London Borough of Enfield (202402399)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202402399

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Enfield

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

27 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident complained to the landlord after it removed her CCTV cameras and motion sensor spotlight. She said it did not inform her about removing the CCTV and that she already had permission to install the spotlight.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concern about the removal of her CCTV and motion sensor spotlight.
    2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the removal of her CCTV and motion sensor spotlight.
    2. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concern about the removal of her CCTV and motion sensor spotlight

  1. The landlord provided a written warning and notification before removing the CCTV. Although it did not initially address the spotlight, it has since followed OT recommendations and installed one.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timeframe.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should update its records to ensure they accurately reflect any vulnerabilities or disabilities within the household.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

14 July 2023

The resident complained to the landlord about its removal of her CCTV and spotlight. She said it had previously told her she only needed to raise the cameras higher and reduce the number, not remove them. She reported that it removed her CCTV without notice. She said it also removed her spotlight, even though she had permission for it. She explained the spotlight was necessary due to inadequate lighting and because she and her sons are registered disabled and at risk of falling. She said she installed the CCTV because of damage to her property and car. She added that the removal had affected her mental health and wellbeing, and she felt it was treating her unfairly.

17 July 2023

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.

27 July 2023

The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had notified the resident about the planned removal of the equipment before 14 July 2023 and enclosed the letter as evidence. It explained that it had discussed the camera height with her in person and advised her that, if approved, the cameras would need to be installed higher. It said it had made clear that it was not granting permission at that time and that any approval would need to be given in writing.

29 July 2023

The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said it had only advised her to move the cameras higher, not that she needed written permission to install them. She said it did not address her concern about the spotlight. She also said that neighbours had both CCTV and spotlights and that she has been treated unfairly and it was in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

1 September 2023

The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it could not determine what was said in person because the conversation had not been documented. It noted that, although the resident said she had permission for the spotlight, she had not provided written evidence of approval. It referred to condition 48 of her tenancy agreement, which required written permission for such installations. It said its records only showed that it had agreed to a Ring doorbell on her door and it had not consented to any other equipment. It said it had been consistent in requesting removal of unauthorised items for all residents. It said that the police had served a Community Protection Notice requiring her to remove the CCTV.

 

The landlord said it managed all potential tenancy breaches fairly. It stated that it asked any household that installs items without permission to remove them, and if they did not, it would remove the items itself. It said it found no evidence that it had breached the Equality Act 2010. It added that it would consider any Occupational Therapist (OT) recommendations for additional lighting, provided the lighting did not cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident brought the complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said it did not inform her about the removal of the CCTV or the spotlight. She said other properties in the area had both and it was unfair that hers were removed. She wants the removal of other resident’s CCTV, an apology, and compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

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.

Complaint

Concern about the removal of CCTV and motion sensor spotlight

Finding

No maladministration

What we have note considered

  1. The resident raised concerns about the affect on her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  2. The resident stated that the landlord had treated her unfairly due to her disabilities and breached the Equality Act 2010. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. We can consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.

What we have considered

  1. The landlord informed the resident on 9 December 2022 that she did not have permission for the multiple CCTV cameras she had installed on the outside of the block. It said she must remove them by 16 December 2022 but that she could install one Ring doorbell fixed directly to her front door. On 2 February 2023, it sent her another email after a police investigation and instructed her again to remove the cameras.
  2. The resident stated that she felt the landlord had treated her unfairly as other residents had CCTV and spotlights. While it stated it found no evidence it had breached the Equality Act 2010, it could have provided more explanation of circumstances where it may grant permission. It could have offered further information on how to apply for or request permission. This would have given some reassurance that it was not treating her differently. It explained that it could not disclose information about other properties due to GDPR, but confirmed it applied the same approach to all properties where no permission had been granted.
  3. The landlord sought legal advice and issued a notification of removal to the resident on 27 June 2023. It repeated its previous warning letter and confirmed that no permission had been granted since. It referred to her tenancy agreement clause, which requires written permission before installing any cameras or other equipment to the external fabric of the building. It told her if she did not remove the cameras by 14 July 2023, its repairs team would remove them. It acted reasonably by relying on professional advice and the terms of the tenancy agreement. It also provided a warning and notification, along with an explanation for its decision, before arranging to remove the cameras.
  4. Although the landlord’s actions were reasonable overall, it could have communicated more clearly about removing the resident’s spotlight. It did not state in the initial warning or notification that she needed to remove the spotlight. It also failed to address this issue in its stage 1 complaint response. However, in its stage 2 response, it clarified that it had no evidence of written permission for the spotlight and that it had removed all unauthorised installations. It said it would consider any OT recommendations for a motion‑sensor light. It has since received an OT referral and installed a new light.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

No maladministration
  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. While its timescales did not align with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time, it has since revised its policy which is now Code compliant.
  2. The landlord’s policy said that it would acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 3 working days and provide a response within 5 working days. It said it would acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 30 working days.
  3. The landlord did not provide evidence that it acknowledged the complaint at stage 2. However, it did acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 and issued its responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy.

Learning

General

  1. The landlord should provide residents with a CCTV policy that explains when it will grant permission and how they can request it.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord should ensure it responds to all points raised within the resident’s complaint. It should provide an acknowledgment to the resident at each stage of the complaint process.
  2. The landlord should ensure that where residents raise allegations of discrimination, it provides a full explanation of its investigation and reasons for its findings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord should ensure that any vulnerabilities or disabilities are accurately recorded.
  2. The landlord should document all verbal communication to ensure it can provide accurate information for future reference.

Communication

  1. Overall, communication was reasonable. The landlord provided written explanations and responded to the resident.