The Guinness Partnership Limited (202234692)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234692

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 January 2025

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 concerns about their privacy.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
4. Between June 2021 and July 2021 the resident and their neighbour reported alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) by each other to the landlord. The resident reported several ASB incidents to the police, who were unable to take action as there was no evidence available. The police advised the resident to ask the landlord for CCTV.
5. On 9 July 2021 the landlord offered the resident and their neighbour video doorbells in an effort to prevent ASB and capture evidence if there were any further incidents. The resident rejected the offer, while the neighbour accepted.
6. The resident raised a complaint on 14 January 2023. They said the neighbour’s video doorbell invaded their privacy and filmed them each time they left and returned to their property. They asked the landlord to tell their neighbour to remove the device.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. It said it:
   1. had given permission for the installation of a video doorbell due to ASB issues, but the doorbell was owned by the neighbour.
   2. provided a link to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website with information about what rules the neighbour must follow. It explained the ICO said that “The use of recording equipment, such as CCTV or smart doorbells, to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law”.
   3. would not reconsider the decision to allow the installation of a video doorbell and signposted the resident to the ICO.
   4. apologised for not providing a stage 1 response within 10 working days and offered £10 compensation for that.
8. The resident asked to escalate their complaint on 12 February 2023. They said the landlord should have consulted them over the location of the video doorbell and maintained it was an invasion of privacy. They also accepted the £10 compensation for the delay with issuing the stage 1 response.
9. The landlord provided its final response on 13 March 2023. It reiterated the information it had given at stage 1. It added that it had given the resident permission to install a video doorbell at the same time as their neighbour, but they had declined.
10. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, they said they wanted the landlord to instruct their neighbour to remove any recording devices from their property.
11. After the resident brought their complaint to this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 October 2024 with a further review of the case. It identified further compensation would be appropriate for its complaint handling and increased its total compensation offer from £10 to £60.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about their privacy.

12. In cases concerning ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
13. The Ombudsman is also not able to consider any matters relating directly to the neighbour’s use of the camera. The neighbour is not a member landlord of the Scheme and does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, it would be more appropriate for matters relating to the use of personal data to be considered by the ICO. The ICO is the relevant authority for all matters concerning the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
14. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take reasonable and timely action that is proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB.
15. The landlord’s guidance for domestic CCTV states that images of individuals caught on a Fixed Position Camera (FPC) such as a doorbell camera, which also contain images outside of the customer’s property (e.g. the street, another property or communal area) will be subject to data protections laws. Any resident must have a clear reason for using a FPC which is necessary and proportionate e.g. crime prevention. They must also let people know that they may be caught on camera and the reasons why e.g. putting up clear signs.
16. The landlord gave permission for the resident’s neighbour to install a video doorbell in July 2021 following reports of serious ASB incidents. The Ombudsman also notes the police advised the resident to ask the landlord for CCTV. It is the Ombudsman’s view the installation of a video doorbell was both proportionate and reasonable considering all circumstances of the case.
17. With regards to letting people know that they may be caught on camera, such as putting up signage. It is clear from the resident’s complaint they were aware they may be caught on camera from the date of installation, due to being offered a video doorbell themself. They also included in their complaint that the video doorbell often gave an audible warning that recording was taking place. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the resident had sufficient warning of recordings taking place and the landlord did not need to take any action to ensure the neighbour had any signs in place.
18. Evidence shows the landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns about the video doorbell in December 2022. This was a reasonable effort to try and manage the competing interests of the two neighbours. The neighbour explained the video doorbell was installed as a security measure following incidents of ASB and they wanted to keep it for the same reasons. The landlord made the decision not to ask the neighbour to remove the device, which was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
19. It was reasonable for the landlord to have explained to the resident that the neighbour was responsible for how the video doorbell was used and to have signposted them to the ICO if they wished to pursue the matter further.
20. In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of privacy concerns due to the landlord allowing a neighbour to install video doorbells at their property. The decision to allow the installation of a video doorbell was reasonable and proportionate, and the landlord has correctly signposted to the ICO.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

21. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
22. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
23. The resident first asked to make an ‘official complaint’ about the video doorbell by email on 19 November 2022. However, the landlord did not raise a complaint which was inappropriate.
24. The resident raised their complaint on 14 January 2023, but the landlord did not issue an acknowledgement, which was inappropriate and not in line with the Code or its own policy.
25. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023, which was outside of the 10-working day timescale. That was a failure and not in line with the Code or the landlord’s own policy.
26. The resident asked to escalate to stage 2 on 12 February 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 14 February 2023. It then issued its final response on 13 March 2023, which was within 20 working days of the acknowledgement and in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
27. The landlord reflected on its actions and increased its offer of compensation after the involvement of this Service. The Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of its complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. This was inappropriate.
28. In addition, the increase of compensation from £10 to £60 offered by the landlord after the complaint was brought to this Service, did not acknowledge or take into consideration the failure to raise a complaint in November 2022 when the resident first requested it.
29. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord recognising expressions of dissatisfaction. The landlord did not issue an acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1, and there were also delays in issuing the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
30. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused, which is appropriate for the detriment caused to the resident and is within the bracket this Service would award for failures of this nature.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of the resident’s concerns about their privacy.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

33. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. pay the resident a total compensation of £100 for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.