Clarion Housing Association Limited (202533037)

Decision
Case ID	202533037
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	11 May 2026

Background

The landlord gave the resident permission to install CCTV. It later revoked this permission as the resident had positioned the CCTV to face the communal car park. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision and complained about its handling of the matter.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to install a CCTV camera.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a CCTV camera.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request to install a CCTV camera

The landlord delayed in responding to police emails and failed to follow its policy by advising the resident how he could appeal the landlord’s decision.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays and offered proportionate compensation.

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 09 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 (inclusive of its £200 offer) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV. 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 09 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

09 June 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £250 (inclusive of its £200 offer) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV.

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

09 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered for its failures for handling the associated complaint. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 July 2025	The resident complained as he was unhappy that the landlord told him to remove his CCTV camera having previously been given permission to install it. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 28 July 2025.
17 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It had previously granted permission for the CCTV camera on the basis it did not face communal areas. It understood the resident wanted it for extra security and intended to monitor his car after reports of vandalism. At the time, there was a lack of evidence about this incident which prevented it from taking further action. It received a complaint about the camera and after identifying it was overlooking the communal car park, it concluded it was a breach of its home improvements and alterations procedure which did not allow surveillance of shared spares. The resident could consider installing a dashcam or adjusting the field of view. It had delayed in responding to the complaint at stage 1 and would offer £50 compensation.
17 September 2025	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He felt the compensation amount was not proportionate to the stress caused and was unhappy with how long the landlord had taken to look at the matter. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 24 September 2025.
24 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: Accepted its communication with the resident was not as effective as it should have been. It awarded £200 compensation for not keeping the resident updated and stated it would learn from this and understood the importance of maintaining clear communication. Granted permission to install CCTV on 8 July 2024. In March 2025, concerns were raised about this, and it withdrew the permission. Said while it understood the resident’s desire to protect his car from further vandalism it also needed to balance this with concerns about the camera facing the communal area. Reassured the resident it was committed to acting on other reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), having issued warning letters.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and said he did not want to take his CCTV camera down. Following an email from the police, the landlord reinstated permission for the CCTV camera in February 2026, largely resolving the complaint for the resident.

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	Request to install a CCTV camera
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s CCTV policy states that when residents install domestic CCTV, they will be responsible for complying with data protection law. It encourages residents to discuss the installation with neighbours and take their views into consideration. Its permissions: home improvements and alterations procedure states that installation of CCTV should be in accordance with the right to privacy of neighbours. It states CCTV cameras should not capture any communal areas. It further states that its reserves the right to request repositioning or removal of CCTV cameras. And it will consider enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement if a neighbour’s privacy is infringed.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) guidance states that, where possible, owners should position their cameras to only capture their own property. Where this is not possible, and CCTV captures another property or communal spaces, then data protection laws apply. We cannot consider whether the resident’s CCTV cameras comply with ICO guidance or whether they should be allowed to remain. This is something the resident may wish to seek further advice on with the ICO. Instead, we will we assess the landlord’s handling of the concerns and whether it acted fairly and responded reasonably.
The resident reported that his car was damaged with paint on 22 June 2024 and on 2 July 2024 he asked for permission to install a CCTV camera. The landlord granted permission for this on 8 July 2024. In doing so it reasonably explained the terms and conditions. These included that it must not be directed at any communal area and it reserved the right to request the camera’s removal. It also appropriately explained the resident was responsible for ensuring he complied with the ICO’s domestic CCTV guidance.
The evidence shows the landlord received a complaint about the resident’s CCTV in February 2025. To investigate the matter, it appropriately visited the property to assess what the camera was capturing on 10 February 2025 before considering issuing a warning. It also attended on 25 March 2025 to discuss the matter with the resident further. This was appropriate and demonstrated it was taking a more considered approach with the matter. During this visit the landlord noted the CCTV was not looking into the flats but those walking and driving in and out of the car park could be seen. It was reasonable for it to assess what the camera was capturing before making a decision.
The resident reported another incident of damage to his car on 27 March 2025. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 May 2025, having considered its position about the CCTV camera. As it was facing the communal car park it asked him to remove it. While this would have been disappointing for the resident to learn, it acted in line with its policy.
On 16 May 2025, the landlord repeated its decision to revoke its permission. It appropriately visited the resident to discuss a plan on 28 May 2025. This demonstrated that it was willing to engage with the resident and listen to his concerns. During this visit the resident explained that he felt the CCTV camera provided security for his car, but he was unwilling to remove the camera unless told to by a judge. The landlord said it would request a joint visit with its tenancy support department to respond to his concerns. It is unclear if this visit went ahead, and we have not seen any record of this if it did. However, the landlord’s position was unchanged, and it told the resident to remove the camera again on 9 June 2025. Following this, the resident incurred time and trouble contacting the landlord on 3 occasions to discuss the matter. It was not until 25 June 2025 that it attempted to call him back.
The landlord issued a warning to the resident on 27 June 2025 allowing a further 7 days to remove the CCTV camera. It also organised another visit on 14 July 2025 to again discuss the matter with him. A final warning letter was issued on 25 July 2025 prior to the landlord seeking an injunction. While we empathise with the resident’s desire to protect his property, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider privacy and data protection implications when deciding to revoke its permission. In doing so it appropriately gave the resident multiple opportunities to discuss the matter with it before proceeding with legal action.
On 28 July 2025 the resident provided the contact details for the police officer who he had spoken to about the matter. He asked the landlord to contact them as they wanted to speak with it. We have seen that the police emailed the landlord on 7 January 2026. They told the landlord they advised the resident he was allowed to have a camera facing a public area and advised him to keep it in place for the protection of his property. Although the landlord’s policy did not permit CCTV facing communal areas, it changed its position on 27 February 2026 and allowed the camera to remain, taking account of police advice. It was reasonable for it to do so and demonstrated it was taking a flexible approach.
The police email referred to previously sent emails to the landlord which had not been replied to. We have not seen these emails, and it is unclear why there is no record of these. This indicates a record keeping failure. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to attempt to resolve the matter at an earlier stage, particularly so because its ASB policy supports joint working with the police. This delay likely caused uncertainty for the resident which could have reasonably been avoided.
On 10 September 2025, the resident also advised the landlord he wished to appeal its decision to revoke permission. The landlord’s permissions policy states residents can ask the landlord to review any decision. We have not seen any evidence to show the landlord responded to this request by providing him with details of how he could do this which was another failing.
The landlord positively recognised its communication could have better and offered £200 compensation. Given the additional failing identified, we order it to pay a further £50 compensation. This is line with our compensation guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. It will acknowledge the complaint and escalation request within 5 working days.
The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaints at both stages in line with its policy:
1. Taking 56 working days to acknowledge and respond at stage 1 which was outside of the Code and its policy’s prescribed timescale of 15 working days.
2. Taking 27 working days to acknowledge and respond at stage 2 which was outside of the Code and its policy’s prescribed timescale of 25 working days.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord obtained extensions in line with the Code or its policy or that the delay was unavoidable. Considering these failings, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation to put this right. We consider its offer of £50 compensation at stage 1 to be fair and its failings at stage 2 to be minimal. Its offer is broadly in line with our remedies guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings.

Learning

CCTV Policy

This case has highlighted a potential inconsistency with the landlord’s domestic CCTV policy and the position taken by the police. It may be appropriate for it to seek advice on whether an amendment to its CCTV policy is necessary.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The police email indicated earlier emails from them had been missed or not responded to. This indicated an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. It should consider reviewing the cause of this.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was appropriate. There were instances where it did not respond in a timely manner and it has recognised the learning from this.