The Guinness Partnership Limited (202016448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016448

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 September 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 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a contractor had damaged his vacuum cleaner beyond repair and left his carpet in an unacceptable condition.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. As per the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, where it causes damage to existing décor resulting in an obvious or significant contrast between the repaired area and the existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate this solely at its own discretion.
3. As per the landlord’s “what to expect when you make a complaint” web page, it may offer compensation if belongings are damaged. However, it will not offer compensation if there is no clear evidence of a service failure.

Background

4. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

5. On 1 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had been informed by the resident that the contractor had caused damage to his carpet, and that it had referred it to them for this. In response, they advised him that they were aware of a “small amount of water which leaked” after fitting a new radiator, however the photographs taken of this did not show any damage.
6. On 18 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it spoke with the resident, which is summarised below:
   1. He was unhappy that the carpet clean, which had been scheduled for the previous day, was not carried out. This was because the contractor was unable to locate the property and suitable parking. They did try to call the resident on two occasions 30 minutes apart, however they had left the area by the time that he had called them back. He did not want the contractor to carry out the carpet clean, as he had lost confidence in them.
   2. It was alleged that its contractor had damaged his vacuum cleaner beyond repair. The resident had therefore disposed of this and had purchased a new one, for which he had the receipt. He felt that the photographs provided to the landlord were sufficient evidence of this. The resident wanted £100 compensation for this, which it had declined, as it could not evidence the alleged damage based on the photographs alone.
7. On 25 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it spoke to the resident, and that it had offered to clean his carpet as a gesture of goodwill. However, in respect to the damage to the vacuum cleaner, it did not agree to its liability for the alleged damage. This is because the contractor denied using this, and the photographs were not sufficient to support the resident’s claims.
8. On 3 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm a call with the resident to raise his stage one complaint. He advised that the contractor had asked to use his vacuum cleaner to tidy up. However, the resident later noted that the vacuum cleaner was “full of concrete dust and went through the motor”. The contractor had also left his carpet in an unacceptable condition.
9. On 24 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with its contractor, which had denied using his vacuum cleaner.
10. On 29 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it discussed the outcome of its stage one complaint investigation with the resident. It offered him a gesture of goodwill payment of £30 for this, but he declined this and requested the escalation of his complaint.
11. On 12 April 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It had investigated his reports, and the contractor had denied using the vacuum cleaner. As he had disposed of this, there was no evidence to substantiate his claims. Therefore, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. The contractor had offered to clean the resident’s carpet, however he had refused access for this. The landlord continued to offer this, if he wished for this to take place.
12. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord’s contractor had broken his vacuum cleaner, and that he had photographs that showed the damage to this was from concrete dust, which he had agreed to let them use to clean the mess on his carpet when they drilled a hole in the wall to install a radiator. He also believed that they no longer worked for the landlord, but that if they did then they needed to be questioned, and that if they did not then we should find out why. The resident confirmed that he was seeking for the landlord to cover the cost of the new vacuum cleaner that he had bought as the outcome of his complaint, as well as that it clean his carpet as it had already agreed to do, and he reported that he had found this all to be very stressful.

Assessment and findings

13. Although the resident has reported experiencing stress as a result of the damage to his vacuum cleaner and carpet, it is not within the authority or expertise of this Service to determine whether it was liable or to award damages for this in the way that a court or insurer might. Therefore, this aspect of his complaint is outside of the scope of this investigation.
14. Following the reported concerns over the contractor having damaged the resident’s vacuum cleaner beyond repair and left his carpet in an unacceptable condition, the landlord was obliged to carry out an investigation into these claims and to respond to him accordingly. In response to the reported concerns, it took reasonable steps to investigate these.
15. This is because, in the landlord’s discussion with the resident on 25 February 2021, it highlighted that the contractor had denied used his vacuum cleaner, and that the photographic evidence of this was not sufficient to show the damage. This was in accordance with its “what to expect when you make a complaint” web page, as detailed above in paragraph 3, which states that it can only offer compensation if there is clear evidence of a service failure.
16. As such, the landlord’s gesture of goodwill offer of £30 was reasonable in recognising the detriment experienced by the resident as a result of the complaint, in the absence of further evidence demonstrating that its contractor had damaged his vacuum cleaner beyond repair and caused him to incur the cost of replacing this. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to re-offer the goodwill gesture to the resident.
17. In respect to the condition of the resident’s carpet, it is noted that the contractor had offered to clean this in the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 12 April 2021. It is noted that it suggested that he had previously declined this, however he expressed a desire for this to be carried out to this Service. It has therefore also been recommended below that the landlord re-offer this to the resident, and to ensure that this is carried out in line with its responsive repairs policy, as detailed above in paragraph 2, by considering making good or decorating any obvious or significantly contrasting damage.
18. This Service has found the landlord to have acted fairly in responding to the resident’s concerns about his vacuum cleaner and carpet, and that it had taken action to attempt to address these concerns. It was fair in reviewing the available evidence of this, including photographs and his and its contractor’s statements, and provided him with a reasonable explanation when it was determined that no further action could be taken by the landlord.
19. Therefore, this Service has not found any failings in the way that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports that a contractor had damaged his vacuum cleaner beyond repair and caused damage to his carpet, but that its offer of £30 compensation and carpet cleaning for this instead satisfactorily resolved his complaint.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the his reports that a contractor had damaged his vacuum cleaner beyond repair and left his carpet in an unacceptable condition satisfactorily.

Reasons

21. The landlord has evidenced that it has investigated the resident’s reports, and considered the available evidence supplied by him and its contractor.
22. The contractor denied using the resident’s vacuum cleaner. Photographs provided by him were insufficient for the landlord to verify his claims, and he had disposed of the vacuum cleaner. 
23. The landlord nevertheless offered the resident £30 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, and agreed to arrange for its contractor to clean his carpet, which sought to address his concerns and recognise the detriment that he had experienced as a result of his complaint in the absence of further evidence of this.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to:
    1. Re-offer him the £30 that it previously awarded him as a gesture of goodwill, if he has not received this already.
    2. Arrange for his carpet to be cleaned, and ensure that the affected area matches the unaffected carpet, if it has not already done so.
25. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
26. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.