North West Leicestershire District Council (202210568)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210568

North West Leicestershire District Council

12 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports about a warning letter it sent her.
   2. Reports about how it handled her data.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about how it handled her data.
4. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
5. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and is not one which the Ombudsman can investigate further. The resident has advised she has already brought this aspect of her complaint to the ICO. Accordingly, this report has therefore focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a warning letter it sent her.

Background

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and holds an introductory tenancy of the property. Her tenancy commenced in mid- 2022.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 to report antisocial behaviour (ASB) around her father’s property, a different address to the one the resident resides at. On raising the issue with the landlord over the telephone it deemed some comments she made to be “derogatory” and “unnecessary”. It issued a letter to the resident’s home address advising that she may be at risk of losing her introductory tenancy should a similar issue arise again. It referenced point 8.3 of the resident’s tenancy agreement, a section around the landlord’s expectations of the resident’s behaviours, including ASB.
8. Following receipt of this letter the resident contacted the landlord to complain. She was unhappy with the wording of the warning letter she had received. Also, she was concerned with her data being provided to another team in order for the warning letter to be issued, when her report was not regarding her own property, but her father’s.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 July 2022. In its response, it apologised and spoke about the sharing of data being permitted between the partnership in certain circumstances. It advised no further action would be taken from a housing perspective. It said the warning letter would be removed from the resident’s records, as there was a lack of evidence. It also advised that, while it agreed in principle with its actions, the situation should have been dealt with as a report of ASB against the resident, and not a breach of tenancy. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint. In its final complaint response, the landlord spoke to the resident over the phone and followed up with a letter where it reiterated there had not been sufficient evidence to warrant the warning letter being sent, it confirmed the letter had been removed from her records and that the resident’s tenancy would not be affected.
10. In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident stated she remained unhappy that the warning letter had been issued including the wording of the letter. She also raised ongoing ASB issues around both her own property and her father’s property. She said she was looking for a written apology from the landlord and would like the Ombudsman to assist with enabling access to information held by the landlord. She said she would also like assurances that her tenancy would not be affected by the incidents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has raised concerns regarding ASB around her father’s property. The Ombudsman considers that while the original report of ASB was the trigger for the warning letter being issued, the resident’s father is not a tenant of the landlord but an owner occupier and therefore any complaint from him, or on his behalf, would fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
12. The resident has also raised issues around ASB reports and ongoing works at her own property. These reports of ASB were raised by the resident with the landlord after it had responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman can only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints procedure; therefore, the handling of the resident’s ASB issues and associated works will not be investigated in this report. It is open to the resident to make a fresh complaint to the landlord about this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a warning letter it sent her

13. As it recognised in its complaint handling, the landlord’s issuing of the warning letter had not been appropriate in the circumstances. In its stage one response it apologised to the resident and advised no further action would be taken from a housing perspective. It acknowledged that there was a lack of evidence to prove exactly what had been said, and it advised that while it agreed in principle with the letter being sent, the matter should have been dealt with as an ASB complaint against the resident rather than a breach of tenancy. It agreed there was no real evidence, no details of the specifics of the allegation and confirmed the letter did not follow the landlord’s advised approach.
14. The landlord first spoke to the resident about this matter on 21 July 2022, and she raised her complaint on 23 July 2022. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman to show that its record of this conversation was not made until 25 July 2022, four days after the conversation in question took place, and a day after the resident complained about the matter. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify that this record of the phone call was not made until several days after the event. This was poor record keeping and meant the warning letter was issued to the resident based on a conversation that had not been recorded at the time. That was not appropriate; records of calls should be made in a timely way.
15. The resident received the data the landlord held on her following the SAR and discovered the four-day gap between the conversation taking place and the landlord updating its records of this. The resident brought this to the landlord’s attention during the complaints process. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this or gave any explanation for it.
16. The resident highlighted during the final stage of the complaints process that she was concerned about the way the warning letter would affect both her tenancy and her reputation. The landlord explained that due to lack of evidence the letter would be rescinded and would not have a detrimental effect on the resident’s tenancy. While this is the appropriate action for it to take, the Ombudsman is aware that the landlord’s decision to rescind the letter was based on a lack of evidence in hindsight, and it did not rescind the letter based on any concerns around its initial approach. The landlord did not act reasonably or proportionately here when dealing with a resident who phoned to report serious concerns about her elderly father.
17. In relation to the failures identified, 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
18. The landlord’s apology to the resident does not adequately reflect the evident impact on the resident who was evidently caused frustration, inconvenience and distress by these failings outlined above. Financial redress of £250 is appropriate to recognise that impact.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about a warning letter it sent her.
20. In accordance with Paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, 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. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about how it handled her data falls under the jurisdiction of the ICO.

Orders

21. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:

1. Apologise in writing to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect the impact on her by the failings outlined in this report.

22. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with this order within the same timeframe.