NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202118648)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118648

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

29 July 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s report that its contractor caused scratches to his vehicle.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 20 July 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to cut back some hedges that were around the resident’s property and by his car. The next day, the resident complained to the landlord that he had found scratches on his vehicle and believed that they must have been caused by the contractors. He said that he wanted to be notified of works in the future and for the scratches to be fixed.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord explained that it had spoken to its contractors, who had denied causing the damage. The landlord also explained that its processes were for any damage to be reported by contractors to the landlord if and when it occurred. It explained that it had not received any such reports, and that without witnesses, it was unable to take the matter any further. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint.
  4. As part of the stage two investigation, the landlord took photos of the damage to the resident’s car. It held a meeting to discuss the complaint and examined the images, concluding that the damage had not been caused by the contractors, who had not held back from reporting damage when it had occurred in the past on other jobs. The landlord confirmed it would inform the resident of any future external works in advance.
  5. In his complaint to this Service the resident explained that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He wanted the landlord to apologise for the damage, to inform him in future when external works would need to done and to provide compensation for the damage to his car.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged car. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in its handling of the reported damage to the resident’s vehicle.
  2. In dealing with a report of damage to a resident’s personal property by one of its staff members, a landlord would reasonably be expected to investigate the claim fully, communicate with the resident to manage their expectations, and talk to the staff members involved. It would also be expected to learn from any mistakes made and to implement any necessary changes to its current policies and procedures.
  3. In responding to the resident’s reports the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging in a timely manner the resident’s complaint that its contractors had damaged his car. It took reasonable steps to investigate the claim by speaking to its contractors and taking and reviewing photographic evidence of the damage. Given there were no witnesses or evidence, the landlord’s decision to take into account the contractors prior conduct was relevant. In this case the contractor had previously not been reluctant to report any damage that occurred when undertaking works or repairs, which the landlord took into consideration. The landlord also endeavored to learn from the complaint by having its contractors now check in with residents when undertaking external works. It may have been useful to have discussed with the resident that he would need to claim on his own insurance for the damage sustained to his car, but that would presumably be something any vehicle owner would be aware of as a matter of course anyway. Due to there being no witnesses, and the lack of meaningful evidence, there were limited steps the landlord could take, and the information presented here shows that it responded as well as it could reasonably be expected to in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.