Orbit Housing Association Limited (202121373)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121373

Orbit Housing Association Limited

13 September 2022


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 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 decision to recharge the resident for damage caused to temporary accommodation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She was temporarily decanted from her property into a furnished and serviced apartment. Before this took place the resident asked the landlord if any extra charges would apply for any damage caused in the accommodation. The landlord explained that the resident would be liable for any such costs, and should return the accommodation as she found it.
  2. On 4 October 2021 the resident checked out of the accommodation to return home, and the accommodation messaged her that day to say that it would be sending an invoice for damages as the apartment was ‘a complete mess’. An invoice was then sent for £480 for a broken lamp, stained bedhead, excessive damage to crockery, and a flooded floor. In response the resident asked for details of the accommodation’s liability insurance for a claim she wanted to make for personal injury for a sprained foot. She also requested an itemised invoice for the listed damages. The accommodation told her she would need to take up the matter of the insurance claim with the ‘booking agent’. 
  3. On 4 October 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She stated that she had damaged a lamp in the property, however, the stained headboard was dirty, rather than damaged, and could be cleaned. She said that the floor was not flooded as it was tiled. The resident also disputed damaging any crockery and stated that the accommodation could not prove this. The resident said that she was only willing to pay for the damaged lamp. That same day the landlord requested proof of the alleged damage from the accommodation.
  4. On 5 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord requesting the accommodation’s insurance details, as she wished to make a negligence and personal injury claim. The resident stated that the accommodation was ‘not fit for young children’, and subsequently her child pulled down the lamp and cut his head, due to the placement of the lamp. The resident stated that if she had known the costs, she would not have agreed to be liable for any damage.
  5. That same day the accommodation provided the landlord with a damage claim form and images from the accommodation. The accommodation also said that rugs had to be dry cleaned, bed linen had to be thrown away due to stains, and detailed mess that was left.
  6. On 12 October 2021 the accommodation requested payment from the landlord as the resident had not responded to its request for this. The landlord made the payment.
  7. On 21 October 2021 the landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint advising that the resident was liable for the damage to the property and as it had paid the charge, it would claim this back from her.
  8. On 14 December 2021 the resident requested a review of the complaint. She explained that she disputed the charges for additional cleaning, including for the stains on the bed and duvet. The resident also complained that she wanted to make claims against the owner’s liability insurance for injuries she and her child had sustained, but was told by the owner that the landlord would need to lodge the claim on her behalf, which the landlord had not done.
  9. On 15 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It stated that during the resident’s stay at the temporary accommodation damage had occurred in the property. This meant that the accommodation had to pay for additional services to return the property to its original standard. The damages that had been invoiced were:
    1. £20 for steam cleaning of the headboard;
    2. £35 for steam cleaning soiled mattress;
    3. £50 for steam cleaning floor;
    4. £80 for deep clean to accommodation;
    5. £80 for VAT; and
    6. £215 for a broken lamp.
  10. The landlord stated that whilst the resident disputed responsibility, she would be liable for the full balance.
  11. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 15 December 2021. She stated that she was made aware that she would be liable for any damage during her stay and accepted that she had broken a lamp. However, she disputed the cleaning charges from the accommodation and was in dispute directly with the accommodation, but despite this the landlord paid the money on her behalf and was seeking the money from her. The resident said that she would not be able to afford to pay the landlord £480. The resident is seeking the balance to be cleared as an outcome to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident stated that her and her son had suffered personal injury during her stay at the temporary accommodation. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Assessment.

  1. Upon receiving reports of damage caused by a resident in temporary accommodation it would be appropriate for a landlord to investigate and request evidence of the alleged damage. In this case the information available as set out above indicates that it did request information in regard to the damage, and on the basis of the evidence it received, this, concluded that it was reasonable to pay the charges. The landlord was provided with photographic evidence of:
    1. A broken lamp;
    2. A stained headboard;
    3. Food litter on the floor and furniture;
    4. Wet flooring; and
    5. Stains on the flooring.
  2. The damage to the broken lamp was not disputed by the resident and therefore, this did not need any further investigation. The landlord acted fairly here.
  3. The resident stated during the course of her complaint that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she caused the damage as there was no ‘evidence’ of when the accommodation had last been cleaned. In the landlord’s investigation, a timeline of events was provided from the accommodation provider. It stated that it had completed weekly cleaning in the accommodation, and during the stay, whilst at times it appeared untidy, ‘nothing at that point was cause for concern’. During weekly cleans of the accommodation, there was no visible damage. It was not until the resident left the accommodation that issues were identified. The landlord was reasonable in relying upon the evidence of the accommodation cleaners.
  4. The resident also stated that in regard to the soiling of items, that she was ‘unwilling to pay for the ‘stains’, as this can be cleaned and not damaged’. It is worth noting, that the use of the word ‘damage’ has not been defined by the landlord, but is implied to mean that items needed to be deep cleaned, as per the invoice. The resident was not charged for a replacements, but for steam cleaning.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord paid the charges whilst she was disputing them. The landlord has an obligation to pay for damage caused by its residents whilst using temporary accommodation. The landlord had completed an investigation into the claims, and determined that the claims were substantiated by the accommodation provider. Overall there was no failing here: The landlord was reasonable in paying the charges, despite the resident’s disputes. The resident was made aware of the need to pay for damages and return the accommodation as she found it, and so it was reasonable for it to recharge the resident.
  6. Finally, the landlord has appropriately explained that the resident would need to make any claim that she wished to bring for personal injury herself. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for damage caused to temporary accommodation.