Aster Group Limited (202431989)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom property. He has been reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour over several years.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. The complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

4. The landlord said it could not take action in relation to reports that a neighbour’s CCTV was pointing at his property. This is contradictory to its CCTV policy.
5. The landlord has taken steps to prevent bird feeding however it is unable to take further enforcement action. There was limited evidence of reports of verbal abuse at the time of the stage 2 response. We have found the landlord took reasonable action in response to these concerns.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

CCTV

6. The landlord’s CCTV policy allows residents to install CCTV, and it says that the resident is responsible for ensuring they are complying with data protection legislation. It says residents must consider the privacy of other residents and that if there are concerns legal obligations are not being met, it can request the removal of a resident’s CCTV. The resident reported on 8 May 2024 that the neighbour’s camera had been repositioned to face his property, some days after the landlord had asked them to move it. We consider it appropriate that the landlord asked the neighbour to reposition the camera, if it was infringing on the resident’s privacy. On receiving a report this had been repositioned again, we would expect the landlord to investigate and provide a response to the resident. We have not seen it did this.
7. During a call on 17 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that the camera was pointing at his bathroom. We would expect the landlord to investigate this and respond to the resident. It next responded regarding the camera in the stage 1 response and said it had asked the neighbour to reposition the camera. We acknowledge the landlord could not give details regarding its communications with a neighbour and consider it appropriate that the landlord requested the camera to be repositioned. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm if this action had been since the resident last reported his concerns. It did not provide this, and as such the resident has not been provided assurance that the landlord acted on the resident’s most recent reports.
8. Internal emails dated 14 June 2024 confirmed that the housing officer had visited the estate where the resident lived. It identified that the neighbour’s camera was “quite clearly pointed at an angle” towards the resident’s property. In response to the email a member of staff said it had asked the neighbour to move the camera previously. It said it could not take enforcement action and that it did not feel they should continue to respond to reports of this. However, this contradicts the landlord’s CCTV policy which says it can ask residents to remove cameras where it is concerned legal requirements are not being met. It is not our role to make a decision on whether a camera should be removed, and we recognise that there are number of factors the landlord needs to consider including the rights of all residents. However, the landlord’s comment that it could not take further action does not align with the CCTV policy. We also note that the landlord did not update the resident at this time, despite identifying that it needed to manage the resident’s expectations on what it could do in relation to the CCTV.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the camera was a crime prevention tool and did not record or store footage. It felt it had followed its policy in relation to CCTV. We consider that the landlord has taken some appropriate action, such as asking for the camera to be moved, and identifying what the camera captured in terms of footage. However, we consider that the landlord could have provided more information on how it would support the resident if the camera breached his privacy, as per its CCTV policy.

Bird feeding.

10. We have not seen anything in the resident’s tenancy agreement or landlord’s ASB policy that prevents wild birds from being fed. We recognise that there are limitations in the actions the landlord can take to prevent its residents from feeding birds.
11. The landlord has said it has installed signs on the estate not to feed birds. We are also aware that it has sent letters to residents requesting they do not do this. In it stage 1 response the landlord said it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour on a number of occasions and asked them not to feed birds. We consider the landlord has taken the necessary actions to try to stop bird feeding but that it is limited in what actions it can take.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 response has outlined its position in regard to bird feeding and provided a sufficient explanation to the resident as to why it could not take further action.
13. We note that the resident raised in his escalation that he was being charged an additional 17p a week for cleaning and asked if this was related to the bird feeding. We have not seen the landlord responded to this, and we recommend it does this.

Verbal abuse.

14. We have not seen records of verbal abuse being reported, prior to the resident making the complaint. In making the complaint, the resident reported that his neighbour had shouted at him but did not give specific details of times and dates. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it did not have evidence of verbal abuse. Its ASB policy said it will not open a new ASB case in the absence of evidence. The landlord responded appropriately at this time.
15. The landlord opened an ASB case on 17 June 2024, following a report of abuse from a neighbour.. It was appropriate to open a new ASB case, in line with its ASB policy.
16. On 21 June 2024 the landlord noted that it had a multi-agency meeting following multiple reports of ASB. It said that there was no evidence of verbal abuse and that the resident had not reported ASB to the police, which prevented progression. The landlord said it would send a letter to residents advising what it needed to progress the case, including what evidence it required. This was an appropriate action. We also consider it appropriate for the landlord to ask residents to report incidents to the police.
17. In his escalation email the resident advised that he had made multiple reports of verbal abuse to various members of staff. We have not seen records that support this. We would encourage the landlord to ensure that any reports of ASB are stored in a central location so that all relevant staff members can access this.
18. The resident said in his escalation that there had been an incident of verbal abuse on 8 June 2024. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it visited the resident on 31 July 2024 to discuss his complaint. It said that the resident had informed it there had not been verbal abuse for some months. We consider it positive that the landlord visited the resident to discuss the current situation regarding ASB.
19. It said it had re-offered mediation although the resident had said he had done this before, and it was unsuccessful. We consider it appropriate that the landlord re-offered this as despite past experiences, it may serve as a useful future intervention.
20. We note that it advised the resident not to contact the neighbour and that it had advised the neighbour to do the same. We are aware the resident is unhappy that the landlord spoke to the neighbour about his reports of ASB. However, as this has not been through the complaints process, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to this.
21. The landlord opened an ASB case, visited the resident, re-offered mediation and advised the resident to report any new incidents of ASB. Based on the limited reports of verbal abuse at the time of the stage 2 response we consider the landlord acted appropriately.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will send a written response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It responded in 18 workings day. This was outside the timescales, although we do not consider the delay to be excessive.
23. The landlord’s records confirmed that the landlord called the resident on 22 May 2024, 7 days earlier than it sent the written response. It advised in the call that the response had been completed and attempted to read it over the phone. The resident said he did not want this to be read and wanted it issued to him. In his escalation he said he was unhappy with how this call went. We consider it appropriate for the landlord, wherever possible, to issue the complaints response in writing. It is unclear why the written response took a further 7 days to be issued. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in the stage 1 complaints response, and it did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the phone call.
24. There were several errors in the stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that it did not acknowledge the escalation for the stage 2 complaint on time and provided £75 compensation for these failings.
25. The landlord asked to respond to the stage 2 response once it had visited the resident on 31 July 2024. The visit was to discuss the complaint as per the resident’s request. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on the same day as the visit, which we consider to be appropriate.
26. While the landlord has acknowledged some failings in its complaint handling, it did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s reports that he was unhappy with the call attempting to read his stage 2 response. It also did not acknowledge the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. We consider this to be a service failure. We have awarded an additional £50 to acknowledge these failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We note the resident raised that there were additional reports of ASB that are not in the records. We would encourage the landlord to ensure that when a resident reports ASB, regardless of whether this is in writing or verbally, that it is recorded in a central location.

Communication.

28. We have found the landlord missed opportunities at times to provide the resident with a meaningful update to his concerns.