Bolsover District Council (202006688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006688

Bolsover District Council

14 April 2022


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. This complaint is about the:

a.     landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti- social behaviour (ASB)

b.     landlord’s response to the resident’s decision to install CCTV cameras

c.      landlord’s response to the resident having three dogs in the property

d.     related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant since 27 November 1995. The property is described as a ground floor flat in a block of four flats.
  2. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to ensure that no harassment is caused to any other person such as abusive, insulting words or behaviour. It advises that “you must not make … any additions or installations to the property” without the landlord’s written permission and prohibits the “keeping of any animals (except one dog) on the premises” without the landlord’s written consent.
  3. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to replace and renew the structure and exterior of the property and to keep the property in good repair.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as ‘conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person’ and recognises that it can take different forms such as verbal abuse, threats of violence and damage to property.

The policy states that most reports are resolved without the need for legal action. Formal action can range from warning letters, home visits and the mediation service and the investigation process can include the review of CCTV to gather evidence. It notes that covert or over recordings must comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and any associated legislations such as those that protect the resident’s data.

  1. The landlord’s Compliments, Comments and Complaints Policy recognises the importance of resolving complaints. It operates a three-stage process: front-line resolution stage handling issues within three working days, complaints escalated to the second stage within 15 working days and those escalated to the internal review stage within 20 working days.
  2. The resident’s complaints mainly concern her neighbours living in the same block who are leaseholders of the landlord. This Service has not been supplied with copies of their lease agreements, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord has a responsibility to ensure adherence to the terms outlined in their lease.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident has made similar ASB reports to the landlord regarding her neighbours since 2017. The resident complained to the landlord about some of the allegations from June and May 2018. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on these matters on 18 May 2018 and after it exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure the resident did not bring those matters to us for our consideration. Therefore, this determination will focus on the relevant matters that occurred from January 2020 to bring context to the events that led to the resident’s complaint to the landlord in July 2020.
  2. The residents’ disappointment with the landlords’ approach to resolving the ASB reports has been noted and all available evidence has been carefully considered. This report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident, rather it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised. The report will provide a view on the landlords’ overall handling of the issues.
  3. It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and distressed by the ongoing disputes with her neighbours and has been frustrated by the landlords’ handling of the reported ASB. The resident’s feelings are understood and is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident alleged on 8 January 2020 and 9 January 2020 that her neighbours and members of their family were swearing, taking drugs and riding on a scrambler bike. The landlord requested the footage. The resident had difficulty sharing the footage with the landlord, therefore, it discussed with the resident methods to download the footage to enable it to be shared.
  2. There were no further reports of ASB from the resident until 13 May 2020, when a report was made to the landlord that during the lock down, there was a lack of social distancing in the communal garden as her neighbours had held BBQ’s which had been attended by members of their family and friends. The resident explained that as a consequence she had been unable to let her dogs out or access the communal bins. In addition, she provided details of two other incidents that had occurred one on 11 April 2020 where she advised that the police had attended regarding the BBQ’s and the neighbours had ignored their intervention. Also on 8 May 2020, an officer from the community action network had attended who was subject to abuse.
  3. The following day 14 May 2020, the resident made another report to the landlord regarding the lack of social distancing in the communal garden on 10 April 2020. She advised that she had reported it to the police as she could not leave her home due to her neighbour’s presence in the communal gardens to access the bins. The police attended and after they left, she was subject to taunting by her neighbours. She also reported that she had videos she could share with the landlord as evidence of the incidents that she had reported.
  4. The landlord responded the same day advising that she had taken the correct action in notifying the police as the police had the enforcement powers to deal with any breaches of the social distancing legislation. It advised that it had requested further information from the police, that it had reviewed the footage and she should continue to report her concerns. It confirmed that it could not restrict the neighbour’s use of the garden but would review the evidence to see if it constituted nuisance or abusive behaviour.
  5. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 15 May 2020 regarding the noise caused by a scrambler style bike and that she was not confident accessing the bin area or letting her dogs out due to the abuse she received. In addition, the police have advised that they could not take any action as she has not informed her neighbours that she wanted to access the area.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord to advise on 18 May 2020 that

a.     she had other videos regarding 8 May 2020 if they wished to view them

b.     that the neighbour had another BBQ planned for the following weekend

c.      sent a video with the neighbour making an offensive sign to her and ring doorbell videos with abusive language from her neighbours.

  1. The landlord confirmed receipt on the same day 18 May 2020 and advised that it was reviewing the footage.
  2. The resident sent further videos to the landlord on 20 and 21 May 2020 regarding what happened on the 8 May 2020 and the lack of social distancing and advised that she has been in contact with Victim Support and alleged that her neighbour had cut her honeysuckle plant.
  3. The landlord’s internal records notes that on 24 June 2020 the landlord had reviewed the CCTV footage and decided that it would consult with its colleagues in housing and the legal department before determining the next steps that it should take.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 June 2020 and advised that it had completed viewing the footage of the videos she had provided and that any further footage must be specific to the ASB reported. It will also be consulting with colleagues in the housing and legal teams and then it would advise on the next steps. In addition, it provided examples of the types of incidents that are considered ASB such as foul language and sounds of a vehicle being revved.
  5. The landlord updated the resident on 30 June 2020 of the actions that it had taken following her reports. It confirmed the scrambler style bike had been seized, therefore there should not be a reoccurrence of the reported issue and it had reminded the residents that they are responsible for their action of their guests.
  6. The landlord received a complaint on 1 July 2020 regarding the behaviour of the resident, that she had verbally abused another resident.
  7. It is noted that a report was also received regarding the number of CCTV cameras at the resident’s address.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 July 2020 requesting a convenient time to view the footage regarding the incident on 1 July 2020.
  9. The resident made a complaint by letter on 20 July 2020 regarding harassment from the residents in the block where she lived. She complained that she had experienced name calling, her dogs had been physically abused, she could not use the communal garden and the blocking of the shared drive over several years. She advised that she had called the police, installed CCTV and that had not made a difference to her experience. She concluded by saying that because of the harassment she had experienced for over a year she had retaliated on 1 July 2020, she had reported the incident to the police, provided CCTV evidence and felt no closer to receiving a resolution to the harassment.
  10. The resident made a report on 31 July 2020 that someone had been moving her bin. A visit was undertaken that same day by the landlord.
  11. The resident reported on 9 August 2020 that her neighbour had threatened to put her dogs down.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident and her neighbours regarding the incident that occurred on 1 July 2020 on 13 August 2020. It advised that the behaviour constituted ASB, it could not confirm the cause of the incident and issued a first written warning relating to the ASB to all parties.
  13. The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 August 2020 advising that it had spoken with her and acknowledged that she had difficulty supplying footage to evidence the reported incidents. It recognised that the social distancing measures that everyone had to adhered to was not helping the situation. It advised her to continue reporting incidents to the community safety team and confirmed that investigations into the allegations was ongoing and that it was working towards a resolution. It offered a visit from an officer to assist her with supplying reports of the incidents she was reporting.
  14. The same day (24 August 2020), the police provided CCTV images of footage of a neighbour spitting at the resident’s door. It advised that this was not considered a crime, provided reasons why the images could be considered as part of the wider investigation.
  15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2020 disputing the fairness of the ASB investigation as she felt that it did not consider the harassment that she had experienced.
  16. The landlord’s internal records note on 7 September 2020, a decision to visit the resident to ascertain the location of the CCTV cameras, its position and to ascertain what audio it was receiving.
  17. On 8 September 2020, it was reported that a neighbour threatened to have the resident’s dogs put down. The resident was advised to contact the police by the community action network ranger.
  18. The resident reported on 21 September 2020 that the position of her neighbour’s car prevented her from leaving home as she was blocked in. It is noted that this was attended by a community action network ranger, on arrival, the resident was no longer blocked it. However, the resident received abuse from her neighbour and this was also witnessed by another officer of the landlord.
  19. On 22 September 2020, the landlord received a statement from its officer regarding the abuse it had witnessed from the resident’s neighbour.
  20. The landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 2 October 2020. It confirmed that all the reported incidents had been investigated. It concluded that:

a.     the communal garden space was for the use of all residents and if the resident was being prevented from using it, she needed to report this to the landlord.

b.     it was willing to review CCTV footage and clarified that any video recordings had to comply with the RIPA Act 2000, otherwise, it was unlikely to be used as evidence in any legal proceedings

c.      retrospective permission for the CCTV had to be requested and as she had more than one dog, permission was also required

d.     historic events could not be considered but it would investigate any new incidents

e.     the resident make contact regarding the incident on 21 September 2020 for further action to be taken

f.        it referred her to the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman to escalate her complaint.

  1. After the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the resident continued to make complaints about the neighbour’s dogs, parking disputes and allegations that the neighbour had cut her hedge.
  2. The resident approached this Service as she was remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She advised that the parking issue had not been addressed, the landlord had not previously requested that she obtain permission for her dogs or to have CCTV. In addition, she advised that the landlord had issued contradictory advice as it had used the evidence from her video doorbell as evidence of ASB, yet it had advised that she should not use the video doorbell to record evidence.
  3. The landlord advised this Service that following the increased use of CCTV and ring doorbells on its properties, it was reviewing its policies regarding these matters.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti- social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of ASB and assesses whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. It is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB allegations, apportion ‘blame’ for any of the alleged ASB or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether it dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
  2. The reports that the landlord received from the resident were similar in nature, they alleged name calling, taunting from her neighbours and their guests, an inability to let her dogs out, noise from the scrambler style bike and her parking being obstructed. The landlord responded by contacting the resident, reviewing video evidence that she submitted and on completion of its review, advised that it would take further advice from its colleagues. Once the landlord concluded that the allegations were ASB, it took formal action by confiscating the motor bike and reminded its residents that they were responsible for the action of their visitors. This was reasonable action to take in accordance with its ASB policy as it assessed the reported nuisance, took action to prevent reoccurrence and kept the resident informed.
  3. The resident made reports in May 2020 regarding the lack of social distancing in the communal gardens by her neighbours and her guests. The landlord correctly confirmed that the police should be contacted regarding enforcement action and advised her to keep reporting the incidents for it to assess whether there was any action that it could take.
  4. It is evident that the landlord was aware that the resident has CCTV cameras and a ring video doorbell as it has requested and reviewed video information from her to support her ASB complaints. In addition, in June 2020, it provided guidance on the incidents that could be recorded to substantiate ASB. Furthermore, it carried out a visit to her home to assess the location of the resident’s cameras.
  5. The resident complained in July 2020 that the landlord had not acted for the past three years to resolve the harassment she was experiencing and she recounted an incident which occurred on 1 July 2020. The landlord investigation of the incident concluded that it constituted ASB and in accordance with its ASB policy sent all parties a warning letter explaining its reasons for doing so. The landlord acted proportionately and fairly as the use of warning letters is one of the remedies available to manage ASB and to ensure that parties are aware of the impact and consequences of their behaviors.
  6. The landlord in its complaint response set out the circumstances in which the CCTV images could be used as part of evidence of the reported ASB and explained that in order for the recordings to be used, they need to be in full, providing the full detail of the incident. This was appropriate as this would assist the landlord in taking action under the tenancy agreement and inform the resident of the legal requirements that needed to be adhered to.
  7. The landlord liaised with its colleagues in the police and the community action network rangers to share information and decide on further action that could be taken regarding the resident’s reports of ASB.  It was reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of the police that the incident involving the resident’s door being spat at could not be considered as a crime however, it could inform the action that it could take.
  8. Following the resident’s report that the neighbour had obstructed her in the parking area and had delayed her leaving her home. The evidence supplied to this Service shows liaison with the community action network rangers who attended the resident’s home in response to her reports.
  9. It should be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases resulting in neighbour disputes and it is the responsibility of residents to resolve these and find a way to live together with minimal conflict. The landlord’s role is to take appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and the options available or taken by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, therefore, it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  10. The information seen by this Service shows that the landlord communicated promptly to the resident’s reports. It offered to assist her with supplying appropriate video evidence for its review of the reported incidents, kept her updated on the actions that it was taking and managed her expectations through its advice that ASB needed to be substantiated before it could take action which provided clarity around the actions it could take. In addition, in the final complaint response the landlord requested that the resident make contact with regard to the incident that occurred on 21 September 2020 so it could consider any further action it could take.

response to the resident’s decision to install CCTV cameras at the property

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement advises that its residents must not carry out an installation without requesting permission. However, it does not make explicitly clear that this applies to CCTV cameras. As the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, it is reasonable for it to decide whether to give permission for items attached to the building.
  2. From the available records, the landlord did not inform the resident that permission was required when it was reviewing the video footage from her CCTV cameras and from the ring doorbell, neither did it do this when it visited her home regarding the CCTV cameras. This was a missed opportunity to discuss with the resident compliance with RIPPA and the data protection regulations and answer any concerns she had.
  3. Whilst the available evidence does not indicate that the resident was previously advised that she needed to obtain permission to install the cameras, given the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building it was reasonable for it to inform the resident that she needed to apply for retrospective permission for the cameras installed at her address as it gave appropriate reasons for its request.

response to the resident having three dogs in the property

  1. The tenancy agreement stipulates that the resident can have one dog and permission must be requested if the resident wishes to have other dogs. From the review of the correspondence, it is clear that the landlord was aware that the resident had more than one dog and the resident was aware that she needed to apply for permission for the other dogs living at the property.
  2. There was a short coming by the landlord as it did not follow up with the resident to obtain adherence to the terms of the tenancy agreement when the resident did not apply for retrospective permission.
  3. The landlord did not take action at the earliest opportunity regarding the number of dogs that the resident has, as it was aware that she had more than one dog for some time before it asked her to apply for permission. This is a shortcoming in its contact with the resident. However, in line with its policy it is reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The related complaint

  1. The resident complained to the landlord regarding the nuisance she had experienced on 20 July 2020 and the landlord responded on 24 August 2020 which was outside its published time frame of 15 working days and it did not apologise for the lateness of its response.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord responded to the complaint on 2 October 2020 and provided an explanation setting out its position on the issues raised by the resident.
  3. When the landlord issued its final complaint response it incorrectly advised the resident to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to escalate her complaint rather providing her with the contact details of this Service. This was service failure as it did not provide the resident with the correct information to enable her to escalate her complaint to obtain an external review of her concerns.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbours.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the response to the resident’s decision to install CCTV cameras at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the response to the resident’s having three dogs in the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took steps to investigate the ASB reports raised by the resident and issued verbal warnings and a warning letter to its residents in accordance with its ASB policy.
  2. The landlord has advised the resident that it will review CCTV images as part of its investigation into her claims of ASB and reasonably requested that the resident apply for retrospective permission for the CCTV on her premises.
  3. The tenancy agreement prescribes that if a resident wishes to have more than one dog, permission is required, therefore it is reasonable for the landlord to request it.
  4. The landlord failed to answer the initial complaint within its published time limits and did not provide the correct escalation information, therefore she was not signposted to the correct Ombudsman.

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50.00 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to ensure compliance with its own complaint procedures to ensure that complaints are answered within its published time limits and complaint responses contain the correct escalation information.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.