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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202203564)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203564

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held a tenancy with the landlord for a two bedroom flat within a block.
  2. On 31 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise an ASB report about her neighbour, following an alleged assault. The landlord carried out a risk assessment on the same day to determine the resident’s circumstances and wellbeing, although both it and the police found the footage that she had provided of the incident to be unclear. In February 2022, the landlord passed the resident’s ASB report on to its mediation team to investigate, after it spoke to the neighbour on 8 February 2022 and received counter allegations about the resident.
  3. In March and April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and the police, to raise additional concerns about the behaviour of her neighbour. These included on 21 March 2022 about cutting the cable to her closed circuit television (CCTV) camera without further evidence, on 22 and 30 March 2022 about cannabis use, and on 24 April 2022 about their child banging on and shouting through her window, who was issued with a community resolution order by the police. The landlord twice warned the neighbour about breaching their tenancy and liaised with the police about this. The landlord also met with the neighbour about this in person, and it confirmed that it did not subsequently receive any more reports about their cannabis use, and that they had adapted their behaviour accordingly.
  4. On 5 May 2022, the landlord’s mediation team confirmed to the landlord that mediation had failed. On the same day, the resident raised a stage one formal complaint with the landlord. She said that the landlord had failed to meet its obligations regarding her ASB report, and that it had “taken no action and was allowing the situation to escalate”.
  5. On 14 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It found no failings in it’s handling of the resident’s ASB report. The resident responded on the same day. She said that the mediation process had “not worked, and that the mediation team had ignored all reports of ASB and not kept her updated”. Additionally, she said that her solicitors would contact the landlord shortly, and further correspondence would not result in “anything productive”. She also told the landlord that she would be passing the complaint on to the Ombudsman.
  6. On 16 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the mediation process had come to an end. After previously putting a card through her door on 12 May 2022 asking to check if her CCTV was pointed away from communal areas, it also raised concerns about the resident’s CCTV facing into communal areas, and asked that she take them down. Although the landlord had no record of originally giving or denying her permission to install the camera, due to the time that had passed. Additionally, the landlord said that after reviewing all of the evidence provided, it could not take any tenancy action and would be closing the case. It explained that if the resident was unhappy with the outcome, she could request a community trigger.
  7. On 29 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by email to make another report about her neighbour. The landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone to carry out another risk assessment. The resident stated she would only be communicating by email. The landlord sent her a risk assessment form by email, but did not receive a response and the new report was closed.
  8. On 8 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying she did not receive a response to her email of 14 May 2022. She requested the landlord provide a written response.
  9. On 11 August 2022 the police informed the landlord that the resident had raised a community trigger. On 31 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s formal complaint. It reiterated that it found no failings in its handling of her ASB report, and did not uphold her complaint.
  10. The resident subsequently brought her complaint to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports severely affecting her health, asked for her or her neighbour to be moved, and reported that the landlord had attempted to enter her property to take down her CCTV, and it was duly made on 1 October 2022. On 11 December 2022, the resident ended her tenancy with the landlord, and on 20 December 2022, a community trigger report was sent to the resident. It concluded that the actions of the police and landlord relating to ASB were fair and proportionate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the issues with her neighbour severely impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, however we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the resident’s health was affected by any action (or inaction by) the landlord. Nevertheless, consideration has been given to the distress the situation may have caused the resident.

ASB Report

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will acknowledge reports within two working days, and complete a risk assessment. Where possible, it states it will use mediation to try and resolve ASB before things escalate. Additionally, it says the landlord may work in partnership with police or other agencies to tackle ASB, including responding to community triggers where victims of ASB request a review of their case.
  2. The resident reported ASB to the landlord, and the landlord responded on 31 January 2022 and completed a risk assessment. On 1 February 2022, the landlord conducted an ASB interview with the resident. It explained the community trigger process, and discussed the possibility of mediation. This was all in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord is expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, to ensure its services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported incident. The landlord reviewed CCTV footage provided by the resident, but determined that it did not clearly show what had happened. The police also looked at the footage and said it was unclear, so, it was not possible for the landlord to take any tenancy enforcement action based on the information provided.
  4. On 8 February 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour about the incident, and the neighbour made counter allegations. Following this, the landlord discussed mediation with the resident again, and she agreed to it, having initially refused when the landlord suggested it. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord, given that the neighbour was making counter allegations and evidence provided by the resident had been found to be inconclusive.
  5. On 21 March 2022, the resident contacted the police to report that her neighbour had cut her CCTV cable. No further action was taken by the police or the landlord on this due to lack of evidence. Given that there was no evidence available to confirm the neighbour was responsible, it was not possible for the landlord to carry out any tenancy enforcement actions.
  6. On 22 and 30 March 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s mediation team about her neighbour smoking cannabis at the property. The landlord subsequently issued a warning to the neighbour on two occasions to say that cannabis use at the property was a breach of their tenancy, and it discussed this with them in person. It confirmed that, following the warning, it did not receive further reports about it and the neighbour had adapted their behaviour accordingly. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  7. On 24 April 2022, the resident reported her neighbour’s child to the police for banging on her window and shouting through it. The police attended and reviewed the CCTV footage. It corroborated what the resident had said, and the police visited the neighbour. Subsequently, the neighbour’s child was issued with a community resolution order by the police. The landlord was made aware of this, and spoke to the neighbour accordingly to remind them of the conditions of their tenancy. This was in line with its ASB policy.
  8. The resident has said that during the ASB mediation the landlord was trying to get her to take down her CCTV cameras, as they were facing into communal areas. The resident felt this was unreasonable given the situation with her neighbour, and stated that according to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) the cameras were permitted.
  9. The tenancy agreement states residents must get permission from the landlord in writing before installing CCTV cameras. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it is unable to locate any records to confirm if and when the resident was given permission for the installation. It said that its tenancy enforcement team would not give or refuse permission for CCTV as it is not within their remit to do so. However, they would always advise the resident obtains permission for CCTV via the landlord’s customer liaison service. The landlord has said that its customer liaison officer may have given verbal permission, but due to the time that has passed, it is unable to confirm this.
  10. ICO guidance states that, when installing domestic CCTV, people should “try to point camera’s away from shared spaces but that this is not always possible, and it is not illegal to do so.”
  11. It is understandable that the landlord was concerned about the resident’s CCTV cameras pointing into communal areas, as it believed this was a factor in the difficult situation the resident was having with her neighbour. Additionally, as per the ICO guidance above, it was entitled to ask the resident to move the camera away from communal areas if possible, to avoid infringing on the privacy of its residents.
  12. The resident has said that the landlord tried to force entry into her property to get the cameras taken down. There is no evidence of this on file. There is evidence of a card being put through the resident’s door by the landlord on 12 May 2022. It states that the landlord wanted to check that the cameras were pointing away from communal areas. Again, the guidance from ICO says this should be done unless unable to do so. It is unclear whether the resident was unable to redirect the cameras, but there was no wrong doing by the landlord in trying to ascertain that.
  13. The landlord’s mediation team reviewed all the evidence provided by both the resident and her neighbour, and found that the landlord was unable to take any tenancy action based on the information available. It closed the case, and told the resident that the landlord had spoken to her neighbour regarding the recent community resolution ordered to their child. It also gave the resident a link to the community trigger procedure. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, and appropriate based on the evidence it had reviewed.
  14. In summary, the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB by carrying out risk assessments, attempting mediation and investigation, reviewing potential evidence and working with other parties including the police, tenancy enforcement and legal services, to try and resolve the issue. This was all in line with its ASB policy, and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy is a two stage process. It states that a stage one response will be issued within ten working days of a complaint being received. For stage two complaints, the landlord’s policy states a response will be issued within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord on 5 May 2022, and it responded on 14 May 2022. This was in line with its policy. The resident responded on the same day saying that the mediation process had “not worked”. She said that her solicitors would contact the landlord shortly, and further correspondence would not result in “anything productive”. She also said that she would be passing the complaint on to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord did not recognise this as a request for a stage two complaint, and so it did not issue a stage two response. It was only when the resident asked for a response on the 8 August 2022 that the landlord escalated to stage two of its complaints process. It issued its stage two response on 31 August 2022.
  4. The landlord could have potentially checked with the resident that she wanted an escalation to stage two after her response on 14 May. However, it is also understandable for the landlord not to have seen her response as an escalation request, given the context of the communication.
  5. Once the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two, it provided a response promptly and within its complaint handling timescales. The Ombudsman has found no failure here.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.