First Garden Cities Homes Limited (202336055)

Decision
Case ID	202336055
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	First Garden Cities Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	9 December 2025

Background

The resident reported Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)to the landlord and supplied it with footage from her external CCTV cameras. The landlord referred the ASB matter to the police. It subsequently asked the resident to remove all but two of her CCTV cameras.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
2. The landlord’s decision to ask the resident to remove CCTV cameras.

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to ask the resident to remove CCTV cameras.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord followed its ASB policy. It appropriately worked alongside the police in how it responded to the reported ASB and took action once the perpetrator had been identified. It was reasonable in how it managed the resident’s expectations and appropriately advised it could not investigate alleged crimes.
The landlord reasonably considered the resident’s circumstances in her request to keep the CCTV cameras. It was appropriate for the landlord to write a policy to cover its position on CCTV cameras to provide clarity and fairness for its tenants.
The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 November 2023	The resident made a complaint and said as follows: The landlord had not taken tenancy enforcement action against a neighbour following ASB. Another neighbour had been recorded making racist comments. The landlord had not investigated this. The landlord had given the resident verbal permission to install CCTV on the property. The CCTV had cost her £850. It had subsequently asked her to remove her five cameras.
8 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
22 November 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 and said as follows: It had been working with the police and the council to resolve the reported ASB. It had advised the resident to report specific comments made about her to the police. It explained, it could not identify the individuals involved or determine whether a recorded private conversation could be used by the police. It was initially unable to take action because the perpetrator was unknown. It was only after the offender had been identified and convicted it was appropriate for it to take tenancy enforcement action by way of a closure order. There had been no further reports of ASB. It had asked all tenants to restrict use of CCTV cameras to one camera or video doorbell per household. This decision had been taken following a number of complaints from other tenants. It had given the resident permission to put up one camera. It had considered concerns she had raised about the security of the side of the property. As such, it agreed she could keep an additional camera covering this area.
4 January 2024	The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its consideration of the matter. She said as follows: The landlord had benefited from the CCTV cameras with evidence to prove ASB. A neighbour continued to be racist. She needed more than two CCTV cameras to cover the property. She believed the landlord’s position went against guidance by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The landlord had allowed a neighbour to have four CCTV cameras.
9 January 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 and said as follows: ASB It had not initially been able to identify the perpetrator of ASB. Once they had been identified it had worked with the police and the perpetrator had been convicted. It had not given a warning letter to residents about ASB. This was because it had not known at the time if the perpetrator was a tenant of the landlord. It had to let the criminal investigation take place before it could consider tenancy enforcement action. It advised the resident to contact the police about a recorded conversation she had. This was because it could not investigate alleged crime. CCTV It had not given permission to any tenant to install four CCTV cameras. As such, there was no comparison to give the basis it had treated the resident less favourably. The limit on the number of cameras was to achieve a fair balance between the wishes of different tenants. The complaint had highlighted to the landlord it would benefit from a CCTV policy. As such, it said it would draft such a policy. In the meantime, it allowed the resident’s cameras to remain.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she wanted to keep her CCTV cameras as already installed. She said if she had to remove them, the landlord should compensate her for the cost to purchase the items.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

When ASB was initially reported, the landlord did not know the identity of the perpetrator. In the circumstances, it advised resident’s to contact the police about the behaviour. The landlord’s response was in line with its ASB policy, which says it will take action against perpetrators based on evidence. Given the initial lack of identification, it was appropriate for the landlord to wait for the police to investigate, or until it received evidence which led to the identity of an offender before taking any action.
The police subsequently identified the perpetrator, which resulted in a criminal conviction. Following this, the landlord took action against the preparator’s tenancy. This was in line with its ASB policy as it was acting on evidence in the form of proof of a conviction.
The landlord explained to the resident throughout its complaints procedure why it had not been able to take enforcement action earlier. It was open with the resident about the process it had to follow in order to take action against the perpetrator. It explained why the outcome of the criminal investigation had to conclude before it could take action.
In respect of a voice recording, the landlord told the resident it thought it could be evidence of a crime. As such, it signposted the resident to the police. This was appropriate, as the police were able to investigate whether a crime had taken place. The landlord’s conclusion that it could not investigate a possible crime or decide if the recording was admissible as evidence, due to how it was gathered, was appropriate.

Complaint	The landlord’s decision to ask the resident to remove CCTV cameras
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident asked that she be permitted to keep all of her external CCTV cameras. She said their installation and use were in line with the guidance of the ICO. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer or more reasonable to seek a remedy through another procedure. In this case, we cannot consider whether the resident’s CCTV cameras comply with ICO guidance or whether they should be allowed to remain. This is something the resident may wish to seek further advice on with the ICO.

What we have investigated

The landlord explained within its stage 1 response why it had made the decision to restrict residents to just one CCTV camera or video doorbell per household. Despite this, it considered the resident’s concerns about parts of her property not being covered and permitted her to keep two cameras. This demonstrated that it had used its discretion and had considered her individual circumstances.
A senior member of the landlord’s staff met with the resident to discuss her concerns. This is evidence the landlord addressed the resident’s concern that she was being treated unfairly. It explained it had not given permission for tenants to have four cameras, as the resident had believed.
During its consideration of the complaint, the landlord identified that it would benefit from a policy to cover CCTV to consider requests fairly going forward. It was reasonable for the landlord to let the resident keep her CCTV cameras until it had confirmed its stance in its policy. The landlord also managed the resident’s expectations that it not requiring the removal of the cameras while it was considering its policy, did not mean it would permit her to keep the cameras once its policy had been established.
We have seen evidence that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord followed through with writing a policy to cover personal CCTV cameras. This demonstrated that the landlord had done more than consider this complaint in isolation. It had been proactive and taken learning from the situation. It considered and implemented the policy to provide consistency for its tenants.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time said at stage 1, it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aimed to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond in 20 working days. The landlord responded to both complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. Its responses were in line with the provisions of our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

The landlord demonstrated a proactive approach to learning and improving its services to ensure fairness and transparency for its tenants as a result of this complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was good and enabled us to carry out a full investigation.

Communication

The landlord regularly kept the resident informed during the internal complaints process. It also met with her to discuss her concerns.