Amplius Living (202431207)

Decision
Case ID	202431207
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy began in 2014. The landlord does not hold any details concerning the resident’s vulnerabilities at the request of the resident. The resident raised several complaints to the landlord between 31 May 2023 and 6 July 2024 covering a range of matters.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cats entering her garden.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’ concerns about the neighbour moving the boundary fence.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being asked to re position her closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord took a photograph of the property, infringing her privacy.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its failure to provide 24 hours’ notice for repairs appointments.
8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent for the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The following complaints were outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord took a photograph of the property, infringing her privacy.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent for the property.
There was service failure in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’ concerns about the neighbour moving the boundary fence.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its failure to provide 24 hours’ notice for repairs appointments.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.
There was no maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cats entering her garden.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being asked to re position her CCTV cameras.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord took a photograph of the property, infringing her privacy.

The resident complained that the landlord had infringed her privacy by taking a photograph of the property. As the resident’s complaint centres on matters related to her privacy, this matter is outside of our jurisdiction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent for the property.

The resident complained that her rent was higher than other 3-bedroom properties in the area. As the resident’s complaint centres on matters related to the level of rent, this matter is outside of our jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.

The landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports and provided appropriate advice. While the resident’s communication preference created evident challenges for the landlord, it could have been more proactive in opening an ASB case on behalf of the resident. Later actions showed learning, but the absence of an action plan left the resident unclear on how her ongoing concerns would be managed. The landlord ought to have carried out a risk assessment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’ concerns about the neighbour moving the boundary fence.

The landlord reasonably inspected the boundary and consulted the local authority. But it failed to update the resident or clarify its decision concerning the boundary, in a timelier manner. This resulted in poor communication. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s decision, as the landowner, as to whether corrective action ought to be taken to restore the original boundary.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its failure to provide 24 hours’ notice for repairs appointments.

The landlord acknowledged failing to consistently give 24 hours’ notice via the resident’s preferred communication method for repairs appointments, for which it apologised and committed to improving its process. But there was still some ambiguity for the resident after the landlord’s internal complaint process ended, about the agreed approach to scheduling and attending repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cats entering her garden.

The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s cats, explained its limited powers, and signposted to the RSPCA. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident after she asked it to, following issue of the stage 1 complaint response. But it is unlikely its decision would have changed, had it done so.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being asked to reposition her CCTV cameras.

The landlord asked the resident and the neighbour to reposition their cameras to ensure each other’s privacy, in line with its CCTV guidance. It proactively sought involvement from the police to ensure an independent view and appropriately signposted the resident to the Information Commissioners Offices (ICO) so she could seek further advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s harassment concerns. Although it found no evidence of inappropriate conduct, it offered support to rebuild the relationship.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord breached its complaint’s policy by issuing an early resolution without resident agreement. There was some delay in its handling of the early resolution, for which the landlord appropriately compensated. Overall, it met the expected response timescales for all stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses and signposted the resident to us when appropriate.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 made up as follows: £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications, in relation to the resident’s concerns about the boundary. £25 for delays in the landlord’s complaint handling in complaint 1. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	General order The landlord must offer to meet the resident, either at the property or at its offices, to take a full account of the ASB issues the resident is still experiencing, carry out a risk assessment, and agree an action plan. The landlord must endeavour to explore any support needs with the resident and then act accordingly. The landlord must commit to keeping the action plan under review with the resident.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	General order The landlord must write to the resident, setting out the process that the parties are to follow when scheduling and attending repairs appointment.	No later than 07 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider the merits of carrying out a risk assessment before insisting on a resident repositioning their domestic CCTV cameras, to balance distress and privacy concerns, with any potential risk that may arise, as a result of the landlord’s actions.
The landlord should consider the merits of sourcing a third-party advocacy service, who can act as an independent support mechanism and can help the parties navigate future housing issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 May 2023 to 22 June 2023	We found maladministration on 31 May 2023 in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between 2020 and 2022 (case 202123260, refers). We ordered the landlord to visit the resident to take a full account of the ASB issues experienced, carry out a risk assessment, and agree an action plan.
15 January 2024 to 24 June 2024	Complaint 1 The resident raised dissatisfaction on 15 January 2024 that the landlord’s contractor had attended the property without giving 24 hours’ notice, leaving a calling card. The landlord issued an early resolution letter on 23 January 2024 committing to a course of action to address this matter for the future. The resident raised further complaints on 19 March 2024 and 26 March 2024 about related issues. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 9 April 2024. It accepted it had not always provided the resident with 24 hours’ notice of repairs appointments by her preferred communication method. It apologised for this, offered £60 compensation, and committed to a further course of action to resolve this for the resident. It also accepted there was some complaint handling delay, for which it offered an additional £25 compensation. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 15 June 2024 unhappy with the stage 1 outcome. The landlord told the resident on 24 June 2024 that it would not carry out a stage 2 complaint review, as she had not escalated the complaint within 1 month of it issuing the stage 1 complaint response and had provided a full response at stage 1. It clarified she could escalate the complaint to us should she wish.
28 March 2024 to 24 June 2024	Complaint 2 The resident expressed deep frustration on 28 March 2024 about several unresolved issues. This included missed / unannounced repairs appointments, ongoing issues with a boundary, the position of her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, and the neighbour’s cats. The resident said the landlord should address all of the issues and ensure there was no further contact from its Housing Officer. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2024. It clarified the scope of the investigation included its Housing Officer’s handling of her ASB case, her concerns about the neighbour’s cats, and her concerns about the boundary fence. But said her complaint about missed / unannounced repairs appointments was being investigated as a separate complaint. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024, which it did not uphold. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 15 June 2024 as she was unhappy with the stage 1 outcome. The landlord explained on 24 June 2024 that it would not carry out a stage 2 complaint review, as she had not escalated the complaint within the required timescale and it had provided a full response at stage 1. It clarified she could escalate the complaint to us should she wish.
17 June 2024 to 12 July 2024	Complaint 3 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2024 about the landlord taking a photograph of the property without asking her permission, about the landlord’s request to reposition her CCTV, about the conduct of its Housing Officer, and about its handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024, which it did not uphold. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint outcome on 6 July 2024. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024. It did not change its position.
November 2024 to November 2025.	The resident asked us to investigate all 3 of her complaints as remained dissatisfied with the complaint outcomes. She expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services in November 2025 and said we should investigate because nothing had changed.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it taking a photograph of the property, infringing her privacy.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We will not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.

In this case, the resident complained that the landlord had infringed her privacy by taking a photograph of the property. As the resident’s complaint centres on matters related to her privacy, we will not investigate. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best place to consider this.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent for the property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent.

As the resident’s complaint centres on her rental charge being higher than other 3-bedroom properties in the area, the complaint is ultimately about the level of rent and so we will not investigate it. The First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber are best placed to consider this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.
Finding	Service failure

It is reasonable for our investigation to consider the landlord’s handling of ASB from 31 May 2023 to 12 July 2024. This was the date we issued our previous determination in case 202123260, through to the date the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response in complaint 3. However, we may reference events that happened after this, where relevant to the resolution of the matter.
We ordered the landlord on 31 May 2023 to visit the resident, take a full account of the ASB issues experienced, carry out a risk assessment, and agree an action plan. The landlord wrote to the resident offering her an appointment, in line with our orders. The landlord told us the resident had declined its attempts to arrange an appointment to discuss the ASB. And had asked it to refrain from contacting her, unless there was an emergency. This prevented the parties from agreeing future measures.
Complaints and counter-complaints of nuisance and ASB between the resident and several neighbours were reported in August 2023 and persisted throughout the timeframe of the complaint. Only one neighbour was a tenant of the landlord; others were owner-occupiers, limiting the landlord’s direct influence. The resident raised concerns in complaints 2 and 3 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and questioned the capability of its Housing Officer. The landlord maintained that its member of staff had acted in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s Housing Officer acknowledged reports raised by the resident about noise and harassment from the neighbours between August 2023 and March 2024. Our investigation found:
1. The Housing Officer offered to support the resident in August 2023, after the resident mentioned in passing, she was still having issues with neighbours. The resident stated she was working with the local authority. We have seen no indication that the resident wanted the landlord’s involvement at this stage.
2. The resident alleged continued ASB and harassment from her immediate neighbour in December 2023, who was a tenant. Its Housing Officer reviewed the video evidence provided by the resident, who did not identify any obvious breach of tenancy, from the footage seen. Its Housing Officer did, however, suggested the resident could still raise an ASB case against the neighbour via its website. And later signposted the resident to the police to made a report harassment, which was reasonable advice. There is no evidence the resident raised a new ASB case through its website.
3. The resident reported continued issues with neighbours in March 2024. The landlord’s Housing Officer signposted the resident again,to raise an ASB case online.The resident was also encouraged to keep an incident diary and report noise via its noise app, so a case could be built against the neighbour. Again, this was appropriate advice. However, the resident did not open a new ASB case as its Housing Officer had suggested.
The landlord satisfied itself that its Housing Officer had followed its policy when handling the resident’s reports about ASB. Its Housing Officer might have considered offering to support the resident with opening a new ASB case, when she continued to raise concerns about harassment. This would then have triggered the landlord to carry out a risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy. But this was a shortcoming rather than a failing. And we accept that accurately logging an ASB case on behalf of the resident and carrying out a risk assessment was likely to have been particularly challenging for the landlord, given she was only willing to communicate by letter.
The resident reported continued harassment from neighbours in May 2024. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement team wrote to the resident, mindful of the resident’s preferred communication method, asking her to get in contact to discuss this. The resident did not respond. The landlord wrote to the resident a week later, explaining that it was closing the case due to the lack of response and evidence. But said the resident could make contact again in the future if she experienced more issues. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. But ultimately left the matter unresolved.
The landlord took positive steps following issue of the stage 2 complaint response in July 2024:
1. Senior managers met the resident to rebuild trust. The resident shared her concerns about the neighbours and its handling of her reports of ASB. And divulged vulnerabilities within the household.
2. Agreed a management transfer for the resident, though limited stock availability.
3. Made a referral to a local ASB partnership for multi-agency oversight.
4. Suggested a Community Trigger review, which the local authority subsequently discussed with the resident, which she declined.
Despite these actions, the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment or provide the resident with an action plan. This would have been in line with its ASB policy and would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB during its own complaint investigation. Our investigation found that:
1. Its Housing Officer responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and gave appropriate advice. But missed opportunities to be more proactive in initiating an ASB case, rather than placing the onus on the resident to do this online. But we accept this may have been difficult, due to the resident’s preferred communication method.
2. The landlord did not risk assess the resident’s reports of ASB at any point. As a result, it could not adequately demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or risk of harm. Although this may have been difficult initially, due to the resident’s preferred communication method.
3. The landlord’s later actions, including senior management involvement and multi-agency referral were positive and demonstrated learning. But the lack of an action plan would have left the resident unclear on how her continued concerns would be managed.
Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.
To remedy the complaint, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its shortcomings. And offer to meet the resident to obtain an update on the current position with the neighbours, carry out a risk assessment, and agree an action plan (with timescales).

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cats entering her garden.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident first raised concerns about cats entering her garden on 12 December 2023. The landlord responded promptly the same day, explaining it could not prevent this as cats are not trespassers. Under UK law, domestic cats can roam freely, and cat owners are not legally required to cat-proof gardens unless their cat presents a significant risk of harm or are causing significant damage. However, a landlord may need to act if cats are causing property damage or nuisance. In exceptional cases, local authorities have been known to issue community protection notices for persistent issues like fouling or damage.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 March 2023. The resident reported multiple cats trespassing her garden, causing damage and disturbing wildlife, and asked the landlord to ensure the neighbour (who was also the landlord’s tenant) cat-proofed their garden. The landlord reiterated on 20 March 2024 that cats were not trespassers and signposted her to the Royal Society for the Protection and Cruelty of Animals (RSCPA) website for deterrent advice.
The resident stated in the stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2024 the neighbour’s cats were damaging belongings, using her garden as a toilet, killing wildlife, and were disturbing her family’s sleep by fighting at night. She suggested the landlord had ignored the issue.
The landlord replied promptly the same day, restating that cats had the right to roam. But advised that cat owners did have a legal duty to take reasonable care, that their cats did not injure people or cause damage property. It made the resident aware that she could report any criminal damage to the police. However, this was incorrect advice, as under UK law, cats themselves cannot commit criminal damage because they are not legal persons. The landlord might have considered signposting the resident to the local authority, given their additional powers to investigate nuisance.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024, finding no failure of service. It noted that it had provided advice concerning this matter on several occasions. The resident requested a call back on 18 April 2024, to discuss the complaint outcome because she said the cats were affecting her sleep and wellbeing. The landlord committed to contacting the resident about this but did not. This was unfair. But it is unlikely, had it done so, that the landlord’s decision would have changed.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 15 June 2024 but the landlord declined, stating the complaint had been fully addressed at stage 1 and her request was out of time. We will consider the landlord’s decision to refuse the stage 2 escalation, in our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s cats, explained its limited powers, and signposted her to the RSPCA. It could also have signposted the resident to the local authority, but it had already signposted her to the RSCPA. Although the landlord failed to contact the resident following the stage 1 complaint response, this was likely to have resulted in minimal detriment to the resident.
Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cats entering her garden.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’ concerns about the neighbour moving the boundary fence.
Finding	Service failure

For context, the landlord informed the resident in January 2022 that her neighbour, an owner-occupier, would replace the boundary fence, which was the neighbour’s responsibility. The landlord confirmed in July 2022 that works would begin and that it had provided the neighbour with a boundary plan. After works started, the resident reported the fence was wrongly positioned, reducing the size of her garden. The landlord requested photographs, inspected the fence, and spoke to the neighbour. The landlord concluded that the front fence was correct but the rear fence was 8–10 inches out of line. It told the resident that it had decided not to ask the neighbour to move the fence due to cost and privacy benefits. The resident did not respond, so the landlord concluded the matter was closed.
The boundary issue was reraised by the resident in October 2023. The landlord noted upon inspection, that the fence panels bent into the garden, “creating a bit of a no man’s land”. It said it would consult the local authority about this, given the resident was an owner-occupier. The local authority’s role in assisting with queries relating to boundary issues would have been limited to enforcing planning rules, addressing safety concerns, and handling specific complaints such as high hedges. The landlord failed to update the resident on the outcome of its consultation with the local authority, leaving her unclear.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2024 as she was dissatisfied by the lack of resolution. The landlord asked the resident for evidence of the boundary encroachment, despite already confirming the misalignment itself. This is likely to have causedavoidable frustration to the resident.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024. The landlord said there had been no failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the boundary. It clarified that the local authority had confirmed it would not enforce removal of the fence. While the landlord did not expressly specify, it was reasonable to conclude it was minded the leave the fence where it was. While we accept this may have seemed unfair to the resident, the landlord would have had to weigh up the minimal loss of land, against the cost and complexity of legal proceedings against the neighbour. Ultimately, the final decision was down to the landlord.
The resident challenged the landlord on 18 April 2024 about the information it had relied upon to inform the stage 1 complaint outcome. The landlord committed to contacting the about this but it did not, which again was unfair.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 15 June 2024 but the landlord declined, stating the complaint was fully addressed at stage 1 and her request was out of time. We will consider the landlord’s decision to refuse the stage 2 escalation, in our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the boundary and consulting with the local authority. But it ought to have updated the resident with an outcome following this. And it ought to have contacted the resident to establish why she felt the information it had relied upon to make its decision was wrong. But ultimately, the landlord was entitled not to pursue corrective action against the neighbour, as the landowner.
However, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour moving the boundary fence, due to the inadequacies we identified in the landlord’s communications.
To remedy the complaint, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for inadequacies in its communications and pay £50 compensation. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website), where there have been minor failings that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being asked to reposition her CCTV cameras.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord approached the resident 4 times between August 2022 and June 2024 concerning the position of her CCTV cameras:
1. In August 2022, after reviewing footage sent in by the resident. The landlord asked the police to check the cameras, who confirmed they were correctly positioned.
2. In August 2023, following distress raised by a neighbour. The resident provided evidence that she had adjusted the cameras and the matter was closed.
3. In December 2023, the landlord requested the resident adjust the privacy masking, after noticing she had lowered the hedge, exposing part of the neighbour’s garden. And provided her with a copy of its CCTV guidance.
4. In June 2024, after the neighbour expressed further distress about multiple cameras belonging to the resident, facing into their garden and property. The landlord investigated, involved the police, and requested the resident reposition the cameras by 28 June 2024.
If a person’s CCTV captures areas beyond their property boundary (for example, public areas or a neighbour’s garden), that person becomes a data controller under UK data protection law and must comply with a prescribed set of rules. They must have a lawful reason for filming (for example, for security), inform people that recording is taking place (usually via clear signage), keep the footage secure and for only as long as necessary (the ICO suggests 30 days), respond to Subject Data Access requests, and delete footage if requested (unless needed for legal reasons).
Where cameras only cover a person’s own property, data protection rules do not apply. But the ICO still advises resident’s to minimise intrusion, use privacy masking, and avoid audio recording.
The resident complained on 17 June 2024 that the landlord had asked her to reposition her CCTV cameras, which she maintained were there to capture ASB and were not invading anyone’s privacy. The landlord did not uphold the stage 1 complaint on 5 July 2024. It said it had double checked with the police, who had verified her cameras could not point into neighbour’s gardens. It clarified that it had not asked her to remove the cameras, only to reposition them, which the police agreed was a reasonable request. It did not change its decision upon reviewing the complaint at stage 2 on 12 July 2024 citing tenancy obligations and ICO guidelines. And encouraged her to contact the ICO for further guidance and clarification.
The landlord’s actions between August 2022 and June 2024 were based on the landlord’s own CCTV guidance (set out on its website), which sets out the legal position, encourages resident’s to minimise intrusion from CCTV cameras, recommends residents consult its ASB team when proposing to capture ASB-related recordings, and offers support to complainants who may be concerned about camera positioning.
We note that the resident raised concerns herself during the timeframe of the complaint, about the positioning of her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, which were overlooking her property. The landlord responded evenly, by addressing the resident’s concerns in a similar manner, ensuring that the neighbour repositioned their cameras to ensure the resident’s privacy.
However, we can understand the resident may have been confused by the landlord’s position, given it had actively encouraged the resident in the past, to capture evidence from CCTV and mobile phones, to support her reports of ASB from the neighbours. And we note she had repeatedly stated to the landlord that she had installed the cameras for her own security and to help evidence the ASB. It would be for the ICO to determine whether the resident had a legitimate reason for capturing recordings.
It was reasonable for the landlord to encourage the resident and indeed her neighbour, to reposition their cameras in the interests of privacy and to mitigate any distress caused. But for future learning, it would be prudent for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment before insisting on any cameras being repositioned, so as to balance distress and privacy concerns, with any potential risk that may arise, as a result of the landlord’s actions.
Overall, in this case, the landlordfollowedits policy, provided guidance, signposted the resident to the ICO, and sought an independent view from a partner agency.
Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being asked to re position her CCTV cameras. But we would encourage the landlord to consider the merits of carrying out a risk assessment in future cases, before asking a resident to reposition any cameras.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
Finding	No maladministration

It is not our role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of our remit. However, we can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
The resident raised concerns about harassment from its Housing Officer, within complaints 3 and complaints 4. The landlord maintained throughout both complaint investigations that its Housing Officer was an experienced member of staff who had been acting in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord explained in the final stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024 that it had carried out a review of its records, from which it had identified, its Housing Officer had addressed all of the points raised by the resident, had kept thorough and detailed notes, and had continued to be professional. It explained that any decisions made by its Housing Officer had been made in conjunction with its Housing Managers, which was may have offered some reassurance to the resident. And while it did not identify any evidence of harassment, it did offer to work with the resident and its Housing Officer to agree a way forward.
The landlord’s response shows that it investigated the resident’s concerns about harassment from its Housing Officer, which it weighed alongside the evidence available to it from its files. And made a reasonable offer of support, to help rebuild the relationship between the resident and its Housing Officer.
Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its failure to provide 24 hours’ notice for repairs appointments.
Finding	Service failure

The resident raised repeated dissatisfaction between 15 January 2024 and 21 March 2024 about the landlord’s contractor attending the property to carry out repairs without providing 24 hours’ notice in writing. The landlord was required by law (under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985), to provide a minimum of 24 hours’ notice of its intention to access the property, unless in an emergency. Written notice can be given by letter, email, or text.
The landlord had made a previous commitment in 2021 (cases 202123260, refers), for its contractors to give the resident 24 hours’ notice prior to attending the property. But there was no mention of how this notice was to be provided. We note the landlord’s contractors would normally confirm appointments by text message. But the resident was unwilling to share her phone number or email address with the landlord or its contractors due to concerns about harassment. The resident expressly stated that all communication should be by letter.
The landlord attemptedearly resolution on 23 January 2024, explainingthe difficulties in meeting the resident’s communication preference. And notingthatit had previously asked herto consider alternative communication channels. Butcommittedto tryingtoarrange repairs appointments at the point of her initial contact if it could. Itexplained that its contractor would be unable to a send a letter of appointment, as it could not guarantee this would arrive in time.
We accept the resident’s communication preference made it more challenging for it and its contractors to arrange repair appointments. And we recognise that it would not be appropriate to issue an appointment letter for emergency repairs, which needed to be carried out within 4 hours, under its repairs policy. But it could have considered accommodating the resident’s request for urgent and routine repairs, which had longer completion times of 7 and 28 calendar days, respectively.
The landlord’s internal records between 22 March 2024 and 25 March 2024 show it recognised the resident was distressed by its contractor’s repeated attempts to access the property, to address issues with the positive input ventilation unit (PIV). And note that it sought measures to address this, which was positive.
The landlord apologised in the stage 1 complaint response on 9 April 2024 for not notifying the resident of repairs appointments by her preferred communication means, for not communicating an appointment change, and for not advising her that it would not be attending on 26 March 2024. This was fair.
The landlord made an offer of compensation, in recognition of other failings it identified, amounting to £60 compensation (£10 for the missed appointment and £50 compensation for delays resolving the repair), which was in line with its compensation policy. It also committed to adding an alert on its housing management system, for its customer service team to make repairs appointments in future, at the point of initial contact with the resident. And said it would ask its contractors to confirm appointments for urgent and routine repairs by letter. This was a reasonable solution in the circumstances.
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 April 2024 in reply, stating that its contractor should not attend any appointments, without her confirming first, that any appointment dates offered were agreeable. It would have been prudent for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s communication and set out its position concerning this, so the agreed approach was clear to all parties and to mitigate the risk of further dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s failure to clarify its approach to appointments following the resident’s representation, likely contributed to her continued dissatisfaction, resulting in her requesting the complaint be escalated on 15 June 2024.
The landlord declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2, stating the complaint had been fully addressed at stage 1 and that her request was out of time. We will consider the landlord’s decision to refuse the stage 2 escalation, within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged that it had not consistently provided 24 hours’ notice for repairs via the resident’s preferred communication method. It recognised this had caused the resident distress, for which it apologised, offered appropriate compensation at stage 1 for other failings it had identified, and made a reasonable offer / commitment of action to adjust its appointment booking process. This demonstrates some learning and responsiveness by the landlord.
However, we have found service failure as there was still some ambiguity for the resident, after the landlord’s internal complaint process ended, over the agreed approach to scheduling and attending repairs.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for failing to make its position clear following her representation. And set out the process that the parties are to follow when scheduling and attending repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are the 2022 and 2024 editions.
The landlord had published complaints policies spanning the timeframe of the complaint, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. This means it had to acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. And provide the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. Its policy states that residents may seek to escalate a complaint to stage 2 within 1 month of it issuing the stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord operated an informal early resolution stage until January 2025, which enabled it to deal with a complaint informally, in agreement with the resident, where a problem could be resolved immediately. This was permissible under the Code, provided this did not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or resulted in any unreasonable delay.

Complaint 1

The landlord issued an early resolution letter 6 working days after the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction on 15 January 2024. The landlord did not seek agreement from the resident to address this complaint informally, through early resolution. This was contrary to its policy. The landlord ought to have considered logging a stage 1 complaint if it was unable to complete the early resolution stage in a timelier manner.
But we note the landlord gave the resident the opportunity to log a stage 1 complaint if she was unhappy with the early response outcome, which was fair. The resident did not immediately seek to escalate the complaint, therefore it was unlikely that the landlord’s approach caused significant detriment to the resident. Additionally, the landlord later offered £25 compensation for delays in its complaint handling, which was proportionate to the failing it had identified.
Our investigation found that the landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within expected timescales. The landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2, due to the resident’s late request and because it was satisfied it had fully investigated the matter at stage 1. The landlord was entitled to refuse the complaint on this basis, under its policy. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to us.

Complaint 2

The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within expected timescales. But it again refused to escalate complaint to stage 2, due to the resident’s late request and because it was satisfied it had fully investigated the matter at stage 1. The landlord was entitled to refuse the complaint on this basis, under its policy. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to us.

Complaint 3

The landlord did not send a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. And instead, issued the stage 1 complaint 14 working days after the resident raised the complaint. The landlord recognised this during its own complaint investigation. But suggested this was because it was able to acknowledge and respond to the complaint at the same time, as part of one letter. This was inappropriate because the purpose of the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement was to set out its understanding of the complaint, giving the resident opportunity to clarify if the landlord had misunderstood. However, we cannot conclude the resident was significantly disadvantaged by this because she did not later suggest, the landlord had misunderstood the reasons for her complaint.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response within the expected response timescale.

Repairing the tenant landlord relationship

The volume of complaints in this case indicates a loss of trust by the resident in the landlord. We note that the landlord has made some effort more recently, to rebuild trust with the resident. However, it is evident from speaking with the resident that there is still more work to do. So, the landlord should continue to work on this with the resident. The landlord may wish to explore use of a third-party advocacy service, who can act as an independent support mechanism and may be able to help the parties navigate future housing issues.
Overall, the landlord recognised there were some failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints and made some effort to put things right. While the landlord did not identify all of the failings weidentified, the likely detriment from those failings was minimal.
Therefore, on balance, we have found find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
To remedy the complaint, we have ordered the landlord apologise for the failings identified by our investigation. And pay the £25 compensation it previously offered the resident for complaint handling delay in complaint 1, if it has not already done so. This is in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website).

Learning

Our investigation identified evidence of some learning by the landlord, as highlighted earlier within this report. We identified some additional learning during our investigation for the landlord to consider, particularly in relation to its approach towards domestic CCTV cameras. This is set out in more detail within our recommendations, above.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any significant record keeping issues.

Communication

There were occasions, as referenced within this report, where the landlord’s communication with the resident fell short. It is evident that the resident’s communication preference made it more challenging for the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord should continue trying to rebuild the tenant landlord relationship, which in time may help improve communications between the partis. The parties may find a third-party advocacy service a helpful interim measure, as previously mentioned.