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

Golding Homes Limited (202320018)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320018

Golding Homes Limited

19 June 2025


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal data.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant at his previous property from August 2006 until around February 2024. The property is a 1 bedroom, eleventh floor flat. The landlord was aware that the resident had additional needs.
  2. On 21 April 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s failure to disclose CCTV footage and data it had processed/shared with third parties as part of his subject access request. He escalated his complaint on 11 May 2023. He said he believed the landlord had believed and acted upon false allegations made against him by providing the third parties with CCTV footage of him.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses, dated 11 May and 12 June 2023, explained:
    1. That not all information retrieved from a search against the resident’s name will be released because either it is not personal data or it is exempt from release as it contains the personal data of another individual.
    2. There were some documents in scope of the subject access request which could not be released because even when another individual’s obvious identifiers were removed, the remaining data could still identify and relate to them.
    3. That the resident’s right to request the restriction of the processing of personal data and the right to object to processing under UK GDPR is not absolute and its legal right to use CCTV.
  4. On 8 January 2024 the resident confirmed that he wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. He said he believed the landlord had accepted the allegations made against him and had acted upon them. He also confirmed that this complaint was only in relation to his concerns regarding the landlords processing of his data.
  5. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has a separate complaint (reference 202334981) specifically relating to the landlord’s handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.k of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. In this instance the complaint to the Ombudsman involves the landlord’s processing of the resident’s personal data and its response to his subject access request.
  3. Any matters relating to data processing fall under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). When we spoke to the resident on 8 January and 14 June 2024 he confirmed that he had already raised a complaint with the ICO about the landlord’s use of his data and its response to his subject access request. At the time we informed the resident that due to the nature of his complaint it may not be within our jurisdiction.
  4. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.k, the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.