Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202324558)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324558

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

12 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of and response to:
    1. her reports of faulty external communal area lighting, including the level of communication.
    2. her request for CCTV footage.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. Her lease commenced in May 2005 and her property is a ground floor, 2-bedroom flat in a block. There is a communal green area outside the block lit by 2 bollards adjacent to the resident’s patio.
  2. The resident requested, on 11 July 2023, the landlord to review CCTV footage of the block between 1pm and 5.30pm on 10 July 2023. She referred to a burglar but did not give a description.
  3. From 24 July 2023, the resident reported that there was no lighting in the green area.
  4. On 2 August 2023, the resident complained that there had been no lighting in the green area for over 2 weeks. She also stated there was an intruder who knew the code to the block who had been stealing parcels. She believed she saw him in her garden on 17 July 2023. She complained she had received no response to her request for the CCTV footage to be examined. The resident raised other complaints with her landlord at the time, but has only brought these 2 complaints to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 15 August 2023:
    1. It stated it raised a repair job for the bollard light and its contractor completed the works on 7 August 2023. It confirmed that the works were not an emergency repair. It also apologised for its communication.
    2. The landlord further confirmed the CCTV system had not been reviewed as it had no internal cameras. Therefore, it would have no footage of anyone taking the parcel. It only had external cameras that covered the entrance and exits, and the car park. The landlord accepted it should have told the resident this in response to her original email.
    3. It offered £250 in respect of its failings in communication.
  6. On 8 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She accepted, after works carried out, the external communal lights came on at 7pm. However, she noted it was dark at 6am and asked what time they were programmed to turn off. She also contended the landlord should have reviewed the external cameras to see who was entering and exiting the building when packages had been stolen.
  7. On 3 October 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
    1. It noted that it originally repaired the lighting on 7 August 2023. After the resident’s report on 24 August 2023, it tested and confirmed all lights were working that day. On 8 September 2023, the resident reported the lights had not been working all week. After she advised the lights were working at 7pm, it then arranged for the timer to be adjusted. It did not uphold the complaint as although there were separate breakdowns, it responded in a timely and appropriate manner.
    2. It noted it had advised the resident it only had external cameras covering the entrance, exits and car park. Therefore, it would not have any footage of the parcel theft. After the resident enquired on 8 September 2023, it confirmed it had not reviewed the external cameras in response to the theft. Now, the footage would be lost due to the time elapsed. It upheld the complaint as it should have checked the external camera footage when the resident reported the theft.
    3. The panel recommended:
      1. the landlord takes a more thorough approach when assessing which CCTV cameras could capture potentially useful images following antisocial behaviour (ASB) or criminal behaviour. This included a reminder to staff to review all relevant cameras in the area under investigation.
      2. the landlord pays the resident an additional £250 for not checking the external cameras when she raised the issue.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2023. She stated:
    1. the landlord had not resolved her complaint about no lights in the communal green area.
    2. she had exchanged 7 emails, but the landlord had not reviewed the CCTV.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to the Ombudsman that she only considers the issues defined above to be unresolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the 2 issues that remains outstanding.

Communal lights

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that “where we are the freeholder, these are normally to repair and maintain – The estate”. This confirms its responsibility to repair communal lights. The policy further states “non-emergencies are those “repairs that do not pose an immediate threat to people or the building, including,…” The landlord should respond within 14 days.
  2. On 24 July 2023, the resident reported that there was no lighting in the green area for over a week. She made a further report on 28 July 2023. The landlord asked her to confirm, on 1 August 2023, if the lights had been repaired, and if not, what lights were not working. In response, she confirmed it was the bollards on the green. It is not clear why the landlord asked if the lights had been fixed when it had not yet raised a repair. It would appear that this caused the resident frustration as she stated in her response this was her fifth report. In her complaint the following day, she stated she had made 7 reports including one in person and one to the out of hours service.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 7 August 2023 and replaced lamps in 2 bollards. This response was within the timeframe for non-emergency repairs, following the report of 24 July 2023, and therefore adequately prompt. The landlord managed the resident’s expectation in the stage 1 complaint response by explaining it was not an emergency repair. The landlord also apologised that its communication was not better. This was both in providing reassurance on when the repair would be done, and in the subsequent conversation the resident had with a repairs officer. It thereby recognised shortcomings in its communication and offered redress.
  4. The resident made a further report on 24 August 2023. The landlord subsequently raised a repair order to “communal lights are not working on the rear of property, … side”. The contractor attended that day. It reported that there were no lights out at the block and provided photos. It noted that half the lights were on sensors and half on a timeclock. It tested both and all lights were working. The resident reported on 31 August 2023 that a bollard on the left side in the green was not working. The landlord recalled its contractor, which visited the next day. It found all bollard lights working and sent photos. Again, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the lights were in good repair after receiving the resident’s reports. Its responses was prompt, within the required timeframe.
  5. On 8 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as the light issue was unresolved. She accepted the external communal lights came on at 7pm but asked what time they were programmed to turn off as it was dark at 6am all week. The landlord agreed to adjust the timer clock that day. The landlord thereby took appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns about when the lights that were on a timer would be working. There is no evidence that the resident raised further concerns about periods of darkness.
  6. In summary, on each occasion the resident reported lights were out, the landlord completed works to meet its repair obligation. It responded within the timeframe for non-emergency repairs. It adjusted the timing of lights to resolve the resident’s concerns about darkness in the early morning. It also recognised that it could have communicated better in respect of the first repair request. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord.

CCTV

  1. The landlord has stated that it does not have monitored CCTV due to the resource implications required to review hours of footage each time an incident is reported. The CCTV at the resident’s block is a “legacy” system which it cannot access directly. It therefore has to commission a contractor. It downloads footage and investigates when it receives a specific request from the police, local authority, or insurance provider.
  2. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with details of her email exchanges with the landlord. She stated she wrote on 10 July 2023 at 6.58pm and 11 July 2023 at 1.40am to ask for the CCTV footage between 1.00pm and 5.30pm on 10 July 2023. She said the landlord in response to her email of 10 July 2023 told her on 12 July 2023 its Community Safety Team would respond but it did not. The resident further stated she emailed back twice on 14 July 2023 to say that she had been burgled and to ask what images had been found. In response the landlord confirmed its ASB team would let her know what it had found on CCTV.
  3. The landlord does not have an obligation to review CCTV footage at the request of residents. It is reasonable that it considers the resource implications in doing so, in particular when there is nothing specific to look for. In this case, the resident did not provide a description therefore it may not have been possible to identify a perpetrator. Furthermore, the landlord should be mindful of its statutory obligations regarding data protection. This includes disclosing information about individuals to third parties, such as the resident.
  4. It is to the benefit of customers for the landlord to co-operate with other organisations that may request it to review its CCTV. Examples include agencies investigating crimes or insurance claims. In fact, the landlord has said it is its practice to co-operate. However, despite the resident referring to a crime, there is no evidence other organisations contacted the landlord about reviewing CCTV footage. There was therefore no failure by the landlord to co-operate with other agencies.
  5. While the landlord may not have had an obligation to review the CCTV, it needed to manage the resident’s expectations. The Ombudsman has not seen all the emails listed by the resident; however, there is evidence that the landlord received her request (of 11 July 2023) but did not provide a substantive response. The resident, in fact, has stated that the landlord told her on 14 July 2023 that it would review the CCTV and let her know the outcome. This indicates that the landlord raised her expectations but did not follow thorough on its promised actions.
  6. In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it did not review the CCTV as it only had external cameras. By not making this clear at the time of her request, the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations on how it was responding.
  7. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident contended that the landlord should nonetheless review the external cameras. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that the system stores footage for 25 days. Therefore, it could not review the CCTV at the time of the stage 2 request. The resident has stated the landlord only made her aware of this when she chased up her request on 19 September 2023. This confirms the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset on how long it retained footage. As a consequence, the resident lost the opportunity to explore other options, such as asking the police to make the request.
  8. In the stage 2 response, the landlord’s complaints panel decided that it should have checked the (external) CCTV cameras. It awarded the resident £250 compensation. This is in addition to the proportion of the stage 1 award that was for the CCTV issue. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  9. In this case, there were failings by the landlord, in particular with respect to its communication. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that where there is “service failure [that] caused disturbance and/or distress”, and it has “full” responsibility, it can pay £250 compensation. In this case, the landlord’s offer exceeded this amount. Given that the landlord was not obliged to check the CCTV, the Ombudsman considers the landlord offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the complaint. The finding reflects there were failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledged and compensated for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.
  10. The information provided to the Ombudsman indicates the landlord paid the resident the compensation offered at each stage of the complaints procedure, which totalled £500. However, the finding of reasonable redress is contingent on the compensation award. We therefore recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation awarded within the complaints process if it is in fact the case it has not already done so.
  11. The panel decided that the landlord should check all relevant cameras in an area under investigation. This differs to the practice outline by the landlord to the Ombudsman. We therefore recommend that it considers drafting a formal CCTV policy so there is clarity for all stakeholders and consistency of practice. In particular, the policy should address how to respond to requests to review and provide footage.
  12. The resident has also referred to emails that have not been provided by the landlord. This indicates there may be an issue retaining and/or retrieving and/or linking correspondence that may be relevant to an Ombudsman investigation. We therefore recommend that the landlord review its record keeping with a particular focus on ensuring it responds fully to Ombudsman information requests.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of faulty external communal area lighting.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress prior to investigation which resolved her complaint about its response to her request for CCTV footage satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:
    1. the landlord pays the resident the compensation awarded within the complaints process, £500, if it is in fact the case that it has not already done so.
    2. the landlord considers drafting a formal CCTV policy so there is clarity and consistency of practice. In particular, the policy should address how to respond to requests to review and provide footage.
    3. the landlord reviews its record keeping with a particular focus on ensuring it responds fully to Ombudsman information requests.