Sheffield City Council (202125993)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125993

Sheffield City Council

30 May 2024

Amended 16 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including concerns about her neighbour’s closed-circuit television (CCTV).

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in July 2019.
3. The resident had been reporting her neighbour causing ASB since 2019. She previously complained to the landlord about its handling of the issues and referred her complaints to this Service under case reference 201914823 and 202014674. Case 201914823 was determined on 12 November 2020 and case 202014674 was determined on 21 June 2021, but the resident had said she continued to report ASB after these dates.
4. On 9 September 2021 a county court order was made. The resident’s neighbour was to comply with the orders, and this included not taking, accessing, acquiring, downloading, or possessing any still or moving images of the resident and her family. The orders also contained that the resident’s neighbour does not make any untrue communications to official agencies, does not threaten to use violence or is violent towards her.
5. The resident emailed the landlord’s staff member directly on 16 January 2022 and 19 January 2022. She expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord that there was CCTV which had recordings of her and her family from August 2020. She remained unhappy with the camera’s position. She also expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of her ASB case. The landlord responded on 24 January 2022 and said that there were contact restrictions between it and the resident in place.
6. On 24 January 2022 the resident contacted this Service about her complaint. She told us the landlord said they were not going to investigate historical issues. This Service contacted the landlord about her complaint, and it re-engaged in its internal complaints process with her.
7. On 7 October 2022 the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It said the staff member she emailed on 16 January 2022 and 19 January 2022 no longer worked there. It reminded her of the contact restrictions and how to contact it. It also said the issues she raised around a member of staff was about historical issues, so did not comment further. Based on the evidence provided by her, it would not be taking any formal legal action against her neighbour. This was confirmed in the letter sent on 28 January 2021.
8. Additionally, in the landlord’s final response it said the resident raised concerns in August 2020 about the positioning of her neighbour’s CCTV and that it had audio. It looked at its handling of the issue. In 2020, it exchanged emails with her regarding the permissions process. Permission was given as checks were made. This was also raised on 20 November 2020 as part of the community trigger process and subsequent review of 19 March 2021.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt it had not adequately investigated her concerns, despite having evidence of her and her family being filmed. She said that her neighbour’s tenancy had been breached and the landlord should take action. She informed this Service that committal proceedings against her neighbour had been applied for, which would be heard on 30 November 2022.
10. On 19 October 2023 the landlord told this Service that the resident’s neighbour had since moved.
11. On 28 February 2024 the resident told this Service that the judge made reference to the landlord lying, perverting the course of justice, and concealing evidence in relation to the court orders of 9 September 2021.
12. This Service has been provided with evidence that a separate court order was made on 26 March 2024. This stated that the court orders of 9 September 2021 would last until March 2026 until varied or discharged.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including concerns about her neighbour’s closed-circuit television (CCTV).

13. The Ombudsman’s previous determination, case 2019148323, related to the landlord’s handling of ASB, and a determination was made in October 2020.
14. A further determination was made in June 2921, case 202014674, that the resident’s complaint regarding the installation of CCTV cameras that overlooked her property was outside of jurisdiction as it had not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The Investigation Report said that she should make a new complaint to the landlord and refer the final complaint response to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
15. On 25 February 2022 the resident emailed the Ombudsman a number of documents, which included:
    1. A court order dated 9 September 2021.
    2. A copy of an email sent to the landlord on 16 January 2022, where she asked the landlord to investigate her complaint about its handling of ASB.
    3. An additional email sent to the landlord on 25 February 2022 asking what action the landlord was going to take against her neighbour due to the location of the CCTV cameras.
16. The resident did not receive a response, so the Ombudsman intervened and contacted the landlord asking it to provide a formal complaint response.
17. Following the landlord’s formal stage 2 response, which said that it had dealt with concerns surrounding CCTV in 2020 and 2021 sufficiently, on 10 October 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that her complaint was about the continued ASB she was experiencing.
18. The resident also said the landlord was aware that the neighbour had breached her tenancy conditions by having CCTV and that as she was convicted in September 2021 and caught filming the resident in November 2021, it proved that the landlord had not dealt with her complaint sufficiently.
19. It is important to note that the purpose of the Housing Ombudsman Service is to offer an alternative dispute resolution service for residents and landlords, and our role is to resolve disputes, making awards of compensation or other remedies when appropriate.
20. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord would have had sight of the Court Order dated 9 September 2021 which stated that the defendant (the neighbour) must not take, access, acquire, download or possess any moving images or images of the resident or her children under any circumstances. And while the Ombudsman does not expect a landlord to take the place of the Court, it would have been reasonable for it to consider the Court’s findings and determine whether the defendant was in breach of her tenancy agreement and take action, if appropriate.
21. The landlord’s final complaint response noted that it had dealt with the resident’s concerns surrounding the CCTV in 2020, but this was prior to the date of the Court Order. Therefore, it does not appear that the landlord adequately considered the resident’s further reports. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Ombudsman had not previously reached a determination on this specific aspect of the resident’s complaint in the previous cases.
22. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether any action would have been taken against the neighbour’s tenancy had the landlord considered the Court Order, but its failure to do so amounted to service failure and led to the resident experiencing increased distress and inconvenience.
23. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right, payments of £100 or more are appropriate.
24. In deciding the appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman has considered that had the defendant breached the court order, the resident would have had recourse to the courts, but in any event the landlord should have considered whether it needed to take any further action and it failed to do so. As it failed to do this, an order has been made to pay the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the identified service failure.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was Service Failure with the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, which included concerns about CCTV.

Orders

26. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 within 4 weeks of the date of this report for its failure to consider whether any further action was required given the court order granted to the resident.