Sanctuary Housing Association (202340567)

Background

1. The resident has been an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house since May 2019. The resident said when the landlord’s staff attended his property, they took photographs of his personal belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns its staff took photographs of his personal belongings.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns its staff took photographs of his personal belongings.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns its staff took photographs of his personal belongings

4. The landlord acknowledged its staff had taken photographs of the resident’s personal belongings during a visit to the property to treat mould. The landlord subsequently said it took the photographs for legitimate reasons to show why work at the property had not been done, but it did not explain to the resident why the photographs were taken at the time. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord apologised for the failure to communicate effectively with the resident. In the circumstances, an apology is satisfactory to resolve the complaint.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord identified it had failed to comply with all of the processes set out in its complaints policy. It offered £100 compensation for its failings, which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Putting things right

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord recorded on 2 November 2023 that there was mould in the resident’s bathroom, including within a cupboard.
7. On 21 December 2023 the landlord’s staff carried out repairs to treat the mould around the resident’s bath and bathroom window. The staff member took photographs of the bathroom showing the works they carried out. They also took photographs of the bathroom cupboard, which showed its contents and that there remained mould within it.
8. During this investigation the landlord told us its staff member had taken pictures of the cupboard to show they could not treat the mould that was contained within it. This was because the cupboard contained the resident’s belongings.
9. The landlord did not provide to us any confirmation which shows its staff had told the resident that his belongings would need to be removed before the cupboard could be treated for mould.
10. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 December 2023 that its staff had taken photographs in the bathroom without asking his permission. He said it was an invasion of his privacy, and he requested copies of the photographs.
11. The landlord does not have a specific policy on its staff taking photographs during repair and maintenance visits, but it is common sector wide practice for staff and contractors who conduct maintenance of behalf of landlords to gather photographic evidence to show what works have or have not been completed.
12. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 2 and 5 January 2024. The landlord told the resident the photographs were taken by its staff as evidence of the action they had taken. The resident said the staff member should have asked him for permission to take the photographs, and the landlord apologised for them not doing so.
13. The landlord’s data protection team told the resident on 19 January 2024 it had checked the photographs its staff took, and it was their advice that the items contained within the photograph did not constitute personal data. Their advice was based upon there being no items which could identify the resident or members of his household. The landlord provided the resident with copies of the photographs on 26 January 2024. He replied and said the photographs contained images of a work uniform, a child’s dressing gown and toiletries, which were in the bathroom cupboard.
14. On 9 February 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold his complaint. The landlord said its contractor took photographs of the bathroom while carrying out repairs and reiterated its data protection team advised the photographed items did not constitute personal data. The landlord added that whilst it was often best practice to take before and after photographs of repairs, staff must ensure they did not include household members or their personal photographs within the shot. The landlord said it had taken the resident’s comments on board, and it would be fed back to its staff that they should take care and be courteous when taking photographs in its properties.
15. The landlord also told the resident it would arrange to treat the mould in the bathroom cupboard. The landlord’s records show it attempted to arrange to treat the mould in the bathroom cupboard following its complaint response, but the resident told it on 22 April 2024 he had treated it himself and no further action was required.
16. In summary, the rationale for the landlord to take photographs within the property was reasonable and for a legitimate purpose connected with the reports and treatment of damp and mould. However, it is reasonable to assume that had the landlord’s staff confirmed the resident they were required to take a photograph of the area and gave him the opportunity to remove any items he did not want to be photographed, then the circumstances of the complaint and the resident’s distress on the matter would not have occurred.
17. In its complaint response the landlord said it would ensure feedback was given to its staff regarding taking care and being courteous when taking photographs in a resident’s property. The landlord has already apologised for the lack of communication with the resident at the material time. Our remedies guidance states in some circumstances where there has been a failing by a landlord, an apology is an appropriate way by which the landlord can resolve the complaint. In this case, the landlord identified what it could have done better in the circumstances, apologised, and gave feedback to its staff as learning from the incident. Given there was limited impact on the resident by the landlord’s actions, in this instance its actions were proportionate to its failings and have satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint handling process. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should send its response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At either stage the landlord can decide to extend its response timeframe by 10 working days, but it must contact the resident to explain why and confirm the extension timeframe in writing.
19. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 January 2024, which was not within its policy timescale. It said it would reply to his complaint by 17 January 2024.
20. On 16 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and told him it was not in position to reply to his stage 1 complaint, and it would reply by 31 January 2024. This extension was within the options available to the landlord as per its complaints policy.
21. The resident told the landlord on 16 January 2024 he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 23 January 2024, which was within its policy timescale.
22. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2024, which was within its policy timescale from when the complaint had been escalated. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay in acknowledging his initial complaint and not responding at stage 1 within its policy timescale.
23. The evidence shows the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and reply at stage 1 within its timescales. The landlord apologised for the delays and the compensation it offered was in line with an amount consistent with our remedies guidance. It fairly reflected the impact caused by the landlord’s failures and was a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in this case.

Communication

25. The investigation has shown the landlord was in regular communication with the resident throughout his complaint.