Home Group Limited (202340518)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340518

Home Group Limited

4 February 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
    1. Noise nuisance.
    2. The neighbours use of a doorbell camera.
    3. The neighbours use of audio recording equipment.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a mid-terraced house. The resident has advised she has a heart condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that her new neighbour was making unreasonable levels of noise on 28 June 2022. She then made similar reports to this effect over the next several months. The landlord investigated these on an ad-hoc basis and spoke with the neighbour about the noise on several occasions. In November 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was using a doorbell camera and audio recording devices to surveil and harass her. In December 2022 the local authority became involved in handling the noise reports.
  3. The resident continued to report noise nuisances and the neighbour’s alleged use of recording equipment from December 2022 until June 2023, and the landlord responded to each report. During this period the resident used the noise app recommended by the landlord to document the alleged nuisance.
  4. On 20 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained the noise recordings she had provided did not meet its threshold for antisocial behaviour (ASB). It encouraged her to engage with the local authority to have noise recording equipment installed in her home if she wanted to pursue the case further. It explained it had investigated the neighbour’s doorbell camera and found they were operating it in accordance with the law. It also explained it had investigated the internal audio devices she reported. It found the neighbour was using a smart speaker and baby monitor and explained that these devices do not continuously record but do so in short bursts in response to voice commands. It explained the neighbour was permitted to use both devices. It encouraged her to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she wished to pursue her complaint about the camera and audio devices.
  5. The resident continued to report the same issues to the landlord for the next few months until she made a formal complaint about its handling of these concerns on 6 September 2023. She also complained the landlord had breached confidentiality by revealing details of her reports to the neighbour. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 26 September and reiterated the position it outlined on 20 June 2023. It advised the local authority had closed her case following her apparent failure to provide diary sheets and advised her to contact it if she wanted to reopen the case. It explained it had found no evidence that its staff had breached confidentiality. It acknowledged, however, that it had failed to suitably record its communication with the parties involved throughout its investigation and offered her £55 compensation as redress for this.
  6. The resident was unhappy with this and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 October 2023. She explained she felt that the landlord had “wiped its hands” of her case and passed it to the local authority. She considered the landlord should have compelled the neighbour to remove the doorbell camera and audio recording devices. She also complained the landlord failed to suitably address the noise reports.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 November 2023 and acknowledged that it had not kept a suitable audit trail of the actions it took in relation to her reports. It explained it had found a baby monitor and “other internal recording devices” in the neighbour’s property and asked them to reposition these to reassure the resident. It explained that the neighbour had repositioned these, so they were no longer visible from outside the property. It committed to a new ASB review in recognition of its record keeping failures and advised it would reconsider her concerns about the placement of the internal audio devices as part of this review. It encouraged the resident to engage with the local authority to install more sophisticated noise recording equipment to gather more information. It also offered the resident £300 compensation.
  8. The resident was unhappy with this response as she considered it did not address her concerns about the doorbell camera. She also considered the landlord had failed to address the noise reports. Over the next month the resident continued to report these issues to the landlord. The landlord considered the noise recordings she provided and advised her on 29 December 2023 that they were all instances of normal household noise. It explained it would speak to the neighbour to ask if they could try to be quieter. It advised that the neighbour had permission for her doorbell camera but that it would visit them in the new year to check that this was directed at their own path. It also explained that it would chase the local authority for sound recording equipment.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 February 2024. Over the next few months the resident continued to report the same issues to the landlord and provided further noise recordings. On 11 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that the noise recordings she had provided did not qualify as ASB. It explained it had closed her ASB case on this basis. It also explained that the neighbour had permission to operate the doorbell camera and reiterated that she should refer this complaint to the ICO if she wished to pursue it. The resident remains dissatisfied with this as she considers the landlord should take enforcement action against the neighbour in relation to the noise reports or soundproof their property. She also considers the landlord should remove their doorbell camera and any recording devices within their property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another regulator.
  2. The resident complains that her neighbour inappropriately operated a doorbell camera to spy on her, and that this breached data privacy laws. The ICO is the regulator responsible for upholding information rights in the public interest. This means it is responsible for regulating how organisations and individuals gather and use personal data. The data gathered by CCTV is one such example of this personal data.
  3. Therefore, the question of whether the neighbour is operating her doorbell camera in line with data privacy regulations is one which is more suitably adjudicated by the ICO. The ICO’s website advises that it considers complaints about individual use of home CCTV systems and sets out the kinds of things it can do in response to these. Therefore, in line with 42.j, this investigation will not consider this complaint.
  4. The resident complains that the landlord failed to suitably address her reports of noise and ASB from 2013 to present. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  5. We have seen no evidence the resident made a formal complaint about these issues until 6 September 2023. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2013 to 5 September 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. Instead, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from 6 September 2022 up to the landlord’s final response on 10 November 2023. We will also consider events after this which are related to commitments the landlord made in its final response.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s policy on handling reports of noise and ASB states it will begin investigating reports of noise nuisance within 3 working days. Once it has assessed a report, it states it will agree an action plan with the complainant. This action plan is then to have agreed timescales of how it aims to resolve the issue.
  2. On 20 September 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was persistently screaming and arguing with their family and that this was distressing her. The resident explained that the alleged noise was triggering her PTSD.
  3. The landlord called the resident the following day and advised it had spoken with the neighbour and sent her a letter advising her a noise complaint had been made. It also encouraged the resident to explore mediation as a possible means of resolution, which the resident refused. It then visited the neighbour on 22 September 2022 and discussed the noise report. Therefore, the landlord investigated this report within the timeframes outlined in its policy. We also consider the offer of mediation and attempts to discuss the report informally with the neighbour were reasonable first courses of action for it to attempt in seeking a prompt resolution. The resident then advised the landlord on 22 September 2022 that she did not want to pursue the noise report any further.
  4. At some point between this and 11 October 2022 the resident reported more screaming and arguing from the neighbour’s property. There is no record of this report, so we are unable to determine exactly when she made it. However, internal emails from the landlord indicate it tried to call the resident on 11,12, and 13 October 2023 to discuss a recent noise report she made. It was unable to reach her on any of these occasions. The landlord acted appropriately here by promptly and repeatedly attempting to engage the resident in response to this report. Although it did not make an action plan in response to this, it was not appropriate for it to have done so given the resident had not engaged with its attempts to discuss the issues first.
  5. The resident then made another report on 13 November 2022. On 15 November 2022 the landlord called her to discuss the situation. It offered mediation again which the resident refused. It agreed with the resident for her to start documenting instances of noise via the noise app.
  6. We recognise the landlord acted appropriately by promptly engaging the resident in response to the 13 November 2022 report as per its policy, and that it acted reasonably by re-offering mediation. However, its policy obliged it to agree an action plan with her in response to this report, and it failed to do so. We consider this was a missed opportunity to take a more formal approach given it appeared the same issues reported in September 2022 had resumed.
  7. The landlord then visited the neighbour on 16 November 2022 to discuss the noise reports, but they refused to engage or discuss this. The resident made further reports over the following month, and we can see the landlord discussed these concerns with her several times on the phone. We can see the landlord spoke with the resident on 16 December 2022 and booked a home visit for 21 December 2022 to complete an action plan. It also contacted the local authority to ask whether it would provide noise recording equipment to the resident, and it agreed to this on 19 December 2022. Following this, there is no evidence the landlord followed through on its commitment to agree an action plan with the resident. This was not in keeping with its policy, and we consider it likely caused the resident some distress. The resident then advised on 16 January 2023 that she did not want to pursue the noise complaint any further with the landlord or the local authority.
  8. The resident made a further report on 23 January 2023 and provided noise app recordings. The landlord called her the same day and advised it would speak to the neighbour. It advised the recording she provided was of hoovering and a child crying, and that this did not appear unreasonable or antisocial. It encouraged the resident again to engage with the local authority to have noise recording equipment installed, and reoffered mediation. We consider this was reasonable. There is no record of the resident’s response to this in the call notes. There is also no direct record of any communication between the landlord and the local authority. Therefore, we cannot reach a view on whether the resident refused the noise equipment as she had previously.
  9. However, there is no indication the landlord took any steps to draft an action plan following the 23 January 2023 report. It was obligated to, and doing so would likely have progressed the situation, even if just by managing the resident’s expectations about what she could expect as a possible resolution. While we recognise it acted positively by promptly contacting the resident in response to each report, we consider its repeated failure to agree an action plan likely caused her some distress.
  10. Following this there are no records of any related action or correspondence until 4 April 2023, when the landlord attempted to call the resident. It was unable to get through and closed the related ASB case on the same day. The resident then raised another report about noise on 1 June 2023. She also provided noise recordings. The landlord attempted to call her back on 5 June 2023 but was unable to get through so left a voicemail. The resident then called back on 16 June to chase an update.
  11. The landlord wrote to her on 20 June 2023 and explained that it considered the recordings did not reveal anything beyond reasonable household noise. It explained that more sophisticated noise recording equipment was necessary to gather more information, and that the resident needed to engage with the local authority to organise this. It noted that she had refused its previous attempts to arrange this, and that she should contact the local authority if she wanted to pursue this. It committed to follow up any further ASB reports with a home visit to liaise with the resident and the local authority, review any evidence, and to ascertain an action plan.
  12. It is unclear why the landlord committed to making an action plan in response to any further reports rather than doing so in response to the 1 June 2023 report as per its policy. The resident has advised that she felt “fobbed off” by the landlord’s approach to her noise reports, and we recognise her account. Given the repeated nature of the reports, an action plan would have been a positive step towards some kind of resolution. Even if it did not lead to a resolution of the noise, having an agreed timeline of actions would have given the resident a clearer picture of what the landlord was able to do in response to her reports.
  13. The landlord then visited the resident on 21 June 2023. Internal records note that it discussed her concerns with her and ongoing actions and expectations in relation to the ASB reports. However, the landlord failed to document what these ongoing actions and expectations were, which it should have done as per its policy. The records also state that the landlord advised the resident that if she wanted to take the complaint further, she would need to engage with the local authority. It also notes that it advised the resident that any further ASB reports would need to be evidenced.
  14. It is difficult for us to reach a robust view on how or if the resident engaged with the local authority to install noise recording equipment as per the landlord’s instruction since we have no records of any related communication. In any case, the landlord’s repeated instruction for her to do so was a reasonable course of action to suggest for her to gather more precise evidence to support her complaint. We also recognise the landlord acted positively by visiting the resident again to discuss her concerns and its related actions.
  15. However, it should have documented these actions. From October 2022 until this point the resident had supplied significant volumes of recordings which the landlord had consistently determined did not qualify as ASB. Given this, the landlord should have made some attempt to explain to the resident what kinds of noise would qualify as ASB either at the 21 June 2023 visit or, ideally, sooner. We cannot see any evidence the landlord attempted to do so at any point from October 2022 to present. Agreeing an action plan with the resident which explicitly outlined this threshold would have allowed the landlord to better manage her expectations and allowed her to gather evidence more selectively. We consider this omission was likely a contributory factor to the repeated and largely futile nature of the reports, and that this likely caused the resident distress.
  16. The resident made another noise report on 9 July 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this on 12 July 2023 in line with its policy. On 17 July 2023 it advised the resident that the next course of action would be for her to consider moving into a new property. The resident did not respond to this offer and made another noise report on 19 July 2023. The landlord visited the resident on 4 August 2023 and discussed the reports. It advised her that she needed to engage with the local authority to install noise recording equipment, and that she had previously refused this. The landlord agreed to work with the local authority collaboratively to assess the evidence gathered before it reached a decision on the latest report. The resident made another report the following day.
  17. It was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate its instruction for the resident to engage with the local authority to have the noise equipment installed. We can see no indication the resident did so. It was also reasonable for it to raise the possibility of a property move given how intensely the resident had explained the alleged nuisance was impacting her health. However, we also note the landlord again failed to agree or document an action plan.
  18. The resident continued to make further noise reports throughout August 2023 and the landlord engaged with her each time and advised she needed to liaise with the local authority regarding the noise equipment before it could progress her case. On 4 September 2023 the resident, via her son, rejected the landlord’s offer to consider a house move. On 6 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. In its stage 1 response of 26 September 2023, it reiterated its position that she needed to engage with the local authority, but offered £55 for failing to suitably document its communication with her and the neighbour. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to complete an action plan, and it should have done so. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 October 2023. The landlord then closed her ASB case on 30 October 2023 after reviewing the latest noise recordings, but there are no records related to how it reached this decision.
  19. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It reiterated the need for the resident to engage with the local authority, and that the noise recordings provided did not qualify as ASB. However, it suitably acknowledged its failure to agree an action plan with her. It apologised for this and offered £300 in compensation. This was inclusive of: £75 for poor communication, £75 for its failure to follow its ASB policies, £75 for its failure to initiate an ASB review at stage 1 after identifying issues with communication, and £75 for the time and trouble the resident incurred chasing her concerns. It also agreed to complete a full ASB review and agree an action plan to move forward. This was an appropriate course of action for the landlord to commit to and in line with its policy on handling noise reports.
  20. The resident then made further noise reports on 23 November 2023, 1 December 2023, and 7 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged these reports on 7 December 2023. Given the volume and frequency of the reports the resident was making, we consider this was a reasonable time frame for it to respond. On 11 December 2023 the landlord called her to advise her ASB case had been reallocated as per its stage 2 commitment, and the call notes record that it advised her of the next steps it would take.
  21. This pattern of communication between the resident and the landlord continued throughout December 2023. On 14 December 2023 internal emails note that the landlord had sent the resident an action plan. This Service reviewed the action plan and finds the information set out (regarding the actions the landlord listed) to be reasonable. With this being said, this Service considers that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided further detail on the ‘comments and outcome’ section so everything pertaining to the outcome of each action could have been documented.
  22. On 29 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it had considered the noise recordings provided throughout December 2023 but found that none of these qualified as ASB. It explained they involved normal household noise like a baby crying and occasional banging sounds. It also reiterated the need to engage with the local authority to install the more sensitive noise equipment.
  23. While we recognise the landlord’s conclusions about the noise recordings may have been reasonable, there is no record of which specific recordings were considered or how these were considered. The landlord should have documented its analysis as part of an action plan, and its failure to do so is a repeated instance of the same unsuitable approach it had taken since November 2022. However, we note that the landlord again instructed the resident to engage with the local authority regarding the noise recording equipment, and we have seen no indication she did so at this point or at any stage prior to this. We recognise that this also may have contributed to the continued lack of progression.
  24. The resident called the landlord and made further reports on 2 January and 4 January 2024. There is no evidence of any further correspondence or related action until 18 March 2024 when the resident’s son emailed the landlord and reiterated the noise reports. He also made a separate allegation about the neighbour’s untidy front garden. He reported this again on 11 April 2024. On 17 April 2024 the landlord responded and advised the noise app recordings he provided indicated a “music box” was playing at times and confirmed it would speak to the neighbour about this. It emailed him again on 24 April 2024 and advised it could hear the neighbour shouting in some of the recordings he provided. It agreed to discuss this with the neighbour also. The landlord visited the neighbour on 1 May 2024 and discussed the allegation about their front garden. However, it did not discuss the noise reports because the neighbour had been “quite hostile”.
  25. This pattern of communication then continued intermittently until 11 July 2024 when the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that her case was closed on 9 February 2024 following a case review. It explained that during this review it listened to all the noise app recordings and found they were all instances of household noise. There is no record of this case review. It is also unclear why this decision was communicated to the resident 4 months after it was made. The landlord should have communicated this much sooner, and we consider this omission was another missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
  26. While we recognise it took some positive steps towards addressing the reports throughout this period by repeatedly engaging with both parties, and referring the resident to the local authority, it continuously failed to address her reports in line with its noise policy. We consider this likely caused the resident distress. For this reason, we will order it to pay compensation to put this right. We will also order it to, as per its policy, consider her latest noise report and agree an action plan which also sets out timescales of the steps it will take to address it.
  27. The landlord’s policy on discretionary compensation sets out that compensation is usually awarded as a result of service failure but that there is no obligation on its part to make this award. The policy does not provide any guidelines for levels of payment. For this reason, we have used our own guidance to determine the level of compensation.
  28. Our guidance on compensation states that payments of £100 to £600 are sufficient to put right failures by the landlord which have adversely, but not permanently affected the resident. We note that, in its stage 2 response of 10 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged its failure to complete an action plan up until this point and offered £300 compensation to address this, which the resident accepted in December 2023.
  29. We note that this failing likely caused the resident some distress from 12 November 2022 until 10 November 2023. However, the majority of this distress was likely caused by the alleged noise nuisance itself. We also note that the resident did not engage with the local authority as instructed by the landlord during this period, and that things may have progressed further had she done so. With this in mind, we consider the £300 provided is sufficient to put this omission right.
  30. Having considered everything above, this Service finds service failure due to the landlord closing the noise complaint in February 2024 and informing the resident about the closure months later. The landlord ought to have informed the resident about the closure earlier. Under the circumstances, this Service considers £50 to be a reasonable and proportionate amount that puts things right.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of audio recording devices

  1. The resident complains the landlord incorrectly refused to remove audio recording equipment from her neighbour’s property. On 21 November 2022 she reported to the landlord that her neighbour had installed microphones and cameras in their own living room to surveil her. We can see the landlord discussed this with her on 28 November 2022 but the details of this are not recorded.
  2. The first instance we can see where the landlord explicitly addresses this allegation is in a letter it sent the resident on 20 June 2023. In this letter it explained it inspected the neighbour’s property and found that they were operating a smart speaker. It explained that it did not consider this device was being used maliciously, and that it was not responsible for enforcing or managing the neighbour’s use of it. We consider the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the property and attempting to reassure the resident that the alleged surveillance equipment was actually a commonly used smart speaker.
  3. The resident was not satisfied with this, and so the landlord inspected the property again at some point between June 2023 and 10 November 2023. In its stage 2 response it advised the resident that the neighbour was operating a baby monitor and “other recording devices”. This was likely referring to the smart speaker. It advised it had instructed the neighbour to reposition these so the resident could not see them from outside of the property. We consider the landlord did as much as it reasonably could have here to address the resident’s concerns.
  4. On 23 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to advise she considered the neighbour was still using her “Alexa speaker” (smart speaker) to spy on her. We can see the landlord continued to discuss these concerns with her intermittently over the next few months, but it did not carry out any further inspections. Ultimately, the neighbour was permitted to operate a smart speaker and baby monitor within her home, and so the landlord acted reasonably by investigating her concerns and then explaining the outcome of this in its stage 2 response. Given it had already inspected these concerns on 2 occasions, it would not have been reasonable for it to inspect the neighbour’s property again in response to the 23 November 2023 email. While we recognise the resident feels very strongly that the neighbour was using this device maliciously, we cannot reasonably have expected the landlord to tried to prohibit their use of it on this basis.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s use of CCTV is outside our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s use of audio recording equipment.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £50 for closing her noise complaint and informing her of the closure months later.
  3. The landlord is to investigate her latest noise report and agree an action plan including timescales which set out how it will address it.
  4. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.