Islington Council (202014174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014174

Islington Council

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. A data breach.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident reported concerns about ASB to the landlord on 15 January 2021. On 17 February 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter asking her to get in touch, so it could assist her with the matter. However, the letter was sent to the resident’s neighbour, in error. A copy of the letter was also sent to the resident via email, and she noted that it had been addressed incorrectly. When the resident made a formal complaint about the ASB she was experiencing, on 19 February 2021, she also expressed a concern that there had been a data breach.
The matter was considered through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, during which the it apologised for the error. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, on 11 October 2021, it offered the resident £25 in compensation in recognition of its failings in relation to the matter.
While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data. The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. It is noted that the resident did make a complaint to the ICO about the data breach, and it issued a decision on her complaint on 14 April 2022. While we have not investigated the matters relating to the data breach, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, in a two bedroom flat on the ground floor. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 15 January 2021 the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB), and asked the landlord to pass the information in her email on to the police. She said:
1. She believed someone had been in her garden, as a plant pot had been knocked over;
2. A man had been shouting in the “forecourt”;
3. A man with a dog had been “hanging around” outside her flat, and his son had thrown a stone at her door. The issues with the man had been happening for three months;
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 January 2021 and said that she had not received a response and reported a further incident of ASB, a firework had been set off in a bin in the “forecourt” of the block.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2021 (the letter was sent to the wrong address) and a copy of the letter was sent by email on 18 February 2021. It asked her to get in touch, so that it could “get a clearer understanding of the issues raised”. It also asked the resident to provide details of the ASB incident that had affected her.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 19 February 2021 and said:
1. She had received no response to her report of ASB and the landlord had not passed the information to the police, as she had asked;
2. She did not want the landlord to investigate the ASB, as she did not trust it to do so.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 23 February 2021 and said that it would respond within 15 working days. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 March 2021, and said that she had not received a response to her stage one complaint. The landlord responded on 19 March 2021, and said that it would need more time to complete its complaint investigation. It said it would respond by 24 March 2021 and apologised for the delay. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 and 31 March 2021, and asked for its stage one complaint response. The landlord sent this on 31 March 2021 and said:
1. The resident’s housing officer had discussed reporting incidents to the police with her and said that if she wanted to report an incident to the police, she should do this herself;
2. The resident had not responded to its requests for more information about the ASB. It asked the resident for a convenient time for it to contact her, so it could discuss her concerns about ASB;
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint because of the delay in contacting after she had reported ASB.
The resident responded to the landlord on 31 March 2021 and said that she was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. The resident contacted this Service on 1 April 2021, and asked us for assistance in escalating her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord issued a ‘stage one review acknowledgement’ on 14 April 2021 and apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint to the next stage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 April 2021 and said that she was unhappy that the landlord was carrying out a stage one ‘review’. She said that she felt the landlord was “not dealing” with her complaint, and that it “should go to stage two”.
The landlord sent its stage one review response on 22 April 2021 and said:
1. It apologised that it had not acknowledged the resident’s escalation request until it had received a request from the Ombudsman;
2. It acknowledged that the resident did not believe her stage one complaint should be reviewed and was unhappy with its decision to do so.
3. It said the “purpose of reviewing a complaint” was to determine whether the landlord had addressed all the matters raised in its stage one complaint response;
4. The stage one complaint had been dealt with appropriately, as it was satisfied that all of the issues raised had been addressed. It said it was satisfied that the correct decision was reached in its stage one complaint response;
5. It apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and for not applying its procedure correctly.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage on 22 April 2021. The landlord responded on 27 April 2021 and said that her complaint was now at the ‘chief executive stage’. For clarity, this report will refer to the ‘chief executive’ complaint stage as the “stage two” complaint. The landlord said that due to the “high volume” of stage two complaints, it could not start its investigation, but would confirm once it had done so. On 10 September 2021 the landlord confirmed that its stage two complaint investigation was underway and it would respond by 7 October 2021.
The landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident on 11 October 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and said:
1. It was sorry that the resident had not been contacted within 10 days of making the report;
2. It had asked the resident to provide more information about the ASB she was experiencing and she had not responded. It had been unable to address her concerns about ASB because of a lack of information;
3. It had not passed the resident’s report on to the police because it “contained insufficient information”.
4. It apologised for the delay in its complaint handling at stage one and said changes in working practices due to the Covid-19 pandemic had affected its complaint response times;
5. It offered compensation for the following:
  1. £25 for the delay in its stage one complaint handling;
  2. £75 for the delay in its stage two complaint handing;
  3. £25 for the delay in responding to her report of ASB;
  4. £25 for the data breach.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 October 2021, and told us that the landlord had completed its investigation and that she was dissatisfied with its final complaint response. She advised that the issues she experienced were outstanding and wanted this Service to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it has “adopted a victim centred approach” and will interview the victim about the incident reported. It says it will share information with partners such as the police “where appropriate”.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, operated a three stage complaints procedure: stage one, stage one review and stage two (chief executive stage).It states that stage one complaint responses will be sent within 21 calendar days, stage one review responses will be sent within 10 working days. It says stage two complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble”. It can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

When the resident reported ASB on 15 January 2021, the landlord contacted her on 18 February 2021, over a month later. The landlord’s ASB policy does not give a timeframe in which it will respond to ASB reports. However, within its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that the relevant department should have contacted her within 10 working days of receiving the report. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failing in relation to this matter and offered £25 in compensation for the delay in responding to the report of ASB.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation guidance, as it was reflective of the one month service delay. It was therefore appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord contacted the resident to ask for more information about the ASB she had reported. This was the correct application of its policy, as the landlord needed to get more information about the incidents. This would then enable it to understand how it could assist the resident, and decide how to investigate the allegations.
The landlord encouraged the resident to provide information about the ASB she was experiencing. It did this when it first opened the ASB case and again during the complaints process. Within its complaint responses, the landlord said that the resident did not respond to its requests for information. The resident has not disputed this, and this Service has not seen any evidence suggesting that the resident had provided the landlord with any further information. The landlord did not progress with an ASB case. This was reasonable in the circumstances given the limited information it had.
The resident asked the landlord to pass her report on to the police, as she had been unable to report it directly. The landlord decided not to do this and told the resident in its stage one complaint response that she should report any incidents to the police herself. In its final complaint response the landlord said that it did not have enough information, at the time, to pass it on to the police. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord’s comments within the stage one response are acknowledged. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of advice being given about reporting incidents to the police, before its stage one complaint response. In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord had explained why it had not passed her report on to the police. The evidence suggests that the matter was only dealt with in any substance in the landlord’s complaint responses, which provided conflicting information. The landlord only gave a reason for not passing her concerns on to the police, a lack of information, in its stage two complaint response, 9 months later. The impact of this delay was that the resident was not given appropriate advice about what to do in relation to reporting incidents to the police. The delay in providing a substantive explanation was unreasonable.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation to the resident about police reports in January, when she first reported the ASB. Its failure to respond in a timely manner, meant this did not happen. When the landlord contacted the resident about ASB in February 2021, it did not explain why it had not passed the information on to the police. It could reasonably have been expected to provide some explanation about how it might support the resident to raise matters with the police, if she needed to. This was a further failure to appropriately support the resident in relation to the reports of ASB and provide an adequate explanation at the time. When it did explain its position, it lacked clarity for the resident.
When raising her complaint, the resident said that she did not want the landlord to investigate the ASB, as she did not trust it to do so. The landlord is a local council with its own stock and responsible for investigating and taking enforcement action against the perpetrators of ASB in its locality. It was therefore the most appropriate body to investigate the concerns that the resident had, if she wanted to progress with an ASB case.
The resident’s feelings, however, are understood given that the landlord delayed in responding to her initial report, declined to forward information on to the police and sent correspondence meant for her to her neighbour, in error. The landlord did apologise for the delay and alleged data breach and encouraged the resident to supply further information. However, the landlord does not appear to have tried to understand why the resident did not trust it to conduct an investigation into the alleged ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have asked the resident why this was the case. It could then have managed the resident’s expectations on why it was best placed to look into the ASB and could have taken steps to try to rebuild trust. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more proactive in understanding why the resident was apprehensive and given reassurance about how it would investigate any ASB reports. This would have helped it in demonstrating a victim centred approach.
The landlord offered the resident £25 for its identified failures in its handling of her reports of ASB. As detailed above, the landlord’s offer for the delay in referring the ASB to the relevant team was appropriate to acknowledge the delay in service. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact caused by its delayed response to the resident’s report of ASB. The resident suffered distress that her concerns were not being taken seriously, or acted on appropriately. The resident suffered an inconvenience as she was not given timely advice on reporting matters to the police. The landlord also failed to acknowledge its absence of engagement with the resident, about the lack of trust that she had in it. The landlord relied on the lack of evidence provided as a reason for closing the case. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have engaged with the resident in a more meaningful way and tried to build trust. These failings were not acknowledged and the compensation offered does not fully put things right for the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint it said that it would respond within 15 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that it should respond to stage one complaints within 21 calendar days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (the Code) states that a stage one complaint must be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord’s complaint procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint, was not compliant with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response, 28 working days after it was made. It failed to issue a response in line with its policy and the Code. The Code states that “exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.” The landlord did tell the resident there would be a delay in responding to her complaint, which it was correct to do, but it failed to respond within the timeframe set out in its extension letter. This was a further failure to abide by timeframes it had set out, and this led to a delayed process for the resident.
When the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to a stage two complaint, the landlord opened a ‘stage one complaint review’. This was the correct application of its policy, at the time. However, its policy at the time was not compliant with The Code. The Code says that a landlord should have a two stage procedure to ensure the process is not “unduly long”. By having an additional stage before progressing to stage two of its complaint procedure, it created a protracted process for the resident. The resident was clearly dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach, and expressed her frustration that it was reviewing her complaint, rather than escalating to the next stage. The impact on the resident was the additional inconvenience of a lengthy complaints process. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy and removed the ‘stage one review’.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her request to escalate her complaint. It said that it would investigate her complaint at stage two, but that it could not start its investigation. The landlord added that the resident’s request had been registered, and that it would send a formal acknowledgement letter when the investigation began. It explained that that this was because of the volume of complaints it was dealing with.
The landlord’s complaint policy states, as does the Code, that it must send its stage two complaint response within 20 working days. If an “extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. The landlord did not provide a timeframe in which it would respond, and did not attempt to agree an extension with the resident. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord, which failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. This open ended approach to the complaint was unfair and caused further detriment to the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 September 2021, and said that it had now started its stage two complaint investigation. This was nearly five months after it wrote to her saying that it had logged her complaint, but could not yet investigate it. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations in the interim period about when it hoped to start its investigation. Given the lengthy delay, it would have been reasonable in for the landlord to provide the resident with periodic updates. This may have reassured her it was taking her complaint seriously and managed her expectations.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 October 2021, 118 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. This was well outside the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code and was a further failing.
The landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses are contradictory. The first stated that the resident should report an incident to the police herself. The second implied that the landlord would pass information on, if it had enough evidence. The stage two complaint response did not acknowledge that it was outlining a different position to its stage one complaint response, which would have been appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its stage one complaint response was not its true position in relation to reporting incidents to the police, or have given an explanation why differing advice was given in its stage one complaint response. This would have offered clarity to the resident about its differing positions.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord told the resident that changes to its working practices due to the Covid-19 pandemic had contributed to delays in responding to complaints. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in issuing its complaint responses. It offered the resident £25 for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint and £75 for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint. The Ombudsman appreciates that working practices had to change in response to Covid-19, and this is likely to have negatively impacted the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the length of the delay at stage two and the failure to provide any timeframe in which it would respond to the resident, was a significant failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer £25 for each month for a delay in service. The stage one complaint response was sent one month and 13 days after it was made. The offer of £25 in compensation was a reasonable application of its compensation guidance in relation to the delay in service. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that its ‘stage one complaint review’ stage was not compliant with the Code, did not offer a full review of the complaint, and cost the resident further time and trouble in receiving a final complaint response. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued 162 working days after the resident made her initial complaint. The delay was increased as a result of the stage one complaint review, which was not Code compliant.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer £125 for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint, in line with its compensation guidance. It is unclear why such an offer was not made, and the evidence available for this investigation does not show that there was a good reason for the landlord’s decision to deviate from its compensation guidance in this case. Given the circumstances of this case it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer a higher level of compensation for the delay.
The landlord’s compensation offer also failed to consider the time and trouble experienced by the resident for the length of the entire complaints process, which was unduly long. Its compensation guidance states that it can offer up to £300for time and trouble. The resident experienced significant time and trouble in asking it to respond to her complaint and seeking assistance from the Ombudsman. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this when issuing its final complaint response and make an offer of compensation for time and trouble. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, and has been taken into consideration in the orders below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a data breach falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £25 in compensation. The landlord failed to engage with the resident about her lack of trust and failed to manage expectations on how it would progress and deal with the ASB case. The offer of compensation and apology was not proportionate in the circumstances.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to respond in the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and the Code. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge the time and trouble experienced by the resident and the amount of compensation offered did not put things right.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified by this investigation;
2. Pay the resident £475 in compensation made up of:
  1. The £25 it offered for its delay in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB (if it has not already done so);
  2. A further £150 in recognition of the adverse effect caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
  3. The £100 it offered for its complaint handling (if has not already done so);
  4. A further £200 in recognition of the adverse effect caused by the failings in its complaint handling.