Housing 21 (202002419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002419

Housing 21

24 June 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request for compensation for items she had purchased for the property.
2. request for her previous complaint about issues including anti-social behaviour (ASB), staff conduct and repairs to be reinvestigated as she did not agree with the outcome.
3. reports of outstanding repairs needed to the property.
4. concerns about a data breach by the landlord.
5. formal complaint about these matters.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s previous complaint about ASB, staff conduct and repairs.

On 17 October 2019 the resident received a final complaint response from the landlord relating to her complaints about:
1. Its decision to serve her with a warning letter under its ASB policy.
2. its decision to contact her GP and family member with concerns about her welfare.
3. The handling of replacement of the storage heaters at her property.
4. The handling of repairs to her toilet.
The resident took this complaint to this Service, and the Ombudsman issued a decision on this complaint on 22 April 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 39(o) of The Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about issues which have already been considered by the Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not re-investigate issues which were addressed in our earlier decision in April 2020.

How the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs were handled

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
The resident first raised the issue of how the landlord had handled her reports of required repairs during a telephone conversation with this Service on 15 February 2021 and this complaint was passed on to the landlord on 19 February 2021.
The resident moved out of the property in June 2020. Aspects of the complaint relating to repairs were raised by the resident at least eight months after the issues occurred and therefore will not be considered in this report.

A data breach by a landlord staff member

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
Throughout her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has highlighted her dissatisfaction with how the landlord handled her personal data and a potential breach of data protection regulations.
The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts, or any alleged breaches of these acts. Matters relating to how the resident’s personal data was handled by the landlord fall more properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord from July 2018 until June 2020. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, this will be acknowledged by the landlord within 2 working days and a stage one response sent within 15 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they have the option to request an escalation of the complaint for review by a director, to a residents panel or to take their case to the Ombudsman. If the complainant requests a director review, a stage two response will be sent within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaint policy also describes the circumstances where the landlord will not open a formal complaint. This, in part, states that it will not consider a formal complaint for:
1. Matters already considered under the complaints policy
2. Complaints which occurred over six months ago which do not form part of a recurring issue.
3. A data protection breach, which is dealt with under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Summary of events

On 29 June 2020 the resident called this Service and said that she wished to bring a new complaint relating to bullying and harassment by the landlord’s staff. Following further correspondence, this Service advised the resident to contact the landlord and raise a new complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2020. She requested to raise a complaint into how her previous complaints had been managed, how it handled the ASB investigation, the behaviour of the landlord’ staff, and how her personal information was handled by the landlord.
The landlord replied to the resident on 3 August 2020. It informed her that it would not revisit elements of her complaint already considered in its complaint process and her previous case with this Service. It further stated that it would investigate her complaint that it had passed on the resident’s personal information to other residents in the building but would first require more information. The resident replied and said that she would provide evidence.
The resident called this Service and expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not progressed the complaint. This Service passed on her concerns to the landlord, who wrote to her on 10 September 2020 and arranged a telephone call for 14 September 2020 to discuss the complaint.
On 13 September 2020 the resident wrote to landlord to cancel the telephone call due to ill health. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 14 September 2020.
The landlord and resident rearranged the telephone call to take place on 10 November 2020 and on 8 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and described the elements of her complaint as:
1. The landlord had not responded to complaints she had raised relating to the conduct of its staff.
2. A disparaging poster displayed on a notice board in the building with the full knowledge of the landlord.
3. Stalking behaviour by residents in the building, which was reported to the police.
4. The landlord breaching data protection laws.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 9 November 2020 and cancelled the telephone call due to her on-going ill health.
The landlord sent a formal complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2020. It explained that it would not progress issues through its complaint process which had been previously raised and responded to; issues that occurred over six months prior to the issues being raised or matter which had already been considered by this Service. It therefore considered the matter closed and that if she remained dissatisfied, the resident could bring her complaint to this Service.
The resident called this Service on 10 December 2020 and described her unhappiness with the landlord’s response. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 11 December 2020, disputed that the issues she raised occurred more than six months ago and informed it that she was now considering legal action.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2020 and asked it to consider an escalation of the complaint. The landlord then contacted the resident and arranged a telephone call with the resident for 17 December 2020 to discuss her outstanding issues and desired outcome.
On 15 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and cancelled the telephone call for health reasons.
On 8 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and summarised the elements of the complaint as it understood them. These were:
1. unprofessional behaviour by the landlord’s staff.
2. Late night parties occurring in the building where the resident lived.
3. Other residents of the building were abusive to the resident’s furniture removers.
4. A poster put up on the building’s notice board.
The resident replied on 8 January 2021, informed the landlord that its complaint definitions were incorrect and that she would provide further information the following week.
The resident called this Service on 15 February 2021 to discuss the complaint. The elements of the complaint were described by the resident during this call as:
1. Compensation for items bought by the resident to replace items in the property, including an oven and fridge/freezer.
2. How reports of outstanding repairs were handled by the landlord.
3. Data breaches by the landlord.
This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord on 19 February 2021 and the landlord sent a complaint response to the resident on 25 February 2021. The landlord noted that:
1. The cooker currently in the property was the same cooker that was in the property when it was occupied by the resident. Fridge/freezers are the responsibility of residents to provide, and the landlord would require written permission for a resident to replace existing items such as the cooker or wardrobes. It had no evidence that this was ever sought by the resident.
2. As it has been over six months since the resident vacated the property, as per its complaints policy, it would not investigate how it handled the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
3. It disputed that the it had breached data protection regulations.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 February 2021 and clarified that her compensation request did not include a cooker, as she had not used the cooker that was installed in the property.

Assessment and findings

Compensation for items purchased for the property by the resident

Pages 31 and 32 of the landlord’s tenant’s handbook concerns improvements to a property. This states that improvements such as decoration do not require permission, however permission must be sought for the installation of new items such as flooring and kitchen units.
This is a reasonable policy for the landlord to implement as when an item is replaced, its upkeep would no longer be its responsibility and any required repairs or maintenance would then fall on the resident. The landlord would require a record of what items in the property had been changed and what remained its responsibility in order for it to respond correctly to any reports of required repairs from the resident. The landlord would also be expected to ensure that any items added to the property were fitted by appropriately qualified operatives for health and safety reasons.
In its final response sent on 25 February 2021, the landlord noted that it had no record of the resident ever requesting permission to replace any items in the property. Moreover, the resident did not supply any detail as to what items were replaced or what level of compensation she was seeking. The only information provided by the resident was that the cooker in the property was not replaced. Without more detailed information about the items which were replaced and their cost, it would not have been possible for the landlord to calculate how much (if any) compensation would be due to the resident.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in it’s response to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

After being contacted by the resident on 20 July 2020, the landlord requested further detail from her about the complaint and then explained what issues it would and would not consider under its complaint policy. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as it would not be expected to consider complaints on issues it had previously responded to or which fell outside the scope of its complaint time limits. As explained above, the Ombudsman has been unable to consider some aspects of the complaints for similar reasons to the landlord.
Although there was a delay in correspondence due to the resident’s ill health, the landlord sent a complaint response on 8 December 2020. The resident disputed that the complaint definitions in this response were correct. Following further correspondence, which also involved this Service; complaint definitions were agreed upon, and a second complaint response was sent.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord remained in contact with both the resident and this Service. It acknowledged and responded to the resident’s emails and attempted to engage with her in order for to understand and respond to her complaint. When issues raised by the resident fell outside the scope of its complaint policy, the landlord explained the reasons why they would not be considered. It also explained in detail why it had not upheld the resident’s request for compensation.
Therefore, this Service is satisfied that the landlord properly considered the aspects of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process and that there was no evidence of service failure in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
1. Request for compensation for items she had purchased for the property.
2. Formal complaint about this matter.