Peabody Trust (202007447)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

202007447

Peabody Housing Trust

13 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 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:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for a damaged tyre.
   2. the landlord’s decision not to offer compensation for this damage.
2. The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of
   1. her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. her Subject Access Request.

Jurisdiction

3. 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.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) and 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of her Subject Access Request.
5. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’.
6. The resident’s reports of ASB referenced within her complaint were historic and took place up to and including December 2018. However, her complaint to the landlord was not made until 2 March 2020, well over 6 months since the matters arose. Therefore, these reports will not form part of this Service’s investigation as they are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(e).
7. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
8. The resident was unhappy that there had been a delay in the landlord sending her information following a Subject Access Request. While the landlord was able to evidence it had sent a response to the resident via Recorded Delivery, the resident had not received this and felt that she subsequently had to chase the matter up with the landlord.
9. Matters relating to a landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request would usually be for consideration by the Information Commissioner’s Officer and will therefore not be considered during this Service’s investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

10. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has resided in her property since 2011. The property is a ground floor flat and, since 12 December 2019, the resident has had an allocated parking bay provided by the landlord.
11. The landlord has a Compensation Policy which provides details on how it assesses compensation claims. Factors taken into consideration when the landlord calculates compensation claims include:
    1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
    2. An assessment of whether the loss or inconvenience could be reconciled in any other manner by the resident.
    3. Any known costs that have been reasonably incurred.
    4. The time taken to resolve the matter.
12. The landlord’s Compensation Policy also lists the varying levels of compensation that can be paid for instances where the resident has incurred time, trouble and/or inconvenience. The policy outlines varying levels of compensation that can be paid for what it terms ‘Minor Disruption’, ‘Moderate Disruption’ and ‘Extensive Disruption’, up to a total of £400. Point 7.2 of the Policy also states that payments of compensation made for time, trouble and inconvenience and poor complaint handling ‘may be paid…(by) crediting a rent or service charge account to clear arrears.
13. The landlord also has a Parking Policy. The policy does not make any reference to who bears responsibility for damage to personal property that occurs while residents use an allocated parking bay.

Summary of Events

14. On 22 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to highlight issues with historic allegations of ASB and regarding a more recent incident in December 2019 where her car was vandalized while parked on an unallocated roadside space. The resident advised her car suffered extensive damage and she had incurred significant additional costs as a result. The resident also notified the landlord that, since she had been allocated a parking bay outside her property, she had suffered a punctured tyre. She advised that this was caused when she drove into her parking space at an angle and the adjustable parking bollard in the bay ‘slashed’ her tyre while in the down position. The resident stated she believed the landlord was liable for the cost of the repair. In total, the resident requested compensation from the landlord amounting to more than £6571:
    1. £170 towards a pair of glasses broken during an alleged assault in May 2018.
    2. £6000 for a new car.
    3. £145 towards the cost of taxing the new car with the DVLA.
    4. £31.50 towards a train fare to pick up the new car.
    5. £225 cost for a replacement tyre following the puncture in December 2019.
    6. Compensation at the landlord’s going rate for 2 missed days of work.
15. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the email the same day, although there is no record of a further response.
16. On 2 March 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident complained about the poor communication she had experienced from the landlord in relation to the historic ASB issues, but also regarding her report of criminal damage to her car in December 2019 and the subsequent damage to her car tyre, also in December 2019. The resident stated she had been advised by the landlord that she would receive a callback on or around 7 January 2020 but had not been contacted until 2 March 2020. During that contact, the resident was unhappy the landlord requested her to go over the issues again and that she had been contacted during her lunch hour. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
17. On 26 March 2020, the landlord replied to the resident and apologised for the delay in responding, citing an increased workload as a result of Covid-19. The landlord advised it would provide a full response as soon as it could.
18. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response to the resident on 8 April 2020. Regarding the resident’s complaint around poor communication from the landlord, it advised that the lack of a callback since 7 January 2020 was a consequence of ‘high, and challenging workloads at the time’. It stated its call on 2 March 2020 was intended to address the previous lack of contact but acknowledged the resident should have been contacted sooner. It apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused by the delay and offered the resident £75 compensation for this and to reflect the ‘slight delay’ in responding.
19. Regarding the incident of vandalism to the resident’s car in December 2019, the landlord stated it had been advised by the Police that the matter was treated as criminal damage by persons unknown. It therefore advised it was not liable for any damage caused and the resident did not qualify for compensation via its Compensation Policy, as there had been no identified service failure by the landlord. Concerning the damage to the resident’s car tyre caused by the bollard in her parking bay, the landlord advised that, based on the evidence available, the bollard appeared to be installed correctly. It therefore advised the resident that it was not responsible for any damage caused and that she should claim on her insurance for any repair costs incurred.
20. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. In her reply she:
    1. Requested confirmation on how the £75 compensation had been calculated and a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy.
    2. Stated she was not content with the landlord’s explanation of why she had not received a call back until 2 March 2020.
    3. Stated she still held the landlord responsible for the damage to her car tyre, even if the bollard was installed correctly.
    4. Stated she also held the landlord responsible for the earlier vandalism to her car due to its perceived inaction to prevent it happening (such as providing her with an allocated parking spot sooner).
21. On 22 April 2020, the landlord responded and increased its offer of compensation to £100 and clarified how this had been made under its policy, which it provided as requested. The landlord confirmed it did not accept responsibility for damage caused to the resident’s car either from the incident of vandalism or from the incident with the parking bollard and reiterated the resident should contact her insurer. It also advised that not all properties and estates have allocated parking for all residents and it was not always possible to allocate spaces to residents when requested, even when confirmed ASB is occurring.
22. The resident replied on 22 April 2020 and requested her complaint be escalated to Stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day and then followed up with the resident on 29 April 2020, when it advised that due to staff working from home during the Covid-19 pandemic, its full response would be delayed until at least 28 May 2020.
23. On 29 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident again to advise that it was still seeking extra information regarding her complaint and provided a new target date for its response of 12 June 2020.
24. On 12 June 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. In its response, the landlord confirmed it would not respond to the complaint around historic ASB issues as they had occurred over 6 months prior to the complaint being made. Regarding the rest of the issues raised by the resident in her complaint, the landlord found:
    1. Its service following the resident’s reporting of damages to her car was poor.
    2. There was a lack of communication from it which was unreasonable.
    3. It would not accept responsibility for the damage to the resident’s car from the incident of vandalism or the bollard in her parking bay.
    4. Compensation would not be paid for associated repairs or for other financial losses the resident stated she suffered.
    5. It would revise its offer of compensation to £350, made up of:
    6. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
    7. £100 for its lack of communication.
    8. £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    9. It would recommend that staff would receive revision training on the importance or communicating with residents in a timely fashion.
25. The resident contacted the landlord on several further occasions to clarify whether she would be offered further compensation for damage caused to her car tyre by the parking bollard. On 21 July, 7 August and 25 August 2020, the landlord offered further confirmation that it would not be doing so.

Assessment and Findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for a damaged car tyre

26. The landlord has not disputed the fact that the resident contacted it on or around 7 January 2020 to report various issues, including damage caused to her car tyre by a parking bollard within her newly allocated car parking space and was advised that she would receive a call back, which did not happen. The landlord did not respond to the resident regarding this, and other issues, until she lodged a formal complaint with it in March 2020. Within its Stage 2 response, it is noted that the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s reports of damage to her car in a timely and appropriate fashion and for this it apologised and offered compensation.
27. Taken altogether the landlord offered a total of £350 compensation in recognition of the failings in its complaint handling, poor communication, and the time and trouble incurred by the resident. Where a landlord has identified failings in its own service, the Ombudsman will then consider whether any offer of redress made by it was reasonable in the circumstances.  In this case the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the issues it had identified and in line with its own compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable offer of redress, taking into account all of the circumstances of this case.
28. It is noted that the landlord advised it would be recommending revision training to staff regarding communication with residents, which is in line with what then Ombudsman would expect to see. It is noted that in its response, the landlord has also offered to remove the bollard should the resident wish for it to do so. 

The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation for this damage

29. It is not disputed that, following a reported incident of vandalism to her car on 10/11 December 2019, the resident was allocated a new parking bay outside her property. On 14 December 2019, the tyre on the resident’s new car was damaged, reportedly by a bollard fixed to the resident’s new parking bay. It is not disputed that damage was caused to the tyre, and the resident has provided the landlord with evidence of the damage, including a photo of a flat tyre and a bill for having a new tyre fitted. However, the landlord has stated that it does not consider it is liable for the damage caused to the tyre and that the resident is not entitled to be compensated for this under its Compensation Policy. The landlord’s policy states it will not pay compensation ‘where the incident was caused because of negligence by the resident’. The policy also notes that, when compensation is paid because of damage to, or loss of, a resident’s personal property, this would only occur when the landlord’s liability has been confirmed.
30. In responding to the resident’s request to be compensated specifically for damage caused to her tyre, the landlord requested photos of the bollard, and the damage caused, and records available to this investigation show it did give due consideration as to whether compensation should be paid. However, having established that the bollard was fitted correctly and there did not appear to be any defect with it, and noting that no defect had been reported by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude it was not liable for the damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on its compensation policy and decide that compensation was not due as it had not accepted liability for the damage caused to the resident’s property and the damage caused was arguably caused by the resident’s actions. The advice that it gave the resident to claim on her own insurance was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.  
32. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the decision not to award compensation for damage caused to the resident’s car tyre.

 

Reasons

33. In its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had responded poorly following the resident’s respective reports of damage to her car. As a result of this, within an overall offer of £350 compensation, the landlord offered the resident proportionate compensation of £100 for its poor complaint handling and another £100 for a lack of communication.
34. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was a reasonable offer of redress the circumstances. In addition, the landlord also stated it would recommend further training be given to staff regarding communication with residents which was a reasonable action to take.
35. The landlord’s actions in deciding to not award compensation for damage to the resident’s car tyre were reasonable and proportionate. It requested evidence and gave due consideration to the resident’s request. Having made its decision, which was in line with its policies, it was consistent in advising the resident of its position on the matter.