Peabody Trust (202231178)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231178

Peabody Trust

30 April 2024

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 complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her neighbour’s CCTV to be removed.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a named tenant under a secured tenancy on a one–bedroom flat situated on the fourth floor of the building.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint “as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf. This could affect an individual or a group of residents. The word ‘complaint’ does not need to be used for it to be treated as such”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It’s policy states it will log a new complaint within five working days and that it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days, unless an extension has been notified to and agreed with the complainant. At stage 2 the landlord will respond within 20 working days of the date the escalation to that stage was requested. It adds that an extension may occur if it has been “communicated to, and agreed with, the complainant”.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it will consider payment and other remedies “when a customer has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on out part, or if we have failed to carry out a service within out published guidelines”.
In terms of assessing compensation the landlord’s policy explains it will amongst other things consider:
1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether it may have avoided the situation.
2. Whether it had failed to follow policy and procedures.
3. The time taken to resolve an issue.
In terms of time, trouble and inconvenience the landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the amount payable is based on the degree of disruption. It classified a minor disruption for which awards range up to £200 as being one where “a service failure has occurred. There has been a low impact and/or low effort to resolve”. A moderate disruption for which awards are £201 to £400 is where “a service failure has occurred. There has been a low impact/high effort or high impact but low effort to resolve”.
In terms of complaint handling the amount offered ranges up to a maximum of £250 which and is linked to the level of service failure. A severe failure, for which awards range from £151 to £250, is defined as “an extensive failure to follow the complaints policy of procedure, or to investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant”.
The landlord’s CCTV policy sets out in terms of domestic CCTV that there are two systems that a resident may wish to install. These are a doorbell system which requires no modification to the property, or a “fixed system that requires changes to the property, to mount, power or otherwise change the property”.
The landlord’s CCTV policy directs the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website if “another resident complains and believes their privacy is being impacted”. It adds this is so they “can seek resolution themselves”.
The landlord’s CCTV policy adds that, in terms of doorbell systems, “it is not unlawful for our residents to have these cameras (even if they capture public spaces), provided they comply with legislation and the ICO guidance”.
In terms of fixed systems the landlord’s CCTV policy explains that the resident should submit a request to the landlord’s neighbourhood manager who will arrange a visit to the property to determine if installation is possible. This is also to be satisfied that the installation would not breach other residents’ right to privacy. A decision would then be made as to whether the landlord granted permission for the resident to install the equipment.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2023 to make a complaint. She explained her neighbour had not installed a Ring doorbell but rather had installed CCTV. She added that she believed the system, which she had not been informed about by her neighbour, captured images of other residents outside of the boundary of the neighbour’s property. Therefore it did “not comply with the laws of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018”. She added that the system had been wall mounted and had as such also caused criminal damage to the property.
The resident has stated she received a response from the landlord on 17 February 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of this response.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 22 February 2023 noted that a member of its neighbourhood customer support team (NCS) had attempted to visit the neighbour on that day but no one had been in. The landlord’s operative had observed the two cameras outside the property. They had liaised with several parties who had been supporting the neighbour, as English was not the neighbour’s primary language, and a home visit was arranged for 24 February 2023. The operative had attempted to call the resident on 22 February 2023 and had left a voicemail. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes of the phone call set out that it was looking into the matter and that it had asked the neighbour to remove the cameras.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 1 March 2023 it had spoken to the community language support service (CLSS), who were assisting the neighbour. It had explained that the cameras needed to be taken down and that it was acceptable for the neighbour to install a door camera. The landlord’s notes show that CLSS had stated that the neighbour had not been well and was at that time in hospital.
The landlord’s notes from 17 May 2023 noted that the neighbour’s cameras were still situated outside her flat. The notes from this time show that it had spoken to the neighbour a few months ago and the neighbour had confirmed that she would remove the cameras once she had recovered. The operative had sent an email to CLSS to enquire about the matter.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that on 19 May 2023 it had received a response from CLSS who had explained that it was aware the camera was still up and that the neighbour had been waiting for assistance from the person who had put up the cameras to take it down and put in a door camera instead. It informed the landlord that it would contact the neighbour again about replacing the camera.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 6 June 2023. It explained that it had understood the resident’s complaint to be about the CCTV system which the resident believed was capturing other residents’ movement due to incorrect positioning. The landlord explained that residents were allowed a camera provided it only covered their front doors and that residents needed to seek permission from it in the first instance prior to installing them. It added it would ask the NCS to write to the neighbour concerning the camera which was not positioned correctly and that it must be removed or repositioned. It added that if this was not adhered to “we will consider removing the camera ourselves”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show it had contacted CLSS on 7 June 2023 explaining that the neighbour’s CCTV could stay. It had however noted that one of the neighbour’s cameras was facing the hallway and as a result this needed to be taken down. It asked CLSS to pass this information on to the neighbour.
CLSS emailed the landlord on 7 June 2023 to explain that having contacted the neighbour, the camera was only facing her door and not the hall. It offered the landlord the opportunity to visit the neighbour and see how the camera had been placed.
The resident replied to the landlord on 8 June 2023 explaining:
1. She had not made her complaint on 24 May 2023 as stated in the stage 1 response but rather on 16 February 2023. The resident added that the landlord had acknowledged the complaint on 17 February 2023. The resident therefore believed that the landlord had not replied within the specified time. Instead it had taken the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman, whom the resident had contacted on 9 March 2023, for the matter to be resolved.
2. The landlord had not provided any timescale for the removal of the neighbour’s CCTV.
3. She did not consider the matter had been resolved as the CCTV was still up and operating outside the neighbour’s door.
4. For the above reasons she wished to escalate the complaint. The resident explained she wished the landlord to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 12 June 2023 it had a conversation with the neighbour and a translator. As a result of this it had agreed to visit the neighbour on 16 June 2023 to view the CCTV camera and to see what it was showing.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 19 June 2023. It acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 and explained that it would provide its response within 15 working days. The resident reiterated her earlier response that the matter had taken four months for the landlord to respond and that the camera was still present with no timescale for when it would be removed.
The landlord’s notes show that on 30 June 2023 CLSS emailed the landlord to explain the neighbour had removed the CCTV camera. It added that they had only left the camera which showed their door and that this was for their own safety and peace of mind.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 11 July 2023. This had followed on from the resident emailing the Ombudsman earlier in the day to explain the landlord had not responded within the timeframe as per its email of 19 June 2023. The landlord explained to the resident that it needed an extra day to provide its response. The resident replied to say that the 15 working day timeframe had lapsed on 10 July 2023 so the landlord was already outside of this timeframe when it had contacted her to ask for a further day.
The landlord emailed the resident the stage 2 response on 12 July 2023. It explained:
1. It had been contacted by the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023 concerning the complaint. It apologised for the reference to the complaint having been made on 24 May 2023 and not on 16 February 2023. It explained that a complaint had been raised by it under a different reference number and it had set out to the resident that a response would be sent out by 17 April 2023, although it added that if further investigation was required this could take longer to resolve. However that complaint had been closed and a new one was issued following the contact from the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023. This was the one for which the stage 1 response had been issued on 6 June 2023.
2. It accepted that there had been a lack of communication concerning the complaint, both with acknowledging it initially as well as regular updates.
3. In terms of the timescales for the removal of the CCTV, it said that there was no set timeframe for doing this and that “each case is based on its own merit, taking into consideration of all available information”.
4. In terms of the CCTV still operating it added that its NCS had confirmed the matter had been resolved. It stated that its operative had visited the neighbour on 10 July 2023 and confirmed “the camera in question has been taken down, and the remaining camera has been repositioned”. It added that the damage to the brickwork caused by the fixture and fittings comprised a hole in the wall for which a repair job had been arranged and it would make a further visit to the property on that day.
5. Its CCTV procedure allowed it to serve two warning letters before it was able to remove the camera itself and it would liaise with the party who had put up the camera prior to serving the warnings rather than simply jumping to enforcement.
6. It considered an award of £300 for complaints handling, which exceeded the maximum under its policy, was merited given the circumstances. It provided a breakdown of this as:
  1. £50 for not acknowledging the stage 1 complaint within five working days.
  2. £50 for the poor communication concerning the original complaint, which it had closed in error.
  3. £50 for its failure in mentioning at stage 1 when the resident had made her original complaint.
  4. £50 for not acknowledging the stage 2 complaint within five working days.
  5. £50 for not contacting the resident within 15 working days as stated in its acknowledgment letter.
  6. £50 for the overall complaint journey.
7. It would also be awarding £100 for the time trouble and inconvenience taken by the resident in trying to resolve the matter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 July 2023 noting its offer and apology. She explained she did not consider the matter had been resolved as the CCTV was still up. The resident added that the sensor had been removed which was the hole on the side of the wall and she accused the NCS officer of lying. The resident sent in a picture showing the CCTV outside the neighbour’s door.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman to explain that she was unhappy with the response from the landlord and that her main issue was the CCTV camera.
The landlord’s internal communication on 14 July 2023 show that it had contacted its NCS in respect of the matter. The NCS confirmed that the landlord’s previous communication to the resident had been correct and that it had done a home visit a few weeks earlier and viewed both cameras. It added there had been no mention of any sensors and when it had talked about repositioning it had meant that the camera lens was repositioned to only show the front door. It added that a work order for the hole had been arranged.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2023. She said that it had accepted that it was at fault as it had offered £400 which she had not yet accepted. The resident explained that the CCTV was still up and she had provided evidence and emailed the landlord on 12 July 2023, which she had not heard back from.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 July 2023. It explained that it was awaiting a response from the NCS and it would respond by 28 July 2023.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it exchanged a series of emails with the NCS on 25 July 2023. It asked the NCS to undertake an unplanned spot check on the neighbour and also to check that the CCTV camera was positioned correctly. The NCS replied to say the camera which showed the communal area had been taken down and that the second camera had been repositioned to show nothing apart from the neighbour’s door. It added it had undertaken a spot check on that day and the neighbour had not been in when it called. The landlord asked that a further visit took place and that the NCS sent it proof by means of a photo showing the neighbour’s door.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 27 July 2023. It explained that its operative had attended on 10 July 2023 to discuss the matter with the resident. One of the cameras had been taken down and the other one was repositioned to only show the property door. A job had also been done on 14 July 2023 to replace the hole where one of the cameras had been. It added that a further visit had taken place on 25 July 2023 when the neighbour had not been in. It added it considered the issue with the cameras had been satisfied and it would ask its NCS to make a further unplanned visit to the neighbour to ensure the camera was positioned correctly and that it only showed below the door. The resident responded to say that, while the camera was pointing down, it was still illegal and the camera had a wide angled lens so she wanted it removed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2023 to accept the £400 compensation. She added that this was not in settlement of her request for the camera to be removed. The resident added that the neighbour had to seek permission to install any form of camera and she presumed that this had not been done.
The landlord replied to the resident on 31 July 2023 to explain that the compensation would be credited to her account within 21 days. It explained that this was the end of its process and the resident had the option to go to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident has recently confirmed to this Service that there has been no change to the situation since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process and that the CCTV including the camera and sensor was still up outside the neighbour’s door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Matters pertaining to data protection and GDPR fall within the remit of the ICO. The resident should contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues.
The Ombudsman has however investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s CCTV.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her neighbour’s CCTV to be removed.

Following the resident having raised a concern about her neighbour’s CCTV camera in February 2023 the landlord acted promptly in attempting to visit the neighbour about the matter. This was a reasonable approach for it to take as it allowed the landlord to understand why the neighbour had set the cameras up, as well as ensuring it could check to see whether the cameras were indeed breaching any other resident’s privacy. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes show that when its operative had visited the neighbour, they had not answered the door so it had been unable to speak to them. Instead the operative had only been able to visually observe that there were indeed two cameras present. One was attached to the wall outside the property and the other was directly above the neighbour’s door.
In the absence of being able to speak to the neighbour the landlord had stated it had contacted the CLSS, as it was aware they were supporting the neighbour. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of the discussions which it held with CLSS at that time. It added that a home visit had been arranged for 24 February 2023 but it has not provided any evidence of whether this visit did take place. In the absence of notes from the time, it was not clear whether the agreement of the home visit had taken place between the neighbour and the landlord or between the CLSS and the landlord, without the neighbour’s knowledge. The landlord had also in its phone note of the voicemail to the resident on 22 February 2022 stated it had asked the neighbour to take the camera down. This implied that the landlord had spoken to directly to the neighbour at that time and there was no evidence that it had actually done/ this. This was a failing of the landlord.
The landlord’s next communication did not take place for a further week, until 1 March 2023. Its contemporaneous notes show that it had confirmed the neighbour could have a door camera. Even then the communication was not between it and the neighbour but was rather between it and the CLSS. The landlord was made aware at the time that the neighbour was unwell and had been in hospital. However there was no indication by it at the time to ensure that the neighbour was made directly aware, with a specific deadline, of the need to remove the CCTV and to instead have a door camera.
In terms of the resident’s comments that the neighbour had not sought permission to install the cameras there is no evidence to show permission was sought from the landlord prior to the installation of them. However the landlord’s CCTV policy does not specify that post installation requests for permission will be automatically refused. Having looked at the matter, the landlord stated, with input from the NCS that, for the reasons provided by the neighbour, she was able to have a camera. It had therefore retrospectively provided permission for one camera. Whilst the landlord stated this to be a door camera, this was not limiting the neighbour to having a Ring doorbell or equivalent but to having a camera which simply showed the area directly outside her property. As a result the camera situated above her door would reasonably be said to be a door camera.
The landlord has explained that its NCS undertook spot checks and visits to the neighbour where it was satisfied with the positioning of the remaining camera and had noted one camera had been removed. The resident has sent in a photo which she says was proof that the CCTV including camera and sensor was still up, after the landlord had explained one camera had been removed and the other one had been repositioned. The resident’s picture is not date stamped and it is not in clear focus, so it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the CCTV system is still up or whether one camera has been removed and the other one had been positioned so that it only observes the area in front of the neighbour’s door and no other communal area. Whilst the resident has accused the landlord’s operative of lying, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that this was the case based on the available evidence.
Overall the landlord was entitled to rely on the information from its operative who had viewed and confirmed that the neighbour’s camera had been repositioned. It was not obliged to ask the neighbour to remove the camera above her door.
Having said this, the landlord did ask NCS to do a further spot check and provide a photo of the area outside the neighbour’s door. It has provided this Service with photos before and after it had repaired the hole outside the neighbour’s door However there is no evidence of a further spot check, which the resident had been informed would be taking place, had occurred. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident has said following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process that, as the neighbour’s camera has a wide lens, it was illegal and it was continuing to record her movements as well as that of her neighbours. She added that she wanted the CCTV camera to be removed. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s comments, as previously explained if she still has concerns about the recording and breaching of her privacy she may wish to raise her concerns with the ICO.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it would send the resident an acknowledgement in response to the raising of a complaint within five working days and that it would provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days, unless it had agreed an extension with the resident. Although the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its communication on 17 February 2023, the resident has confirmed that she received a response from the landlord, which in all likelihood would have been an acknowledgment to her contact to it from the previous day. However whilst the landlord followed this up with a call to the resident on 22 February 2023 and there was a conversation between the landlord and the CLSS the following week, there was then a large gap to the next contact involving the landlord. There was no evidence of any follow up by the landlord on the matter between 1 March 2023 to 17 May 2023, a period of 11 weeks. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had closed the resident’s complaint, under a previous reference number and it had opened a new one after being contacted by the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023. It had then responded within 10 working days of this date. Whilst this was the case the landlord has not provided any evidence that, following it opening a new complaint after being contacted by the Ombudsman, it had acknowledged this or updated the resident with a guide of when to expect its response by.
The resident had requested the complaint was escalated on 8 June 2023, within the timeframe in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s response which was issued on 19 June 2023 explained the landlord would provide its response within 15 working days. It provided its response on 12 July 2023, after having asked the resident for a further day when it had contacted them on 11 July 2023. In terms of the landlord’s stage 2 response this was received 24 working days after the resident’s had requested the escalation. This was outside of the time limits contained in the landlord’s complaints policy and the landlord had not asked for an extension until this time limit had already been breached.
Following the stage 2 response the resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the landlord. Whilst the landlord continued to communicate with the resident until the end of July 2023, it failed to follow up on the actions which it had informed the resident of. It explained to the resident that it would ask the NCS to make another unplanned spot check on the neighbour after 27 July 2023. However it has not provided any evidence that it had done this. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord has however acknowledged a series of complaints handling failings at stage 2 and it made the resident an offer of compensation more than the maximum amount as set out in its compensation policy. This was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for the neighbour’s CCTV to be removed.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord did initially respond to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV camera and follow through by means of a site visit and communication indirectly with the neighbour, there were substantial gaps during which time it appeared the landlord had not been actively progressing the matter. In addition there were discrepancies between what it had told the resident and the internal and external communication which it had received from its operatives. Whilst the landlord did make an offer of £100 for time trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident, the amount offered was not adequate to recognise its failings. A total amount of £200 is more reasonable given the circumstances.
There was a delay from the landlord at both stage 1 and stage 2 including acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord also failed to provide its response at stage 2 in line with its complaint policy. At stage 2 the landlord made an offer of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitutes an offer of reasonable redress for the complaint handling failings in this case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £100, which is in addition to the £400 which it paid following the stage two response. This further amount is in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request concerning her neighbour’s CCTV.
3. Undertake a further spot check of the neighbour’s property and to provide photographic evidence to show that one CCTV camera has been removed and the other one has been positioned to only show the door area.

Recommendations

The landlord should undertake a review of its complaints handling system to ensure that open complaints are not closed in error by it.
The landlord should ensure that its record keeping is clear and complete and that if it has not directly spoken to a party but has relayed a message thorough a third party, that this is accurately depicted in its contemporaneous documents.