Peabody Trust (202126263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126263

Peabody Trust

10 April 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Her neighbour’s use of closed circuit television (CCTV).
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the tenancy commenced on 9 January 2006. The landlord is a housing association. The resident advises this Service that she has an auto-immune condition, but there are no resident vulnerabilities noted in the landlord’s records.
The resident had originally complained to the landlord about her neighbour’s CCTV and ASB sometime before October 2021. She had also complained about fencing, boundary issues and outstanding repairs. This Service has not had sight of the original complaint, or the stage 1 complaint response and the landlord does not have a copy of it.
The landlord visited the resident on 21 October 2021 and completed an action plan regarding her allegations of ASB. The landlord said it would send the neighbour a letter, asking her to remove or move the CCTV.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord called and emailed the neighbour on 1 February 2022, advising it had noticed she had put up a CCTV camera at the side of her property. It told her that upon checking its records, it noted she did not have permission to install this. It asked the neighbour to take down the CCTV, until permission was given.
The neighbour responded on the same day, advising that the CCTV had been there for many years. She then asked for official retrospective permission to have the CCTV installed.
The landlord responded to the neighbour’s email on 25 February 2022. It said that in line with GDPR, it would have to be mounted in front of her house.
After this Service’s intervention, the landlord provided a final, stage 2 response to the resident on 4 March 2022. In respect of the CCTV and reports of ASB, it advised the resident of the following:
1. It had asked its community safety team to look into the matter and the team would respond to her directly.
2. The community safety manager had first contacted the resident on 23 August 2021 regarding her allegations about her neighbour. It had visited the resident on 21 October 2021 and agreed an action plan, supported by a communication agreement. It had agreed to contact her each week via telephone, email and occasional home visits if required.
3. It had agreed to work with the neighbours to request that they remove the CCTV they had installed. It had asked the neighbours to remove the CCTV via a letter.
4. The resident had then contacted the landlord again a few days later to say the CCTV had been moved ‘to a worse position’.
5. The community safety manager had since confirmed that the CCTV at the neighbour’s property had been disconnected and was not live. It was working with the neighbour to instruct her to remove the CCTV and would keep the resident updated. It agreed that the CCTV in the neighbour’s property should be removed.
6. It offered the resident ‘shuttle mediation’ with an external mediator if the resident was happy to do this and would determine what further action was needed if a resolution could not be reached.
7. It apologised to the resident and offered £750 compensation for its complaint handling and failure to get back to her within its agreed timescales.
The resident submitted a new stage 1 complaint to the landlord via this Service on 1 March 2022. She complained about outstanding electrical works and further ongoing incidents of ASB and harassment from her neighbour, including her neighbour’s usage of CCTV.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 March 2022. It undertook to carry out all the electrical works. In respect of the ASB it said:
1. It would pass this onto its community safety manager who was on leave and returning on 18 March 2022. It had asked him to contact the resident before 23 March 2022 to discuss any new incidents of ASB.
2. It asked the resident to have a record of ASB incidents so that the community safety manager could investigate further.
The landlord called the resident on 23 March 2022, to discuss her issues. The communication between the landlord and resident shows that a proposed virtual meeting was discussed, which the resident asked for her daughter to be included in.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 April 2022 and 17 April 2022 to chase up a plan of action regarding the neighbour’s CCTV as she said the camera was still up and had been moved to the top of the drive and was pointing towards her property.
The resident and the landlord had a meeting on 21 April 2022 to discuss the CCTV and the resident’s allegations of ASB by her neighbour. Further to this meeting, the resident asked the landlord to provide an update and a mutually agreed plan of action.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 23 May 2022. She stated that the neighbour’s ‘relentless harassment with the CCTV’ had not eased. She also contacted this Service. She complained that she had raised the issue nearly a year ago and that the CCTV camera was pointed squarely on her entire property.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 9,16 and 23 June 2022 and 3 August 2022. She advised this Service of the lack of response from the landlord.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 3 August 2022, asking it to provide a final response to the resident by 17 August 2022.
The landlord internal emails of 4 August 2022, show that its staff tried to obtain progress on the matter. The community safety team advised its colleagues that the neighbour had moved the CCTV camera so that it was no longer at the side of the neighbour’s property, looking into the resident’s property. He said the neighbour had given the landlord permission to visit and view the contents of any recordings, but the community safety team did not think this was necessary. The team went on to say that if the resident disagreed, it would advise her to take a photo and send it to them to review.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord left a voicemail and emailed the resident. It advised it was happy to look at her stage 2 complaint and asked her what matters remained outstanding.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord emailed this Service, advising it would need a 10-day extension to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and would respond by 30 August 2022.
The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord on 17 August 2022. She noted that the landlord had previously confirmed in April 2022, that it had not given the neighbour permission to install the CCTV. She said the landlord had stated that it had asked the neighbour to remove the camera and that it had made the neighbour aware that they were not to capture any footage of the resident’s property, drive, or people.
She said the camera remained in place and was still surveying the resident’s home. She said that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s numerous contacts. She asked for the camera to be taken down immediately as the landlord had previously agreed, and that she would be contacting lawyers if the landlord did not respond within 15 days.
The landlord’s internal emails of 18 August 2022, show that the community safety team were asked to visit the neighbour’s property to check the positioning of the CCTV camera. It is unclear if this visit happened. The email trail goes on to state that the landlord may not have given the neighbour permission to install the CCTV camera but it can and does give retrospective permission and always advises residents of their responsibilities in terms of CCTV surveillance.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 24 August 2022. It said:
1. The outstanding issue to be resolved was in respect of the CCTV that the neighbour had installed, which the resident felt unlawfully captured footage of her property and drive.
2. The landlord had now given retrospective permission to the neighbour to have the CCTV camera installed. It had explained the responsibilities of having a CCTV camera to the neighbour.
3. The camera had been moved so that it was no longer down the side of the property looking towards the resident’s property and home. It asked the resident to take of photo of the camera. It said that if the camera had not in fact been moved, then the community safety team could arrange an inspection and review the position of the camera, the field of coverage and content captured.
4. The landlord was clear that it did not support any ‘siting of a camera’ to carry out any sort of unwanted surveillance.
5. It apologised to the resident and said that following a merger, it now had a higher standard of customer service and care.
6. It believed all issues had been addressed but if the resident felt there were any issues that needed resolving in the neighbour dispute, then she should contact the community safety team so it could be followed up.
7. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint.
The resident contacted this Service again on 21 April 2023 to ask us to investigate. She said that there had been a lack of communication and cohesiveness regarding her complaints. She stated that the CCTV camera was still pointing at her drive and had never stopped. She said she did not understand why the landlord gave the neighbour permission to install it. She said the issue was impacting on her health and wellbeing.
As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like:
1. The camera to be removed.
2. A clear audit trail of her logs of ASB.
3. The landlord to liaise with local police and to raise a community trigger.
4. Compensation for the distress and inconvenience, stress and time and trouble and impact on the enjoyment of her home.
5. An apology.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The internal landlord communication of September 2023 shows that it did not have records of the resident’s previous complaints prior to its merger and did not have the previous stage 1 complaint responses.
The landlord’s internal emails of 20 and 29 September 2023 show that the resident’s reports of ASB (correspondence and telephone contact notes) were logged on a housing management information system which it could not access.
The resident provided this Service with photographs of the neighbour’s CCTV camera on 28 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Although the resident’s original complaint to this Service included repair works and fencing issues, the resident did not pursue this to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. She does not wish to pursue this. The repairs have all been completed. The landlord gave permission for the resident to erect a fence, but there are ongoing issues about the height and positioning of this. As such, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s CCTV usage, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident states that the ASB has been going on for many years. Although this Service appreciates the resident’s distress and frustration, paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As such, this investigation will focus on matters from 1 February 2022, when the landlord asked the neighbour to remove her CCTV camera.

Landlord Obligations – Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s CCTV Policy and Procedure states that an individual’s private property, such as gardens or private spaces will not be captured by CCTV without their explicit written consent.
The policy goes on to say that if a resident wishes to install their own CCTV equipment, then they can submit their request to the landlord by letter or email under the tenants’ ‘Right to make improvements policy’. The landlord will arrange to visit the property to assess whether installation is possible. The landlord should be satisfied that the installation would not breach other residents’ right to privacy, and they should confirm the capabilities of the system. This is because some systems can breach residents’ privacy in other ways, for example, by recording audio.
Once a decision has been made, the landlord will send a letter to the resident to confirm whether they grant permission to the resident to install the CCTV equipment. The landlord makes clear that it does not provide advice on compliance with data protection legislation.
The landlord defines ASB as set out by the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it ensures it takes a victim centred and robust approach to tackling ASB, including prevention and intervention.
It goes on to say that it encourages customers across all tenures to respect each other’s lifestyles. It states that a clash of lifestyles is not considered a breach of tenancy. This includes minor disagreements between neighbours. The landlord encourages residents to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies, and taking part in mediation.
It continues to say that all residents who report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure that the appropriate level of support can be provided. It will use a range of preventative measures such as early intervention, signposting to mediation services and legal action to tackle ASB.
It goes on to say that it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. It will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of what actions it takes. It will contact residents when closing a case, giving reasons for doing so.
The landlord’s estate management policy and procedure states that it is committed to providing a high standard service to all neighbourhoods. It says that it will take action where residents have breached the terms of their tenancy. It goes on to say that it will open new ASB cases or take action to resolve ASB cases, working with colleagues to resolve these.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days. The resident will be given the name of the officer dealing with their complaint and provided with a unique reference number. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints will either be reviewed independently by a customer experience team delivery manager or a complaints panel. The complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and the resident will be given the name of the manager working on the complaint. The landlord will provide a response within 20 working days from the day it was escalated.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that compensation and other remedies are considered when a resident has experienced a delay or if the landlord has failed to carry out a service within its published timescales.
It operates a sliding scale of compensation from £1 to £650, depending on the severity of the issues. It considers someone’s time, trouble and inconvenience experienced. It offers between £25 to £300 for poor complaint handling, depending on the severity of the failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbours use of CCTV

It was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour in February 2022, asking her to remove the CCTV until permission was given. It was also appropriate that it advised the neighbour that her CCTV should not capture any footage of any neighbouring property or person. It was also appropriate that it advised of her obligations in terms of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is not for this Service to ascertain whether GDPR was breached as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Rather, this Service will focus on whether the landlord followed its policy.
In terms of the landlord asking the neighbour to remove or move her CCTV camera, pending permission to install it, this was appropriate. However, although the landlord told the resident that it had asked the neighbour to remove the CCTV camera, it had in fact told the neighbour that she needed to move it to her front garden. It had given the neighbour the option to either remove or move the CCTV and this was not communicated to the resident. This lack of clear communication caused the resident distress, anxiety, and additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of her home.
Further, although the resident expressed her distress that the camera had been moved and was still capturing footage of her and her property (including voice footage), the landlord did not visit the neighbour’s property to check the positioning or the content of the CCTV footage. Instead, it relied solely on the neighbour’s word that it had been disconnected.
On 1 March 2022, when the resident submitted a further stage 1 complaint regarding the neighbour’s CCTV usage, she was not given an action plan. In fact, the resident chased the landlord on 5 April 2022 and 17 April 2022 to advise the camera was still up and had been moved to the top of the drive pointing towards her property.
Within this time, there is no evidence that the landlord did anything to progress the situation or update the resident on any actions. This was further inappropriate and caused the resident additional distress and time and trouble. It would also have impacted on the enjoyment of her home and on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Although the landlord had a meeting with the resident on 21 April 2022, there is no evidence on file that the landlord did anything to progress the matter. This caused the resident additional inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble.
Further to her Stage 2 complaint of 23 May 2022, the resident reiterated that the camera was pointing on her entire property and chased the landlord for an update on at least 5 occasions from 9 June 2022 until the 17 August 2022. This is further inappropriate and caused the resident additional time and trouble and distress and inconvenience.
Additionally, although the landlord internal communication of 18 August 2022 shows that the landlord had asked its community safety team to visit the neighbour’s property to check the positioning of the CCTV camera, it is unclear whether this happened. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to visit the property to determine the position of the camera, speak to the neighbour and make any plans based on its own enquiries.
Furthermore, in its internal emails of 18 August 2022, the landlord stated that although it did not give the neighbour permission to install the camera, it can and does give retrospective permission. Although this Service does not dispute this, it was inappropriate because this information had not been shared with the resident.
In its Stage 2 complaint response of 24 August 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it had now given the neighbour retrospective permission to have the CCTV installed and that it had explained the responsibilities of having a CCTV camera. This was unreasonable, as the landlord had previously told the resident that it had asked the neighbour to remove the CCTV. This caused the resident confusion, distress, and frustration. It also impacted on the landlord/tenant relationship, causing distrust and the resident felt her concerns were ignored.
Further, it also advised the resident that the camera had been moved and was no longer down the side of the property looking into the resident’s home and if the resident disputed this, she should take a photograph and the landlord would arrange an inspection. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have inspected the property itself rather than protracting and delaying the matter for the resident. It did not rely on evidence to conclude that the CCTV camera had been moved and put the onus on the resident to monitor the situation. This caused the resident additional frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Additionally, this Service has seen photographic evidence, received on 28 March 2024 that the CCTV camera is at the side of the neighbour’s property, facing into the resident’s property. The resident advises this is a recent photo and that the camera is still in the same location.
Due to the issues outlined above, the failure of the landlord to follow its policy and the adverse effect on the resident, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour

Good record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. The landlord has stated that it cannot access the resident’s reports of ASB. It does not have access to correspondence and telephone notes as these are logged on a different housing management system.
The resident advises that she made several complaints of ASB by her neighbour and this Service does not doubt the resident’s version of events.
The only record of ASB available to this Service is a historical action plan from 21 October 2021 and the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 4 March 2022, where it offered the resident mediation.
As there is no further evidence available, this Service cannot determine whether the landlord followed either its ASB policy and procedure or its estate management policy.
The landlord cannot access its ASB records. It is not appropriate that the landlord does not have accessible records in terms of ASB allegations and actions taken. This would make it very difficult to provide a good service to the resident and to ensure that it was abiding by its policy. This caused the resident time and trouble and frustration as well as impacting on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Due to the lack of available records and the landlord’s inability to provide these, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted her stage 2 complaint on 23 May 2022 and the landlord did not provide a stage 2 response until 24 August 2022, after intervention from this Service. This is 65 working days and considerably outside of both this Service’s complaint handling code (The Code) and its own response time frame of 20 working days. This caused the resident stress and frustration and time and trouble.
Additionally, the delay in responding to the complaint resulted in further protracted delays in the substantive issue being addressed. It also impacted on the resident’s ability to contact this Service in a timely manner to have the issues resolved. This caused the resident additional distress, frustration and time and trouble.
Furthermore, although the landlord did apologise to the resident for the frustration and inconvenience, and offered £50 compensation, this was not commensurate with the adverse effect on the resident.
Additionally, the substantive issue remains outstanding. The resident states that the CCTV camera remains in the same position, facing into her property.
As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s use of CCTV.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1300 for the following:
  1. £300 for the time and trouble in pursuing the CCTV issue.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience in pursuing the CCTV issue.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble in pursuing the ASB reports.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience in pursuing the ASB reports.
  5. £300 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report (this includes the £50 already offered, plus an additional £250).
3. Arrange a site visit to the neighbour’s property to assess the positioning of the CCTV camera and take appropriate action following the findings of this visit. The landlord should share its findings with this Service.
4. Review its record keeping in relation to ASB reports and follow up actions to review what action has been or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this.
5. Review the complaint handling failures in this case to determine what action has been or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these.
6. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.