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

Darlington Borough Council (202302747)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302747

Darlington Borough Council

28 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 installing CCTV.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident was granted a 12 month introductory tenancy on 18 April 2022. The tenancy became secure on 19 April 2023. The resident lives in a ground floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord is a council.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2022. She said two housing officers visited her on 12 October 2022 and asked her to remove her CCTV. She said she did not like the way the officers treated her and wanted to know why a neighbouring property was allowed CCTV but hers was unacceptable. 
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. In its response it said:
    1. It had received a complaint about the resident’s CCTV and that it was invading other residents’ privacy as it looked over the communal garden. It informed the resident she needed to remove the CCTV as she had not asked for permission to install it.
    2. It had reviewed the letter sent to the resident on 12 October 2022 stating she had breached her tenancy, and although it was formal, it was not offensive.
    3. It was unable to comment on a neighbouring property having CCTV. However, if the resident provided the address it would investigate further.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response dated 4 April 2023. It said she was in breach of her tenancy agreement as her CCTV pointed directly over the communal garden and it had received complaints from other residents, and she had not asked for permission to install the CCTV.
  6. The resident approached the Ombudsman as she felt the landlord’s approach to the installation of CCTV cameras was inconsistent.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord about ASB issues. This investigation has focussed on the issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2022. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from October 2022 to the end of its formal complaints procedure in April 2023.
  2. This service is aware the resident has a further complaint with the landlord about her CCTV, which she raised on 8 March 2024. This service cannot investigate complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and therefore has not considered the concerns raised in this subsequent complaint. If the resident remains unhappy after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure she has the option to bring this complaint to the Ombudsman.   
  3. The resident has told this service she has reported incidents of ASB to the landlord and was unhappy with how the landlord handled this. The Ombudsman cannot investigate these incidents as they did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and therefore were not investigated by the landlord within its complaints procedure.
  4. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s response to her installing CCTV had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident installing CCTV

  1. On 12 October 2022 the landlord visited the resident due to complaints it had received about her CCTV camera. Section 10.16 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states she requires written permission by the council to make improvements to her property, which includes installing CCTV. The landlord acted appropriately by asking her to remove the CCTV as she had not sought permission to install it at that time.
  2. The landlord also stated the resident would need to remove her CCTV as it looked directly onto a communal area. Section 8.7 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states anti-social behaviour includes using surveillance equipment in a way that interferes with the privacy of other people in the locality. The landlord acted reasonably by enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement after it had received complaints from other residents.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident of her obligations in terms of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and provided her with a link to the guidance on using CCTV on the government website. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it suggested the resident was not complying with GDPR. It is not for this service to ascertain whether GDPR was breached as this is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Rather, this service will focus on whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and whether its actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The resident informed the landlord on 12 October 2022 that she had installed the CCTV to prevent the area and communal flower beds outside her flat from being vandalised. She said she lived alone and wanted it for her own safety and sense of security. There was no evidence the landlord tried to understand the underling reason the resident wanted CCTV, or that it did anything to address her security concerns and the vandalism. The resident also made the landlord aware of her health issues. There was no evidence the landlord discussed with the resident if she needed any support or referrals to support organisations. This was not customer focused.
  5. There was no evidence the landlord explained to the resident how she could apply for written permission to have a camera at her property. The landlord did not have a written policy or procedure in relation to requests for CCTV. The resident asked for the landlord’s policy in October 2022 however it failed to respond. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 November 2023 advising her what it would consider when it received an improvement request for CCTV. This was 12 months after the landlord became aware of the resident’s CCTV and asked her to remove it. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
  6. The resident raised concerns in her complaint about the way the landlord’s staff had treated her, as she felt she was being accused of harassing her neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will investigate all reports of ASB. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy by visiting the resident and providing her with written confirmation to say it was investigating the alleged ASB in relation to her CCTV.  
  7. In summary the landlord acted in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement and its ASB policy. This is because the resident did not have the required permission to install CCTV and was in breach of her tenancy agreement terms and conditions. However, it failed to explain how the resident could apply for permission for CCTV and it took 12 months for it to explain the criteria it would consider. There was evidence of poor communication and it failed to show it considered the resident’s health and well-being when asking her to remove the CCTV. The landlord did not recognise these failings, show learning or attempt to put things right within its complaints procedure.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident installing CCTV.
  9. In November 2023 the landlord produced a leaflet for residents called domestic CCTV cameras and smart doorbells in your home. As the time of this investigation the landlord informed the Ombudsman it was reviewing its policies and procedures around domestic CCTV. This is a positive step which will allow residents to understand the landlord’s position on this issue.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process which sets out that it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. On 20 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged the complaint or provided the resident with a timescale on when she should expect a response. There was also no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint before issuing its response. This was not customer focused and the landlord failed to take steps to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022. This was within its 10-working day target timescale. The response addressed all the resident’s complaint issues.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the escalation within its agreed target timescale. However, there was no evidence it contacted the resident to discuss her complaint or her desired outcome.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 April 2023, 102 working days later, which was outside its 20-working day timescale. The landlord failed to contact the resident about the delay which led to her chasing an update on 7 and 31 March 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident over a protracted period of time, and it left her in a position where she did not know if she would receive a response to her complaint.
  6. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. It acknowledged and apologised for this delay, however, given the significant delay in responding to the stage 2 it should have considered compensation in line with its housing management policy.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident installing CCTV.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation. This is broken down as:
      1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its response to the resident installing CCTV.
      2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensures its staff are fully trained on the guidelines surrounding domestic CCTV and are clear on how residents can apply for permission and in what circumstances it might grant permission.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to check if she has any current concerns about vandalism or security issues and consider any actions it could take to try to address these concerns.