Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202001979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001979

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

30 April 2021

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 resident has complained that:
1. The landlord did not respond to emails about rent arrears repayments.
2. The landlord’s staff’s conduct was rude/aggressive, in particular during a call in December 2019.
3. The landlord took too long to repair a light in the communal hallway.
4. The landlord has breached data protection rules in its use of the resident’s phone number; and when sharing other tenants’ details with the resident.

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, the complaints about the landlord’s use of data and alleged data breaches are outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states:

“39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

m. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body;”

The Housing Ombudsman Service provided the details of the relevant authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office, to the resident in August 2020.

Background

There have been arrears on the resident’s account for most of the time since they bought the leasehold (shared ownership) property in 2008. This complaint relates to the communication about the arrears from 2018 onwards.
The landlord wrote to the resident about the arrears in November 2018. The resident replied the same month to explain periods of ‘illness and unemployment’ had led to ‘financial difficulties.’ They highlighted how they were currently paying the various charges (rent, service charge, mortgage) plus an overpayment of £48 per month towards the arrears. However as a result of the landlord’s November 2019 letter they offered to increase this to a £148 overpayment for 30 months with 6 month reviews. They also offered to provide a financial report from a debit advice charity from September 2019 to explain their current circumstances.
The resident also explained that they were unable to call during the landlord’s office hours due to their own working hours.
The landlord replied on 5 December to say they needed to discuss the ‘huge arrears’ before 12 December. They repeated the office phone number and opening hours, but also asked for the resident’s phone number and the best time to call.
The landlord and resident discussed the account on 12 December 2019. This is the call which would be subject to the later formal complaint.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 13 January 2020 that the landlord had been rude and aggressive during the call. The landlord and resident exchanged emails between 20-23 January. The landlord asked how the resident considered the calls rude or aggressive, and the resident asked that the landlord listen to the calls and provide them with a copy. The landlord explained that it would need the phone number the resident had called from to identify the recording, however the resident explained they would not provide a contact number. At this time the resident also raised the communal hallway light that had been due a repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained:
1. The landlord’s member of staff did not mean to be rude or aggressive.
2. The landlord could not access the recording as the resident had refused to provide the phone number required.
3. That the landlord could only compare the resident’s and member of staff’s versions of events.
4. That the landlord could not arrange for that member of staff to not communicate with the resident, given the size of the organisation and availability of staff.
5. That the electrician had reported the lights as repaired and working on 21 January. The resident had emailed on 23 January to say they were not working therefore a new electrician would be booked.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February to say they had paid an additional £100 towards the arrears. They also chased this with the Customer Accounts team on 27 February and 3 March to say no one had replied to their proposed repayment plan.
On the 27 February the resident also reported that the lights had stopped working for a third time. The landlord had confirmed on 20 February that an electrician had attended in February following the stage 1 response. The resident also raised that litter relating to light bulb packaging/repair had been left outside her door.
The resident received holding emails on 9 March and 9 April however the landlord did not respond under the complaint procedure as offered. It later explained this was due to a period of staff illness.
The landlord and resident spoke on 4 March and the landlord confirmed its notes of the call the same day.
1. The landlord agreed it had failed to respond to 2 emails in January and February due to staff shortages.
2. That the repayment offer had been declined by the landlord during the December 2019 call. This was due to the size and duration of the arrears.
3. That due to the size and duration of the arrears the landlord would need to consider legal action. However it first wanted to discuss the situation with the resident’s mortgage lender as it may be able to help. As such it asked for the resident’s permission to contact the lender.
The resident confirmed the landlord could contact their lender the same day. Alongside the formal complaint correspondence the landlord and resident exchanged emails in March and April 2020 about the landlord’s correspondence with the resident’s mortgage lender and the Department for Work and Pensions.
The resident confirmed on 1 June 2020 that they had received the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The stage 2 response:
1. Repeated the stage 1 explanation that the member of staff had not meant to be aggressive, and that the landlord could not investigate further while the resident refused to share their phone number.
2. Explained the lights had been repaired again in February. The landlord invited the resident to report any further issues.
3. Apologised for the time taken to send the stage 2 response and offered £40 to acknowledge the inconvenience.

Assessment

Repayment plan

The resident has complained that the landlord did not respond to their suggested plan in November 2019. The resident continued to ask about the plan in January and February suggesting they had not received any feedback.
In March the landlord stated the plan had been declined during the December 2019 phone call. This point was not then disputed in the resident’s initial follow up correspondence. However it is not clear why the resident continued to chase the landlord’s feedback about the plan if it had been discussed.
It is not possible to say what was discussed during the December 2019 phone call as the resident did not provide their phone number for the landlord to access the recording on their system.
For the avoidance of doubt, particularly given the size of the arrears, the landlord should have responded in writing to confirm what was discussed during the December call. The resident was taking constructive action by asking about repaying their arrears with the help of a debt support charity, and sought feedback from the landlord. If the resident’s plan was not acceptable the landlord should have been explicitly clear about this in writing at the time, especially given the serious implications of what could happen if the arrears continued.
The first written confirmation from the landlord that the plan was not acceptable was in March, 4 months after the resident’s original request. This was a customer service failure by the landlord. It has explained the reason for part of this failure in that the January and February follow up correspondence was missed due to staff shortages, and that its process had been change as a result. However it did not offer any redress for the inconvenience, and did not explain why clear feedback had not been given in November/December.

Staff conduct

The landlord has discussed the telephone call with both the resident and the member of staff involved. It has explained that the member of staff did not mean to be rude or aggressive.
The landlord explained at the time that it needed the resident’s phone number to access the recording however the resident refused to provide this.
Therefore given the lack of evidence the landlord has responded as far as it can to this complaint. It has considered both parties’ feedback and noted the resident’s dissatisfaction. A landlord’s service should be fair, and to be fair it needs to be based on appropriate information and evidence.

Light repair

The resident’s first report about the light (outside of the complaint procedure) was attended in January. The second report (made during the formal complaint in January) was then attended in February.
However the resident reported the lights as not working again on 27 February as well as the way the repair had been completed (eg litter left relating to a light repair). From the information provided it is not clear whether this resulted in a third repair.
The landlord’s final response in May 2020 refers to a follow up repair on an unspecified day in February. Given the third report was at the end of February it is reasonable to assume this referred to the second repair earlier that month. As such there has been a failure in the landlord’s repair service as there is no evidence the third report was followed up, either with a repair or as part of the landlord’s final complaint response.

Determination (decision)

Therefore I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s communication about their proposed repayment plan.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s investigation of the complaint about staff conduct.
3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the communal hallway light repair.
Also, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. The complaint about the sharing of the resident’s data (phone number) and the sharing of another resident’s data is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Reasons

The landlord should have responded in writing to the resident’s proposed repayment plan in November or December 2019. It has acknowledged further communication delays in January and February but not offered any redress.
The landlord has investigated the telephone call as far as is reasonable. It explained how it could investigate further but the resident did not provide the required information.
It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord followed up the third reported failure of the communal hallway lights.
Any complaint about the use of data (whether data sharing with other contractors or the use of other residents’ data) is for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the orders above the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its failure to confirm whether their proposal to address the arrears was acceptable or not.
2. Pay the resident £50 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the failure to follow up the third repair report about the communal hallway light.
3. Confirm with the resident whether the communal hallway light still needs repairing or not. If so, the landlord will also need to book a date for a repair visit.