Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202344853)

Decision
Case ID	202344853
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The property is a flat within a communal block, of which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident has complained about CCTV arrangements within the block, including accessibility of CCTV footage.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about CCTV provision within the block.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV provision within the block.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

CCTV

4. The landlord provided appropriate information based on its understanding of the complaint at the time, and the advice given about accessing CCTV footage was consistent with its policy. However, it did not clarify, or seek the detail of the resident’s complaint and concerns before issuing its final response. When the resident queried the lack of CCTV coverage at the front entrance, the landlord did not provide a decision, explanation or response.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord significantly delayed issuing its stage 2 response. Although it requested an extension, it failed to provide its response within the revised timescale and did not keep the resident informed of the further delay. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these delays and took reasonable steps to put things right.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his concerns about CCTV provision within the block. 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 made.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Communication order The landlord must write to the resident by the due date, setting out: Its current position on whether it intends to install an additional CCTV camera covering the front entrance of the block. An explanation of how it reached that position, with reference to the relevant policies, any risk‑based considerations undertaken, and the concerns raised by the resident. A copy of this correspondence should be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 27 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 previously offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 November 2022	The resident complained to the landlord. He said that he had first contacted it in 2020 to request the installation of CCTV in the block to help deter crime in the area, but that no action had been taken. He requested that the landlord install CCTV as soon as possible.
20 December 2022	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that CCTV was already installed at the block and that recent maintenance had confirmed the system was operating correctly. It also acknowledged delays in issuing its response and offered £25 compensation for poor complaint handling.
20 March 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had not provided an adequate explanation in its stage 1 response. He requested further information about the CCTV system, including the location of the cameras, who had access to the footage, and how he could access recordings in the event of a crime.
30 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it was satisfied with how the complaint had been handled at stage 1 and that sufficient information had been provided at that stage. It provided the requested details about the CCTV system and advised that, where footage was required in connection with a potential crime, the police would need to request it directly from the landlord. The landlord also acknowledged further delays in its complaint handling and increased its compensation offer to £100.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He stated that while CCTV had been installed, it covered only the rear entrance of the block and not the front door. He said there were no accessible images and no clear point of contact in the event of a crime. He reported multiple thefts, police incidents, and incidents of antisocial behaviour within the block and expressed concerns about a lack of security and reassurance for residents.
14 April 2026	During his contact with us, the resident advised the situation remained unchanged, with no CCTV coverage at the entrance to the block. As an outcome, he requested that an additional CCTV camera be installed at the front of the block and that a clear process be put in place for residents to access footage in the event of an incident or crime.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV provision within the block
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. Our scheme rules state that we may not investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that he requested the installation of CCTV in his block in 2020 but that the landlord took no action. In April 2021, we issued a determination (202008511) relating to the landlord’s handling of this request, which considered events between August 2019 and November 2020. The resident raised a further formal complaint about the handling of this matter in November 2022. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the resident was prevented from raising a further complaint at an earlier stage. In the interests of fairness, this investigation therefore focuses on events from November 2021 onwards, covering the 12‑month period prior to the complaint being raised.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord’s CCTV policy states that it takes a risk‑based approach when considering changes to existing CCTV installations. It says it will assess factors such as the number of recent safeguarding concerns, incidents of antisocial behaviour, and other incidents, alongside guidance from external organisations, including the police, and customer feedback. The policy also confirms that the landlord will comply with data‑protection legislation and ensure appropriate controls are in place for any CCTV systems it installs or accesses. It further states that access to and viewing of CCTV images is restricted to those for “whom it is relevant”, and that the landlord will work in partnership with specialist services, including the police, in accordance with information‑sharing protocols.
8. It is not clear when the landlord installed the CCTV. However, its records show that a contractor completed CCTV maintenance in the block on 20 January 2022 and reported that the cameras were fully operational. The resident first raised concerns about the CCTV in his initial complaint on 25 November 2022. He referred to a recent police incident in the block and expressed concerns about safety in the area, stating that the landlord had taken no action since his 2020 request for the installation of CCTV.
9. In its stage 1 response on 20 December 2022, the landlord explained that it had installed CCTV at the block, with 3 cameras overlooking the car park. It also confirmed that its contractor carried out maintenance in August 2022 and found the system to be operating correctly. This was a reasonable response as it addressed the resident’s concerns by clarifying that CCTV was already in place, and the contractor was maintaining it.
10. The resident raised further concerns in his escalation request on 20 March 2023, seeking additional information about the CCTV system. In its final response on 30 June 2023, the landlord reaffirmed the locations of the CCTV cameras and explained that its contractor held remote access to the footage. It also advised that, if the police required CCTV footage in connection with a potential crime, they would need to request it directly from the landlord. This response was proportionate and consistent with the landlord’s CCTV policy.
11. On 30 June 2023, the same day the landlord issued its final response, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the CCTV did not cover the front entrance of the block. He expressed concern that this lack of coverage meant incidents at the entrance could go unrecorded. Given that the complaint related to CCTV generally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek further clarification from the resident to ensure it had fully understood the scope and addressed all of his complaint. The resident’s subsequent follow‑up shows that the landlord did not fully address the issue raised and missed an opportunity to clarify whether the existing CCTV arrangements were appropriate.
12. On 3 July 2023, the landlord made an internal enquiry about whether it planned to upgrade the CCTV system to include coverage of the front door. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord reached a clear decision or provided any response to the resident. This was unreasonable as it left him without clarity on whether it intended to take further action to address his concerns.
13. When we requested an update, the landlord confirmed that it had no plans to install additional CCTV cameras at the block. The landlord’s CCTV policy requires it to take a risk‑based approach to security concerns and to consider resident feedback when reviewing existing arrangements. While the landlord was entitled to decide that additional CCTV coverage was not necessary, it must also be able to justify its decisions and clearly explain how it reached them in line with its policy. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, or that it communicated the reasons for its decision to the resident. As a result, the landlord did not provide the explanation that the resident could reasonably expect. We have therefore made an order relating to the landlord’s communication on this matter.
14. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and therefore did not offer compensation as part of its complaint responses, which was reasonable at the time. However, as set out above, the landlord did not seek clarification from the resident about his specific concerns before issuing its stage 2 response and then failed to respond after the resident made a further enquiry on the same issue. In light of this, we consider a payment of £100 compensation to be proportionate to put things right for the resident. This has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures by the landlord in the service that it provided.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant version of the Code was published in March 2022. The stage 2 timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy differed from those in the Code.
16. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The policy did not specify set timescales for extensions but stated that the landlord would keep the resident informed and agree a revised response timescale where it was unable to respond within its usual timeframe. The relevant Code permitted extensions to complaint response times, but said both parties had to agree to any extension beyond 10 working days.
17. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 4 working days. It notified the resident of an extension on 1 December 2022, which was within the 10-working day response period, advising that it required a further 10 days to respond. The landlord issued its response on 20 December 2022, ahead of the extended deadline.
18. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation within 2 working days. It notified the resident of an extension on 22 March 2023, 22 working days later, and advised that it expected to provide a response by 10 May 2023. The delay in notifying the resident of the extension was minimal, and there is no evidence that it caused him any detriment. However, the landlord did not issue its response until 30 June 2023, 36 working days later than it had indicated. It did not provide any update to explain this further delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident at the earliest opportunity that the response would be delayed and to give a revised date. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
19. In its complaint responses, the landlord offered compensation for its delays, increasing the award to £100 for complaint handling in its final response. This offer was appropriate and consistent with our compensation guidance for cases where service failures by the landlord adversely affected the resident.

Learning

20. Where complaints lack clarity or detail, it would be beneficial for the landlord to seek clarification from the resident at an early stage of the complaints process to help ensure a clear understanding of the issues and a more meaningful outcome for the resident.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record‑keeping was generally good. It provided clear and detailed complaint records, along with relevant information from its contractor and internal records, which supported the investigation of the complaint.
22. Where key decisions are made – such as the review of existing CCTV arrangements in this case – the landlord should ensure that the decision‑making process is clearly documented to show how the decision was reached.

Communication

23. After issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord did not provide a further response to the resident to confirm whether it intended to install an additional CCTV camera at the front entrance. Where the resident makes further enquiries after a complaint response, the landlord should ensure that it communicates the outcome and an explanation to the resident, even if it does not plan to take further action, so that expectations are clear.