Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202016666)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016666

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

23 September 2022


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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for CCTV footage, following damage to his vehicle, and his subsequent request for compensation.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The resident’s car was hit in the carpark outside his property on 16 January 2020 and he requested the CCTV from the landlord on 17 January 2020.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 27 January 2020 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his queries regarding the CCTV. He asked the landlord to confirm whether the CCTV was working and whether it could be sent to his car insurance company.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it said it did not have a statutory duty to release CCTV footage, and the CCTV would not necessarily have led to identifying the car. It stated it would not compensate for the costs incurred by the resident, as they could have been avoided by arranging the repairs through the resident’s car insurance. It acknowledged that its staff should direct future similar queries to the ASB team to provide accurate responses.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as he wanted the landlord to take responsibility for not providing the correct information regarding the CCTV and he wanted it to pay compensation for the costs he incurred.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV footage

  1. The landlord’s privacy policy states that CCTV downloads “are restricted, but will be shared with the Police or other agencies for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime”. It also states that the footage is kept for 30 days. The resident’s car was hit on 16 January 2020 and he requested the landlord to provide the CCTV footage on 17 January 2020. He also said that his car insurance company had contacted the landlord to request the CCTV on 17 January 2020; however, the landlord disputed this and said it had no record of the correspondence. Following the resident’s queries, the landlord would be expected to promptly manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take, in line with its privacy policy.
  2. The landlord has not provided any evidence of correspondence regarding the issue prior to the complaint. As the landlord has not disputed the dates provided by the resident, this report will partially rely on some of the information provided by the resident within his complaint. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  3. In the resident’s complaint, he stated that the landlord had initially advised him that it would only be able to provide CCTV footage to the police. The resident then highlighted that its privacy policy stated it would provide the information to “other agencies” and queried whether it included insurance companies. On 19 February 2020 the landlord informed the resident it would accept requests from his insurance for the CCTV and it told him on 10 March 2020 that the CCTV was kept for 30 days. As a result, by the time the landlord had addressed the resident’s queries, the CCTV footage would have already been deleted. Therefore, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide the information while it was available. The landlord would have been expected to either provide the footage or provide an explanation for why it couldn’t. In addition, the misinformation, in which the landlord stated it would only allow the police to see the CCTV footage, led to additional time and effort for the resident in pursuing the issue. The landlord should ensure that it properly assesses its policies and discusses issues with the relevant departments before responding to residents’ queries, to ensure it provides reliable, accurate information.
  4. The landlord demonstrated that it learned from the outcome of the complaint to some extent, as it stated that it would ensure that any future similar enquires would be directed to the anti-social behaviour (ASB) team, as they were equipped to appropriately handle such questions, given they completed weekly audits of the CCTV. The landlord should ensure that it assesses its staff training requirements to ensure that queries can be dealt with promptly, particularly as the landlord only retains CCTV footage for 30 days. However, although the landlord identified how its service could be improved, it failed to take accountability for its mistake or recognise the impact the misinformation provided had on the resident.
  5. The resident requested compensation of £2324.79 to cover the costs of the repair and extending the lease of his car due to the outstanding repairs. It was appropriate that the landlord referred the issue to its liability insurance to assess whether it was liable for paying compensation. It is reasonable for the landlord to have liability insurance to cover claims for negligence, as a way of managing these costs. The landlord would not be expected to consider negligence claims outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer or the outcome of any insurance claim in our investigation as we can only investigate the actions of the landlord. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the landlord’s failure to provide the CCTV led to the additional costs incurred by the resident and the landlord would not be expected to award compensation as its insurer determined it was not liable. However, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised that the resident’s car insurance provider should be able to support him if it had photographic evidence, in the absence of the CCTV.
  6. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot consider the insurers position, we can consider the inconvenience, distress and time and trouble caused to the resident from the landlord’s actions. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, the landlord initially provided incorrect information, and despite the resident chasing responses, it only provided the correct information after the CCTV had been wiped. As a result, the landlord failed to either provide the CCTV footage or a valid reason why it was unable to. The landlord also failed to take accountability for its failings or acknowledge the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident as well as the additional time and effort he incurred in pursuing the complaint. In light of its failings, the landlord should award the resident £200 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. Following the landlord’s stage one response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email on 21 February 2020, in which he expressed he was dissatisfied with its complaint response and he highlighted his outstanding concerns. The resident then raised a further complaint on 5 June 2021 and the landlord responded to the issues it had not addressed in its previous complaint response. The landlord should have recognised that the complaint was a continuation of his initial complaint, issued a stage two response and signposted to this Service so he could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied. As the landlord did not act in line with its complaint’s procedure, it caused the resident additional time and effort as he repeatedly had to pursue the complaint.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was dissatisfied that it took the landlord 11 months to issue its stage two response. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service sent numerous emails to the landlord advising it to issue its stage two response so the complaint could be progressed. Having spoken to the landlord on 30 November 2021, it advised that it had not received the emails. There is also no evidence to suggest the resident was chasing the landlord at this stage, so there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of the resident’s outstanding concerns regarding the complaint. However, as already mentioned, the complaint should have been addressed at stage two following the resident’s response to the stage one response on 21 February 2020 and his subsequent complaint on 5 June 2020.
  4. The landlord’s complaint handling failures led to significant time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint. It missed several opportunities to escalate the complaint and complete the internal complaints procedure. Although the landlord can’t necessarily be held responsible for the additional delays caused by it not receiving this Service’s emails, it should have already issued the stage two response. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, as aforementioned, it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to award the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint about his request for CCTV footage, following damage to his vehicle, and his subsequent request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £200 in light of its failings in handling the resident’s request for CCTV footage.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should provide proof that it has adhered to these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements to ensure that queries regarding CCTV are dealt with promptly and accurately.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaints handling to ensure that complaints are being escalated where necessary. 
  3. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a formal review of its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps records of correspondence with the resident and is able to provide such information to this Service upon request.