Notting Hill Genesis (202012575)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012575

Notting Hill Genesis

13 May 2022


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:
    1. Data breach.
    2. Handling of the data breach formal complaint.
    3. Reports of repairs needed to the garden wall.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39m of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Complaints about the way an organisation is handling personal information – including whether the information held about the individual is incorrect, they have held it for too long, or they are not keeping it secure, are matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such the Ombudsman will not be considering this aspect of the complaint further and should the resident want to pursue this, she should do so by contacting the ICO.
  4. Paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman scheme also states, ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. The resident’s complaint about repairs needed to the garden wall is also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. It is evident that the resident only raised the concerns with the garden wall as part of her escalation request to the landlord and in her contact with this Service. The Ombudsman can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure and as this was an issue not raised as part of the initial complaint, it cannot be considered in the scope of this investigation. As such, no further comment will be made on the matter.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints Policy notes it will listen to complaints and carefully consider expectations and desired outcomes. It will aim to resolve complaints as quickly as possible. Where appropriate, compensation may be awarded in line with its compensation and goodwill gestures policy.
  3. At stage 1 it will contact the resident to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and will discuss the outcome sought. Where it can resolve the complaint within two working days it may, if a resident agrees, close it as a Quick Fix. It will investigate complaints and respond with a formal written response within 10 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied it will escalate the complaint to stage 2 and respond with a formal written response within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy notes it awards compensation based on the impact and certain factors are considered. For low impact, service standards have not been met, the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident compensation is appropriate up to £50. Medium impact is where the service has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident and compensation up to £125 is appropriate. High impact is where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident, compensation up to £250 is appropriate.

Summary of Events

  1. In August 2019, a data breach was reported, and the resident attended the landlord’s offices to complain.
  2. On 8 August 2019, the landlord completed a Security Incident Report and Recommendation, highlighting steps to be taken to avoid such instances from occurring again.
  3. In April 2020, in the course of communication on another matter, the resident advised the landlord that she had reported a data breach in 2019 and was still waiting for a response.
  4. In November 2020, following conversation with the resident a member of the landlord’s staff noted on the resident’s fie that there had been a historic data breach in August 2019 and the resident was now complaining that she had not heard anything in relation to this. The landlord communicated with the resident, and she provided evidence of her April email querying the action taken in relation to the breach. The landlord apologised the matter had not been dealt with sooner and noted it would consider the matter further.
  5. On 20 November 2020, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised that the breach had occurred and for its poor communication. It noted the circumstances around the breach and that an investigation had been carried out at the time. It explained the steps taken to ensure the issue would not occur again. It further apologised that the steps taken were not communicated to the resident at the time and noted the stress and inconvenience caused. The same was said for the complaint made about the issue at the time. It offered £180 compensation broken down as follows £50 in recognition of the service failure that caused the initial data protection leak, £100 in recognition of the stress and worry caused by not updating the resident on the findings of its investigation and £30 due to the fact the complaint was not correctly logged or responded to when first submitted.
  6. In December 2020 following a discussion with the resident it was noted the resident sought further compensation and an offer was made for £330. The resident declined this, and the landlord escalated the complaint. The landlord advised that a stage two response would be provided by 7 January 2021. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s concern related to the actual breach itself.
  7. On 13 January 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that the resident felt it had not taken her concerns seriously at the time given she was not updated on the action taken. It also acknowledged that a complaint had not been properly registered in April 2020 about the matter. It noted it had accepted its mistakes in its stage 1 response and in relation to logging the complaint it noted it had not picked up her comment relating to the data breach, as the April complaint concerned a different matter. It explained this should have been passed to the correct department and as it was not this amounted to a service failure. It apologised again for the lack of response. It explained it had also implemented a new service making it easer for residents to manage their accounts including making complaints.
  8. It considered its failings and increased compensation. As noted, the Ombudsman’s consideration is limited to the landlord’s consideration of the complaint. It offered £250 for not updating the resident following the incident, £50 for not correctly logging the complaint and £150 in not managing the complaint effectively. This amounted to £450 of the £700 offered in total. It provided an unreserved apology of its handling of the matter.

Assessment and findings

  1. In considering the complaint, as noted the Ombudsman is only assessing the landlord’s handling of the compliant as opposed to the issue itself. It is clear that the landlord has accepted that there were failings in its handling of the complaint, both at the time of the incident, as it did not relay information to the resident and also later when she sought to make a formal complaint.
  2. In identifying its errors, it was important that the landlord consider the impact on the resident and offer appropriate redress. While the landlord offered a lower redress to begin with, it correctly considered the impact the resident advised the matter had had on her and considered its compensation offer.
  3. It offered in total £450 for its overall handling of the complaint, broken down for different aspects. Taken both separately and cumulatively, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Alongside the explanation of the changes made to the landlord’s systems, it is clear that the landlord significantly considered its actions and the impact this had on the resident.
  4. The landlord’s offer of compensation is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (found on our website) and its consideration of the matter falls in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles which seek to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. As such it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s response and offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39m of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the data breach is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to the data breach formal complaint handling as it has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about repairs to the garden wall is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the compensation as offered in its stage 2 response.