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

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202217123)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217123

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

10 January 2024


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 regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Sharing of the resident’s personal data with utility companies.
    2. Management of the resident’s rent account.
    3. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) being carried out by the Police.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his personal data, specifically regarding the passing on of information to utility companies at the beginning of his tenancy. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the service will not consider matters which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”. The Ombudsman is satisfied that concerns regarding the landlord’s data and information handling are more appropriately addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) and the following aspect of the complaint is therefore ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s sharing of the resident’s personal data with utility companies.
  3. The resident should consider contacting the ICO (https://ico.org.uk) if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has resided at the property, a 2-bedroom flat within a low-rise block, since 2022.

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with the Ombudsman in March 2023, the resident raised further concerns regarding actions by the Police which he stated resulted in his son’s imprisonment. He stated he wanted these complaints to be addressed by the Police Complaints Commission. This investigation will not consider these further concerns as they do not relate to housing, the actions of a housing provider or a landlord/tenant relationship and are therefore not for this service to investigate. The resident should address these concerns to the relevant body as indicated or seek further independent advice.

Summary of events

  1. The resident’s tenancy began in January 2022. Landlord records show it contacted him in early February 2022 to discuss rent arrears that had accrued. Records indicate the resident agreed to pay £20 per month towards the arrears and the landlord set up a direct debit payment. Payments towards the rent and rent arrears were collected via direct debit on 27 February and 27 March 2022. 
  2. On 19 April 2022, records show the resident contacted the landlord and was “irate” that payments toward the arrears had been taken by direct debit and that he had not asked for this to be set up. The landlord’s notes of the conversation indicate that, having checked its records, it advised “there seems to have been some confusion” and the direct debit relating to the rent arrears was cancelled.
  3. Records show the landlord contacted the resident again on 10 August 2022 to discuss his rent account and arrears. Notes of the conversation indicate the resident again became “irate” and stated he was “fed up” with the landlord and local Police. He accused the landlord of fraudulently using his bank details when setting up direct debit payments related to his arrears, so the landlord raised a formal complaint. It understood the complaint to regard the following:
    1. The resident’s details being passed to utility companies without his consent at the start of his tenancy and that this breached his data protection rights.
    2. After receiving a phone call advising him he was in rent arrears, the resident had agreed for a direct debit to be set up “for the monthly rent but not the arrears payment of £20”. However, direct debits for both payments had been set up without his permission, which he considered a “fraudulent use of (his) bank account details”.
    3. The resident had reported “issues (he was) having with the Police” to the landlord’s ASB line on “numerous occasions” as they were harassing him and causing “alarm and distress”. However, during one call the landlord had advised there was “nothing (it) could do” and he had not received a call back following further voicemails he had left with his Tenancy Officer. He wanted the Police to be “served with a community protection warning or injunction” so they stopped “bombarding” him without evidence.
  4. On 19 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating he had spoken to a Housing Team Manager regarding his complaint and was unhappy with the outcome. He asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  5. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 22 August 2022. He advised he was unhappy with its response regarding its handling of his rent account. Although the landlord clarified by reply on the same day that it had yet to provide its formal stage 1 response and aimed to do so by 1 September 2022, the resident responded to request that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedures. He stated the landlord had committed a crime by taking money from his bank account with his permission.
  6. A different Housing Team Manager wrote to the resident on 23 August 2022 regarding his complaint about its handling of his data and personal information. As above, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, however it is noted the landlord provided an explanation regarding why the data had been shared and the legal framework under which it had done so before advising it was unable to uphold this aspect of the complaint.
  7. The landlord’s ASB Manager wrote to the resident on 26 August 2022 regarding his “request to make complaints about various departments”. They noted they had spoken to him over the phone the same day as this was his preferred method of contact. They stated that, in the earlier call, they had explained that colleagues had previously discussed his complaints about the handling of his rent account and personal data so they would solely be addressing his concerns regarding ASB. The letter acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s advice that it was not able to investigate allegations made about the Police, so it had agreed to put its position in writing. It provided advice on how to log a complaint directly with the Police or via the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). It clarified it would not “look to investigate” the matter and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
  8. The resident sent 2 separate emails to the landlord on 28 August 2022, in which he asked for his complaints regarding the alleged data breach and ASB carried out by the Police to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. He believed the landlord was “making up (its) own laws” regarding its data handling and asked it to clarify the details of the relevant clause within the Data Protection Act it had mentioned in its stage 1 response. Regarding the Police, he stated he had already made complaints to the relevant force but as they “never go anywhere”, he believed the landlord, as a local authority, had a “duty of care to the public” and therefore should carry out an investigation.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 October 2022 to state he had not heard from it in 28 days and that he wanted all 3 of his complaints to be escalated.
  10. On 24 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his escalation request. It advised it was “not able to investigate (his) complaint at Stage 2 of the complaints procedure”. It noted the complaint covered 3 points relating to its Housing Options Service, its Housing Management Rents team, and its Anti-Social Behaviour Team and that he had received calls from managers within each team as well as written responses from its Housing Options and ASB teams. It went on to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint in turn:
    1. Regarding the alleged data breach and passing on of the resident’s personal details to utility companies, it clarified it had not upheld the complaint and again highlighted the relevant clause with the Data Protection Act which it considered showed it had acted reasonably. It considered any further investigation of the issue “would not result in a different outcome”.
    2. Regarding its management of the resident’s rent account, it clarified this aspect of the complaint had been upheld and detailed the reasons why. It stressed it had not found any evidence of fraudulent conduct and again outlined it had reiterated to staff what steps should be taken when setting up direct debits over the phone or via other paperless instruction. It again stated it did not believe further investigation would change the outcome.
    3. Regarding his concerns about ASB allegedly carried out by the local Police, the landlord also found that further investigation would not lead to it changing its response. It reiterated the advice given by its ASB Team Manager that any complaints regarding the Police’s conduct would need to be directed to the Police themselves and it had advised him how to do so.
  11. The landlord clarified this was its final position and signposted the resident to its Designated Tenants Complaints Panel or this service if he remained unhappy with its response. 
  12. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 November 2022 and advised the landlord had told him it could not escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its procedure. He clarified he remained unhappy about its handling of his rent account and sharing of his personal data with energy providers. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the same day to request it clarified its position regarding the resident’s complaint. It provided evidence of its “stage 2 refusal” on 7 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account

  1. Records show that, following the start of his tenancy, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss missed rent payments. Diary notes made by the landlord indicate that an agreement was made for a direct debit payment to be set up regarding rental payments and a payment plan arrangement was also agreed whereby the resident would pay £20 per month towards the arrears.
  2. The landlord’s records do not make clear whether the resident had also given permission for a second direct debit agreement to be set up regarding his rent arrears payment. The resident does not dispute that he gave permission for his rental payments to be collected via direct debit. The Ombudsman was not privy to the call between the landlord’s Rents Officer and the resident, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that both rental and arrears payments would be collected via direct debit once the resident had given permission for one to be set up for his rent payments. Nonetheless, the landlord’s records do not clarify that it received permission had been given for a second, separate direct debit to be set up.
  3. However, evidence seen by this investigation indicates the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously and undertook a reasonable investigation of the issue. It acknowledged its records did not make clear whether the resident had given permission for a second direct debit to be set up for his arrears payments, offered an apology and advised it had upheld this aspect of the complaint. It advised the resident it would remind relevant members of staff that permission must be clearly obtained, and it would reiterate the procedures for setting up new direct debits. Evidence shows it actioned this promptly, issuing a clear reminder to staff on how direct debits should be set up. It also cancelled the second direct debit, and no further arrears payments were taken via this method. This was a reasonable and appropriate response. The landlord carried out an investigation, acknowledged a failing and where it could have done better, cancelled the second direct debit promptly following the resident’s contact, identified actions it would take to stop a similar situation occurring and completed these in a timely manner. Its offer of an apology to the resident was proportionate in the circumstances.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s complaint response was transparent and there is no evidence its initial failing in setting up a second direct debit payment was anything other than human error. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is acknowledged, there is no evidence the landlord engaged in any fraudulent activity when it took 2 arrears payments via direct debit. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its management of the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB carried out by the Police

  1. As with the concerns the resident later brought to the Ombudsman regarding his son’s imprisonment, the actions of the Police do not relate to housing or the actions of a housing provider who is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As a local authority, the landlord, and particularly its housing teams, would not have the power to investigate a local Police force.
  2. Records show that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns, appropriately explaining that it would not be able to carry out its own investigation into the Police’s alleged conduct and signposting him appropriately to either the Police themselves, or the IOPC. The Ombudsman also considers the landlord was entitled to decline to escalate this aspect of the resident complaint to stage 2 of its procedure and its explanation that further investigation of the issue would not change the outcome was reasonable.
  3. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to alleged ASB carried out by the Police.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. Records show the landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 10 August 2022, after he expressed dissatisfaction during a phone call. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take. It recognised the resident had raised concerns about several issues and considered it reasonable to log the matter as a complaint there and then. This was an example of good customer service.
  2. However, there are concerns with some aspects of how the landlord then responded to the complaint. While the content of the landlord’s responses was reasonable and indicated the resident’s concerns had been properly considered and investigated, having logged the complaint on 10 August 2022, it is unclear why the landlord set the response deadline as 1 September 2022, which was outside the 10 working day target set out in its policy.
  3. It is also unclear why the landlord appeared to effectively provide 3 separate responses to the resident, addressing each issue individually. It sent two letters on 23 and 26 August 2022, both headed as stage 1 responses, while it also contacted the resident by phone regarding its handling of his rent account. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not effective complaint handling and confused the process. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends that landlords “must address all points raised in (the resident’s) complaint”. While the landlord did address each point raised, it would have been better for one officer to collate responses from each service area and provide one single response. This would have provided greater clarity for the customer and made it easier to provide a clear audit trail of its responses.
  4. Additionally, there are no clear notes regarding the phone conversation it had with the resident regarding its handling of his rent account. While it is acknowledged the landlord stated it called him as this was his preferred means of contact, and its initial position was summarised in its stage 2 response, the landlord is unable to provide full evidence of how it responded at stage 1. This is not appropriate.
  5. It is also noted that the resident first asked for his complaint to be escalated in August 2022, but this request does not appear to have been actioned until he sent a further email in October 2022, around 6 weeks later. From that point the landlord responded promptly, reiterating its position regarding each complaint, and advising why it would not investigate the matters further. However, it is unclear why there was a delay in progressing the resident’s initial request and this amounted to service failure.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it is generally good practice to carry out further investigations when a complaint escalation request is made, the landlord acted reasonably when it explained that the respective outcomes would not change were it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Despite not escalating the complaint, it still provided a response which gave an explanation why it would not do so and reiterated its position regarding each issue. This was reasonable.
  7. However, it is noted the landlord’s complaint procedure does not appear to state the conditions whereby it can refuse to escalate a complaint, which is not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This states that “reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy”. While the landlord has completed a self-assessment against the Code in September 2022, and was satisfied its procedures were compliant, this seems to have been on the basis that the procedure outlined the grounds for refusing to accept a complaint, rather than escalate one. As a result, the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to carry out a further review of its procedure to ensure it is Code compliant.
  8. Overall, while the landlord’s responses to the complaint were reasonable, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure due to the delay in responding to the resident’s initial requests to escalate his complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident a small amount of compensation to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding:
    1. The landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account. 
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB carried out by the Police.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s sharing of the resident’s personal data with utility companies is ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately investigated the issues raised and acknowledged there had been confusion regarding whether it had received permission to set up the second direct debit payment regarding his arrears. It cancelled the direct debit promptly, reissues instructions to relevant staff and issued an apology.
  2. The landlord gave reasonable advice regarding how the resident could address his concerns about the Police’s conduct to the relevant force or complaint investigating body and signposted him accordingly.
  3. The landlord’s explanations regarding why it would not investigate the resident’s complaints further at stage 2 were reasonable. However, there was an unexplained delay in responding to his initial complaint escalation requests and there was a lack of adequate records regarding part of its stage 1 response, which was done by phone. It should have considered providing a single stage 1 response, rather than what appeared to be separate responses for each concern that had been raised.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the failings in its complaint handling and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, carry out a further review of its complaint procedure to ensure that it is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and contains relevant references to when it may refuse to escalate a complaint. It should provide the Ombudsman with details of this review once completed.
  3. It is also recommended that the landlord considers how it responds to complaints which cover several different service areas in future.