Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Midland Heart Limited (202326767)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326767

Midland Heart Limited

12 March 2025

 

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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for the removal of her phone number from the landlord’s system.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her phone number to be removed from its system.
  3. On 17 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and requested her phone number to be removed from the landlord’s system. In addition, she explained she wanted to only be contacted by email.
  4. On 9 June 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She stated she would like to raise a complaint because the landlord had not deleted her phone number from its system. The resident explained the landlord had shared her phone number with its contractors.
  5. On 29 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord requesting for a complaint to be raised about it not deleting her phone number from its system.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint to the resident on 25 July 2023. It acknowledged that there was a delay in logging her complaint and apologised for this. The landlord explained the resident stated she was still receiving phone calls and text messages from the landlord’s contractors. To resolve this, it stated it had updated her contact details, so she would no longer receive calls and text messages for appointments. However, it explained she would still need a form of contact, such as an email address, to confirm and acknowledge any information reported by herself. Also, in the event of an emergency, it stated it may contact her via telephone. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. This included £50 for the delay in removing her phone number from its system. Also, £50 for its complaint handling error.
  7. On 28 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. She stated she disagreed that in the event of an emergency the landlord may still contact her. In addition, she asked the landlord to explain what it meant by an emergency. The resident also stated she had received a phone call from the landlord’s contractor about a door repair.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2023. It confirmed it had deleted her phone number from its systems. The landlord also stated it recorded on its systems that she preferred to be contacted by email or letter. However, the landlord acknowledged it did not previously notify its contractors to remove her phone number from their systems. It apologised for this and confirmed it had now asked its contractors to remove her phone number from their systems. The landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise its delay in asking its contractors to remove the resident’s phone number. The £100 compensation was in addition to the £100 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response, bringing the total compensation to £200.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated she wanted additional compensation. Also, she stated she would like the landlord to improve its procedures for dealing with requests for a resident to remove their phone number from the landlord’s system.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for the removal of her phone number from the landlord’s system

  1. The landlord’s website includes a copy of its privacy notice policy. The policy explains that the landlord obtains a resident’s personal data in order to carry out its normal business operations as a registered social housing provider.
  2. The privacy notice policy includes examples of personal data the landlord collects. One example referenced is contact details, and this includes a resident’s name, address, email address, home, and mobile telephone numbers. Also, the policy explains that a resident can ask the landlord to correct inaccuracies, delete, or restrict the use of some of their personal data.
  3. In March and May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her phone number to be removed from its systems. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request, which was unreasonable.
  4. Due to the landlord failing to respond to the resident’s request, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in June 2023 explaining it had not responded to her request and had not deleted her phone number from its systems.
  5. It was a positive step by the landlord that it apologised for the delay in removing the resident’s number from its systems in its stage 1 complaint response. It took the appropriate steps by updating the resident’s contact details. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to state it may contact the resident by phone during an emergency, as contacting the resident by phone would be an effective way to contact her quickly in an emergency.
  6. The landlord also offered compensation in its stage 1 complaint response to recognise the delay in removing the resident’s phone number from the system. The landlord offered her £50 compensation. The amount of compensation offered was sufficient to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused.
  7. The landlord recognised it had not previously notified its contractors to remove the resident’s phone number from their systems. It apologised for this and confirmed it had now asked its contractors to remove her phone number from their systems. The landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation. Overall, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. The amount of compensation offered was sufficient to recognise the delay in removing the resident’s phone number from its systems. The offer also complies with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.
  8. On 8 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and reconfirmed it had removed her phone number from its systems. It also explained it had contacted its legal team about the resident’s preferred method of contact and contacting her in an emergency. The landlord stated where reasonable, it would use her preferred method of contact, which was email. However, it explained if there was an emergency it would contact her by phone. The landlord took appropriate steps by confirming with its legal team if it was reasonable to contact the resident by phone during an emergency.
  9. In November 2023 and February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and explained she was still receiving text messages and phone calls from the landlord’s contractors. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been frustrating for the resident that she was still receiving phone contact from the landlord’s contractors.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by speaking to the contractor who contacted the resident by phone to ensure it did not happen again and apologising that this had happened.
  11. The Ombudsman emailed the resident and landlord on 3 March 2025 to confirm whether she had still been receiving phone contact from the landlord. However, we did not receive a response. Therefore, if the landlord has received further reports from the resident that she has been contacted by phone, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its systems again to ensure that her phone number has been removed.
  12. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to remove the resident‘s phone number from its systems. In addition, the compensation offer of £150 proportionately reflects the impact of the delay and inconvenience on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for its handling of the resident’s request for her phone number to be removed from its system.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
  2. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 9 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint. Therefore, due to this, the resident sent another email on 29 June 2023 requesting a complaint to be logged. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 July 2023. The response was late and not in line with the 10 working day timescales referenced in the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy, which was a failing by the landlord.
  3. On 28 July 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was sent on 22 September 2023. The response was approximately 15 working days late. It also would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint responses that there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint and providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused. Although the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s overall compensation offer of £50 for complaint handling was sufficient to recognise the delay. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding its complaint handling in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the resident’s request for the removal of her phone number from the landlord’s system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £200 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
  2. If the landlord has received further reports from the resident that she has been contacted by phone, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its systems again to ensure that her phone number has been removed.