Sanctuary Housing Association (202300819)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300819

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 March 2024


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 response to the resident’s communication preferences.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy started in June 2020. The resident told this Service he had long COVID-19. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities on its information system.
  2. On 13 December 2022, the resident used the landlord’s online repairs form to request an appoint for his front door. It called the resident and arranged an appointment for repairs required to the front door. It then sent him 2 text messages as the appointment date was changed to 23 December 2022. These texts said if he was unable to keep to the appointment times, to let it know. The message at 8.53pm also contained ‘do not reply to this message’.  Following this, there were multiple texts sent by the resident to the landlord’s repairs number. A reply from the landlord said that texts were not the channel for his query.
  3. On 16 December 2022, the resident said by text that he had emailed the landlord to not attend on 23 December 2022. He said he would not allow access. After this there were 7 text messages sent by the landlord. During this period, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023 saying he had blocked its phone number. He then emailed the landlord on 23 January 2023 to ask it to delete his phone number off its systems and it should contact him by email only. The landlord replied by email saying it had deleted his number off its systems. Then on 4 February 2023 he sent a text message that said he would report the landlord’s repairs number to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The landlord responded by text that the text messages likely relate to the bookings for repairs.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2023 about the following:
    1. a call he received from the landlord’s contractors on 9 February 2023 (despite the landlord saying it had deleted his number)
    2. the reasons for the landlord giving out his number to its contractors
    3. a text message received from the landlord on 7 February 2023, which was also after requesting deletion of his phone number
    4. the overall high number of text messages he was sent by the landlord
  5. On 13 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said he was unhappy with texts and emails sent by the landlord regarding repairs. It apologised for the volume of messages he had received. It said the tenancy agreement is clear that it needs the ability to contact for ongoing repair and maintenance discussions. Therefore, it would not remove his number from it’s files and did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day. He did not think it had the right to keep his phone number and ring or text him. He reiterated that his preference for communication was email and was not complaining that he had received too many emails.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2023 and had found 8 occasions where it had called or texted the resident since 2022, although he said it was more. It apologised for misinforming the resident at stage 1 regarding it being a requirement to keep his phone number. It confirmed it removed his number and provided feedback to the appropriate teams. It outlined that its residents’ phone numbers are sent automatic text messages. Phone numbers are also used by its contractors to advise that they are on the way to the properties or used in emergencies. It said if he wanted to change the phone number contact preference in the future, he could do so. The landlord offered to pay the resident £175 in compensation to put things right.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. On 8 March 2023 he sent images of text messages he had received from the landlord showing it was more than 8 occasions from the beginning of 2022. He then referred the matter to this Service on 13 March 2023 and said he felt harassed by the landlord.
  8. On 16 October 2023, the resident used the landlord’s online form to report that he received a text message from it on 14 October 2023. He recalled speaking to the landlord via the phone on 21 March 2023 and told it to not save his number. He questioned why this had happened. The landlord removed his number from the system again on 18 October 2023.

Assessment and finding

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident raised issues about the landlord’s rights to save his phone number and sharing this number with others. Matters regarding potential data breach and information transparency would fall properly under the remit of the ICO. This Service is aware the resident has made prior contact with the ICO, but he may seek independent advice about his options to progress any concerns with the ICO. This investigation will focus on the communication between the resident and the landlord, and any adjustments it made.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s communication preferences.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. From the evidence provided, the resident first asked the landlord to remove his phone number from its system on 23 January 2023. Typically, it would not be unreasonable for a landlord or its contractor to ring or message regarding repairs at a resident’s property. However, in light of the request to have his phone number removed from its systems, it would be reasonable for it to honour the request. On 24 January 2023 its staff member told him that his phone number had been removed. He received a text message on 7 February 2023 and was called by its contractor on 9 February 2023. The landlord first justified this in its stage 1 complaint response as it needed to update the resident for ongoing repairs and based on the tenancy agreement it would not be able to remove his number, this was inappropriate to say and was frustrating for the resident.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged it made an error by telling the resident it was part of his tenancy agreement to keep his phone number in the stage 1 complaint response. Instead, it had removed his phone number and detailed that communication would be in writing, and that arranging appointments may take longer. It clearly communicated that should he change his mind in the future regarding contact preference, to let it know. It also recognised its communication errors, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by not following his communication preferences. It awarded £175 in compensation to put things right which was fair in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord also learned from the case, by identifying that information input by its staff in complaint responses need to be cross-checked. It also provided feedback to its staff regarding this and it noted to all staff that communication must be done via email or letter in this case. This demonstrated an appropriate level of engagement with the resident’s concerns and a willingness to learn from his experience.
  6. The resident provided further evidence to the landlord after he had exhausted the internal complaint procedure. This was in relation to the landlord referring to 8 text messages since 2022, he disputed this and said it was more. Landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, so evidence should be provided at the earliest opportunity and before they exhaust the internal complaints procedure. However, the resident’s communication preference at that stage had been changed and this mitigated any detriment to the resident. It also did not dispute in the final response that the resident had said there were more occurrences than 8.
  7. This Service acknowledges that despite the change in communication preferences, the resident received a text to his phone on 14 October 2023 from the landlord. This was more than 7 months since its final response. The landlord had demonstrated in its final response it had taken proactive steps to prevent this from happening again. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly rectified this error on their system on 18 October 2023.
  8. Overall, while there were failings by the landlord, it had acknowledged, apologised, offered proportionate and fair compensation, and learned from the outcomes. Given the above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s communication preferences. The finding of reasonable redress by this Service is subject to the landlord’s compensation offer of £175 in its final response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in its response to the resident’s communication preferences, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to re-offer the £175 in compensation as it set out in its stage 2 complaint response if it had not been paid already. This total is to be paid directly to the resident’s bank account.