The Guinness Partnership Limited (202211815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211815

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 July 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 follow 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy on a 2-bedroom semi-detached house owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 17 May 2021. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident; however, the resident’s child has learning disabilities, which the landlord was aware of. The resident has neighbours on either side of the house; for the purpose of this report, the neighbours will be referred to as Neighbour A (NA) and Neighbour B (NB).
On 22 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that NA’s son and their guest were riding their bikes on the resident’s driveway near her car. She was not at home and received the notification through her doorbell camera. The resident reportedly sent a text message to the NA asking her to tell them to stop. She said NA replied, “Likewise”, and sent her a picture she could not open. The resident said that as the conversation carried on, NA used “inappropriate words”.
On 25 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that NA came to her house, asking her to tell guests she had at that time to remove their car as it was blocking her driveway, which the resident said was incorrect. Later, an argument arose over the positioning of the bin. In conversations with the landlord, the resident and her neighbours all agreed that this was the escalation point in the dispute.
On 10 June 2022, the resident said that NB put a camera in her window overlooking the resident’s property. She said that NA had several CCTV cameras pointed at the resident’s garden and front door. The resident said this had made her feel harassed, and she felt uncomfortable letting her 4-year-old child play in the garden. However, she said the landlord had not called her back or assisted her. She also said she had called the police in relation to NA and the ongoing ASB issues. However, the police said this was a civil matter for the landlord to solve.
The landlord called the resident on 13 June 2022 and visited her and her neighbours on 20 June 2022. NA agreed to reposition the cameras to capture only her property. NB’s camera was a dummy, and she agreed to take it down. However, she complained that the resident had secured a tarpaulin onto NB’s fence.
On 23 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had installed privacy zones through the doorbell app and a physical shield to block the camera’s view from recording the neighbour’s property. However, she said that NA had not repositioned her camera. She knew this was the case because she had been in the garden and the camera’s light had come on. She also said she had tried to put her child to sleep at 7 pm, but NA was doing garden work, cutting slabs with dust and noise ‘ripping through the house’. Despite the hot temperature outside, she had to close the window and reassure her child that the noise would stop soon. The resident asked that the landlord call her back on 24 June 2022.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 July 2022 and said:
1. The landlord had emailed her about readjusting her CCTV. She followed the landlord’s instructions. NA had not done the same, and she had provided the landlord with the evidence showing the neighbour’s floodlight coming on when it detected her in her garden. She said the light could and should be readjusted.
2. The landlord’s policy stated that residents should feel safe at home, but she did not feel safe. She explained the impact on her and her son but thought the landlord had joined the harassment against her.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 July 2022 and said:
1. It offered mediation for all parties, but the resident declined.
2. On 29 June 2022, the resident requested a callback, but it had failed to do so. It offered £15 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 22 July 2022. She said she had suffered verbal abuse, invasion of privacy and feeling discomfort in her own home. She said that this affected her health and impacted her child more than “a general 4-year-old”, and he did not want to be at home. She believed the landlord should send formal warning letters to her neighbours.
The landlord responded with its final response letter on 25 August 2022. It said that the dispute included, but was not limited to, the positioning of CCTV and security lights, the use of the resident’s driveway, and the position of the bins.
1. It followed its process and determined that its customer liaison service was best placed to handle the dispute between the resident and her neighbours.
2. It replied to the resident in good time, aside from the single occasion it had noted in its stage 1 response where it had not called the resident back.
3. It had interviewed all parties and was satisfied that the resident and her neighbours made reasonable adjustments to make day-to-day living as easy as possible. It said people were different and that lifestyles may clash; however, it believed that most people wished to get along with their neighbours.
4. The options available in practical terms were limited and would not lead to the desired outcomes for the resident.
The resident’s MP contacted this service on the resident’s behalf on 2 September 2022. This service understands that the resident has advertised her property for a mutual exchange during the landlord’s internal complaint process. She has now completed the move through a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service acknowledges this was a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her significant distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party was responsible for ASB; therefore, our investigation will consider the landlord’s actions in the context of its relevant policies/procedures, as well as the law and what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it does not consider “low-level” neighbour disputes as an ASB. The policy says it is important that neighbours and their guests are considerate and understanding of others. However, the landlord expects residents to tolerate the different lifestyles of others so long as their lifestyle is reasonable. It says people have a right to enjoy their homes and are entitled to go about their daily lives without having concerns that complaints will be made against them.
In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord attended the property within 3 working days on 30 May 2022. The landlord’s policy did not specify the time frame for attendance, but 3 working days was not unreasonable. However, the resident was not at home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange its visit in advance rather than arriving unannounced. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider doing so in the future.
The next report on record was from 10 June 2022. Both the resident and her neighbours complained about each other’s CCTV. The landlord called the resident on the next working day and visited the resident and her neighbours within a week on 20 June 2022. It discussed with the parties the need to be considerate of others by adjusting their CCTV and security lights. It explained that the boundaries of the properties were estimated. It permitted the parties to erect a privacy fence. It provided them with a daily log sheet to record further incidents. The landlord acted appropriately here, in line with its policy, which says it would encourage residents to resolve their matters with their neighbours where it is safe and appropriate.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says on its website, “Using domestic CCTV or smart doorbells to capture video outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law. People should try to point their CCTV cameras away from their neighbours’ homes and gardens, and if possible, apply filters or privacy blocks”. If it was not possible, it would be “highly unlikely that the ICO would consider it fair or balanced to take enforcement action against a domestic CCTV user.”
The resident and her neighbours complained about each other’s CCTV. According to the evidence, the resident provided the landlord with a video showing that on 4 July 2022, NA’s camera and security light had come on whenever the sensors detected movement in the resident’s garden. On the same day, the landlord obtained footage from NA’s camera showing that at the specific time the resident complained about, NA’s camera did not capture the resident’s property. It is recognised that the landlord approved all parties to use CCTV and install privacy fences; it offered mediation, which the parties declined. The landlord reiterated that mediation was available to all. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that if residents cannot solve their problems with their neighbours, the landlord may take action. It would carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the individual and whether they are vulnerable and have any support needs. Where required, it would make referrals to appropriate support agencies. If its assessment scored above 25, it would automatically pass the case to its tenancy enforcement team. It would then consider taking preventative, non-legal, or legal action. It would work with residents to agree on an action plan and set out the actions the residents and the landlord would take to stop the ASB.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord wrote internally that the case was a “low-level harm” and should not be referred to its tenancy enforcement team. However, according to the evidence, the risk assessment returned a score of 33. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord did not follow its policy here. The Chartered Institute for Housing (CIH) produced a guide to managing ASB cases effectively. It says that historically, landlords have struggled to undertake risk assessment consistently and effectively. In some cases, the impact was that complainants of repeated incidents of low-level ASB went undetected. It emphasises the need to follow a consistent approach. The landlord did not act appropriately here.
The decision to keep the case with the customer liaison service was particularly relevant here, as the resident raised a complaint about the manager of the customer liaison service. The complaint stemmed from an email sent by the manager on 27 June 2022, requesting the resident to ‘move or remove’ her camera so it “does not record others’ property, tenants, or visitors”. The manager stated that there was no written request from the resident to install CCTV in the resident’s file and that if the issue could not be resolved, the resident may be asked to remove her CCTV.
In response, the resident explained to the landlord that she felt it had treated her unfairly and believed the rules were being selectively applied to her. There is no evidence that the landlord applied rules to the resident and not to her neighbours. However, there is evidence that the landlord discussed information about repairs in the resident’s home with the resident’s neighbour when investigating the ongoing neighbour dispute. This lack of discretion and confidentiality was not appropriate.
Additionally, the fact that the resident had previously complained about the manager of the customer liaison service was also shared with the resident’s neighbour. The CIH’s guide to managing ASB cases effectively says that handlers must maintain the strictest confidentiality when managing ASB cases from the outset and throughout the case. The landlord’s failure to follow this undermined its impartiality and its efforts to resolve the dispute between the resident and her neighbours and further damaged its relationship with the resident. This was not appropriate.
In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve ASB cases can be limited and may not extend to the resident’s desired outcome. The landlord provided the resident with daily activity sheets in June 2022 and reiterated that mediation service was available. This was appropriate. The resident declined mediation, and there is no evidence she had completed the activity sheets. She asked that the landlord issue warning letters to her neighbours. The landlord’s ASB policy says the action it would take would be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case. It would have been disproportionate for the landlord to issue a formal warning letter without evidence of tenancy breaches, ASB, or unlawful activity.
In its final response letter on 25 August 2022, the landlord explained to the resident that the action it could take was limited. This was the case not only with the CCTV but also with the position of the bins on a public highway where it did not have enforcement power. This was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord was limited in the enforcement actions it could have taken in this case, and its offer of mediation and request to fill in activity sheets were appropriate. However, the landlord’s decision not to progress the case to its tenancy enforcement team was not in accordance with its ASB policy and it acted inappropriately when disclosing details about the resident to a neighbour involved in the dispute. For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to put it right to the resident and to identify learning from the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlords in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the day of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident in line with this service’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident directly £265 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). This amount includes the £15 offered during its internal complaint process and the subsequent £50 it offered during this investigation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord must conduct a case review to identify:
1. Why it decided not to transfer the case to its tenancy enforcement team despite the risk assessment score of 33 and the measures it would need to take to ensure its policy is applied consistently in future.
2. The necessary steps to ensure that case handlers maintain impartiality and confidentiality when investigating neighbour disputes.
3. The landlord should provide a report setting out its findings and the improvements it will make to this Service and a summary to the resident within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider arranging appointments with its residents in advance rather than arriving unannounced.