Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Home Group Limited (202315720)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315720

Home Group Limited

12 June 2025


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about a telephone call she received on 22 February 2023.
    2. The resident’s report that the landlord breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat in a block owned by the landlord.
  2. On 2 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the residents of the block. It advised it would attend on 12 December 2022 and ask residents to complete a questionnaire on how confident they felt about leaving the building in the event of a fire.
  3. A housing manager telephoned the resident on 22 February 2023. She said she had been to see the resident in September 2022. She asked the resident questions about the alarm system and her mobility.
  4. The resident reported the call to her Member of Parliament’s office (MP) on 24 February 2023. She said that when she returned the call from the housing manager, it went to a voicemail at a residential home. She felt the landlord was harassing her. The landlord responded to the MP’s office on 1 March 2023.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 May 2023. She felt the housing manager had broken data protection by contacting her from a residential home. She wanted the landlord to explain how her phone number had been obtained. She said she never received the letter of 2 December 2022, and the copy provided to her was unsigned and undated. She chased for a response on 26 June 2023.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 July 2023. It explained why it contacted the resident on 22 February 2023 and confirmed it stored her telephone number on its housing management system. It enclosed a copy of its response to the resident’s MP from 1 March 2023.
  7. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 1 August 2023. She did not provide a reason for her escalation request.
  8. On 7 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it has both rented properties and supported services, and that its staff use the offices in supported services. It acknowledged that some of the letters sent to the resident were undated and unsigned. It apologised and said it provided feedback to its housing team.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Our jurisdiction is what we can and cannot consider. The Scheme governs this. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we may not investigate.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s report that the landlord breached GDPR.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint that the landlord breached GDPR would therefore be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider.

Scope of investigation

  1. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. We cannot order it to take disciplinary action against individual staff members. We also do not have the authority to instruct a landlord to ensure that specific members of staff do not have any contact or involvement with the resident going forward. This is in accordance with the Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern terms of employment, or other personnel issues.

Call dated 22 February 2023

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of the call in question, or the voicemail the resident said she left for the staff member. The resident said the call from the landlord lasted for 1 minute and 25 seconds. The landlord’s system records satisfy us that a member of its staff made the call.
  2. We have examined correspondence between the MP’s office and the landlord. The MP’s office first made the landlord aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction on 24 February 2023. The landlord evidenced that it investigated the resident’s concerns internally and responded to the MP’s office on 1 March 2023, who subsequently consulted with the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took her concerns seriously and responded within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. Records show the MP’s office contacted the landlord again on 24 April 2024 and forwarded a letter from the resident seeking an apology. The landlord responded the following day explaining that the letter from the resident was vague and it was uncertain what event she was referring to. It asked the MP’s office to obtain clarification from their constituent. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is applicable to all member landlords. It explains landlords must address points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decision. Where something has gone wrong, it is reasonable for a landlord to acknowledge this and set out the action it has already taken or intends to take to put things right. This can include apologising, acknowledging where things have gone wrong, providing an explanation, changing policies, or providing financial redress.
  5. Neither party disputes the resident made a complaint directly to the landlord via letter dated 14 May 2023 and it did not respond until she sent a second letter the following month. It apologised for the delay within both of its complaint responses. We recognise she had already received a response to her concerns via the MP’s office in March 2023 which was not materially different to the landlord’s formal complaint responses. Thus, while there was a complaint handling delay, the detriment was minimal as the resident was already aware of the landlord’s position on the matter. We deem an apology and acknowledgment of its shortcomings to be a sufficient remedy to address the delay. The landlord took these actions in line with our Code.
  6. At stage 1, the landlord explained the reason for the call. It said it was to ascertain if the resident needed assistance to evacuate the building in case of an emergency. In our view, the explanation provided to the resident was clear and appropriate.
  7. At stage 2, the landlord reassured the resident that it had made the telephone call in question. It explained the call came from a residential home it owned, and that the site had office facilities used by its staff. It confirmed it held her telephone number within its housing management system. The Ombudsman is unable to determine when the landlord originally obtained the resident’s telephone number, however we recognise she has been a tenant for a long time.
  8. Within our investigation, we consider whether the landlord’s acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Further to this, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future.
  9. The landlord accepted it dispatched some of its postal correspondence without a date. The landlord said it discussed this with its Housing Team and stressed the importance of signing and dating letters. While this goes some way to learn from the resident’s experience, the Ombudsman finds it ought to explore this further. As such, we have made a recommendation in this regard.
  10. Overall, we find the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately. While there was a short delay in its complaint response, this did not affect the overall outcome or cause significant detriment. We find the landlord’s apology and explanation to be acceptable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a telephone call she received on 22 February 2023.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord breached GDPR is outside of our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman’s recommends the landlord considers further how it can ensure all letters dispatched to residents are dated.