Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202318731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318731

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

5 March 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).
2. Concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a flat which began in February 2015.
The landlord is a housing association. It owns both the resident’s flat and her neighbour’s flat.
There has been on-going ASB between the resident and her neighbour for several years. This investigation will look at the resident’s reports of ASB from May 2023 as these events are what triggered her complaint.
On 17 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she was being racially harassed by her neighbour and their husband. She said they moved her bin and filmed her on their phones. She had reported it to the police.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2023 about the on-going issues with her neighbour. She said she did not feel safe. She asked the landlord to tell her neighbour to move her CCTV and not touch her parcels, letters or bins. She said she would not engage in mediation. She also raised a safeguarding concern about the neighbour’s mother who lives with them.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It would not address any historic issues as it had addressed these in its complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman had an open case to investigate her previous complaint.
2. It spoke to the neighbour who denied moving the bin. It did not have any evidence on who moved the bin so it could not take any further action. The police said they would not take any action.
3. It told the neighbour about the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) guidelines and she should reposition her camera away from the resident’s front door. It will continue to liaise with the neighbour. The resident can report the issue to the ICO.
4. It told the neighbour her husband’s behaviour was causing the resident distress.
5. All parties should refrain from using phones to film each other as this was escalating the situation.
6. The resident had reported the smell of cannabis. It had not seen any evidence of people smoking illegal drugs. It asked the resident to report any incidents.
7. The resident should record any noise nuisance using diary sheets so it could investigate.
8. It had taken appropriate action about the concerns she raised about the neighbour’s mother.
9. It would continue to monitor the situation and work with the police to ensure the safety of all residents.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 June 2023. She said she wanted the landlord to:
1. Install individual post boxes for each flat.
2. Improve its communication.
3. Tell her neighbour to not touch her bins.
4. Provide her with footage from the neighbour’s CCTV.
5. Address the noise nuisance from her neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2023. It partially upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It would install individual post boxes.
2. On 1 August 2023 it set up a new customer service team to improve its communication with residents. It set up a single point of contact for the resident.
3. It planned to form a complaints panel and asked the resident if she would like to join.
4. It would write to all residents within the block of flats to ask them not to touch each other’s bins.
5. The ICO letter the resident provided does not say that the landlord should assist the resident to get the camera footage from the neighbour.
6. Residents must have a reasonable tolerance level around their neighbours’ lifestyles. It can investigate if the noise becomes unreasonable if the resident provides evidence such as diary sheets. The resident has said the diary sheets are outdated, she did not want to use the noise app and refused mediation. It asked the resident to review her decision not to engage with these options and work with it to resolve the situation.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

On 8 September 2023 the resident asked to activate a community trigger. This enables a victim of persistent ASB to request a case review of their complaints. She said the landlord had not followed up an investigation or issued any penalties to her neighbour for their CCTV since June 2023.
Between November 2023 and April 2024, the landlord attended monthly community multi agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC). On 8 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident with an outcome of its ASB investigation and said the outcome was inconclusive due to insufficient evidence. It asked the resident and her neighbour to sign acceptable behaviour contracts and to agree to stop filming each other.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she felt the landlord had not taken steps to resolve the issues with her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised issues to the landlord about her neighbour for several years. We carried out an investigation under the reference 202112905 of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between June 2021 and February 2022. This investigation will not consider historic ASB issues. We will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issues the resident raised in her complaint between May and August 2023. If the resident is concerned about the landlord’s handling of more recent ASB reports, she would need to raise a formal complaint with the landlord.
It is not our role to decide whether ASB or noise nuisance has occurred or who is responsible. We will investigate whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB and noise in line with its policies and procedures, and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident and his household. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident and his household’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

We find no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s ASB policy states once a case is open it will carry out a risk assessment and investigate within a timely manner. It will use action plans and support the resident to gather evidence of the ASB.
On 17 May 2023 the resident reported ASB and racial harassment from the neighbour to the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident and the neighbour the same day to discuss the issues reported. It was reasonable that the landlord told both the resident and the neighbour to stop filming each other on their phones and to only take action when there was anti-social or threatening behaviour.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss an action plan. No evidence was provided that the landlord followed this up with a written acknowledgement. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to show its understanding of the resident’s concerns and set expectations for both the landlord and resident. It also would have given the resident the chance to correct any misunderstandings and provide further information or evidence.
The landlord did not provide any evidence it carried out a risk assessment. However, the resident had been reporting ASB from her neighbour for a number of years. The evidence provided shows the landlord was constantly reviewing the situation and had made enquiries with third parties in April 2023 to consider the risks involved. The landlord should keep records of its risk assessments, and ensure they are updated throughout the ASB case.
The resident continued to report ASB and noise nuisance from the neighbour and her husband between May and August 2023. The evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s reports within a reasonable time. The landlord provided updates to the resident, stating what action it had taken and that it had liaised with the police.
In its stage 1 response the landlord made it clear it could not take any enforcement action against the neighbour for moving her bins, due to the lack of evidence. It said it had told the neighbour that her husband’s behaviour was causing the resident distress and would continue to monitor the situation. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident to not approach the neighbour or her husband and if she felt threatened to report this to the police.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide evidence of the noise nuisance so it could investigate the issues. The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets and gave her access to their noise phone app. In August 2023 it met with the resident and explained when it could and could not get involved with neighbour disputes over noise. It also made this clear in its stage 2 complaint response. There was no evidence the resident returned the diary sheets or used the noise app.
Throughout the complaint the landlord asked the resident to consider mediation with her neighbour. Although the resident told the landlord she would not consider mediation when making her complaint. It was acting in line with its ASB policy. It showed it wanted to help the resident to improve her relationship with the neighbour.
The evidence showed there was a significant amount of contact from the resident to the landlord. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that the volume and different communication methods she used made it difficult for it to respond effectively. The relationship between both parties had broken down. The landlord tried to remedy this by asking to meet the resident face to face and provided her with a single point of contact. The landlord also asked the resident to minimise her contact to once a week. The resident refused to engage with any of the landlord’s requests.
After the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord kept the ASB case open whilst it attended MARAC meetings for 6 months. It asked the resident to submit further evidence and maintained regular communication with the resident and the neighbour. To try to resolve the ASB it installed a personal post box for the resident, continued to offer mediation and asked all parties to sign a 6-month acceptable behaviour contract.
In summary the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. It communicated well with the resident and managed her expectations. The landlord took appropriate steps to try to rebuild its relationship with the resident and resolve the ASB.
We have included a recommendation that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices, especially around risk assessments.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbours CCTV

We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbours CCTV. The reasons for my findings are below.
On 30 May 2023 the resident told the landlord the neighbour had installed a camera and it was pointing at her front door. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 1 June 2023 to discuss the issue. In line with its ASB policy the landlord contacted the resident on 9 June 2023 to update her on its plan of action.
Between 1 and 19 June the landlord contacted the neighbour several times to ask them to remove or reposition their CCTV. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the neighbour by phone and email and also sending a warning letter when they did not comply.
The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the ICO guidelines relating to domestic CCTV to the neighbour. In its stage 1 complaint response it said it would continue to speak to the neighbour about repositioning their CCTV. It said if the neighbour refused to move their CCTV it would take enforcement action to remove it.
The resident reported her neighbour to the ICO in July 2023. The ICO wrote to the resident on 26 July 2023. It said it would advise the neighbour of their obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). But it could not tell the neighbour to remove or reposition their CCTV.
On 8 Augst 2023 the resident asked the landlord to give her footage from her neighbour’s camera. It is not within our role to say whether the resident is entitled to the footage from her neighbour’s CCTV, this would be determined by the ICO. The landlord acted reasonably by telling the resident in its stage 2 response that there was nothing in the ICO’s letter that mentioned or instructed the landlord to take any action. However, the landlord could have explained to the resident why it could not obtain or provide her footage from the neighbours CCTV. This may have prevented the resident from repeatedly asking for the footage.
The police contacted the landlord on 27 July 2023 and said the resident had told them about the neighbours CCTV. The police said there was no offences and it would not be taking any action. It asked the landlord to provide an update on the steps it was taking. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the police until November 2023 during a monthly community MARAC meetings.
The landlord failed to discuss the position of the neighbour’s CCTV in its stage 2 complaint response. On 18 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to reposition or move her neighbour’s CCTV. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to keep the resident updated on the action it was taking. It did not provide the resident with a timescale on when it would consider enforcement action as promised in its stage 1 complaint response. This was not customer focused.
After the landlord’s internal complaints procedure it attended monthly community MARAC meeting between November 2023 and April 2024. In April 2024 it was decided that the resident and the neighbour should sign acceptable behaviour contracts to say they would stop filming each other. The landlord’s records states an outcome of the MARAC meetings was that it would seek legal advice to check if the neighbour’s camera could be removed. Although taking legal action would always be the last resort. This was 10 months after the landlord told the resident it would consider legal action if the neighbour did not reposition their camera.
In summary the landlord responded quickly to the residents concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV. It initially communicated well with the resident and the neighbour. However, after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it was not pro-active in trying to resolve the issue. Although the landlord tried to get the resident to engage in mediation, there was no evidence it took any further action about the neighbour’s CCTV until April 2024. When it agreed to seek legal advice. At the time of this investigation it is unclear if the neighbour had repositioned or removed their CCTV.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

We find no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2023 to discuss her complaint. It acknowledged the complaint in writing on 8 June 2023, which was within its target timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2023. This was within the landlord’s target timescale of 10 working days.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 July 2023 and 28 July 2023. The landlord’s records show it did not pick up the resident’s escalation until 28 July 2023, it said this was due to the general inbox the resident sent her initial email to. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2023 to acknowledge the escalation and discuss the complaint, this was just outside its target timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 August 2023, which was within the extended timescale agreed with the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for an extension in order to meet with the resident at her home. This was customer focused. It showed the landlord wanted to resolve the complaint and improve its relationship with the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses responded to all the resident’s complaint issues. The landlord was empathetic to the resident’s situation. It clearly explained the actions it was taking to resolve the complaint and provide the outcome the resident asked for. It also made it clear what the resident needed to do.
In summary, there was small delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation. However, the landlord communicated effectively with the resident and it managed her expectations well. The landlord investigated all of the resident’s complaint issues and listened to the outcomes she wanted. It showed it wanted to put things right and showed it had learnt from the complaint.

Determination

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbours CCTV (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV.
3. Contact the resident and discuss whether the neighbour’s CCTV is still pointing at the resident’s front door. If it is, it must provide a written response to the resident and this service on what action it is taking to resolve this issue.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its practices in relation to risk assessments. It should ensure its staff are trained to recognise when they need completing, updating, and are keeping accurate records.
The landlord should consider producing guidance or a policy on resident’s installing their own CCTV. This will assist the landlord to set resident’s expectations and provide its staff with the knowledge on what action it can take to resolve disputes quickly.