Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202108098)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108098

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

16 November 2021


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 formal complaint about its response to her subject access request.

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.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord residing in a flat that is also managed by it.
  2. The landlord’s records showed that the resident reported to it that two bicycles stolen from the bike shed, which was managed by the landlord, in December 2020. The resident had reportedly put in an insurance claim for the bicycles with her insurer, and she made a subject access request to the landlord on 25 January 2021, as she needed information about this for insurance purposes.
  3. Records provided by the landlord showed that the resident emailed and called it multiple times between 3 March and 14 April 2021 to follow up with it regarding her subject access request, but that she did not receive a call back from it.
  4. On 14 April 2021, numerous internal emails were circulated by the landlord with regard to the resident’s subject access request. It was stated in one of the internal emails that the request had been sent to it in January 2021, and that nobody had been in contact with the resident about his. It was further explained that several emails had been sent “as per notes on the account but nobody had actioned this”.
  5. On 15 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident via email and apologised for the difficulties that she had been facing with her request for information from it. She was advised that work would begin with regard to the collating of any personal data that the landlord was holding on her dating back to December 2020 onwards, and that it would look for any specific data in relation to the recent issue she experienced with her bicycles being stolen. A respond to the resident would be provided as soon as possible within 30 days of the date of her email. The landlord also explained that it would liaise with another team internally about the difficulties that the resident had with making the request, and that her date of birth on file would be corrected.
  6. On 16 May 2021, the resident emailed a stage one complaint to the landlord, and she explained that she was concerned about the information that it had provided by link in an email and not by post as she had requested. She explained that there was information missing such as dates when calls were made. The resident also mentioned that the information did not indicate that the landlord had missed the original subject access request, and that the resident had only received its response that week.
  7. The resident additionally mentioned that personal sensitive data, such as her correct date of birth, was not kept on file even after numerous telephone calls. She added that her subject access request was not followed up on three occasions as this was not logged. The resident explained that she was “misadvis[ed]” by the landlord, and that this had caused delays regarding the insurance claims for the stolen bicycles.
  8. An internal email circulated to its staff members by the landlord showed that, on 18 May 2021, there was a query raised regarding what procedure to follow for dissatisfaction with the subject access request, as the resident was not happy with the information provided and the timeframe within which information was provided to her.
  9. On 19 May 2021, a further internal email was circulated by the landlord explaining that the resident could make a complaint to its data protection officer if she believed that data was omitted or not disclosed by it. If she had a complaint about the level of service regarding the handling of her subject access request then this was something that its complaints team would manage as per any normal service complaint.
  10. Another internal communication circulated by the landlord on 25 May 2021 showed that there was an email sent by it explaining that the resident had been spoken to, and that her complaint was related to the lack of response from its data protection team. She reported that she had been advised by a different team that her subject access request would be passed on to them, and that she needed to put this in writing.
  11. On 27 May 2021, a subsequent internal email was circulated by the landlord requesting assistance from its data protection team with an update on the resident’s complaint so that a response can be sent to the resident by 3 June 2021.
  12. On 1 June 2021, the landlord sent a stage one complaint response letter by email to the resident. It provided a summary of its investigation regarding her subject access request, which was made in January 2021. The resident was advised that her complaint had been upheld. The landlord acknowledged the delays in the information being provided to her and apologised to her for this. It also apologised for some of the information that was missing in the records provided to the resident, and it explained that the errors had now been rectified. The resident was informed that a report would be sent to her within the week by recorded delivery post. She was additionally offered compensation of £70 for her time and trouble, as well as £30 for its service failure by the landlord.
  13. Following the resident’s communication with the landlord regarding her dissatisfaction with its above stage one complaint response from 10 June 2020 onwards, on 5 July 2021 she received a stage two complaint response from it dated 23 June 2021. She was advised that the late delivery of her subject access request information had been discussed with the relevant team, and that they had confirmed that this was sent on the date that was promised. The landlord apologised that this did not reach the resident on time.
  14. The resident was informed by the landlord that her stage two complaint to it had not met the threshold for stage two, and so her request to escalate the complaint would not be upheld. She was advised that the compensation of £100 offered at stage one was appropriate and within its compensation guidelines. The resident was provided with the details of the Ombudsman in order to progress her complaint, if she remained dissatisfied.
  15. On 6 July 2021, the resident sent a follow–up email to the landlord with details of the communications that she had exchanged with it between January and May 2021 regarding her subject access request. She said that the letter sent to her via email dated 23 June 2021 was emailed to her after the due date. The letter was described as having been emailed to the resident by the landlord on 5 July 2021, and not on 23 June 2021, as indicated on the letter. She explained that the staff member who had emailed her had indicated that they had been “meaning to send this to [her] for a while”.
  16. On 9 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again, stating that the deadline for its stage two complaint response to her had been missed. She stated that she had sent it the above email on 6 July 2021 and had not received a response from it.
  17. On 23 July 2021, the resident received a revised stage two final complaint response and offer of compensation from the landlord. It apologised for the her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the original stage two complaint. The resident was informed that her stage two complaint had been upheld due to the delays and failings by the landlord. She was offered a total compensation payment in full and final resolution to her complaint of £1,050, which included compensation for her time and trouble, its service failure, and as a reimbursement for her bicycles and locks.
  18. In the meantime, the resident complained to this Service that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint about its response to her subject access request, including its delayed responses and failure to comply with the subject access request.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. The resident’s complaint to this Service is regarding the landlord’s handling of her formal complaint about its response to her subject access request, including its delayed responses and failure to comply with the subject access request. However, complaints concerning subject access requests fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  3. The Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to investigate and determine complaints about subject access requests, which therefore fall properly within the Information Commissioner’s Office’s jurisdiction and not ours. For this reason, the complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.