Moat Homes Limited (202418979)

Background

1. The resident lives on an estate managed by a third‑party managing agent appointed by the freeholder, not the landlord. He raised concerns with the landlord about a newly installed CCTV camera, which he believed was positioned to protect the managing agent’s manager’s car. The landlord met with the managing agent, who issued a response. Dissatisfied with that reply, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He escalated his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the position of a CCTV camera on his estate.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the position of a CCTV camera on his estate.
   2. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

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.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the position of a CCTV camera on his estate.

5. As the managing agent is not appointed by the landlord nor is it a member of our scheme, we cannot determine whether it acted reasonably in deciding to install CCTV in the location it did. We also cannot determine the exact angle or direction the camera must point or whether the CCTV camera benefits one person rather than the estate. As the CCTV forms part of the resident’s service charge, and as he is a variable service charge payer, the first-tier tribunal or court are more likely better placed to consider these issues given their powers and expertise.
6. As the estate in which the resident’s property is located is managed by a third-party managing agent appointed by the freeholder of the estate, the landlord would not be responsible for decisions made on the placement of the CCTV. However, we would expect it to do all it could to proactively pursue the concerns raised by the resident with the managing agent.
7. The landlord did so in this case promptly meeting with the managing agent on 7 June 2024, within 3 days of the resident’s contact of 4 June 2024, to discuss the concerns he had raised. Following this meeting the landlord confirmed to the resident that the meeting had taken place and that the managing agent had agreed to provide him with a response. This was provided by the managing agent on 10 June 2024.
8. In its response the managing agent explained it had received numerous reports of stolen parcels, antisocial behaviour, and damage to property onsite. As a result, the managing agent said some residents had requested the installation of more cameras. The managing agent said this was discussed at a resident association meeting in March 2024, where it was agreed that more cameras should be added to high traffic areas such as lobbies, bin store areas, and access areas. The managing agent acknowledged one of the new cameras had been installed near the access way onto the site where its manager parked his car.
9. Following the resident’s formal complaint of 8 July 2024, the landlord again visited the site on 22 July 2024. On 21 August 2024, the landlord provided the resident with an update following its meeting with the managing agent. The landlord apologised for not contacting the resident sooner.
10. In its response the landlord confirmed it had walked around the site, with the managing agent’s manager, and looked at where the cameras were located. The landlord said it appreciated the camera in question appeared to be overlooking the managing agent’s managers car. However, it did serve a purpose to monitor the flow of vehicles that entered and left the site. The landlord also confirmed the managing agent would be installing another camera by the gate entrance to monitor the bin store.
11. Overall, we are satisfied the landlord proactively pursued the concerns raised by the resident with the managing agent. It met with the managing agent on at least 2 occasions and asked the managing agent to provide an initial response to the resident’s concerns. It also considered the resident’s dissatisfaction with the managing agent’s response through its complaints policy. Having done so, and having been unable to substantiate the resident’s concerns – that the sole purpose of the camera in question was to protect the managing agent’s manager’s car – it was reasonable for the landlord to not uphold the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

12. The complaint was raised on 14 June 2024 and acknowledged on 24 June 2024, 1 working day outside of the 5 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response within the following 10 working days, in accordance with its complaints policy, doing so on 8 July 2024.
13. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 July 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days. It should then have issued its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request until 21 August 2024, 27 working days later. This led to an unreasonable delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, which it did not do until 19 September 2024.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered no compensation for the delay in it acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. However, it did so in a separate correspondence with the resident on 21 August 2024. In that correspondence the landlord apologised and offered the resident £75 compensation for the delays in it escalating the complaint and in it updating the resident following its site visit on 22 July 2024.
15. Having taken into account all the circumstances in this case, we are not satisfied that its acknowledgement, apology and the £75 offered was sufficient to provide the resident with redress for both of these failures. As such a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord ordered to pay an additional £50 compensation, bringing the total payable to £125.

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.