Thurrock Council (18 009 509)

Category : Housing > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Mar 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council repeatedly sent correspondence to Mr X about a property he owned when he had notified it to send correspondence to the managing agents he had instructed to look after the property. The Council also incorrectly disclosed his name and address to his tenant. The Council was at fault and it has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to reflect his time and trouble and for the frustration caused.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council:
    • disclosed his name and home address to his tenant; and
    • repeatedly wrote to him about repair matters relating to a house he owned when the Council had the details of the managing agents he had instructed to look after the property on his behalf.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered Mr X’s complaint, the information he sent to me and discussed his complaint with him on the telephone.
  2. I considered the information I received from the Council.
  3. I considered Mr X’s comments in response to my draft decision. The Council advised me it accepted my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X is the legal owner of Property A. He instructed managing agents, Company M, to manage and repair the property on his behalf.
  2. In September 2017, the Council wrote to Mr X about an inspection it was going to conduct at Property A. Mr X says that previous to this, the Council would write to Company M about matters relating to the property. Company M were also invited but they failed to attend the inspection.
  3. During the inspection Mr X met his tenant for the first time who requested his contact details. Mr X says he did not give his details as the property was being managed by Company M and he advised the tenant to direct any matters to them. Mr X says the council officer present, Mr C, was aware of his refusal to give his contact details to the tenant.
  4. In November 2017, Mr C wrote to Mr X again about repair and pest control matters for Property A. Copies of the correspondence were sent to Company M and also to the tenant. The correspondence contained Mr X’s full name and home address.
  5. Mr X says he was horrified Mr C had disclosed his name and home address to his tenant when Mr C was aware he did not wish the tenant to know his details. Mr X also says that he conducts business using his corporate address for privacy reasons so the Council’s disclosure of his home address was very distressing for him. Mr X says even Company M only have his corporate address and he was unhappy his home address had been disclosed to them also.
  6. Mr X was also frustrated that the Council had wrote to him about repairs when it should be contacting Company M about such matters.
  7. Mr X telephoned the Council to complain about the disclosure of his personal details to his tenant and to remind it that Company M were responsible for the repairs to the property. Mr X says Mr C hung up the phone and refused to speak to him.
  8. Mr X says he tried for several days to speak with Mr C without success. He visited the council offices with a view to meet with Mr C to show him the contract he had with Company M to evidence that it was responsible for the repairs.
  9. Mr X says he discussed the matter with Mr C again on the phone from the Council’s reception desk but he found him to be dismissive of what he had to say and he refused to meet with him.
  10. Mr X contacted Company M and requested it to inform the Council that it is the managing agent for Property A and it is responsible for repairs.
  11. Mr C contacted Company M on 23 November 2017 for an update on the repairs. It said that ‘it would like to give the landlord (Mr X) an informal opportunity to complete the work without serving an enforcement notice’.
  12. In June 2018, Mr C wrote to Mr X again. The correspondence related to an overgrown front and back lawn. Mr X says it was from this correspondence that he discovered the property had a new tenant as he had no dealings with it because Company M managed it.
  13. Mr X submitted his complaint to the Council in June 2018. He said he felt Mr C was ignoring the fact that Company M are the managing agents for Property A. Mr X said he felt harassed by Mr C and the Council.
  14. Mr X said the Council had breached data protection by disclosing his details to the tenant and this had caused him anxiety and distress. Mr X requested an apology, an assurance that it would not happen again and monetary compensation.
  15. The Council logged Mr X’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The Council says it is its policy to bypass stage 1 of the complaints process when a complaint relates to staff conduct. Its stage 2 reply said the following:
    • The consultation notice contained Mr X’s name and address as the tenant had a legal right to know who their landlord was and have a way of contacting them about their concerns;
    • A management agreement between the property owner and an agent does not shift the owner’s legal responsibility or repair obligations onto the agent;
    • The owner has overall responsibility for their property and can be served with a Notice to carry out improvements at their property;
    • It acknowledged Mr X was unhappy about the letter being issued, but the Council followed the correct process to obtain his compliance and reduce the need for reactive enforcement action thereafter;
    • The Council found no evidence Mr C had acted unprofessionally towards Mr X;
    • The Council can deal with pest infestation where the problem poses a risk to public health. Mr C highlighted Mr X’s duty to prevent this problem from occurring by sending the letter.
  16. The Council did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints but it said that there were lessons to be learnt in relation to how it shares information with other relevant parties and occupiers of premises.
  17. Mr X said he was left confused by the conflicting and contradictory statements in the Council’s response. Mr X said there had never been an attempt to avoid responsibility for addressing any issues with Property A. He explained that he had instructed a managing agent and the Council should only have contacted him if Company M was not cooperating with the Council’s requests.
  18. The Council said it was sorry Mr X remained dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint and escalated his complaint to stage 3.
  19. A council officer who manages data protection reviewed Mr X’s complaint about the Council disclosing his name and address to his tenant. The Council said if it is required to send enforcement notices to landlords it has a legal obligation to disclose personal details (name and address) of both tenant and landlord to all parties. However, in Mr X’s case, the matter did not escalate to enforcement stage therefore the disclosure of his name and address to his tenant was not a legal requirement.
  20. The council officer said his view was the Council should not have disclosed Mr X’s name and address to his tenant in its letter and separate letters should have been provided.
  21. The Council’s stage 3 response to Mr X confirmed the Council should not have disclosed his name and address to his tenant and it apologised for this. The Council’s view was that the impact of the disclosure did not result in any privacy issues for Mr X therefore it did not consider any monetary compensation was appropriate.
  22. The Council confirmed it communicated with Company M in November and December 2017 and it did send a letter directly to him in June 2018. This letter was about pest control matters. The Council said it has powers to serve notices to owners and occupiers of properties in order to take reasonable steps. This includes pest control and/or general housing condition matters. The Council did not consider it had misused Mr X’s personal data by contacting him directly.
  23. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response so he brought this complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. Mr X is unhappy the Council wrote to him as well as his managing agents about matters relating to pest control and an overgrown lawn. The Council has explained that had the matter proceeded to enforcement, Mr X would have been liable for any action taken as he is the owner of the property. The Council was entitled to do this. The correspondence alerted Mr X to the hazards Property A was presenting and it enabled him to take reasonable steps to rectify the matters before the Council took legal action. I cannot criticise the Council for doing this.
  2. Mr X also complained about the Council disclosing his name and home address to his tenant and Company M. In its stage 2 response, the Council did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints but it said there were lessons to be learnt in relation to how the Council shares information. Mr X found it frustrating the Council had not acknowledged it had done anything wrong yet it said it had learnt lessons from the matter. It was only when Mr X escalated his complaint the Council acknowledged it should not have disclosed Mr X’s name and address to his tenant in the correspondence it sent in November 2017. This caused Mr X further frustration.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, specifically the frustration caused and the time and trouble he has spent in pursuing this complaint, the Council has agreed that within four weeks of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £100.
  2. The Council has also agreed that within three months of my final decision, the Council will review the relevant processes to ensure that where appropriate, separate letters are sent to tenants to ensure landlord’s details are not incorrectly disclosed.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is fault and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and closed this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings