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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202320307)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320307

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 February 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:
    1. Resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s closed circuit television (CCTV).
    2. Resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2015. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat in an over 55’s scheme. The landlord was aware the resident had physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. In 2022, the resident told the landlord she was being disturbed by the people in the flat above her and raised concerns over the number of people staying there. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord she was not happy that her neighbour had put up CCTV which was focused on her front door and car. The landlord installed noise recording equipment during this month. In August 2023, the resident reported 4 further concerns about the noise from the neighbour and the CCTV. This included the bathroom fan being left on for 3 days and nights, constant banging, and a buzzing noise. The resident also approached her local MP to seek a resolution.
  3. The landlord responded to the MP on 6 September 2023. It said this was an ongoing investigation. The neighbour had an informal agreement to have people staying twice a week and people were not living in the property but staying there. The landlord advised it was day to day living noise. It had spoken to the neighbour twice concerning the problems the resident had reported. As it had been unable to prove the allegations, it arranged mediation. The landlord had agreed to limit the CCTV’s field of vision with a ‘digital shield’. The landlord provided the resident with the Noise App and noise recording equipment but received no recordings. The resident had said it had been a quiet period.    
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 September 2023. This concerned its handling of her ASB reports and the location of the neighbour’s CCTV. The landlord did not uphold her complaints in its stage 1 response. After receiving this, the resident emailed the landlord to request contact to discuss this further. The landlord said it would be in touch in 2 working days. When the resident did not hear back, she sent 2 further emails. The landlord had since noted these were to closed email addresses. It said the resident would have received notifications this would not be responded to. The resident asked the Ombudsman for help to escalate her complaint. We asked the landlord to do this on 3 April 2024.
  5. In its final resolution letter dated 10 April 2024, the landlord:
    1. Did not uphold the CCTV complaint. It stated it was not responsible for the neighbour’s CCTV, and it had worked with agencies to amend the field of vision. It said it would continue to ask the neighbour to reposition the CCTV. 
    2. Upheld the complaint about its ASB handling. It found it had not followed its policy and procedure and its case management was poor. It did not clearly communicate with the resident, and it should have considered the effect on the resident, including her specific vulnerabilities. It said it provided ongoing training for its caseworkers and would draw attention to the ASB failings with the management team. It would also investigate the resident’s allegations about the neighbour’s subletting and tenancy fraud. The resident had a caseworker who would establish an action plan with her. It offered £500 compensation for the resident’s time and inconvenience in pursuing this matter and its failure to investigate the ASB reports in line with its policy.
    3. Upheld the resident’s concerns around its communication and complaint handling. It recognised its communication was poor and that it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint contrary to its service standards. It also recognised it had not responded to the resident’s call back request due to incorrectly logging the contact. It offered £200 compensation for these failings.
  6. After initially being satisfied with this response, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 16 June 2024. She remains dissatisfied and continues to report issues with her neighbour. She would like the landlord to deal with her reports of ASB as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Handling of CCTV

  1. The landlord appropriately worked with the police regarding the CCTV and involved them when it could not decide if the ‘digital shield’ was adequate or not. It had previously referred the resident and neighbour to mediation, which was appropriate in the circumstances. It also organised for the ‘digital shield’ to be applied and visited the neighbour regarding the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident originally complained to the landlord that the CCTV inappropriately overlooked areas of the communal gardens and affected her family’s privacy. She said that assurances the landlord had given to her MP were incorrect. These were that the CCTV had been adjusted and now had a digital shield restricting its field of view to only that which it was allowed to cover.
  3. In its first complaint response, the landlord repeated its view that the CCTV was now appropriately focused, but said it was seeking further assurances from the police and would keep the resident informed. Given that the landlord had not received any evidence supporting the resident’s concern, its response at that point was not unreasonable. However, no evidence of an update from the police has been seen, or of the landlord following the issue up with them.
  4. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s escalation request, as she had wanted to discuss this with the landlord. However, she repeatedly said that the CCTV was still affecting her family’s privacy.
  5. The landlord addressed this in its final resolution letter. It said it did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint. While it was not responsible for the neighbour’s CCTV, it had worked with the neighbour and the police to try to achieve a resolution. The landlord confirmed it would continue to request the neighbour reposition the CCTV. The landlord said it could not enforce any issue concerning the CCTV. It noted the resident had contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which would have been its recommendation.
  6. The landlord correctly identified it was not responsible for the neighbour’s CCTV. It appropriately adopted a role mediating between the parties and involving agencies, where necessary. It appropriately referred the resident to the ICO. It was reasonable, given the steps it had taken, for the landlord not to uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, it has not shown it met the promises it made in both complaint responses. These were to seek assurances from the police and to continue to work with the neighbour regarding the CCTV repositioning. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV. It has therefore been ordered to apologise to and pay her £75 compensation to recognise this. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation to award £50 to £100 for such service failures.

ASB and noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s policy states it does not consider day to day living noises, which are not excessive or unreasonable, as ASB. In line with this, the fan, banging, and buzzing noises the resident experienced may not have been ASB if they took place during the day. However, the resident clearly stated she repeatedly experienced these during the night/early hours of the morning. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to assess whether the noises were excessive or unreasonable. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this. Therefore, the landlord was not able to definitively state if the neighbour was excessive or unreasonable with their day to day living noises.
  2. The landlord advised that the resident did not make any recordings when noise recording equipment was installed for 2 weeks in June 2023. The resident said there was no noise made during this period. She said she believed the landlord had warned the neighbour of the dates the equipment was going in. We have no evidence to support this allegation. Appropriately, the landlord offered to install noise recording equipment again. This was a practical and reasonable way to attempt to establish the level and reasonableness of any noise.
  3. The resident made repeated allegations to the landlord that it was not interested in the incident logs she had kept. A reasonable response to this would be for the landlord to ask to see the incident logs or, if it had the logs, to reassure her it was looking at these. We have not seen evidence this was done. This is consistent with a common theme identified in the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on noise report when residents do not feel listened to. This often occurs when landlords are not clear on how the noise reports and evidence will be used.
  4. We have not seen evidence the landlord received the resident’s incident logs. Without any consistent evidence showing whether the noise the resident experienced was excessive or unreasonable, the landlord cannot reasonably progress the issue. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will close a case if it does not receive evidence of the reported issue. However, the resident reported keeping incident logs and we do not know why the landlord did not assess these.
  5. In its final resolution letter, the landlord advised it had received increased contact from the resident which it had been unable to respond to in its published timeframes. The landlord awarded £100 for its poor communications. We are concerned this appears to level the blame at the resident for the landlord not being able to respond in line with its policy.
  6. The landlords final resolution letter also acknowledged it had not followed its ASB policy and procedure. This included not completing risk assessments, meeting service standards, or communicating clearly with the resident. The landlord further identified it should have considered the effect on the resident, including her specific vulnerabilities. The landlord was fully aware of the resident’s medical conditions. She provided it with a medical letter in May 2023 outlining the effect the situation was having on her. Her partner was also an effective advocate. The landlord therefore correctly assessed that it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  7. As a remedy in its final resolution letter, the landlord stated it would open a tenancy fraud case. We have not seen evidence the landlord informed the resident it was progressing this. The landlord took 6 months to inform the resident it had closed the case, saying there was no evidence the neighbour had anyone permanently living with them. We recognise this can be a lengthy process. However, even if there is no update, we would expect landlords to keep residents informed. Additionally, the landlord stated it would continue to work with the resident and establish an action plan, we have not seen evidence this was done.
  8. The resident showed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s progression of the promises it made in its final resolution letter by asking us to reopen her complaint. She stated the landlord had said there was nothing it could do. The resident had not seen any evidence the landlord had spoken with the neighbour, who she said now had 2 people living in the property. She reported being woken at night by the neighbour taking showers, putting the washing machine on, and leaving the extractor fan on throughout the night. In addition, she was frustrated the landlord had not asked for her incident logs.
  9. The landlord in its final resolution letter did not fully identify the failings in its handling of the ASB. It did not recognise it had not assessed whether the noise was excessive or unreasonable. It also did not identify it had not asked to see the resident’s incident logs. The remedies and £500 compensation were awarded for the failings the landlord identified in it causing the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience in pursuing the matter and failing to investigate her reports in line with its policy. In addition to the £100 for its poor communications. This was within the range of compensation recommended by our remedies guidance for such failures that adversely affected the resident. As it did not identify the above further failures and progress the ASB case as promised in the final resolution letter, however, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  10. The landlord has therefore been ordered to apologise to and pay the resident another £100 compensation to recognise this. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation to award £50 to £100 for such service failures. The landlord has also been ordered to contact the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss and investigate her outstanding ASB and noise nuisance concerns in line with its policy, seek her incident logs, and agree an action plan to try and resolve these.

Complaint handling

  1. In its final resolution letter, the landlord noted it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint in the 2 working days as outlined in its complaints policy and procedure. The landlord also noted it did not escalate the complaint to final resolution stage because it did not call the resident back. It was only when we contacted to request it escalated the complaint that it did so. The landlord recognised this failing and offered the resident £100 compensation for this poor complaint handling. This was appropriate given the length of time this held up the complaint process for the resident. We find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. This is because the landlord’s £100 compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of £50 to £100 compensation to recognise such failures leading to delays in getting matters resolved. We have therefore recommended it pay her the previous award of £100 if this has not been paid to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failures identified by this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £775. If the previous award of £600 has been paid to the resident, the landlord is to pay £175. We have used our remedies guidance to arrive at these figures. This is broken down into:
      1. £600 compensation award previously made.
      2. £75 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV.
      3. £100 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss and investigate her outstanding ASB and noise nuisance concerns in line with its policy, seek her incident logs, and agree an action plan to try and resolve these.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 compensation award for poor complaint handling it previously offered her if this has not been paid to her.