The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Golding Homes Limited (202219129)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219129

Golding Homes Limited

4 April 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 about the resident’s concerns relating to the landlord’s handling of his 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and reasons

  1. Paragraph 42 (J) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that 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.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 September 2022, stating that the landlord had breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by sharing his health records with its legal advisor, and consequently, the legal advisor made stereotypical assumptions about the resident in its advice to the landlord.
  3. The landlord issued its final response letter on 22 November 2022, stating it believed this was the correct thing to have done according to legal advice it had received. It concluded that it had acted in accordance with the GDPR.
  4. The resident referred the complaint to this service on 22 November 2022. This service advised the resident on 9 February 2023 that under Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body and that we would confirm this in due course.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO ruled in May 2023 that it was not appropriate for the landlord to disclose information about the resident’s health to its legal advisor.
  6. The landlord accepted the ICO’s ruling. It also confirmed to the ICO that it was not appropriate for their legal advisor to make an assumption about the resident’s medical condition; it said it would contact the resident to ensure that all data it held about the resident was accurate. It also confirmed it would review its processes in light of the ICO’s ruling to ensure that a similar situation does not occur.
  7. This service is unable to make findings concerning data breaches and, as such, could not make recommendations or orders for the landlord.
  8. I am therefore satisfied that this complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider further.