Places for People Group Limited (202426227)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426227

Places for People Group Limited

17 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
2. Reports about CCTV cameras and a security light installed by a neighbour.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom semi-detached bungalow where she lives with her husband. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property. The resident and her husband are elderly and have a number of health conditions known to the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 January 2024 about an altercation between her and her neighbour. The landlord dealt with this via its ASB process and provided a written response on 21 March 2024.
The resident was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with the reported ASB and asked to raise a complaint on 1 May 2024. She also complained about the same neighbour’s CCTV cameras and how they affected her privacy. She asked it to escalate her complaint on 13 May 2024 stating that it had not acted on evidence. She refuted the warning the landlord gave her in March 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 June 2024. It referred to its ASB investigation and its subsequent findings in March 2024. It said it was investigating her reports about the neighbour’s CCTV and would be meeting with both parties. It apologised for the lack of communication and assured her that it took reports of ASB seriously.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 June 2024 as she remained unhappy with its response. She added that her neighbour had installed a security light on her fence which she wanted it to remove.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 July 2024. It said that it understood that she had various issues with her neighbour over a number of years. It had written to the neighbour stating that they required permission for CCTV and that they needed to ensure that the alignment of their cameras did not cover any of the neighbours gardens and houses. It had also asked for a review of the security light. It gave advice about reporting the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It said it would keep the situation under review and provide an update on progress.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants the landlord to warn the neighbour about their behaviour and to enforce the removal of 2 of their CCTV cameras and the security light.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she said that the situation had caused stress, her depression and anxiety to worsen, and affected her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s inaction affecting her health is better dealt with via the court.
The ICO is better placed to assess and determine the privacy issues described in this case with respect to the CCTV. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident previously brought a complaint to us about her neighbour’s CCTV. This was determined on 19 May 2023 and the complaint was subsequently closed following the landlord’s compliance with our orders. We are unable, therefore, to reconsider the same timeframe. We can, however, consider events following 19 May 2023 and how the landlord responded, up to its final response on 25 July 2024. Any previous events, or events following the landlord’s final response, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of ASB

The Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that ASB is conduct which:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the above definition. It says it will attempt to resolve disputes early using non-legal intervention but recognises that this is not always possible. It will complete risk assessments to determine the level of harm the ASB causes and complete a written action plan. It will work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB and take reasonable and proportionate action with the aim of avoiding escalation. It will utilise the full toolkit of methods, legal and non-legal, available to address the issues.
The resident told us that there is a history of disputes between her and her neighbour which has been ongoing for 6 years. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage.
A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives reports of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether it took appropriate action.
An altercation occurred on 21 January 2024 between the resident and her neighbour. She reported the incident to the landlord on 26 January 2024 and asked to make a complaint. She said that the neighbour and their daughter had been “aggressive and threatening” toward her. While we appreciate that the resident asked to raise a complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to initially investigate the matter via its ASB policy and procedure.
The landlord responded on 29 January 2024 within its ASB policy timescale of 5 working days. It asked the resident to complete a diary sheet to describe the incident. This was to include the date, time, detail of the incident, parties involved, and any evidence such as witnesses. Landlords will often ask residents to complete a diary sheet to enable it to gather evidence and investigate. This was an appropriate step to take to establish the nature of the reported incident and was in line with its ASB policy.
The resident completed the diary sheet and supplied a witness statement. She described the incident as follows:
1. She was having some rubbish collected from her home. She put a polite notice through the neighbour’s door asking if their car could be moved as she did not want to accidentally damage it.
2. A short time later the neighbour’s daughter put a letter through her door stating that action was being taken as to who owned the driveway. She was confused as she had never claimed to own it. The letter also stated that the neighbour was in hospital so the car could not be moved and, if it were damaged, they would sue for criminal damage.
3. She and her husband decided to clear the rubbish from the garden and place it on the pathway to ensure there was no damage caused to the car. While doing this, the daughter pulled up in her car with the neighbour. As they walked up the path, the daughter “flew into a rage” and asked why she had blocked the path. She tried to explain that the rubbish would not be there long, but they were aggressive toward her.
4. She tried to walk away but the daughter swore at her and said that now they lived there she “would have 5 more years of hell”. The daughter picked up the rubbish from the path and threw it onto her driveway in front of her car.
The landlord confirmed receipt of the diary sheet and witness statement on 6 March 2024. It had received a similar report from the neighbour. It was, therefore, taking steps to gather more information. This included requesting a copy of the CCTV recording from the incident. It asked the resident if she could provide a copy of the letter she sent and any CCTV recordings. This was appropriate as it had received a counter allegation and demonstrated it was actively investigating. It had an obligation to conduct an impartial investigation and consider both parties version of events.
The landlord said it had also contacted the police for advice given both parties had reported harassment. It considered that both parties had vulnerabilities so it would ensure it handled the situation with care and sensitivity. This was reasonable and showed that it had fairly considered both parties health concerns. That said, there was no evidence to show that it completed a risk assessment for either party, or an action plan in line with its ASB policy. However, its communication could be said to have set out the actions it was taking at the time.
The resident responded on 11 March 2024 describing her and her husband’s health concerns and said she would send her CCTV footage. There was again no evidence to show that the landlord completed a risk assessment at this point. This would have been appropriate given the resident had explained how the situation was affecting her.
The landlord responded on 19 March 2024. It said it had received and reviewed CCTV footage from both parties, along with copies of the letters. It would discuss its findings and provide its response by the end of the week. This was reasonable and showed it was keeping the resident informed of its investigation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2024 and set out a detailed account of the incident. It confirmed that the neighbour returned home from hospital and an altercation ensued about the placement of the rubbish. It said that both parties were arguing, shouting, and gesturing. It concluded that:
1. The witness who provided a statement only partially witnessed the incident while walking past, which was verified by CCTV footage. Given the limited scope of their observation, their opinion was insignificant in determining the full context and sequence of events.
2. The neighbour’s car was parked in a manner that should not have obstructed the path significantly, which was depicted in a still image captured from CCTV. It did not consider that where the car was parked at the time was an obstruction.
3. The short notice given in the letter to move the car was not feasible due to the neighbour being in hospital. The resident exacerbated the situation by leaving rubbish on the path and driveway hindering the neighbours access to their home. This could have been avoided if the rubbish had been placed on her own drive.
The landlord said that both parties had engaged in unacceptable behaviour, leading to a verbal altercation. It warned both parties against any further confrontation and said that further incidents may result in legal action against their tenancies. It invited both parties to participate in mediation and encouraged them to refrain from any direct or indirect contact with each other.
While we appreciate that the resident believes she should not have received a warning, the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate. It demonstrated that it had considered the evidence and what led to the altercation. We consider mediation to be an appropriate option allowing both parties to be made aware of each other’s concerns and be more amenable to altering patterns of behaviour. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered and continues to offer to facilitate this.
In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
The resident disputed the landlord’s response on 27 March 2024, repeating her version of events. She said that had she been asked nicely, she would have removed the rubbish but did not get chance. She refuted its comment that her witness was insignificant as they stood watching from their front door. She added that she had 2 further witnesses and that it had failed to speak with any of them. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had spoken with witnesses about the incident. It should also be noted that the witness statement appears to corroborate the resident’s version of events. That said, this may not have altered the outcome of the landlord’s investigation given its findings that the placement of the rubbish had led to the altercation.
It was reasonable that the landlord responded to the resident the following day and explained how it reached its decision. It said that it understood that the resident may hold a different perspective. It made its decision after reviewing all of the evidence including a 27-minute video capturing the entire incident. The video footage showed both parties actively involved in the dispute which stemmed from the issue of rubbish left on the path and the drive. It said the video provided clear insight into the sequence of events and the nature of the altercation, leaving little room for interpretation. It acknowledged the resident’s recollection of the incident may differ from the evidence presented, but it had based its decision on “irrefutable evidence” to ensure fairness and impartiality.
On 11 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord if she could see the neighbour’s video evidence as it differed from hers. She said that mediation would not work as it had been tried before. She believed that the neighbour was getting preferential treatment and that the landlord was biased. She confirmed that she received the CCTV footage on 1 May 2024 when she raised her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to share the neighbour’s footage with her to enable her to review the evidence. She again refuted its decision and said the footage clearly showed she was not being aggressive or threatening whereas the neighbour and their daughter were. She said there was no sound so it could not hear what was being said.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that its letter of March 2024 detailed the findings of its investigation and offer of mediation for both parties. It had not identified any service failings. Its response was reasonable given it had previously explained its decision and findings. On 9 May 2024 it provided a further explanation stating that several members of staff had reviewed the footage to give an unbiased and fair analysis. Based on its findings it was appropriate to issue warnings to both parties. It said that as a landlord, while it did step in to address conduct, it was generally expected that tenants manage their relationships independently.
The landlord’s records of 17 June 2024 referred to the resident asking to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy with how it had investigated the ASB. Its stage 2 response did not refer to the ASB incident, however, it stated that during a telephone call the resident had said her main concern was the positioning of the neighbour’s CCTV and security light. It would, however, have been appropriate to respond again given the resident’s request to escalate her complaint about the matter.
In summary, the landlord’s responses were appropriate, and its actions were proportionate. While we empathise that the resident feels she was not in the wrong, the landlord had an obligation to carry out an impartial investigation and consider both parties version of events. In order for a landlord to take tenancy enforcement action, it would have required significant evidence to provide to a court to make a decision. This would not have been proportionate in the circumstances of this case. The neighbour received the same warning and was therefore warned of their behaviour.
That said, there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter. It failed to demonstrate that it followed its ASB policy and process in completing risk assessments, action plans and should have considered interviewing witnesses. Noting that this would not have changed the outcome, it would have demonstrated a thorough investigation and assured the resident that it had considered all the evidence. We have, therefore, made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay to the resident £50 which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right.

Reports about the position of CCTV and a Security Light

The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the landlord and tenant. Clause 3.26 states not to install CCTV recording equipment without the written approval of the landlord. Permission can be withdrawn at any time if the landlord believes that the CCTV recording equipment is intruding on the privacy of other residents.
The ICO is responsible for regulating and enforcing the Data Protection Act and it is the responsibility of the owner of CCTV equipment to adhere to relevant legislation. In our previous determination we noted that there were allegations and counter allegations regarding the resident and her neighbour’s CCTV. We determined that the landlord’s approach, at the time, to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. It correctly set out the process the resident should follow if she felt her neighbour’s CCTV was compromising her privacy and confirmed that it would take appropriate supportive action if this process resulted in a privacy breach being identified by the ICO or Police.
We have considered the resident’s further reports to the landlord made from 11 April 2024 when she reported that one of the photographs from the ASB incident showed her neighbour’s camera pointing toward her garden. She asked that the neighbour move the camera angle or remove it completely. In further correspondence on 17 April 2024, she asked for someone to inspect the neighbour’s CCTV. The landlord appropriately responded the same day and said it would ask someone to visit and inspect the camera.
In the resident’s complaint she said that CCTV had been mentioned during the ASB incident that her camera was pointed toward her neighbour’s bathroom window. She confirmed this was not the case and had been verified previously by the police, a safety officer from the council, and by the landlord.
It was reasonable that the landlord wrote to the neighbour on the same day explaining it had received reports about the positioning of their cameras. It said that the neighbour did not have permission to install cameras and reminded them of their tenancy conditions. As no permission had been sought it asked them to remove the cameras immediately, pending an application and decision. This was reasonable, in line with the terms of the tenancy, and demonstrated that the landlord has listened to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord updated the resident the following day stating it had asked for a thorough review of all CCTV cameras. This was to confirm that there was no invasion of privacy and that the use of CCTV complied with relevant legal standards. Its commitment to review cameras was reasonable and it appropriately set out the actions it was taking.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 May 2024 stating it had the proof it needed and asked why it was not acting on it. The landlord responded the following day assuring the resident it was addressing the issues regarding any unauthorised CCTV and measures it had taken. The resident chased further on 22 May 2024 stating that the cameras were still in place despite its instruction to take them down. She added that readjusting the camera would not be good enough and she wanted the neighbour to remove it. The neighbour had 1 camera looking down the drive and did not need more.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was investigating the matter and had met with the neighbour to reach an agreement for the placement of the CCTV. In order for the agreement to be put in place it needed to meet with the resident to discuss this further. As the resident had been unable to attend the previous meeting it asked her to reach out to the manager to arrange a meeting. Its response was reasonable and shows that it had taken action to address the resident’s concerns.
The resident reported a further concern on 23 June 2024. She said the neighbour had attached a security light to her fence post and asked the landlord to tell the neighbour remove it. She said he did not need the light as they already had one attached to their CCTV camera on the wall. She believed this to be “harassment and antagonistic”.
It is assumed that the landlord asked the resident to reposition her CCTV camera as she confirmed on 24 July 2024 that an engineer had attended to do this. She also asked the landlord to tell the neighbour to remove their camera from the back garden as this was invading her privacy, more than the front cameras.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised and confirmed that it had identified a service failure. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response was not satisfactory. There had been various issues with the neighbour over a number of years which led to her contacting the Police and ICO. It repeated that it had visited the neighbour and requested that they ask for permission and ensure their cameras did not capture the path, driveway, or any gardens or houses.
The landlord said it had also asked for a review of the security light on the fence. It noted the resident’s comments that she had contacted the police as she felt the neighbour was harassing her and that it may send someone to visit the neighbour and review the position of the CCTV. It also noted that she had repositioned her CCTV and advised her to report her concerns to the ICO. It said it would continue to review the situation and provide updates.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in setting out the actions it had taken. It also demonstrated that it was treating both parties equally in asking that their cameras did not point toward each other’s homes.
However, given the longstanding dispute about CCTV cameras it is not known why the landlord did not consider alternative solutions. It could have contacted the police to arrange joint visits, contacted the ICO for advice, or considered an injunction or acceptable behaviour contract between the parties. It did not demonstrate utilising the full toolkit of methods, legal and non-legal, as suggested in its ASB policy. The resident told us that the neighbourhood is not a high crime area. It could, therefore, have considered the need for CCTV and revoking permission as set out in the tenancy agreement.
Following the landlord’s final response the evidence shows that the dispute continued up to October 2024. The resident told us that the cameras and security light remain. While we appreciate it would have been challenging for the landlord to manage the allegations and counter allegations in an ongoing neighbour dispute, it failed to provide a permanent solution to the matter. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint.
For the above reasons we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay to the resident the sum of £100 which is in line with our remedies guidance as set out above. We have also made orders for the landlord to confirm its position to both parties and set out what actions it proposes to take to permanently resolve the matter.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
There were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its stage 1 response was 28 working days after the resident raised her complaint, and 18 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, the landlord provided its stage 2 response 28 working days later, and 8 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
The landlord’s responses did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in providing its responses. It did not demonstrate any learning from its complaint handling or offer and redress. For these reasons, we have made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident the sum of £50 which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully put them right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
2. Reports about CCTV cameras and a security light installed by a neighbour.
3. Associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay to the resident the sum of £200 broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for distress and inconvenience for the failings identified in its handling of the ASB.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience for failing to provide a permanent solution to the ongoing dispute about CCTV.
  3. £50 for time and trouble for its complaint handling failures.
2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
3. Write to both parties and confirm what action it will take in relation to the CCTV cameras and security light. It must specify the action and timescale and any consequences for non-compliance.
4. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.