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

Brentwood Borough Council (202315156)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315156

Brentwood Borough Council

15 April 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 concerns about the neighbour’s camera doorbell.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.

Summary of events

  1. In July 2023 the resident raised his complaint. He said the landlord was aware the neighbour had a camera that could be recording him.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It said the neighbour had a camera doorbell that could not see into the resident’s property. It did not uphold the complaint. It also said it had raised works following the report of an issue with a manhole cover and that its staff returned the resident’s call that day.
  3. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 21 July 2023 and repeated how he felt the neighbour was recording him. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023. It said the neighbour did not require its permission to install a camera doorbell. It had reviewed recent footage from the camera doorbell and could not see into the resident’s property. It explained how past court cases with other housing providers found it “reasonable and just” for neighbours to install camera doorbells if they felt it was needed. It did not uphold the complaint and said it had declined the resident’s request for CCTV camera’s and not the installation of a camera doorbell.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s contact with this Service and the landlord, he has raised concerns about how a camera doorbell was being used by the neighbour and that it may not have been legal. The resident’s concerns are about an alleged breach of data protection laws. It is important to explain that the Ombudsman is unable to comment on matters that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaints-handling body. The matter of whether the camera doorbell is a breach of data protection laws would fall to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to consider. However, the Ombudsman will consider what the landlord did in response to the resident’s concerns.
  2. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident has told this Service of concerns about mould at the property. He has also told this Service about recent antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues with the neighbour. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response from August 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. As such the issue relating to mould and recent ASB issues will not be considered within this report. This report will consider the complaint that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 16 August 2023.

Handling of concerns about the neighbour’s camera doorbell

  1. The landlord’s housing booklet says it will not become involved in neighbour disputes unless there is a serious nuisance. It encourages neighbours to resolve issues with one another and contact it if they are unable to do this. The landlord has said it does not have a specific policy for CCTV or camera doorbells but it will work with guidance provided by the ICO.
  2. For background purposes it is important to add, that the landlord has said there was an ongoing ASB case at the time of the resident’s complaint. It seems the matter went to court and it is not disputed that the camera doorbell footage was used as part of those proceedings.
  3. Within the resident’s complaint he told the landlord of concerns about the neighbour recording him. The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately explained that it had seen the footage from the camera doorbell and it could not see into the resident’s property. It also explained that the neighbour installed the camera doorbell for safety reasons. It was reasonable for the landlord to have explained the reasons for the installation of the camera doorbell and that it had reviewed the footage. This would have helped to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
  4. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord explained how previous court cases found it was reasonable for neighbours to install camera doorbells if they felt there was a need. The ICO website says that a ‘legitimate reason’ for installing such devices included protection. When considering this and what the landlord did to investigate the concerns, its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord refusing his request to install CCTV cameras. The evidence shows that the resident asked to install a CCTV camera facing the neighbour’s front drive allowing him to gather evidence. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining the reasons for declining the resident’s request.
  6. It seems the resident feels the landlord allowed the neighbour to gather footage and not him. While the Ombudsman acknowledges how the resident feels, it is important to explain that there is no evidence to show the landlord refused a request for a camera doorbell and it is understood the resident previously had one. The resident has told this Service that he would like the neighbour to remove the camera doorbell, as mentioned previously it is not for this Service to comment on a data protection breach and the resident may wish to contact the ICO about this to gain further advice.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of concerns about the neighbour’s camera doorbell was appropriate in the circumstances. It explained it had reviewed the camera doorbell footage and that the neighbour had a legitimate reason for the installation. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the neighbour’s camera doorbell.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers whether it needs a policy or guidance for residents about the installation of CCTV cameras and camera doorbells. It should let this Service know what it decides within 4 weeks of the date of this report.