From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Great Places Housing Association (202323017)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323017

Great Places Housing Association

16 June 2025

 

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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns a neighbour had installed a smart doorbell.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a bungalow that shares a communal courtyard with several other properties.
  2. The resident reported that her neighbour had installed a smart doorbell on 19 July 2023. She asked the landlord to contact her neighbour and request that he removed it. The landlord spoke with the neighbour on 1 August 2023. It asked him to ensure the camera from his smart doorbell was not pointed at any other property.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2023. She was unhappy the landlord had not requested her neighbour remove his smart doorbell. She felt that he was using it to spy and eavesdrop on her.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. It told her it did not have a policy that excluded residents from having smart doorbells. It said when residents choose to install a smart doorbell it advises them that they are responsible for the data and they need to ensure they comply with the law. It concluded that it was unable to ask her neighbour to remove his smart doorbell. It agreed to visit her home to discuss her concerns further on 28 September 2023.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 September 2023. She was unhappy the landlord had not visited her. She did not believe the landlord’s position about her neighbour’s smart doorbell matched the wording of the tenancy agreement.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. It told the resident that:
    1. Its position was that it was reasonable for her neighbour to have installed a smart doorbell and it had granted him retrospective consent.
    2. It visited her neighbour without notice and inspected the area covered by the camera of the doorbell.
    3. The doorbell camera did not cover the entrance to the resident’s home at the time of its visit.
    4. It was satisfied the neighbour had installed it in response to recent car thefts in the area.
    5. It would only intervene where there was evidence to show that a smart doorbell was being used to cause nuisance.
    6. There was no evidence her neighbour was using his smart doorbell in any way that would breach his tenancy agreement obligations.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord assured the resident it would introduce a new policy about the use of CCTV, surveillance and monitoring equipment within 6 months. It agreed to install a trellis barrier at the side of her front door to provide a physical barrier between her and her neighbour’s properties. It said it was considering whether it could also install privacy film on her window.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 6 November 2023. She remained unhappy at the landlord’s decision to allow her neighbour to keep his smart doorbell. She wanted it to change its decision.
  9. The landlord updated its tenancy management policy in June 2024 to include a section on smart doorbells. It says it will generally accept resident’s fitting a smart doorbell providing it does not contravene another person’s right to privacy.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement includes a section about CCTV. It states that a resident must not install or use CCTV or any other monitoring equipment on their property without prior permission from the landlord. It will not unreasonably refuse permission. Residents must not use CCTV in a way that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. The tenancy agreement does not specify whether the landlord classifies smart doorbells as CCTV or monitoring equipment. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not have a policy about smart doorbells.
  2. When the resident first reported her neighbour’s smart doorbell in July 2023 it was appropriate that the landlord sought guidance from its Housing and Enforcement Team. This was because it did not have a specific policy covering smart doorbells. While the tenancy agreement covers CCTV and surveillance equipment it does not mention whether that covers smart doorbells. The landlord was entitled to consider its position about the use of smart doorbells.
  3. At the point the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour on 1 August 2023 it had decided that it did not consider smart doorbells to fall under the CCTV and surveillance section of the tenancy agreement. In asking her neighbour to ensure the camera of the doorbell did not point at any other properties the landlord showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  4. The landlord’s approach in its stage 1 response was reasonable. It was appropriate it repeated its position that it would not request the resident’s neighbour remove his smart doorbell. It also reassured her it had advised him of his obligations under the law. However, it was not appropriate that it did not honour the visit to her home as agreed in its stage 1 response.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 investigation was also reasonable. In completing a visit to the neighbour with no prior notice it was able to view the position of the camera without giving him an opportunity to adjust it. Following that visit and a discussion with the neighbour it was satisfied that his reasons for installing the smart doorbell were reasonable. It showed that it understood the resident’s concerns remained when it agreed to erect trellis to act as a physical barrier. It was also appropriate that it assured her it would introduce a policy surrounding smart doorbells to establish its position for all residents.
  6. We appreciate landlords must balance the differing needs of their residents. When considering the resident’s concerns the landlord has taken proportionate action. Although it did not result in her desired outcome in both speaking with and visiting the resident’s neighbour the landlord acted on her concerns. As it did not have a policy that specifically covered the use of smart doorbells it was entitled to decide how it proceeded. It is positive that it later introduced a policy to clarify its position on the use of smart doorbells. It also showed it had taken the resident’s privacy concerns seriously when it agreed to install trellis. The landlord’s approach has been reasonable throughout the resident’s complaint. For those reasons there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns her neighbour had installed a smart doorbell.

Determination (decision)

  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 her neighbour had installed a smart doorbell.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to install the privacy film on the resident’s windows as mentioned in its stage 2 response. It should provide her with its decision.