Home Group Limited (202436012)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy that the landlord asked her to remove her doorbell camera and other cameras pointing towards communal spaces. She explained she has fibromyalgia and feels unsafe because of ongoing disputes with her neighbours.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s request for the resident to remove cameras from her home. We have also considered its handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Request for the resident to remove cameras from her home.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

Request for the resident to remove cameras from her home

4. The landlord’s response was in accordance with the tenancy agreement.

Handling of the complaint

5. The landlord responded in line with its complaints policy.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident asked for clarity about recording in public places without consent where ASB is concerned. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to assess and determine privacy issues. However, we can assess how the landlord responded to her concerns. She may wish to seek advice from the ICO.
8. The landlord’s final complaint response also addressed the resident’s concerns about the use of the communal garden. She has not referred this aspect of the complaint to us. As such, we have focussed this investigation on the landlord’s response to the cameras.
9. The resident asked us to consider how the landlord handled her request for a management move. She also told us about dissatisfaction with the correspondence she had with it in November 2025. We have seen no evidence that she raised a new complaint about these matters or completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. As it has not had the opportunity to formally respond to her concerns, we have not investigated this further.

What we have considered

10. The tenancy agreement states that residents may only make alterations or improvements if they do not damage the structure or services and have the landlord’s written consent. It also prohibits altering or adding to the premises, including fixtures and fittings, without prior written consent.
11. The landlord’s alterations process requires all home improvement requests, regardless of size, to be referred to its legal services team for individual assessment. This demonstrates a formal approach to managing alterations.
12. There is no evidence that the resident submitted a formal request for the installation of cameras. We acknowledge that she advised her ring doorbell was positioned using tape rather than drilling. However, the landlord was entitled to enforce its requirement for prior consent, particularly given the ongoing dispute between her and her neighbour.
13. The landlord’s guidance warns that home CCTV can infringe on others’ privacy in shared spaces and residents must not use it to harass, intimidate, or cause nuisance. It treats misuse as a housing management issue under its ASB procedure. It has not provided a copy of its ASB procedure to us.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about ASB and explained that it interviewed all the tenants in the block. It concluded that most reports did not meet the ASB threshold and described some actions by the resident and certain neighbours as “tit for tat.” This approach was reasonable and demonstrates it investigated the resident’s concerns.
15. To resolve matters, the landlord offered independent mediation and a good neighbour agreement. It also explained that it would not grant permission for doorbell cameras for the resident or her neighbour because of the small communal space and that both cameras pointed at each other’s doors. It did advise that if both parties agreed to each other’s cameras, it would “consider a request for permission”. It appears the neighbour disagreed, and it therefore requested removal of both cameras. The landlord does not have to permit cameras where it cannot mitigate privacy risks or where they exacerbate neighbour disputes.
16. The landlord further advised that the resident could not have a camera directed at the street, as she was not using it to monitor her own property or for any other lawful purpose. It asked her to reposition the device. The ICO is responsible for regulating and enforcing the Data Protection Act. It is the responsibility of the owner of CCTV equipment to adhere to relevant legislation. It would have been helpful to have directed her to the ICO to gain clarity about her responsibilities.
17. On 14 June 2024, the landlord reiterated its position in writing, stating that it would not normally grant permission for cameras in blocks of flats due to the intrusive nature of doorbell cameras in shared areas. It noted again that the resident had installed her camera in a confined space, and it was facing her neighbour’s door. It issued a warning letter for breach of tenancy and repeated its removal request.
18. The landlord explained to us that both of the flat doors face each other, allowing direct visibility and recording into the other flat when one door opens. It had to balance privacy concerns from other tenants against the resident’s safety concerns. This was a complex issue requiring proportionality and sensitivity. It demonstrated that it treated both parties equally.
19. The resident reported medical needs, including periods of being bedbound and difficulties managing parcels and visitors. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment or considered reasonable adjustments. We have made a recommendation in relation to this. We recognise it later sought professional advice to see if there were any support agencies it could direct her to. It also approved a management move, which demonstrates consideration of her circumstances.
20. The resident said the landlord allowed another neighbour on a different floor to install a doorbell camera. This raises a consistency concern and conflicts with the information of 14 June 2024, where it stated it would not normally grant permission for cameras in blocks of flats. The landlord explained that it makes decisions case by case and it could not discuss other situations due to data protection. While this was a proportionate response, the resident’s perception of unfairness is understandable. That said, its request for her doorbell camera to be removed appears to have related to the dispute and counter allegations with the neighbour.
21. The landlord provided inconsistent references to tenancy clauses and processes. In its stage 1 letter, it advised the resident that requests for video recording equipment would be reviewed under its adaptations process. Later, its warning letters cited different tenancy clauses, clause 4.6(a) in June 2024 and clause 3.16(a) in November 2025. While both clauses require landlord consent, this inconsistency caused confusion. However, this does not change the overall outcome.
22. We find that the landlord’s response for both parties to remove the doorbell cameras was reasonable to resolve the ongoing dispute. It was entitled to require prior consent and there is no evidence that the resident sought such consent. It acted proportionately by reviewing its corporate position on CCTV, seeking legal advice, and considering the location and privacy implications of the cameras. It communicated its position on several occasions and offered mediation and a good neighbour agreement to resolve tensions.

23. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without valid justification.
24. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy aligned with the Code’s definition of a complaint, and its timescales complied with the Code. The landlord issued both stage 1 and stage 2 responses within these timescales.
25. In its communication with this Service, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response may have caused frustration to the resident because it did not fully explain its rationale and decision-making. The landlord advised that it has since implemented service improvements, including:
    1. introducing a new system to monitor resident contact with housing management teams
    2. updating internal guidance to ensure complaint responses are evidence-based and linked to policy
    3. implementing a new CRM system to log and track complaints
    4. embedding a learning review process to identify opportunities for early intervention.
26. We agree that the stage 1 response fell short of good practice because it lacked sufficient explanation. This likely caused unnecessary frustration for the resident. While it was a shortcoming in its complaints provision, it has acknowledged this and taken meaningful steps to improve its processes. This is an appropriate and proportionate response in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

28. The landlord provided inconsistent references to tenancy clauses and processes. It ought to ensure consistency in its communication.