Homes Plus Limited (202417689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417689

Homes Plus Limited

1 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Request for him to remove his CCTV camera.
2. Handling of his reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began in 2017. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat which shares a communal entrance with the flat below. There are resident parking spaces directly outside the front of the building. The resident lived at the property with his wife. The landlord’s records state the resident has mental health conditions.
The resident began reporting ASB from the neighbour below and their son in March 2024. This was primarily smoking cannabis. On 6 June 2024, he told the landlord the neighbour’s son had assaulted and threatened him the previous day.
On 5 July 2024, the resident sent a text message to his housing officer to advise them that he would be installing a CCTV camera. He had this professionally installed on the outside wall of the property on 31 July 2024.
The resident’s housing officer wrote to him on 13 August 2024. They told him that he needed to remove the CCTV camera as he had not requested permission to install it and the landlord did not allow cameras in communal areas. They asked him to remove the camera by 2 September 2024.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 August 2024. He said that his CCTV camera did not cover any communal areas, only the outside of the property including where he parked his car. He said that since he had installed the camera, the ASB had reduced, and he felt safer in his home. He claimed the landlord had not offered any support or alternative solution for the ASB.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2024. It said that:
1. The resident had told it he did not want it to take any further action against the neighbour’s son after the alleged assault.
2. It had signposted him to the local authority housing options team due to him no longer feeling safe in his home.
3. It acknowledged its housing officer had failed to respond to the resident’s text about installing the CCTV camera.
4. It was “essential” that residents obtained its written permission before carrying out any alterations or additions to the property. The resident had not done this.
5. Had he requested permission it would not have granted this for the reasons set out in its letter of 13 August 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2024. He refused to remove his CCTV camera as he said he needed it in place for his protection and mental health. He claimed the landlord had allowed another resident to have a CCTV camera which recorded the entire street but was demanding he removed his which was “less invasive”. He said the landlord had not given him any assistance with the ASB issues, failed to follow its policy and shown no regard for his mental health.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process on 18 October 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2024. This largely repeated the findings of its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £100 compensation for its failure to respond to his text message informing it he planned to install the CCTV camera.
On 29 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that it would allow him to keep his CCTV camera in place. It said it was currently reviewing its policy on the matter.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 19 March 2025. He expressed dissatisfaction with its previous request for him to remove his CCTV camera when other residents had been given permission. He said that the area covered by his camera was not a communal area, but a public space which the landlord did not own. He said that the landlord had now closed the case against his neighbour as ‘tit for tat’ without reviewing all available evidence. He expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the case and the lack of support it had offered for his mental health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to this complaint on 16 April 2025. It said that:
1. It was unable to comment on permissions given to other residents, due to data protection.
2. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance on home CCTV systems said that these should be pointed away from “a public area or communal space, where possible”.
3. It acknowledged failings in its record keeping and missed opportunities when investigating the ASB.
4. It should also have done more to support the resident with his mental health. It invited him to contact it to discuss any reasonable adjustments it could put in place for him.
5. It was offering him a total of £250 compensation for the failings it had identified.
On 6 May 2025, the landlord approved the resident for a ‘direct let’ to a new property. The resident’s tenancy at this property began on 9 May 2025.
On 22 May 2025, the resident emailed the landlord. He said he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered for the “undue stress” caused to him and what he felt was discrimination. He asked it to review its offer as he was considering legal action against it. The landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 based upon this.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2025. It said that it could not “find evidence of discrimination or disproportionate impact on the outcome of the ASB case, or the CCTV request compared to other parties.” The landlord reviewed its stage 1 offer of compensation and increased this to £1,400. This included £500 for distress and inconvenience and £250 for failing to offer support or signposting for his mental health.
The resident had referred his first complaint to us for investigation on 14 April 2025. On 22 July 2025, we made the decision to consider both of his complaints within a single investigation due to their similar subject matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against him in both its handling of both his reports of ASB and request for him to remove his CCTV. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – only the courts can do this. However, we can assess whether a landlord has acted fairly and followed its own relevant policies and procedures.
Similarly, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate, or award damages related to this. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The resident has referred to the impact of events on his and his wife’s physical and mental health. We cannot consider this within our investigation. However, we will consider any general distress and inconvenience they may have experienced.
The resident’s second complaint included 2 new issues which were unrelated to his first complaint. These were the fact that a communal light was powered by his electric supply, and that the landlord had removed 2 empty petrol cans belonging to him from the communal area. The resident has advised us that the landlord was able to satisfactorily resolve these matters through its complaints process. Due to this, they will not feature in this investigation.
We note that the resident reported further ASB from his neighbour in January 2025. This led the landlord to open a new case. However, the resident did not express any dissatisfaction with the handling of that case in his second complaint. Due to this, we will not assess it as part of this investigation.

Request to remove CCTV camera

The landlord has a Property Improvement policy. This states that residents should obtain permission from it before carrying out any improvements to their home. A similar clause regarding permissions for improvements is present in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The Property Improvement policy lists installing CCTV as an example of work requiring permission. It says that where a resident carries out works without its permission, it will discuss whether it can give this retrospectively.
The landlord also has an Image and Sound Monitoring Policy. This contains a section concerning resident requests to install CCTV cameras. It says that it “will not unreasonably withhold consent providing that we can be sure that the camera will only capture the residents’ property and will not capture either communal areas or other residents’ property.”
The resident sent a text message to his housing officer on 5 July 2024 advising that he intended to install a CCTV camera. In its stage 1 response to his first complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to appropriately respond to this. It explained that the housing officer was on leave at the time the resident sent his message but had failed to respond to it when they returned on 22 July 2024.
It was not until 7 August 2024, after spotting the CCTV camera whilst on the development, that the housing officer first contacted the resident about it. In its stage 2 response to his first complaint the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for this. This was a reasonable amount, considering it had failed to respond to a single text message from the resident. We have seen no evidence that the resident had contacted the landlord again about the camera prior to installing it on 31 July 2024.
On 7 August 2024, the housing officer sent a text message to the resident advising that he needed permission to install CCTV. The housing officer then wrote to the resident on 13 August 2024 asking him to remove the CCTV camera. They said that the resident had not requested permission and that it did not allow cameras “anywhere in a communal area”.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not consider the possibility of granting retrospective permission for the camera, as its policy says it will. However, in its stage 2 response to his first complaint the landlord clarified that it would have been unable to give permission for the camera had the resident asked in advance. This was due to it being “installed in a communal area”.
However, within the same stage 2 response the landlord also said that the resident’s camera “is not within the communal area of your building but is on the outside wall of the building very near to your upper window”. We believe this is a case of the landlord using ‘in a communal area’ and ‘capturing a communal area’ interchangeably. When in fact there is an important distinction between the 2. This caused confusion for the resident and meant the landlord’s position lacked clarity.
In his complaint of 22 August 2024, the resident explained that the camera “provides coverage of the outside of my property including my partners car”. The resident has disputed the landlord’s position that these are ‘communal areas’, stating that they are public areas not under the ownership of the landlord.
The landlord’s Image and Sound Monitoring Policy only says that it will not consent to cameras which capture communal areas or other residents’ property. It makes no mention of public areas. However, it does refer to cameras being required to “only capture the residents’ property”. We note that this is more stringent than the ICO’s guidance on home CCTV systems, which says that “where possible owners should position their cameras to only capture their own property.” However, it is not unreasonable for the landlord’s policy to surpass such guidance to protect the privacy of its residents and avoid neighbour disputes.
The areas described above cannot reasonably be considered ‘the resident’s property’. The parking bay is not allocated to the resident under his tenancy agreement and in an email to the landlord dated 14 April 2025, the resident indicated his belief that the bays were not allocated to specific properties. The landlord’s refusal to grant retrospective permission for the camera was therefore in keeping with its Image and Sound Monitoring Policy.
Following its stage 1 response to his first complaint, the landlord reasonably attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident to explain its position. However, he advised it he was “no longer in a frame of mind where I can deal with this whole situation” and gave it the option of “putting everything in writing” instead.
The resident’s housing officer then sent a second letter to him on 10 October 2024. In this they asked him to remove the camera by 17 October 2024. They said if he failed to do so the matter would “be sent to our legal team”. It is evident that the resident interpreted this as a potential threat of eviction proceedings, which would be highly disproportionate, given the circumstances of this case. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified the nature of legal action it was considering. This would likely have reduced the distress caused to the resident by this letter.
The landlord’s records show that it met with the resident at its offices on 23 October 2024. During this meeting it offered him the option of relocating the camera inside of his window. This was a confused approach considering, had the resident agreed to do this, the camera would have still been capturing the same public areas. The landlord also offered to allow the resident to install a video doorbell on his flat’s front door. This, again, would have captured the communal area outside of his flat – which is not in keeping with its policy. The resident declined both options and refused to remove the camera.
The landlord’s records show that it referred the matter to its solicitors the day after the meeting. However, on 5 December 2024 it told them to “hold off any action”. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 December 2024 to arrange an electrical check of the CCTV installation. Following this, on 29 January 2025, the landlord informed the resident that his camera could remain in place “for now”.
In both of his complaints, the resident raised that the landlord’s application of its policies around CCTV was inconsistent. He pointed out that another of its residents on the same street had a camera capturing public areas, whilst his neighbour below had a video doorbell which captured the communal area he shared with them. The resident says that both cameras were in breach of the same terms the landlord relied on to refuse permission for his camera.
In its stage 2 complaint response to his first complaint, the landlord said that it agreed it needed “equality on this issue for all neighbours within our comparable properties regarding CCTV installation”. This appears to have led to the change in its position, whereby it allowed his camera to remain in place whilst it undertook a review of its policy. This was reasonable to ensure it did not treat the resident less favourably than other residents. As the resident moved from the property a few months later it is unclear what the landlord’s final position would have been.
In its stage 1 response to his second complaint, the landlord said that it was “unable to comment on any permissions relating to other tenants” due to data protection. However, it continued that “If there are other permissions granted for CCTV on your street my assumption would be that this sets a precedence for future permissions”. This failed to provide any clarity on the situation and its inconsistent application of its policy.
The landlord also explained it was reviewing its CCTV policy to “provide greater clarity” to residents. It said that it would be using the resident’s case “as a lesson learned for the next Policy so that definitions are better explained and the process for CCTV in communal areas is better defined.” This was good practice from the landlord, in keeping with our dispute resolution principle of learning from complaints.
As the landlord allowed the resident to keep his CCTV camera in place until he moved from the property, the detriment caused to him is limited to the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter. The landlord’s initial decision not to allow the resident’s CCTV camera was in keeping with its policy. However, it is apparent its application of this policy was inconsistent and its communication with the resident around it was poor. This led to the resident feeling the landlord had treated him unfairly which damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
In its stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint, the landlord offered him £100 compensation for its “poor communication for CCTV”. It also offered him £500 for “distress and inconvenience”, this amount was not broken down between the separate elements of his complaint.
The landlord’s compensation offer of £450 (composed of the £100 offered for its failure to respond to his text message, the £100 offered for its “poor communication for CCTV” and £250 of its offer for “distress and inconvenience”) is in keeping with our remedies guidance for maladministration. We believe this represents reasonable redress for the failings identified. The landlord has also evidenced learning from the complaint in reviewing its policy to provide greater clarity and consistency in its approach to CCTV permissions.

Reports of ASB

The landlord has a Good Neighbourhood Management policy. It says that it uses this to try and help resolve disputes concerning residents’ behaviour which it would not be appropriate to classify as ASB. The policy says that upon receiving a report of ASB or neighbour issues it will decide whether to manage it under its ASB or Good Neighbourhood Management policy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident began reporting ASB, in the form of cannabis smoking, by the neighbour below in March 2024. The landlord opened an ASB case. This is in keeping with its ASB policy which lists nuisance drug use as a behaviour it classifies as ASB.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s first complaint, the landlord said that it had spoken with his neighbour on or around 19 April 2024. It said that following this the resident had told it he was no longer experiencing the smell of cannabis. The landlord then closed the ASB case on or around 9 May 2024. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will close a case when “The person who reported the issue confirms that it has been resolved”.
On 6 June 2024, the resident reported that the son of the neighbour below had assaulted and threatened him the previous night. The landlord recorded that he told it he had reported the incident to the police, and he did not want the landlord to log a case or speak with his neighbour. The resident has said this was due to fear of repercussions. It is apparent that the police took no further action over the incident. The resident indicated this was due to him not supporting a prosecution for the same reason.
Under these circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord also not to take any action. Its ASB policy says that it will “investigate complaints fairly and impartially “and “talk to anyone causing an ASB issue, to try and convince them to change their behaviour. We will make sure that they are fully aware of the consequences of their actions, if they continue.” Without speaking to the neighbour and her son about the allegations against them the landlord could not reasonably be expected to conduct an effective investigation or intervention.
Following the alleged assault, the resident told the landlord he no longer felt safe at the property and wanted to move. The landlord’s Transfer and Exceptional Move policy says that it will only consider moving residents where “the safety of a customer or household is at risk if they remain in their current home”. It continues that “It is anticipated that any exceptional move will be supported by the police, social services and any other appropriate supporting agency, where applicable.”
It was reasonable for the landlord to determine the resident did not meet the criteria for an exceptional move based on a single allegation of violence which it had been unable to investigate. It explained this to the resident during a meeting on 3 July 2024. It appropriately signposted him to the local authority for assistance with rehousing and discussed other options including mutual exchange.
On 10 October 2024, the resident reported a further incident where he alleged the neighbour below had been verbally abusive to his wife. He said the incident had been captured by the neighbour’s video doorbell. The landlord triaged the incident and opened a case under its Good Neighbourhood Management policy the next day.
It is our view that, considering the history between the parties and nature of the report, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have opened a case under its ASB policy. The landlord’s ASB policy lists “harassment and intimidation” as an example of ASB. Meanwhile its Good Neighbourhood Management policy is designed to address issues such as “cooking smells”, “positions of wheelie bins” and “a baby crying”.
In his second complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that when responding to his report of 10 October 2024, the landlord’s email quoted only the first few lines of it. When he challenged it on this, the landlord said this was due to swear words in the remaining text. However, in its stage 1 response to his second complaint, the landlord acknowledged that this had not been the case, and it had inappropriately shortened his report.
It offered £50 compensation for this, which it increased to £100 at stage 2. This was a reasonable offer considering the limited detriment caused. The landlord had recorded the full report on its internal records, and the resident was aware of the full content having been the one to submit the report.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2024. It advised that it had spoken with his neighbour and given them a verbal warning. However, it noted that the neighbour had made a counter allegation about the incident. In response to this, the resident asked the landlord to obtain the neighbour’s video doorbell footage of the incident. It declined to do so.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint, the landlord acknowledged that “the footage should have been requested so that a thorough investigation could have been completed into the incident.” It offered the resident £50 compensation for this service failure (and its failure to contact an independent witness to an earlier incident he had reported). It increased its offer to £250 at stage 2.
This was a reasonable amount considering it had still given the neighbour a verbal warning about their behaviour. This would have still been a reasonable response, even if the footage had been obtained and corroborated the resident’s version of events. It should also be noted that the neighbour had no obligation to provide the landlord with the footage and could have declined this request. Whilst the resident said the landlord could ask the police to acquire a warrant for this, this would not be proportionate for an incident of this nature.
The resident reported further incidents to the landlord on 15 October and 17 October 2024. These concerned the neighbour allegedly ‘taunting’ him and trying to ‘provoke an interaction’. He told the landlord he had filmed the latter incident on his mobile phone. On this occasion, the landlord appropriately arranged a meeting with the resident in person to view this footage, as he said the file was too large to send to it.
The landlord met with the resident at its offices on 23 October 2024 to discuss the reports against his neighbour. It is unclear from the landlord’s records of this meeting whether it viewed the footage of the incident. However, the resident has not expressed any dissatisfaction about it failing to do so.
During this meeting, the landlord offered to arrange mediation between the resident and his neighbour. This is listed within its Good Neighbourhood Management policy as a tool it may use to resolve issues. Whilst the resident was willing to participate in mediation, the landlord has said his neighbour declined to do so.
On 15 November 2024, the resident reported another incident where he alleged his neighbour had shouted at him in the communal area and “touched” his partner. On the same day, the landlord closed its Good Neighbourhood Management case. It classified the case as “tit for tat”. However, we have not seen any evidence of the neighbour having made counter allegations against the resident, other than following the incident of 10 October 2024.
The landlord’s Good Neighbourhood Management policy says that “Once we have tried all options available to us to resolve a situation, we will inform the people involved that there is nothing further we are able to do.” One of the tools listed within the policy is having both parties sign a ‘good neighbour agreement’. This would have been a reasonable way to set expectations for the resident and his neighbour’s conduct towards each other and the landlord should have considered this option prior to closing the case. There is no evidence that it did.
In both of his complaints, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord failed to offer support with his mental health, which he says was affected by the issues with his neighbour. The landlord’s Good Neighbourhood Management policy says that “When we receive reports that will be managed in line with this policy, we will check whether the person making the report has any health and wellbeing needs that we can help with. This could be through our support services or by making referrals to specialist agencies.”
In its stage 1 response to his second complaint, the landlord agreed that it had failed to acknowledge the impact events had had on the resident’s mental health or appropriately signpost him to support. It noted that he was now working with an advocate and invited him to discuss any reasonable adjustments it could make to its services for him.
The landlord initially offered the resident £50 for its failure to offer him support but increased this in the stage 2 response to £250. This was a reasonable offer of redress, which reflected its failure to enquire about or respond to his support needs throughout its management of the case.
In total the landlord offered the resident £1,050 compensation (when allotting the remaining £250 of the £500 compensation for “distress and inconvenience” to the matter) for failings in its handling of his reports of ASB. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for cases of severe maladministration, causing a severe long term impact to residents.
When considering the level of failings identified, the timespan of the case and limited impact on its overall outcome, we consider the landlord’s offer represents reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its handling of his reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its request for him to remove his CCTV camera.

Recommendations

We recommend that, has it not done so already, the landlord pays the resident compensation of £1,500 composed of:
1. The £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 28 November 2024.
2. The £1,400 offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 24 June 2025.

The findings of reasonable redress are contingent upon this.

We recommend that if the landlord has not yet completed its review of its CCTV policy, it considers the contents of this report as a part of said review.