South Kesteven District Council (202529161)

Background

1. The resident has lived in a bungalow since March 2021. She said her neighbour’s CCTV camera captured videos of her when she was in her garden or on the shared pathway, which she felt invaded her privacy. She complained that the landlord did not take action to require the neighbour to move the camera.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s CCTV camera.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s CCTV camera.
   2. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

CCTV camera

5. The landlord acted reasonably by visiting the neighbour and inspecting the cameras. It explained its view that the camera position did not breach ICO guidance or deliberately target the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord provided its responses within its policy timescales and addressed the complaint points comprehensively.

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.

What we’ve not considered

7. The resident said she was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with her concerns namely her wish to have the camera removed or at least repositioned. Issues relating to data protection and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fall within the remit of the ICO. The ICO is the appropriate body to consider any alleged breaches of this legislation and to decide whether an organisation has met its legal duties. We will not consider whether there was a breach of ICO guidance, rather our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

What we’ve considered

8. On 8 May 2025, the resident contacted the landlord with several concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV camera. In June 2025, the landlord visited the neighbour, who confirmed the steps they had taken after the resident’s approach and explained their circumstances. The landlord also inspected the camera and reviewed the areas it captured. This was a reasonable first response, and the landlord was satisfied that although the camera recorded beyond the boundary, this was proportionate in the circumstances. The landlord also acted fairly by visiting the resident on 13 August 2025 to understand her concerns in full and then summarising the visit in writing.
9. In her escalation request, the resident argued that the landlord should not allow a tenant to film a shared pathway, any private garden or communal area, and that the landlord had an obligation to act because the ICO could not enforce repositioning. She believed the neighbour’s conduct amounted to improper use of CCTV. The landlord responded promptly but maintained that ICO rules governed the neighbour’s obligations and it could not instruct removal or repositioning. This was fair and the landlord set out its position clearly having referenced the ICO guidance in its responses.
10. The resident said she had been given conflicting information about recording communal areas and felt that, combined with the landlord’s decision not to take action, this amounted to discrimination. The landlord explained it found no evidence that she had been treated unfavourably due to any protected characteristic. Nothing in the evidence shows that the landlord provided any misleading advice about recording shared areas. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about discrimination, demonstrating it took this matter seriously and its response was fair and balanced.
11. Overall, the evidence provided shows the landlord acted reasonably and took the resident’s concerns seriously. It visited both properties, reviewed the circumstances and camera footage against ICO guidance, and explained clearly why it would not take action, noting that ICO compliance rested with the neighbour. Although the resident felt distressed, the landlord investigated thoroughly and reached a proportionate decision. The resident later confirmed the neighbour moved out in October 2025 and the issue is no longer ongoing.

12. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. Its complaints policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
13. In May 2025, the resident raised several concerns about the landlord’s handling of the issue but made clear she did not want feedback and only wanted the landlord “to investigate and be aware.” It was therefore reasonable the landlord did not issue a formal response at that time. When the resident later complained about the position of the CCTV camera on 21 August 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within policy timescales. After the resident escalated the matter, it also provided its stage 2 response on time.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

14. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping and communication were satisfactory.