From 13 January 2026, we will 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.

Leeds City Council (202450473)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450473

Leeds City Council

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of CCTV in his neighbour’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise building. The landlord is a Local Authority.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 July 2024. He was unhappy it had not responded to his reports of CCTV in his neighbour’s property. He previously told the landlord the CCTV was overlooking his garden.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its process on 6 August 2024. It apologised it had not responded to the resident’s concerns about the reported CCTV. It explained it was trying to arrange a visit with the neighbour but there were circumstances which prevented it from gaining access. It said it could not share these with the resident due to data protection. The landlord confirmed it would investigate the resident’s concerns when it visited the neighbour and take appropriate action as required.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal process on 12 August 2024. He felt the landlord had only deflected the issued raised and said he was concerned it could not access the property as this suggested a loss of control. The resident also queried the process for reporting new issues and said he was not happy the landlord sent him its stage 1 response by post as opposed to email.
  5. On 10 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint and said:
    1. it had visited the neighbour but did not witness any CCTV in operation
    2. it would be making a further unannounced visit to investigate the issue raised
    3. it could not disclose to the resident why it was unable to visit initially but reassured him there was no loss of control

The landlord also clarified the process for reporting new antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerns and confirmed its policy was to investigate incidents going back 6 months. Lastly, it said it had told the resident the stage 1 response would be posted and confirmed it had done so within the timescales set out by its policy.

  1. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to us for investigation. At the time of his referral to us, the resident said he wanted for the landlord to move his neighbour. The resident has recently confirmed the neighbour has since been rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We acknowledge that the tension between the resident and his neighbour was longstanding, and this Service has previously investigated the landlord’s handling of other ASB incidents. As part of our previous determination, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the CCTV up until its stage 2 response dated 24 June 2024. Under the Scheme we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon. Therefore, we have only considered events which happened after that date. Any references to our previous decision are made for context only.
  2. The resident told us issues with the CCTV continued into 2025. The landlord confirmed that this matter, along with other ASB reports made by the resident, has been subject of a further complaint. However, the resident had not previously referred these complaint responses to this Service. Therefore, our investigation focused on the complaint which exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 10 September 2024. We have also considered any follow up actions the landlord agreed to take as part of that response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding CCTV in his neighbour’s property

  1. In his communication with the landlord, the resident has raised concerns about privacy and confirmed he has been in contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO are best placed to consider privacy matters, therefore we have not commented on this. Instead, we have assessed whether the landlord acted fairly and appropriately in the circumstances of the case, considering its legal obligations and policies.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says any new reports of incidents will be triaged by its area antisocial behaviour team and allocated to the appropriate service for the type of concern. On 24 June 2024 the landlord told the resident his concerns about CCTV had been referred to the local housing team to investigate.
  3. On 12 July 2024 the resident requested an update from the landlord. It responded the same day and confirmed one of its officers would be in touch. The resident chased the landlord another 2 times. On 30 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it had a visit scheduled with the neighbour and it would update him once this has been completed.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy does not set out the specific actions its local housing team would take in response to reports of this nature. However, it is reasonable the landlord would need to gather evidence of the allegations before it considered what further actions it could take. The landlord’s update on 30 July 2024 was also in keeping with its policy which says it will confirm what actions it will take in relation to residents’ reports and ensure they are kept up to date with the progress of their case.
  5. On 6 August 2024 the landlord told the resident the visit was delayed due to reasons involving his neighbour which it was working to resolve. While it did not share the exact details with the resident, it explained this was because of confidentiality obligations it had to his neighbour. The landlord also apologised the resident had not received a response to his concerns about the CCTV, which was reasonable.
  6. On 10 September 2024 the landlord told the resident it had visited the neighbour but did not witness any CCTV in operation. It said its next steps would be to carry out a further unannounced visit. The landlord did not provide any timeframes within which it expected to do so or when it would update the resident on the outcome of its investigation. It would have been reasonable for it to have let the resident know what he could expect next.
  7. The landlord contacted us on 16 December 2024, following our previous determination and confirmed it had visited the neighbour and found a decoy camera which it asked him to remove. The landlord has not provided us with the exact date it carried out this visit, but we understand it took place between 10 September 2024 and 16 December 2024. This demonstrated the landlord had followed up on the actions it told the resident it was going to take at stage 2 of its complaints process. However, it did not inform him about the outcome of this until 8 January 2025. This was not in line with its policy of keeping residents updated on the progress of their case.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and followed up on the actions it said it would take. However, it failed to update him on the outcome of its investigation for almost 4 months. This was after it had already apologised to the resident for not responding to his concerns previously and demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
  9. As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV in his neighbour’s property. We have ordered it to pay £50 compensation for the time and trouble the resident likely incurred. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding CCTV in his neighbour’s property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble he likely incurred as a result of its handling of his concerns regarding CCTV in his neighbour’s property.
    2. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.