Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207527)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207527

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 March 2024


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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about CCTV installed on the premises
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder.
  2. The property is a ground-floor flat within a larger block. The block has an external car park.
  3. The resident had previously raised concerns about the CCTV installation on the premises to the landlord via his MP in June 2021, and through a complaint to the ICO.
  4. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman in order to raise a new complaint to the landlord. The Housing Ombudsman forwarded this to the landlord on 3 February 2022. The resident was unhappy about the installation of a CCTV camera which he felt had a direct view into his property. The resident said he wanted the landlord to either remove the camera, relocate this to the front of the building, or erect barriers to prevent the camera from being able to see into his property. The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint on 16 February 2022.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2022. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it had investigated his concerns and found no need for further action. It said it had previously considered his concerns and erected a physical barrier on a light pole on 25 June 2021. It also had previously provided him with images to evidence this CCTV could not see into his property. It added that the camera and system was programmed so it could not intrude on private areas. It confirmed it would not be moving the location of the CCTV as this had been chosen for the coverage of the site and the signal strength.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 May 2022, providing him with an update on 13 June 2022, advising he could expect a response within 20 working days.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2022. It provided him with £50 compensation for its delay in sending the stage 2 response. The landlord reiterated that the information it had offered in its stage 1 complaint response was correct and that it had not identified any service failure in its handling of the issue.
  8. The resident confirmed to the Housing Ombudsman that he wished for it to consider his complaint on 17 October 2022. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and sought further action about the CCTV camera to alleviate his privacy concerns.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The resident has raised issues in relation to data protection. This is not a matter for the oHiHiHousing Ombudsman but would instead be a matter for the ICO. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to deal with complaints about these matters.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV installed on the premises

  1. Under the lease, it is the landlord’s responsibility to manage the common parts of the estates. This includes ‘any driveway footpath garden parking area or other part of the estate which is intended to be or is capable of being enjoyed or used by the leaseholder’. The lease also gives the landlord the ability to ‘to alter or permit the alteration of the arrangement of the common parts provided that after such alteration the access to and amenities of the premises are not substantially less convenient than before’.
  2. The landlord also has a CCTV policy. This outlines the way in which the landlord will use CCTV and the data this captures. The landlord says it will only permit use of CCTV ‘when this is considered appropriate and proportionate to the situation and identified need’.’
  3. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a Data Protection Impact Assessment it undertook on 19 April 2022. This confirmed that it had considered potential impacts on resident privacy at the initial installation of the CCTV. Having considered these impacts, the landlord decided it was proportionate to install CCTV on the premises to monitor ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) and misuse of the car parking facilities. This is in line with how its policy expects it to behave when installing CCTV.
  4. To investigate the resident’s concerns, the landlord contacted the party who managed the CCTV. It appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns, confirming what the CCTV could view and who could access this footage. After receiving this information, the landlord felt comfortable that the resident’s data was not being breached. The landlord also took the step of having this information checked by its data protection manager which represented good practice.
  5. The landlord took the time to consider the resident’s three possible resolutions before deciding it could not perform any of these. It said that CCTV was in place to reduce ASB and non-compliance with the parking controls. It also said that it would be unable to move the location of the CCTV as this would reduce the effectiveness and visibility across the entire estate. Finally, it found that it could not add a larger shield to the camera due to its location and the weight of a larger shield. It added that it felt the previous shield installed was sufficient. It was good practice from the landlord to consider all of the resolutions the resident sought, and to provide detailed explanation as to why it would not be taking those steps.
  6. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV. It investigated his concerns fairly, has undertaken the necessary checks before installing the device, and spoke with the party who monitors this to ensure the CCTV is not able to view into the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has two stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge complaints within 10 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord says it will acknowledge the complaint within 10 working days and provide a response within 40 working days of receiving the escalation. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends that landlords provide responses to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord received the complaint on 3 February 2022 and called the resident to acknowledge this on 16 February 2022. This was 9 working days after the complaint had been received. This was in line with the timelines outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response in a further 19 working days. Although the Ombudsman notes that this is still outside the timescales it should be providing complaint responses in, the landlord kept to the expectations its policy set out to residents. Given this, the time taken to provide the complaint responses did not cause any additional distress or inconvenience to the resident.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord failed to provide a response to the resident within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It recognised this failing and provided the resident with £50 compensation. This figure represented a reasonable offer of redress for the likely inconvenience the delay caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s responses at stage 1 and stage 2 were both fair in content and tone.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 for its complaint handling represented a reasonable offer of redress given the level of inconvenience that its delays caused the resident.
  6. If the landlord has not already paid this amount to the resident, it should reoffer it to him.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV installed on the premises.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already paid the £50 compensation offered for its complaint handling failures at stage 2, the landlord should reoffer this amount to the resident.