South Cambridgeshire District Council (202107370)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107370

South Cambridgeshire District Council

25 March 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 handling of:
    1. A pest control appointment.
    2. The resident’s installation of CCTV at her property. 
    3. Its’ staff member’s conduct regarding a parking dispute.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. Between February 2020 and July 2020, the landlord managed an ASB (anti-social behaviour) case involving the resident, relating to an ongoing parking dispute. The landlord attended the property and established that the resident was slightly obstructing her neighbour’s driveway. The landlord advised her to park in line with its guidelines and not to obstruct the neighbour’s driveway
  3. The resident’s neighbour reported a rat infestation to the landlord and landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the resident’s property on 12 January 2021; the contractor reported that the resident denied access to the property. The landlord then emailed the resident and explained the purpose of the work and that she was required to grant access to the contractors, due to the health and safety reasons for the pest control work. It sent a further email to the resident outlining the appointment details and it assured her the contractor would adhere to COVID-19 guidelines. The contractor could not gain access when they attended again on 18 January 2021. The landlord’s solicitor sent a letter to the resident on 20 January 2021 advising it would seek a legal injunction requiring her to grant access to her property if she did not permit access for the pest control works. The resident subsequently allowed the contractor to access the property and complete the pest control treatment on 23 February 2021.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 25 January 2021, as she said she had not received any emails from the landlord prior to it sending the letter. She said she did not give access to the contractor as she had not been contacted by the landlord regarding the visit and she had safety concerns due to COVID-19. She said she was not comfortable with the involvement of one of the landlord’s staff members, as he had previously caused her stress following his investigation of the car parking dispute. She also said she had received letters from her neighbours, demanding that she remove her CCTV.
  5. In its stage one complaint response on 4 February 2021, the landlord said it had contacted the resident prior to sending the appointment letter but had not received a response, and as such, it had followed the correct procedures. The landlord said it had reviewed the contact regarding the neighbour dispute and had not found evidence of unprofessional conduct by its staff member. It advised the resident that she needed to request permission from the landlord for her CCTV, and abide by data protection guidelines. In its stage two complaint response, dated 15 April 2021, the landlord added that it should have contacted the resident, prior to the initial pest control appointment, to explain the purpose of the visit, and the COVID-19 safety measures that were in place.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the conduct of the landlord’s staff member and she wanted the landlord to revoke the letter sent to her, regarding the injunction.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the pest control appointment

  1. The tenancy handbook states the resident “must allow reasonable access to your home for the work to be done” and that the landlord may take legal action if the resident does not provide access when reasonably requested. It was reasonable for the resident to deny access on 11 January 2021, as she was not aware of the pest control works and had concerns regarding COVID-19 safety. However, the landlord subsequently made reasonable attempts to contact her and to confirm that its contractors would adhere to government guidance regarding COVID-19. It was therefore in line with the landlord’s policy to send a letter advising it would seek an injunction if access was not granted as it had been unable to access the property on two occasions and had given the resident satisfactory notice of the purpose and schedule of the works. However, the landlord has acknowledged that it should have contacted the resident prior to the initial appointment, as the contractor was unable to reach her. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this and acknowledged that the delays could have been avoided with improved communication. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony that she did not receive the emails from the landlord advising her of the pest control appointments. However, the landlord has provided evidence that it sent the emails and they were correctly addressed. In its stage one complaint response the landlord said it did not receive any undelivered messages, It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident by email as its records listed email as her preferred contact method. The landlord could not have reasonably been aware that the resident had not received its emails and therefore it acted reasonably and in line with the tenancy handbook by warning the resident that it would take enforcement action against her if she did not provide access to her property.

CCTV installation

  1.  In her complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she had received malicious letters from her neighbours, objecting to the CCTV she had installed at her property. The tenancy handbook states that the resident must request permission from the landlord in advance to carry out improvements to the property, which would include CCTV installation. The landlord should not unreasonably deny permission for improvements.
  2. The landlord advised the resident that she did not need her neighbours to agree to the CCTV installation but informed her she needed to request the landlord’s permission, which could be granted retrospectively, if she adhered to data protection regulations. This was reasonable as it was in line with its policy and the law. The landlord corresponded with the police as the resident said she had received permission from them to install the CCTV. The police said they were not responsible for granting permission and advised the footage included her neighbour’s property, which they had informed the resident was not permitted. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord discussed GDPR guidelines with the resident and explained that the CCTV must not film her neighbour’s property or public spaces. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the letters from her neighbours and said it hoped the guidance would resolve any issues. It advised her to contact the landlord if she received any further harassment, which it would handle in line with its ASB policy. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV was reasonable, in view of all the circumstances.

Staff conduct regarding the parking dispute

  1. When assessing the landlord’s response to complaints about staff conduct it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint and took proportionate action to put right any errors for the resident, based on the information available to it. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to order a landlord to take any disciplinary action against its staff. This is because it is not our role to be involved in matters of employment or the day to day running of the landlord’s organisation.
  2. The resident has raised concerns that the actions of the landlord’s staff provoked her neighbour into committing ASB. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the situation involving her neighbour. However, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the neighbour’s actions as the neighbour is responsible for their own actions and no action which a landlord could take, with the possible exception of eviction would be guaranteed to prevent someone from committing ASB.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and assessing previous correspondence between the staff member and the resident. It concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the staff member had treated the resident unfairly or in an unprofessional manner, but stated staff members sometimes “undertake difficult conversations with tenants” to ensure the tenancy conditions are being adhered to. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concern that the staff member’s involvement in the parking dispute had led to her car being vandalised but stated that as several months had elapsed between the two events, it did not deem him to be responsible for this incident. Based on its investigation, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action as there was insufficient evidence to show the staff member had acted inappropriately. The landlord would only be expected to take action if there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the pest control appointment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s installation of CCTV.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of its staff member’s conduct regarding a parking dispute.