Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202400769)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400769

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

25 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The resident’s requests for CCTV footage.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a council. The property is a first-floor flat in a block of four flats. Each flat has its own internal front door leading to a communal hallway, internal stairs, and a separate communal front door.
  2. Between 30 January and 11 August 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance and shouting from his downstairs neighbour. During this period, the landlord referred both parties for mediation and advised the resident to record noise on its noise app. It also informed the resident that there were counter-allegations against him and it was unable to provide CCTV recordings he requested. In May 2023, the resident had a stroke and was in the hospital for several days.
  3. The resident complained on 17 October 2023 that his neighbour was threatening him with violence. He said he had left his property under police advice and would not return until the landlord resolved the situation. He was worried about the impact on his tenancy and health. He also asked it to provide him with CCTV footage of any incidents.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023. It acknowledged it had not dealt with his antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports as well as it should and explained what it would do to correct that. It confirmed that the CCTV system was broken, and it had no recordings. It assured the resident that his tenancy was not at risk, and it could secure his property.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 February 2024. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanations and the actions it intended to take, and with its handling of the CCTV. He wanted compensation for the time he was living away and the CCTV to be repaired.
  6. On 6 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained the actions it had now taken, such as warning the neighbour, said it was unable to repair the CCTV, and explained the police had advised there was no risk to the resident if he returned to his flat.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman on 18 September 2025 that he returned to his property at the end of January 2025, as he found the neighbour had moved from their property. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the CCTV. He wanted compensation for the time he was away from his property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms it will acknowledge and investigate all reports of ASB at the earliest possible time. It will support those who report ASB and take an incremental approach with perpetrators. This will include warnings, speaking with the police and tenancy and legal action.
  2. The resident initially complained about the way the landlord dealt with his reports of ASB and the time taken for it to do this. The landlord acknowledged it had not warned the neighbour appropriately in line with its ASB policy, following his initial reports of ASB on 9 March 2023.
  3. It is not wholly clear why the landlord believed it had failed in its handling of the ASB reports, because the evidence shows it undertook a range of warnings, and other steps in accordance with its ASB policy. This included completing a risk assessment for the resident on 9 March 2023. It gave him access to its noise app to record any incidents. It also referred the resident and neighbour for mediation on 17 March. The resident took part in this, but the neighbour chose not to. It appropriately warned the neighbour that it could take enforcement action if they continued not to engage.
  4. The mediation support just for the resident ended when the resident had a stroke and was hospitalised around 6 May 2023. The landlord appropriately completed a further risk assessment on 13 May in light of this. It put the ASB case on hold on 22 June 2023 in agreement with the resident, as there had been no further incidents. This was in line with its policy. The resident reported further issues with noise from his neighbour on 18 July and 1 August 2023. The landlord visited the neighbour on 15 August and 30 August and warned them of the consequences of continued ASB. This was also in accordance with its ASB policy.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 reply of 2 November 2023 confirmed it would speak to the neighbour and give appropriate warnings. It also said it would work with the police. Evidence shows it went on to do both these things, and the police also issued a police protection order to the neighbour. This was particularly relevant as the reports from the resident had escalated to threatening behaviour from the neighbour. This led to the resident leaving his property on 7 September 2023.
  6. In his escalation, the resident said the landlord offered him the opportunity to move but would not pay his moving costs. The landlord did not dispute this in its reply but said it was trying to support the neighbour to move to resolve the issue. Its attempts to support either the resident or the neighbour to move were therefore reasonable in trying to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord said it could not provide compensation for the resident not residing at the property. This was accurate as there were no failings identified in its actions. Furthermore, it confirmed in both complaint responses it had spoken to the police, who felt the resident was not at risk if he returned to the property. The landlord also told the resident that it could secure his property whilst he was away and confirmed his tenancy was not at risk. This addressed his fears about his tenancy and property whilst not residing there.
  8. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports appropriately and in accordance with their nature and scale, which was in line with its policies.

The resident’s requests for CCTV footage

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy contains guidelines regarding the landlord’s use of CCTV, confirming it can deploy this in areas where there has been a high level of ASB. This includes as a response to crime hotspots and assisting in the detection and arrest of perpetrators of a spate of crimes. A contractor maintains and operates the system. Recorded footage is stored for 4 weeks before being recorded over.
  2. In his 17 October 2023 complaint, the resident said the landlord only began looking at the CCTV footage on 16 October. He felt it may have lost footage of earlier incidents due to its lack of action. There is no evidence of the resident requesting CCTV footage before 16 May 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 reply confirmed that it wrote to him on 16 May 2023 telling him it was not proportionate to view CCTV footage at that time as he had not reported criminal damage or activity. Its response was in line with its ASB policy.
  3. The landlord’s 2 November 2023 complaint reply said it had recently attempted to view CCTV footage. This was following a more serious report of ASB from the resident and, therefore, appropriate in the circumstances. It said the system was operational but failing to record footage, which meant it could not view or obtain previously recorded CCTV footage. This answered whether it could provide footage to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 reply did not confirm whether it would attempt to fix the CCTV recording in future. The resident raised this in his escalation and said the footage would have supported a police investigation. He said its failure to provide and retain footage broke the law.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 reply responded to this, stating that it was unable to repair the CCTV system and needed to install a new system for it to operate. It said it was unable to do this as it could only progress if the issue was affecting the whole community. This was in line with its CCTV guidelines and the threshold for installing CCTV systems, and therefore a reasonable response. It said it was not aware of a statutory breach for not maintaining CCTV. No evidence seen in this investigation contradicts that. Neither the tenancy agreement nor CCTV guidelines state a CCTV system must be in place and operational.
  6. Following the complaint the landlord wrote to all residents on 10 May 2024, confirming the CCTV system was beyond repair. It said it initially installed it based on circumstances that were no longer occurring. It confirmed that it took legal advice that CCTV would be replaced by “targeted surveillance.”
  7. In summary, the landlord used the CCTV of the resident’s initial ASB reports in line with its policy. When the reports got more serious, it attempted to review footage but found a fault in the footage being recorded. It informed the resident that it was unable to provide recordings to him. It appropriately explained that it was unable to repair or replace the CCTV system, and the reasons why. There is no evidence of the landlord being legally obliged to have CCTV in the circumstances of the resident’s ASB reports, or that its explanations were unreasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The resident’s requests for CCTV footage.