Tower Hamlets Homes (202126064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126064

Tower Hamlets Homes

27 February 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a neighbour’s CCTV installation.
2. The residents reports of ASB by a neighbour.
3. The Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of a housing association and the tenancy began on 2 March 2009. The property is a ground floor one bedroom property. The landlord is an Arms’ Length Management Organisation set up to manage homes owned by a local authority. There are no vulnerabilities noted on the landlord’s records.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised concerns about ASB and the unauthorised installation of a neighbour’s CCTV to the landlord in June 2020. The landlord investigated these matters and issued its stage one response on 24 August 2020. It advised the resident that it was conducting an ongoing investigation into her concerns. The resident was advised of her right to pursue the complaint under the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process, but there is no evidence suggesting that she exercised this right. The complaint was therefore closed. This Service will not consider the events that occurred during this period as part of this investigation. This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Policies and Procedural documents

The tenancy agreement notes that the property is subject to the local authority’s tenancy rules. It requires that all tenants, families and their visitors are considerate towards their neighbours and that it would act quickly against tenants who ignore this tenancy agreement.
The landlord has a three stage complaints handling process. It will try to resolve informal complaints (queries) within 2 – 5 days, acknowledge complaints within 48 hours of receipt, answer stage one complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage two complaints (responded to by the local authority) within 20 working days. It may extend the timescales by a further 10 working days in consultation with the complainant for more complex cases.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy notes a wide range of unacceptable activity which causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress. It has a range of tools and powers it can use against those who cause anti-social behaviour. It will aim contact the resident within 1 working day for cases such as hate crime, threats of violence or aggression, 2 workings for cases such as noise nuisance or misuse of communal areas and 3 working days for minor nuisances. It will review and assess the details of the incident and assign the case to a relevant officer. The officer will agree the next steps of action and discuss the next steps available to the resident and agree on how they wish to be updated throughout the investigation.
Its guidance on Domestic Surveillance Systems (DSS) notes that such systems need to be operated in a responsible way that minimises any intrusion into other people’s privacy. It says it will take action to close down a DSS installed without permission or where it does not meet the criteria and rules for the installation and operation. It says that where it becomes the implicated reason in a neighbour dispute, a complaint, or an allegation of harassment, then the landlord reserves the right to withdraw permission and to require that the cameras are removed.

Summary of events

On 5 January 2021 the landlord and the resident exchanged a number of emails indicating they had had discussions regarding the resident’s concerns of ASB and harassment and the neighbour’s CCTV instalment. It updated the resident by email and said its Housing Department were looking into her concerns and that the harassment issue was a matter for the Police. It also said the neighbour had been written to the previous year. It referred to a previous conversation it had had with the resident where it said the resident had been notified of counter allegations against her and other residents, which it had passed to the Hate Crime Panel for further investigation. It said that no action was being taken against her and that the neighbour had been spoken to, but that no definitive proof had come to light that the allegations made by the neighbour were false. The landlord has not provided this service with copies of the actual reports of the allegations made by the resident against the neighbour.
It explained that the Police were in a position to investigate these matters and that they have powers to request to look at the neighbour’s phone and CCTV footage. It said it could take action if the Police uncovered any pertinent information that would indicate that the neighbour had made false allegations and if she had indeed been harassing them. It also informed the resident that the neighbour was not allowed to have a camera facing or capturing footage anywhere but their front door and that it continues its investigation into the matter. It offered to refer the resident to Victim Support and reminded her to continue to log and report any further incidents. It is unclear from the information that the landlord has provided if the resident reported any further incidents.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day and stated that the Police had visited and seen from her patio doors, that there were sensors on the cameras which was not right. She also said the neighbour had sensor lights installed onto the block walls which were activated when they stepped outside and asked why the landlord could not do anything about it. She asked for clarification about who the Hate Crime Panel were and that the neighbour had made unfounded allegations against her. The landlord said this was in regards to the allegations made by the neighbour that they were a victim of racial abuse. It said it had only mentioned it to highlight that the neighbour’s complaints had necessitated an investigation. It also commented on a previous email it had received from the resident that it had not found enough evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegations of harassment and that the Police would be best placed to take the matter further.
The Police contacted the landlord on 6 January 2021. They said they had sent a number of emails which it had not been responded to. They asked what the landlord had done to investigate the resident’s complaint, including complaints received from other residents against the neighbour. The Police queried if the landlord had visited the neighbour regarding the allegations made against them. The landlord responded on 1 February 2021 that it had only found one email from the Police to which it was responding. It informed the Police that the neighbour had been spoken to about the allegations made against her and that it was their responsibility to investigate:
1. the resident’s complaint that her neighbour had made malicious reports about her.
2. the resident’s complaint about harassment
3. the residents complaint that the neighbour was obtaining and documenting unauthorised footage of her and her family
The Police wrote to the landlord on 24 March 2021 regarding several complaints it had received from various residents in the block. They said residents had complained about harassment and ASB caused by the neighbour. They said a criminal investigation was taking place and they asked the landlord if it had any prior knowledge of the neighbour and if it had considered an acceptable behavioural contract. The Police said it wished to work together and solve the issues before the matter became a bigger problem. The landlord responded to the Police the same day and said it had been dealing with another Police officer on the issue and it sent a history of their conversation. The key points in the response are noted below:
1. they had had a conference call with the officer a short while ago.
2. It had not had several complaints from various residents but just from one resident. It said it seemed unlikely that the complaint would be something it could act upon without Police investigation and action.
3. It said the resident had complained that the neighbour had made malicious reports about her to the Police and that they had wrongly accused her dog of attacking them. It said these allegations were impossible to prove.
4. It continues to investigate the residents complaint about the CCTV.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint about ASB (the landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint dated 16 March 2021). It explained that:
1. It had only investigated one complaint by another resident against the neighbour but the complainant did not wish to proceed. It said it had not received numerous complaints.
2. It had spoken to the neighbour about allegations made against her and reminded her of her obligations under her tenancy.
3. It had investigated allegations made by the neighbour against other residents and decided that no further action would be taken as there was not enough evidence. They had since referred the matter to the Hate Crime Panel.
4. It was still dealing with the unauthorised CCTV and building works so there was a possibility that action might be taken against the neighbour if she did not comply with the terms of her tenancy.
5. Its ASB team had determined through telephone discussions and emails with the resident that her complaints were about malicious reports made by the neighbour against her, unauthorised filming and the CCTV instalment.
6. There was no evidence to prove that the complaints made against her by her neighbour did or did not occur and that it had therefore not been able to prove that the complaints made were malicious.
7. Where a case of harassment is being alleged, a criminal investigation would be required by the Police in an attempt to prove this. Its ASB Team had been informed that a criminal investigation into her allegations had been launched into her allegations of harassment by the Police. It said it will be happy to assist the Police with any enquiries.
8. It said that it was considering legal action against the neighbour if its CCTV procedure was not adhered to.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2021 regarding its actions concerning the CCTV. She said it was unclear why the neighbour had been allowed to appeal the landlord’s decision, when they had been asked to remove the equipment. She complained that this had had a direct impact on her efforts to move homes, through the home swapper scheme, as her exchange partner had pulled out of the process when she saw the CCTV.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint the same day and said it would contact the resident within 2 days to advise who would be handling the case. It said it would explore if the matter could be put right quickly, without the need of a formal investigation or a formal written response. It further advised that if she wanted her complaint investigated formally, it would aim to complete it within 20 days but it could take longer due to the impact of Covid 19.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint about ASB (stage one answered on 26 March 2021). It gave a summary of her complaint (the landlord has not provided us a copy) which was that the landlord had not followed its ASB procedures in dealing with her reports of digital harassment by the neighbour that her family had been subjected to for the past year. It upheld its stage one response and said in its response to her that:
1. It was unable to disclose specific details about cases involving other residents.
2. It had taken enforcement action with regards to the CCTV installation in the neighbour’s property. It asked the neighbour to remove her CCTV on 23 April 2021.
3. It confirmed that allegations made by the neighbour included direct forms of racism and hate crimes and that it had contacted the residents involved in the allegations.
4. It explained that it had not been made aware of other reports of ASB but that it had discussed her allegations against the neighbour with the Police and advised them of its ASB Team’s role.
5. It had confirmed with the Police in March 2021 that they were launching a criminal investigation into her allegations of harassment.
6. It was satisfied that its officers had taken appropriate action in line with its procedures in supporting the Police with their enquiries.
7. It advised her to contact the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 26 May 2021 (stage one received on 12 May 2021). Its findings are summarised below:
1. It confirmed that it had instructed the neighbour to remove the CCTV equipment and gave its reasons for the decision.
2. The neighbour had since exercised her right to challenge their decision through its formal complaints process and that the complaint had progressed to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
3. It would contact the resident by 27 May 2021 to let her know if the Housing Ombudsman had accepted her case.
4. The Police were actively investigating her reports of harassment from the neighbour and any further incidents should be reported to them. It asked the tenant to report back on the outcome of the Police investigation once known.
5. It concluded that she may request the escalation of her complaint to stage two if she remained unhappy with their investigation.
The landlord’s ASB log note that an incident was reported on 9 June 2021 (details not given).
The resident informed her landlord on 9 July 2021 that the ASB team visited her home with two patrol officers, to investigate reports of cannabis smoking in her home. She expressed concerns that the neighbour continues to raise allegations against her whilst the landlord did nothing to investigate her complaints. The landlord’s ASB officer responded the same day that the purpose of its visit was to inform her of the allegations and to give her a chance to respond to them. It said following its conversation with her earlier in the day, it was satisfied that neither she nor her partner smoked cannabis. It also said that it had advised her during the visit, that its legal team were taking action against the neighbour regarding the CCTV matter.
The Police informed the resident on 29 July 2021 that it would not be taking any further action on the case.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint concerning the CCTV (stage one response sent on 26th May 2021) removal on 9 August 2021. She complained that:
1. the neighbour had still not removed the CCTV, sensor lights and external alarm.
2. that the landlord should have taken responsibility in dealing with her reports of harassment, rather than stating it was the Police and that it had failed in letting the matter carry on for 15 months without a resolution.
3. that the landlord had made no attempt to investigate how captured images of her children or family were being used.
The landlord’s internal email on 20 August 2021 note that it decided that it could not proceed with the investigation of the resident’s stage two complaint, until it had heard from the Ombudsman and its Legal team. It said it had agreed with the resident that it would put her forward for a housing management panel, for consideration for higher housing priority to move, due to the anxiety her family was experiencing from the issues with her neighbour.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on her stage two complaint on 12 September 2021. She said she had previously contacted its service on 2 September but had not received a reply. She asked the landlord to respond urgently and confirm if it had accepted the stage two complaint and to provide the name of the officer dealing with the complaint with the expected timeframe for the response.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her email about new evidence (the landlord has not provided a copy of the email). It said it had invited the Police officers and the ASB team to a meeting, so that they could explain the investigations done and the risks to her family. It assured the resident that it would update her once the case had been presented. The evidence seen suggest this relates to the housing management panel.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it was unable to proceed with the stage two complaint investigation until it had received the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. It agreed with the resident to withdraw the stage two complaint and reopen it once the Ombudsman’s complaint outcome is known. It further noted that the resident was not happy about the complaint withdrawal but that she understood the situation.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to its Housing Team regarding the resident’s stage two complaint. It said the stage two could now continue as the Housing Ombudsman had made a decision on the neighbour’s complaint against the landlord. It wrote to the resident the next day and confirmed that the investigation would be reopened and that it aimed to respond by 21 December 2021.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord’s Housing Team informed the resident that the Ombudsman had decided that it was wrong in asking the neighbour to remove her CCTV equipment. It said the matter would be discussed internally and that it would update the resident after their meeting the following week.
On 21 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained that although it had instructed the neighbour to take down her CCTV, they had since lodged a formal complaint with its service, escalated the matter to the Housing Ombudsman for investigation and that they had also instigated a Judicial Review. The key points in the response are noted below:
1. It referred the case to its legal team who advised that it could not take further action regarding the removal of the CCTV until the outcome of the Housing Ombudsman’s investigation against its service and the Judicial Review were known. It apologised for the delay and explained that it was acting on the advice of its legal service.
2. The Housing Ombudsman found in favour of the neighbour but it had submitted an appeal against the decision.
3. The outcome of the appeal may take 16 weeks but it had instructed the neighbour to remove the CCTV as it had since installed CCTV cameras at the location. She was advised to remove the equipment by 21 December 2021 but it had since received further queries which were being investigated.
4. It had asked the neighbour to provide copies of the images captured by her CCTV.
5. Issues regarding the posting of images of children should be reported to the Police.
6. It apologised to the resident for the stress and inconvenience she had suffered, whilst the CCTV had been in place and the for the delays that had occurred in its removal.
7. It referred her to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied with its handling of the matter.
The landlord and the resident continued to correspond on the actions being taken regarding the unauthorised equipment between 12 January and 23 February 2023. It informed her that:
1. It had given the neighbour a revised date of 28 January 2022 to remove the all equipment.
2. it was arranging an urgent visit with its contractor to inspect the neighbour’s equipment to provide a quote for the removal. It said all the equipment would be removed once the quote had been received and that the neighbour had been informed as well. It said it envisaged the process would take around 10 days.
3. It advised in response to her emails on 10 February 2022 that its contractor had advised that it had to isolate the electric in order to remove the neighbour’s equipment. It said its legal team advised that it had to get an injunction order to provide access to isolate electric, remove all equipment and undertake not to repeat this in the future.
4. that the legal route had not been pursued as the neighbour had challenged it through a number of avenues. It further advised that its legal team were in the process of writing to the resident in support of its injunction. It informed the resident that its legal team were preparing a letter before action which would be sent to the neighbour.
5. it could not be specific about the time an injunction would take but that it may not take more than 6 months.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord’s internal emails note that it had installed two external CCTV cameras to cover the property. It noted that it had arranged and agreed a date with the resident to remove all the equipment from the communal wall on 28 March 2022, but that the neighbour had removed the camera and cabling by the time they arrived. It further said that they had not removed the sensor lights or sensors and had installed a ring doorbell on the rear communal wall overlooking the rear communal garden area without permission. It said it was going to write to the neighbour and ask them to remove it all again.
Complaints from the resident regarding new incidents and allegations against the neighbour, since the stage two response was issued will not form part of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Residents reports of ASB

It is clear from the evidence seen that the resident made some allegations against the neighbour about their CCTV surveillance, malicious reports and the unauthorised filming of the communal areas and of the resident’s family. The landlord noted in one of its correspondence that it was unable to prove that the allegations made against her were malicious, but it has not provided this service with any evidence of its correspondence with the neighbour on this matter and how it reached this conclusion. This service has however seen evidence of the landlord’s interactions with the Police, which confirm that it worked in partnership with them in their investigation.
Whilst it was appropriate for it to refer the resident to the police to pursue the matter, however best practice is clear regarding partnership working and the ongoing obligations of the landlord, even when they are not the lead agency. The landlord should have done more to work with the police in bringing the matter to a resolution and it could have offered non legal sanctions, such as mediation services at the earlier stages within the life of the case. From May 2021, the landlord advised that any ongoing incidents fell into the remit of the police. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to continue to work with the resident to seek further resolution whilst the criminal investigation was on going.
The evidence shows that the landlord appears to have learnt from its failing by referring the resident to the Housing Management Panel on 20 August 2021, for consideration of higher priority rehousing band. It has however not clearly evidenced the reason for its decision and said it was due to the resident’s family’s anxiety and the adverse effect the issues were having on her husband’s health. It corresponded with the resident on 29 September 2021 about new evidence and that it would be meeting with the Police to present her case and explain the investigations done and the risks to her family. It then informed the resident on 6 October 2021 that her case had been accepted and that its Lettings Team would write to her about her change of priority. This demonstrates that at this later stage in the case management, it had acted appropriately in seeking alternative ways of resolving the ongoing issues with her neighbour, even when it said it could not prove the allegations made against her were malicious.
The landlord has not provided this service with copies of the ASB reports from the resident and it has therefore not been possible to determine when the allegations were first reported and any subsequent reports it may have received. It advised the resident on 5 January 2021 to continue to log and report any further incidents but the landlord has not said whether the resident submitted any diaries documenting the ASB experience. It has also not evidenced that it agreed a proposed action plan, communication plan, a risk assessment, and a case review of this matter as outlined in its ASB policy. It said it will confirm these actions in writing and keep the resident updated regularly of the subsequent progress but there is no clear evidence that it had done so. This is not in compliance with the landlord’s ASB policy where it said it will keep comprehensive and up to date records of complaints and contact with the victim, perpetrator, witnesses and other agencies.
Overall, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have followed its ASB policy and procedure in dealing the resident’s concerns. This caused the resident some uncertainty and frustration as to the steps the landlord was taking in handling her complaints.

Resident’s reports of neighbours installation of CCTV

The landlord’s guidance notes that it will take action to close down a DSS installed without permission or where it does not meet the criteria for the installation and operation. The resident initially raised concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV installation in June 2020 and the landlord assured her that it was conducting an ongoing investigation into the matter and closed the complaint. It is noted from the correspondence seen between the landlord and the resident that it kept her informed on the actions it was taking in its emails of 5 January 2021, its stage one response dated 26 March 2021 and its stage two response dated 14 May 2021 where it informed her that it had taken enforcement with regards to the CCTV installation. It informed her in its stage one response issued on 26 May 2021 that the neighbour had challenged their decision through its formal complaints process and to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord also informed her on 9 July 2021 that its legal team were taking action against the neighbour, but it later explained in its final stage two response that the process was delayed due to their advice to pause all actions until the Ombudsman had concluded its investigation. From the evidence seen, it is clear that the landlord had appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint regarding the unauthorised surveillance equipment installed by the neighbour in the communal area of the block. It found that the neighbour had installed it without its permission and it instructed them to remove the CCTV equipment. It was hindered in pursuing enforcement action as its decision was challenged. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delays in enforcing the removal of the equipment, as it was appropriate for it to respond to any complaints made by the neighbour about the matter. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint is therefore appropriate and the delay in resolving the CCTV enforcement is reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy and guidance notes that it would confirm what was agreed with the resident to put things right when responding to complaints. It says where this involves undertaking work which may take weeks or months to complete it will provide a schedule and time frame, monitor progress and continue to update the complainant until the complaint is resolved. The landlord responded to complaints from the resident on 16 March, 26 March,12 May and 9 August 2021. It has not provided copies of the resident’s stage one complaint dated 16 March 2021 and her stage two complaint which it responded to on 14 May 2021. This is unreasonable and suggests poor record keeping by the landlord as it failed to provide these documents to this service as requested.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint dated 9 August 2021 until 14 October 2021 regarding the CCTV removal and it took almost 3 months to respond to it. It is however noted that it had issued a stage two response dated 14 May 2021, which addressed the same issues where the resident was referred to this service if she wished to pursue the complaint. The resident therefore could have approached this service as advised.
As the landlord had already addressed this matter in its earlier stage two response, it should instead have managed the resident’s expectations and clearly advised her that the resolution she was seeking (the CCTV removal and other equipment installed in the communal area) could not be reached in a short space of time, monitored the progress and provided regular updates to her as specified in its complaints policy. This was inappropriate as it left the resident with multiple complaints running concurrently on the same matters, not providing effective communication or complaint handling.
It was also not good practice to disclose the details of its investigation of the neighbour’s case to the resident. Whilst the issues may have been related, the landlord’s investigation should have been conducted independently not involving the resident in the actions being taken by the other party. Based on these findings there is evidence that the landlord did not act appropriately in the handling of the resident’s complaints. Overall, the landlord fell outside of its own and best practice time scales for complaint handling and the provisions for complaint handling outlined in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This was unreasonable and led to the resident making further new complaints through its internal process when it was not necessary to do so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s CCTV installation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

It did not follow its ASB guidelines and policy in how it investigated and dealt with the resident’s concerns. This has caused the resident some uncertainty and that it had not taken the matter seriously or applied a victim centred approach. Whilst it did work with the police, there was an over reliance upon another agency seeking a resolution which led to interventions not being explored.
It failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint within 48 hours as outlined in its complaints policy and it rather took two months to contact her. It also unnecessarily delayed responding to the complaint for three months whilst it awaited the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation on what it said was a related case. This is not in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman Code to landlords where they are expected to manage residents’ expectations from the outset and be clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic. The code also demands that landlords must keep a full record of complaints, and review outcomes at each stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has done so through its failure to submit copies of the resident’s complaints as outlined in the assessment of this report.
It investigated the resident’s complaint regarding the neighbour’s CCTV and it provided updates to her through various emails and its complaint responses on the actions it was taking. It was unable to take enforcement action against the neighbour due to advice from its legal team to suspend such actions.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Pay the resident £350 in compensation broken down as follows:
1. £250 for the time and trouble to the resident for its failure in its complaint handling
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its failure to follow its ASB policy and guidelines.
3. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
4. It should ensure that the relevant members staff handling complaints familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman Code, particularly the timeframes for landlords to answer complaints and provide this Service evidence of this.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider reviewing and updating its ASB policy which is now out of date.