. However, given the resident’s concerns about her privacy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited the neighbour to have ascertained for itself how the device worked. It could have found out the range of the doorbell camera’s vision and the storage, or otherwise, of the video clips and reported that back to the resident as fact, rather than relying on what the neighbour themselves had said.
  4. Not doing so meant the landlord lost an opportunity to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and therefore missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/resident relationship. That was a service failure. We have made orders for the landlord to visit the neighbour to check what visual area the video doorbell covers when it is activated and whether or not the video clips are stored. The landlord should write to the resident with the outcome of that visit. If, following this visit, the landlord considers the neighbour is not complying with the terms of its tenancy permission procedure, it should make a decision as to whether the neighbour can retain the video doorbell. In doing so, the landlord should consider all the circumstances of the case.
  5. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. That the landlord did not take steps to resolve matters fully at the earliest opportunity, has evidently caused the resident some inconvenience and frustration. It should pay compensation of £75 to the resident to reflect that impact. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord’s service failure might not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns relating to a neighbour’s video doorbell.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to us:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings we have identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £75 for the impact of its failings relating to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s video doorbell. This should be paid direct to the resident and not credited to her rent or service charge account.
    3. Visit the neighbour to check what visual area the video doorbell covers when it is activated and whether or not the video clips are stored. The landlord should write to the resident with the outcome of that visit.
    4. If, following this visit, the landlord considers the neighbour is not complying with the terms of its tenancy permission procedure, it should make a decision as to whether the neighbour can retain the video doorbell. In doing so, the landlord should consider all the circumstances of the case.