Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Cottsway Housing Association Limited (201914012)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914012

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

19 February 2021


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 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 response to the resident’s request to be allowed to retain CCTV he had installed prior to seeking its permission.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The complaint has been brought by two residents, both of which will now be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a three-bedroomed property.
  3. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy with the resident confirms that he is not to engage in any behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to others in the locality of the property. This also confirms that it is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in good repair. Regarding improvements to the property, this agreement states that the resident must not erect any aerial, including satellite aerials, on the property without first obtaining permission from the landlord.
  4. On 8 November and 5 December 2019, the landlord received reports from third parties objecting to the resident’s use of CCTV to monitor the communal areas around his property.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2019 referring to a joint visit to the property with the police when it discussed the CCTV cameras he had installed. It confirmed that it had found no record of him seeking permission for these. The landlord also confirmed that if the resident had received permission, he would have been advised that the CCTV cameras could only capture footage of his home and garden. It clarified that CCTV could not monitor people outside the property or in a public space. The landlord asserted that, as no permission had been granted for the CCTV and it looked over public and communal areas, the CCTV must be immediately removed.
  2. In answer to the resident seeking permission for the installation of CCTV, the landlord wrote to him on 20 November 2019 to confirm that the shell of the building was its property and therefore it did not want “attachments” to be installed to the building.
  3. On 30 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to note that the cameras had been observed to be in place on 23 October and 19 December 2019, and on 28 January 2020. As it had denied permission for these cameras, it insisted that he remove the cameras within 14 days or otherwise it would commence legal action.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2020 to advise that he would be approaching this Service. He contended that it had ignored his reasons for installing CCTV and pointed out other properties owned by the landlord which did possess satellite dishes; he stated this made him feel “victimised”.
  5. The resident reported experiencing antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) and crime at the property and highlighted that there had been several cases of criminal damage to cars outside. He pointed out that he and his family were vulnerable residents and felt that there was no “retribution” for perpetrators of ASB and criminals. Therefore, the resident contended that CCTV poses a “deterrent to keep [him] safer”.
  6. On 21 February 2020, this Service subsequently requested the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The stage one complaint response and the resident’s subsequent escalation have not been made available to the Ombudsman.
  7. The landlord’s final response to the resident was issued on 27 April 2020. In this, the landlord acknowledged that, due to its office being closed, there had been a delay in receiving his letter and investigating the complaint. It referred to a telephone conversation it had with him three days previously and confirmed that this stage of the complaints process could only address the issues which he had raised in his initial complaint.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments about being the victim of “historical criminal offences” and encouraged him to report these matters to the police.
  9. The landlord confirmed that its position remained unchanged. It stated that it had observed the positioning of the CCTV in December 2019 after it initially refused permission for it. The landlord confirmed that it had refused the installation of the CCTV onto the building as its positioning allowed the resident to observe public areas. It noted that he had highlighted that some of its properties possessed satellite dishes and aerials and explained that it gave permission for these on occasions where planning rules and covenants permitted it. The landlord reasoned, though, that CCTV cameras had more of an impact on surrounding residents.
  10. The resident confirmed to this Service on 20 October 2020 that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal for him to install CCTV.

Assessment and findings

  1. As the landlord is responsible for the exterior of the property, it was appropriate for it to decide on what installations may be made to the building. While CCTV is not explicitly mentioned in its conditions of tenancy, above at point 4, which only mentions aerials, externally fitted CCTV is comparable as it is a permanent fixture to the exterior of the property. Regardless of whether CCTV is specified in the tenancy agreement, the landlord is explicitly responsible for the exterior of the building under the agreement and as such it is the landlord’s decision as to what can be attached to the building.
  2. As specified in the landlord’s conditions of tenancy, above at point 4, residents are prohibited from causing nuisance or annoyance to others in the vicinity of their property. It is noted that objections were raised by third parties to the resident’s use of CCTV to monitor outside the boundaries of his property and allow him to observe communal areas. It was therefore reasonable for it to enforce the conditions of the resident’s tenancy. This is particularly the case given the landlord sought the involvement and advice of an expert third party (the police).
  3. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that the CCTV had to be removed as it had not been granted permission and it filmed public areas. It was also at the landlord’s discretion as to whether it gave retrospective permission, and it has provided a reasonable explanation as to why it has decided not to.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be allowed to retain CCTV he had installed prior to seeking its permission.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted in accordance with its tenancy conditions in requesting the resident remove the CCTV he had installed on his property.