London Borough of Harrow (202112709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112709

Harrow Council

03 May 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 resident’s allegation that the landlord breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff member.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
3. In accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The resident’s allegation that the landlord breached GDPR.
4. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate matters which, “in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
5. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. The ICO is therefore the appropriate body to assess the resident’s allegation that the landlord breached GDPR.
6. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff member is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is assessed below.

Background

7. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat.
8. On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to inspect some repairs needed. The resident was unhappy that the surveyor was fifteen minutes late to the appointment, and says that when she tried to discuss this with the surveyor, he acted rudely towards her and so she asked him to leave. The resident says the surveyor refused to do so, and became aggressive in his demeanour towards her. Finally, she said the surveyor had taken photos of her property without her permission.
9. The landlord told the resident that the surveyor had also reported the incident, but had different recollections about what had happened. The surveyor had advised the landlord that the resident had made him feel uncomfortable when he entered the property and sworn at him.
10. The landlord issued the resident with a warning letter stating that she had been abusive and threatening towards its staff (as well as other issues), and reminded her of her obligations under her tenancy. It said her alleged behaviour was not acceptable and it hoped she would change this. However, if she did not do so and the allegations were substantiated, then it said further action would be considered.
11. The resident complained to the landlord about the matter. She said the landlord could not provide solid evidence that she had acted in the manner its surveyor had reported. She thought the landlord had breached GDPR because it had spoken to other teams about her complaint.
12. The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It said it gives a two-hour window for inspections and so the surveyor was not late for the appointment. It also said that surveyors are able to take photos of defects in a property. Although the resident said the surveyor became aggressive, the landlord explained the surveyor had reported that he had warned the resident not to get into his personal space after the resident started swearing at him and told him to leave the property. The landlord said that, following a separate instance with another member of staff, if the resident persisted in this type of behaviour, repairs can and would be denied to her.
13. The resident escalated her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process.
14. The landlord provided its final response on the complaint. It said this was the second incident on record regarding the resident’s conduct towards its staff. It confirmed it had written to the resident regarding her conduct, as this was in breach of her tenancy terms and conditions. The landlord also repeated that the surveyor was entitled to take photos of the defective areas in the property that needed repair. It said no personal items were photographed. Finally, the landlord did not think it had breached GDPR.

Scope of Investigation

15. As part of this complaint, the resident sent this Service information relating to her concerns about the length of time taken by the landlord to carry out repairs. However, it is noted that this is being considered under a separate reference number. This Service wrote to the resident on 7 March 2022 to set out that we would be considering her complaint about repairs under that reference. This report will therefore not consider the resident’s complaint about repairs.

Assessment and findings

16. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her. In cases in relation to the issues raised, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint and responded appropriately.
17. The resident says that the surveyor was fifteen minutes late to the appointment, but the landlord says that a two hour window was given. There are some emails between the parties where they were trying to arrange the appointment, and the landlord referred to a time of 12 noon. However, the actual date of the appointment on 20 May 2021 does not appear to have been arranged via email, and so it is not evident if it was made clear to the resident that the surveyor had a two hour window to arrive. The landlord should make it clear to residents that there is a two hour arrival window, to manage resident expectations and minimise the potential for any conflict in the landlord and tenant relationship.
18. The resident has alleged that the landlord’s surveyor was aggressive towards her and refused to leave the property when she asked him to do so. The surveyor has a different version of events, which he reported to the landlord after leaving the property. We understand if the resident felt upset that the surveyor was late and rude, however on the available evidence, it is not possible for this Service to resolve the conflicting accounts. The landlord demonstrates that it handled this aspect appropriately by looking into the resident’s concerns about the surveyor and setting out its position on these.
19. The landlord says this was the second incident on record of the resident swearing at its staff members. The landlord has an obligation towards its staff, so it was reasonable for it to make the resident aware of complaints about her conduct, and to inform her that it would not tolerate inappropriate behaviour towards staff members if this was substantiated. The landlord made it clear that it would only take further action if further allegations were substantiated, and therefore made it reasonably clear that any further decision-making would be evidence-based, which is appropriate.
20. The resident was concerned that the landlord had taken photos of her personal belongings in the property. The landlord reassured her about this, and it confirmed that no photos were taken of her personal belongings. Instead, it confirmed the photos taken were of the defects in the property that required repairs. It is reasonable for a surveyor to take photos of defects in a property as part of an inspection, and the landlord’s response here was also appropriate.

Determination

21. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff member.
22. In accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the resident’s allegation that the landlord breached GDPR falls outside this Service’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should make it clear to residents reporting repairs that a surveyor has a two hour arrival window.