The Guinness Partnership Limited (202011602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011602

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of damage to her car window.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a flat.
5. On 15 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord, stating the following:
   1. She informed it that her car window had been “smashed” on the previous day, following its operatives cutting the grass near the car park where the car was parked.
   2. She believed the damage to have been caused by its operative using a spinning grass cutter that caused dirt and gravel to fly off and hit cars.
   3. She was asked to retain the receipt for her new car window. To support the resident’s claim for this damage, evidence of this was provided to the landlord by her in the form of photographs and videos.
6. On 25 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It informed her that it would not offer compensation for the damage to her car window as, after reviewing her photographs and videos, it had found that there was “no evidence that [it had] caused the damage” during its above works. Therefore, the landlord told the resident that she would need to claim for this under her car insurance.
7. On 28 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating the following:
   1. She wanted to raise a further formal complaint with it because of the customer service that she had received from it, which she regarded as “poor”.
   2. Despite her believing that it had agreed to reimburse her for her car window, when it asked her to retain the receipt, it had confirmed on 25 September 2020 that it would not take responsibility for the damage to her car window, which she attributed to its operative’s above use of the grass cutter that had also occurred previously.
   3. She wanted compensation from it for the impact of the damage, including from her having to car share with her husband, which caused them additional distress and inconvenience. The resident also asked for a final stage complaint response from the landlord, in order for her refer the matter to this Service.
8. On 14 October 2020, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident. It agreed with the previous decision that it would not take responsibility for the damage to her car window, “due to there being no actual evidence” to support the claim that it had caused the damage via its operative’s grass cutting.
9. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord should pay for the repairs to her and to other residents’ cars, and that it should compensate her for the cost that she had incurred while she was unable to use this. She explained that this was because her husband and other neighbours had seen its operative use a spinning grass cutter where there was gravel near their cars, which it had now discontinued, and its previous agreement to repair her car window.
10. On 17 May 2021, and in response to a request for information from this Service, the landlord confirmed the following:
    1. It had reviewed the video evidence supplied by the resident, and it did not see any lack of care by its operative in cutting the grass near the car park.
    2. It recognised that there was some grass on cars; this could only be avoided by cutting the grass while no cars were parked there, which it could not control.
    3. Unless cars were parked in a way which prevented access to the grass to cut this, it would always cut the grass; this being the standard procedure for both the landlord and its contractors.

Reasons

11. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
12. The resident’s complaint is regarding the damage to her car window that she attributes to the landlord, and for which she seeks to receive damages for its liability for the cost of the window and for being unable to use the car.
13. However, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to her complaint through the courts, other tribunal or procedure, for example insurers, instead of the Ombudsman. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability for damages or to award these in the way that a court of insurer might. For these reasons, the complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.