Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202411707)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. She has physical and mental health vulnerabilities with multiple symptoms, including effects on her memory and communication. The resident made a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord in November 2023 about a fencing repair and a person who previously visited her property. She complained about it responding to the SAR late, not sending her all the information she asked for, and about how much compensation it later offered her for this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s administration and communication for the resident’s SAR.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s administration and communication for the resident’s SAR.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s SAR, only responded after she chased it, and its delay meant it lost call recordings she had asked it for. It took appropriate learning from this to stop it happening again, apologised, and offered what would have been proportionate compensation for the failings at the time they happened. However, the compensation offer was only made after the resident made stage 2 complaints to the landlord twice and it was not then paid to her.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. We do not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint included that the landlord gave her incorrect information in response to her SAR. This falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because the ICO handles complaints about the information included in or missing from responses to SARs. We only have the authority and expertise to investigate the customer service aspects of SARs. We’ve therefore not investigated the accuracy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR.

What we did investigate

6. After the resident’s previous complaint to the landlord about her fencing repair and a person who visited her property, she made a SAR to it on 11 November 2023. She asked it for information about these issues, including pictures and a report of its findings for them, which she explained she had asked it for before but had not received. The landlord’s data protection policy confirms it was legally required to at least initially respond to the resident’s SAR within one calendar month by 11 December 2023. Its data subject rights policy says it also had to forward the SAR to its data protection team immediately.
7. However, the landlord’s customer services team took no action for the resident’s SAR, which was inappropriate and contrary to its above policies. She therefore chased it for a response to this, including on 22 December 2023 and 18, 26, and 27 January 2024. The resident explained the response to her SAR was late, this was causing further delays, and she had asked for copies of her calls to the landlord as part of this. She also said needed this information as a reasonable adjustment for her vulnerabilities and to safeguard her. The landlord therefore acknowledged and began processing the SAR on 26 January 2024.
8. It is positive that the landlord did eventually accept the resident’s SAR as its policies required it to. However, it was unreasonable that she had to repeatedly chase it after its response to this was late before it even began to process the SAR. It is also concerning that, contrary to the policies, the customer services team did not forward the SAR to the data protection team. The SAR was instead only acknowledged and processed after the resident contacted the data protection team directly.
9. The resident’s 15 February 2024 stage 1 complaint about the above handling of her SAR was responded to by the landlord on 22 February 2024. It explained the data protection team were still on track to respond within one calendar month of the date they received the SAR. However, the landlord apologised and offered £20 compensation for any upset from the delay in this being sent to them. The resident’s 23 February 2024 initial stage 2 complaint nevertheless said its SAR response was missing information, including copies of calls she had asked for from 3 months before she made the SAR, as it was late.
10. The landlord’s data protection officer responded to the initial stage 2 complaint on 5 March 2024 by acknowledging and apologising for its above failings. They agreed to work with its customer services team’s management on their processes and training to stop these happening again by recognising and forwarding SARs as soon as these were received. They also explained that the calls from before 30 October 2023 were missing because it only kept calls for 3 months and the SAR was not logged until January 2024. This was in line with its retention policy’s requirement for it to only keep call recordings for 3 months but it is very concerning that its late response lost the earlier recordings.
11. While the landlord suitably learnt from the outcome of the resident’s complaint by trying to stop its SAR handling failures happening again, it is therefore also concerning it did not do more to put things right at the time. This is because our dispute resolution principles required it to do so for its failings, including its delays, her chasing, and its lost recordings. It was therefore appropriate that the resident’s further stage 2 SAR handling complaint on 7 March 2024 was responded to by the landlord on 13 June 2024 with further remedies. It apologised again, confirmed its complaints and customer services teams received the above training, and offered her £200 compensation for its poor communication for and actioning of her SAR and the effect of this on her.
12. It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed that both its complaints and customer services teams were retrained on identifying and responding to SARs. This is because its data protection policy said they had to have annual refresher training on this. The landlord’s total offer of £220 compensation to the resident for its failings in handling the SAR was also in line with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when such failures negatively affect residents.
13. However, it is concerning that the landlord did not also recognise that the resident had to complain to it twice before it offered her a proportionate remedy for its failings, which its initial offer of £20 was not appropriate to recognise. It is also concerning that she told us that she did not receive the £220 that it offered her, which was unreasonable.
14. The landlord was therefore responsible for service failure in its administration and communication for the resident’s SAR. Our compensation guidance recommends awards of up to £100 for such failures to not fully put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise, pay the £220 it previously offered if it has not already, and pay £100 additional compensation to the resident. This is to recognise her distress and inconvenience from the further SAR handling failures by it identified by this report.

Learning

15. The landlord took suitable learning from its failures in handling the resident’s SAR. This is because it worked on its customer services and complaints teams’ processes and training to stop the failures happening again by recognising and forwarding SARs as soon as these are received.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord kept full, detailed, accurate, and accessible enough records to allow us to investigate its handling of the resident’s SAR. However, it did not initially do so enough to record and act on the SAR when it was first made or keep recordings of its calls from 3 months before this, as requested by her.