Your Housing Limited (202118990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118990

Your Housing Limited

13 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:
1. communication about the removal of the camera from the door entry system.
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2018. The ground floor property is part of a complex for those over the age of 55. The resident is recorded as being hard of hearing. There is an intensive housing management service with a warden call system in place at the scheme, where residents are able to summon help in the event of an emergency. It is noted that in 2020, he declined welfare calls from the landlord.
Each property on the complex had access to cameras on their door entry system, which allowed residents to watch a constant live stream of CCTV from the main scheme front door, from a channel on their personal TV within their property 24 hours a day. When the system failed and was upgraded in 2021, it no longer had the camera functionality. CCTV remains on site within the communal areas, with access to footage limited in accordance with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will comply with its statutory duty to take reasonable care of the shared communal areas, and ensure they are in a good state of repair and working order. It also states that it will comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and any replacement legislation including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The landlord has a CCTV policy which sets out guidance on how they use, check and operate CCTV systems across their housing stock. It says that:
1. all CCTV systems will have a documented specific purpose, which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need
2. all CCTV systems will have an affiliated data privacy impact assessment, which must be put in place before a new system is implemented and will be reviewed annually
3. a record should be maintained of all actions carried out against the CCTV system, including maintenance
4. annual reviews should ensure the effectiveness of the CCTV system and in relation to its initial purpose, aim and need. Where these aims are no longer met, the CCTV system should be retired, or made fit for purpose
5. suppliers and contractors must comply with the current data protection legislation where they are implementing, operating or managing CCTV systems on behalf of the landlord. They are required to evidence their compliance and allow for auditing of their legal compliance
6. risks will be managed in accordance with the surveillance camera code of practice.
The landlord has a data protection policy which sets out the landlord’s intentions with regards to data protection compliance set out in line with the data protection principles of GDPR and the data protection act 2018.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a leaflet named ‘service standard customer feedback’. Within it references a three-stage complaint process:
1. “put things right”, an informal stage which advises it will aim to resolve concerns within 2 working days
2. “investigation”, the first formal stage of its process where residents can expect to receive an acknowledgement within two working days and a full response within ten working days
3. “escalation”, the second stage of the complaints process. At this stage, residents can expect a response within 15 working days from a senior member of staff.
The landlord’s website has a customer feedback policy which indicates there are three stages to its complaints process as mentioned above, with one informal and two formal stages. The response times differ slightly, with an acknowledgement to the first formal stage within five working days and a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied then they can escalate the matter to stage two and expect a response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 13 May 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to notify him of its intention to carry out works to the warden call and door entry systems. It explained within its notice that the reason that an upgrade was required was because parts to the existing door entry system had become obsolete. It explained a breakdown of the cost of the works, and invited any observations to be made in writing within 30 days.
A residents meeting took place on 19 November 2019 and 22 January 2020. These meetings discussed general housing management issues at the scheme, and included updates on both the door entry system and communal CCTV system. The minutes noted that the handsets on the door entry system had not been functioning correctly, and that residents were concerned that there was not enough communal CCTV. In the January update, it confirmed that two new communal CCTV cameras had been installed. With regards to the door entry system, it advised that a new system was due to be installed around the end of January.
An upgrade to the door entry system started in February 2021, and a letter was sent to all residents advising them that from 1 March 2021 they were to use a new pendant and code to access the building. This letter was undated but said that the work will take place “from 9am Monday”. Works concluded later in March 2021.
On 8 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as he was concerned that the camera functionality he previously had on his door entry system had gone, and that he wanted it reinstated. The landlord logged this contact as an informal complaint.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It explained that:
1. it had recently fitted a new warden call system. Whilst the previous system had the ability for residents to be able to view the entrance door, the new system did not have this functionality
2. the landlord was in the process of carrying out a review of their CCTV systems, cameras and entry systems to ensure that they were GDPR compliant
3. once this review had been completed, a communication would be sent about the outcome
4. the communal areas of the scheme remained fitted with CCTV, and said that if the resident had concerns regarding any anti-social behaviour he could approach the scheme manager or the police.
On 29 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that he was still waiting for an outcome on the CCTV. He stated that he felt that removing safety measures without consulting residents was “disturbing”.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord responded and thanked the resident for his email. It confirmed that a review of CCTV systems against its legal obligations was ongoing. Meanwhile, it reassured the resident that the door entry system still had the speech functionality. This meant that residents were still able to hear who was at the door before allowing access. It reiterated that the resident could contact the scheme manager or the police if they suspected any anti-social behaviour.
On 6 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again. He advised that he wanted to complain about the removal of the camera on the door entry system and that no consultation had taken place with residents. He stated he felt that the safety of elderly people was compromised.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It informed the resident that:
1. it had formally raised a complaint on their behalf on 10 August 2021
2. the scheme had been fitted with a new warden call system that did not have the ability for residents to view the entrance door as it had done previously
3. there had not been any recent reports of anti-social behaviour and reassured the resident that the rest of the scheme was fitted throughout with CCTV cameras.
4. the resident was still able to identify who was at the door using the audio functionality on their entry system, and encouraged the resident to report any concerns of anti-social behaviour to the scheme manager or the police
5. the review of CCTV was still underway, and that all systems would be assessed in accordance with data protection practices. The landlord reassured the resident that it remained the landlord’s intention to write to residents with the outcome of the review, and apologised for the delay in progressing it further
6. as it felt that all matters that the resident had raised had been addressed, that the complaint would be considered as closed. However if the resident wanted a review then they could contact the landlord again within ten working days
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 September 2021 and advised they disagreed with the stage one response, and that he wanted the CCTV element of the door entry system reinstated for security reasons. The landlord responded on 8 September 2021 in acknowledgement of their contact, and advised that they could expect to receive a full response by 29 September 2021.
On 28 September 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. Within this:
1. it referenced a telephone conversation that took place with the resident on 14 September 2021 to discuss their dissatisfaction and any outstanding matters
2. the landlord stated that during this conversation, the resident discussed additional concerns about anti-social behaviour at the scheme and his rent account
3. the landlord acknowledged that in order to resolve the complaint, the resident had said he wanted the camera function on the door entry system reinstated and contact made with regards to his rent account
4. it explained how the issue with regards to the rent account had occurred, and confirmed that a refund had been processed and therefore this specific issue was resolved on 14 September 2021
5. the landlord reiterated the information it provided to the resident within their stage one response about the door entry system. It apologised for any inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by no longer having camera access on the door entry system
6. it assured the resident that a review of CCTV systems across the landlord’s housing stock was due to conclude in early 2022 and that the landlord would contact the resident again if there was the option to reinstate the camera in a compliant way
7. the landlord reassured the resident that the audio functionality was still available, so all residents still had the ability to control access to the building and maintain security
8. it referred the resident to the Ombudsman if they remained dissatisfied with their final response.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 October 2021 and advised that he was unhappy that the stage one and two responses were similar and as a resolution to his complaint, he would like the landlord to reinstate the camera functionality on his door entry system.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord provided this Service with an update. It stated:
1. notice of the works to the door entry system was sent to all residents at the scheme on 13 May 2019, but they did not commence until February 2021. The delay was due to sourcing materials during the covid 19 pandemic
2. it did not know that replacing the system would remove the live feed to the camera at the main scheme front door and this was an “unintended consequence”, which is why no specific consultation had taken place with the residents
3. that the new system is now compliant with GDPR, whereas the previous system was not. It will not reinstall the resident’s access to the live feed for this reason
4. the wider review into CCTV at the landlord’s properties is ongoing. It will be developing a communication plan to inform residents as to why the old function is no longer acceptable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has complained about the landlord’s decision to remove the CCTV function from their door entry system and has raised concerns that this has put elderly residents at risk of their safety as a result. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate how the landlord handled the matters arising and whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures. Where the resident has complained that the landlord did not consult with residents to notify them of this change, the Ombudsman will consider whether action taken by the landlord was appropriate, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Communication about the removal of the camera from the door entry system

The landlord had a responsibility to keep the communal door entry system in a good state of repair, in accordance with its tenancy agreement and in order to be compliant with its responsibilities under section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985.
It was in May 2019, that the landlord first advised the resident of its intention to carry out a replacement of the door entry system. Residents were reporting that handsets were not working and this is evidenced in the minutes of the residents meetings that took place. The landlord’s communication was clear that the reason for the upgrade was due to parts on the system being obsolete, rendering it impossible to repair and maintain long term. This was a proactive approach, which explained the landlord’s rationale on why a repair would not suffice and that a full upgrade needed to take place.
Though the landlord had identified that the works to the door entry system were required in 2019, it did not start installations until 2021. The delay in how long it took the landlord to repair is not in dispute. However, in assessing whether residents were kept regularly informed of the progress of the repair during this time, there appears to have been an unreasonably large gap in the landlord’s communication. No evidence has been seen which demonstrates that since the residents meeting on 22 January 2020 took place, residents were informed of any other updates until a letter was sent around February 2021.
The upgrade of the door entry system was a significant repair that affected all residents at the scheme, and their visitors. The undated letter from around February 2021 makes reference to changes from “9am on Monday”. It was not appropriate to have a pause in communication of approximately one year, before seemingly making changes at short notice.
The landlord has said that the removal of the camera feed was an “unintended consequence”, which is why it had not been able to consult with residents. The landlord saying that it was not aware at any point since 2019 that the door entry would remove the live feed to the camera, is of significant concern. A robust procurement process should have identified the difference between the historic system and the new one, and in doing so could have provided an opportunity to consult with residents, even if the outcome was likely to remain the same for GDPR compliancy reasons.
The landlord has confirmed that the new system is compliant with GDPR and the surveillance code of practice. It has said that, in consultation with its data protection lead, it is unable to reinstate same functionality the old system had. Whilst the landlord has advised that the removal of the camera feed was unintentional, removing it without notice is likely to have caused confusion and distress to residents at the complex, some of whom may identify as vulnerable. There was a failure to have properly considered the consequences of the repair upgrade, so that it could better prepare the residents for this change.
It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to foresee the significant change in functionality of its system and for it to have explained this to the residents in advance. Effective reviews are recommended within the surveillance system code of practice, as well as the landlord’s own CCTV policy. No evidence has been seen of any annual review of the data impact assessment being completed at the scheme by the landlord, prior to system being upgraded.
The absence of a detailed assessment was a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand at an earlier date, the impact of the old system against current regulations. An assessment could have better informed the landlord of what systems were GDPR compliant at the point they chose to upgrade it, and it would have also assisted the landlord in better managing the resident’s expectations, before the upgrade took place.
It is recognised that despite the removal of the camera functionality on the door entry system, the landlord has other appropriate and robust security measures in place at the scheme. These include an audio functionality within the individual door entry system, CCTV around communal areas and a warden call system in the event of an emergency. Residents at the scheme also have the option to opt-in for regular welfare calls. This option remains open to the resident, should he feel that it would offer him further reassurance.
The landlord’s failure to provide an update on the outcome of its CCTV review as mentioned in its final complaint response, has prolonged the resident’s full understanding of the its position on the issue. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord, as it failed to communicate promptly to the resident its long term position, and better explain why the old system will not be reinstated due to its obligations against current GDPR regulations.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a three stage complaints process, with one informal and two formal stages. The landlord has provided this Service with its ‘service standard customer feedback’ leaflet, and its customer feedback policy can be found on its website. Both give conflicting information on the stages and timeframes of its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The CHC recommends that landlords operate a two stage complaints process.
The recommendation to have a two stage complaints process is also mentioned in the Ombudsman’s self-assessment, which member landlords are expected to complete annually to show they are complying with the CHC. The CHC states that landlords must ‘publish the outcome of their assessment on their website if they have one, or otherwise make it accessible to residents’. A search done on the landlord’s website on 13 January 2023 was unable to retrieve this information.
When the resident raised concerns on 8 June 2021, it was recorded as an informal complaint. A response from the landlord followed the following day and explained its position with regards to his concerns about the CCTV. The resident contacted the landlord again on the 29 June 2021 to advise that he remained unhappy and had not been provided with any outcome to the issue surrounding the CCTV review. This contact should have been investigated by the landlord and logged as a stage one complaint.
In accordance with its customer feedback policy, the landlord should have provided an acknowledgement within five working days, made contact with the resident to discuss the complaint, and resolve within ten working days. Instead, in its response on 5 August 2021 it appears that the landlord responded to the resident informally again, reiterating much of what it had done in its email of 9 June 2021.
This prompted the resident to contact the landlord further, with ‘complaint’ as the subject title on an email dated 6 August 2021. It appears that from this point onwards, the landlord has dealt with the matter as a formal complaint. The CHC sets out that a complaint is defined as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of residents’. Further it explains that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Therefore there was a failure by the landlord to have logged the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier stage.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 September 2021 as a result of opening a formal complaint on 10 August 2021. However, records demonstrate that the resident contacted the landlord by email to complain on the 6 August 2021. A formal response was issued 19 working days later which is nine working days outside the expected response time of both its customer feedback policy and service standards for customer feedback leaflet. However, the response given was comprehensive and was written empathetically, reassuring the resident that support remained in place should he have any concerns about safety at the scheme.
The landlord contacted the resident promptly after he advised that he was dissatisfied with the stage one response. An acknowledgement was issued two days later. This response was appropriate in line with its complaints policy and clearly defined a timeframe within which the resident could expect a response, appropriately managing his expectations.
The landlord responded within the timeframe that it said it would. Its response was detailed and referenced that a conversation had taken place on 14 September 2021 in which it had sought to understand and set out all that the resident remained dissatisfied with. This was an appropriate and proactive response by the landlord in order to ensure that all outstanding concerns for the resident could be addressed.
Prior to issuing the stage two response, evidence has been seen where the landlord sought to seek clarification on both the rent issue and the camera issue through internal discussions, before compiling its response to the resident. Indeed, it was able to conclude the rent issue fully before writing to the resident. This demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and was proactive in ensuring it had reviewed all information available to it before issuing a final response.
However overall there was a service failure by the landlord in dealing with the matter as a formal complaint at an earlier date. In doing so, it caused delays in providing full resolution for the resident, who at present still awaits the outcome of the CCTV review the landlord referred to in its complaint responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication about the removal of the camera from the door entry system.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord had an obligation to upgrade the door entry system once it was deemed that the old system was beyond repair. It is positive that the landlord established that the new system is GDPR compliant, in line with its data protection obligations. Whilst the resident is unhappy with the loss of the camera functionality as a result of the upgrade, the landlord has ensured that robust security has remained on site, in accordance with its function.
However the landlord failed to recognise the immediate impact the door entry system upgrade would have on the resident. It missed opportunities to identify that the old system already presented GDPR issues in the absence of an annual assessment, and failed to communicate this at an earlier date to better manage the resident’s expectations. It also failed to establish during the procurement process that there would be a significant change in the functionality of the system. There were delays in keeping the resident updated, and the landlord has failed to establish its longer term stance on CCTV at the scheme.
The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident have been detailed and consistent. They have also demonstrated empathy and understanding of the customer’s concerns. However, there had been a service failure in its complaint handling, as there were missed opportunities and delays in the matter being dealt with as a formal complaint. It is also noted that there is conflicting information available about its complaint handling process, which is confusing in terms of when a resident could have expected a full complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress caused by removing the CCTV functionality of the door entry system at short notice;
2. pay the resident £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its failure in the handling of his complaint;
3. write to the resident to update them of the outcome of its CCTV review, specific to the complex in which he resides;
4. ensure that its website, leaflets and all other available publications provide consistent detail of the landlord’s complaint process, including response timeframes so that the information is easily accessible to residents;
5. show evidence that it has completed this Service’s self-assessment, which can be found at the following link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Code-Self-Assessment-form-published-March-2022-.pdf and ensure that it is published onto its website.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider replacing its three-stage complaint process with a two-stage complaint process, as recommended within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
That the landlord report back on its intentions regarding the recommendation above, within four weeks of the date of this report.