East Devon District Council (202306755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306755

East Devon District Council

22 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint that its contractor damaged his washing machine.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 2 November 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced bungalow, and the landlord is a local authority.
Some of the resident’s contacts with the landlord were made on his behalf by his daughter. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his daughter are referred to as ‘the resident’.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process, and that it would provide written acknowledgement of complaints within 5 working days. It said that it would then aim to issue its response within 10, and 20 working days of acknowledgement at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
It said that where the complexity of a complaint, or unforeseen circumstances prevented it from responding within that timeframe, it would notify the resident and provide an indicative timescale for its response.

Summary of events

On 4 October 2022 the landlord’s internal email referred to the resident’s report that its contractor had dented his washing machine when it was reinstalled following his kitchen floor works. The email stated that its contractor had spoken to the resident the previous day, and would be visiting him to see if the dents could be rectified. It said that the contractor had stated that it had been over a week after the floor works were completed before the resident had reported the dents, and that it denied that it had caused them. It further stated that its contractor had said that it had only reinstalled the washing machine as a goodwill gesture, and that it had a post-works photograph in which no dents were evident.
On 11 October 2022 the contractor sent the landlord the photograph of the resident’s kitchen, which had been taken after the washing machine had been reinstalled (the completed floor works were also depicted). The contractor highlighted that the photograph showed that there were no dents in the washing machine where the dents had later been visible. It said that it had only reattended to try to rectify it for the resident while it had been in the area.
On 16 November 2022 the landlord told its contractor that the resident was unhappy that he had not heard anything further regarding his washing machine. The contractor replied the same day, and denied again that it was responsible for the dents, which it said was supported by the photographic evidence. The contractor said that it had offered to rectify the dents with a plunger as a goodwill gesture, which it said had proven relatively easy as the dents were very small. The Ombudsman has not seen any further contact information until the resident made his complaint.
On 23 February 2023 the resident made his complaint, which thanked the landlord for its recent contact regarding his washing machine. The resident assured the landlord that his washing machine had been undamaged prior to the contractor moving it. He said that he had seen the contractor’s operative sit on the floor, and use his feet to push the machine back into place. He said that the contractor had managed to remove 1 large dent with a plunger, but not the other.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, which summarised the resident’s claims and its contractor’s denial. It stated that as the resident had an ongoing insurance claim regarding his washing machine, it would not be prudent to discuss the matter further. It advised the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 28 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He stated that his insurance case was partly for an injury that he had sustained as a result of the washing machine, but had nothing to do with the dents.
On 20 April 2023 a local Councillor emailed the landlord about a range of matters that the resident had raised, which included his washing machine. The landlord’s reply to the Councillor described how it had investigated the matter, and its contractor’s strong denials.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord’s internal email stated that the resident’s stage 2 response was due the following week. It said that it thought it likely that the complaint would be referred to the Ombudsman, and asked how confident its relevant staff were that its contractor had not caused the washing machine dents. The landlord’s internal response explained why it was confident that the contractor had not caused the damage.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident, which apologised for its lateness. The landlord stated that its contractor continued to refute that it had caused any damage to the resident’s washing machine, and that his request for compensation had been declined. It referred the resident to the Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 6 October 2023 the landlord’s tenant complaint panel wrote to the landlord following their discussions with the resident. The letter concerned a range of maintenance and repairs issues and recommendations, but also referred to the resident’s washing machine. It noted that the contractor had denied causing the dents, but suggested that the landlord should “make a token payment” to the resident anyway.
The landlord handled the tenant panel letter as a further complaint, and issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 November 2023. The response largely concerned the range of other matters that had been raised on his behalf. With regards to the resident’s washing machine, the landlord’s response stated that its contractor maintained its denial of liability, but that “as a gesture of goodwill and in a full and final settlement we would like to offer you £150”. The landlord also apologised for the lateness of its response, for which it offered a further £50 compensation.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord’s internal email stated that the resident had said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, but that he would accept its offer of £200 compensation.

Assessment and findings

In bringing his case to the Service the resident was advised that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for his damaged washing machine. This is because matters of liability require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman’s decisions are not. Legally binding decisions can only be made by the Courts, and the resident is advised to seek independent legal advice, or contact his insurer if he wishes to pursue the matter of liability. This assessment is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord did demonstrate that, as far as it was able, it had appropriately investigated the resident’s report that its contractor had dented his washing machine. While the contractor maintained its denial of liability throughout it was also reasonable for it to revisit the resident, and attempt to rectify the dents. However, once the resident had made his complaint, it would be expected that the landlord would handle it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and with its own policy. As the landlord failed to do either, the Ombudsman has found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident made his complaint on 23 February 2023, but the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response to him until 27 March 2023, some 23 working days later. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it either acknowledged the resident’s complaint, nor notified him that its response would be delayed. The landlord has also not demonstrated that there were unforeseen circumstances in its handling of the matter. The resident’s complaint only concerned a single issue, and so could not be considered sufficiently complex as to merit such a delay to the landlord’s brief stage 1 response. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with the its policy, or the Code.
It was a further failing that the landlord’s stage 1 response neither referred to, nor apologised for its delay. The landlord then repeated these failings, and delays at stage 2 of its process. However, its stage 2 response did at least recognise this, and appropriately apologised.
Nonetheless, it was notable that when the landlord again failed to meet the timeframe of its own policy in responding to the resident’s subsequent complaint later in the year, its apology was accompanied by an offer of compensation. It was unclear why the landlord did not consider that the delays at both stages of the resident’s previous complaint merited compensation, and it was a failing that it made no attempt to put things right by offering redress. The Ombudsman has made a compensation order to this regard, and in line with our Remedies Guidance.
As above, the landlord did demonstrate that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s report that his washing machine had been damaged, both when the matter first arose in 2022, and during its complaint process. The landlord was somewhat limited in what actions it could take, but it was reasonable for it to discuss the matter with its contractor and staff that had attended the resident’s property, and to view the contractor’s photograph. The contractor was adamant that it had not caused the damage, which it believed that its photograph proved. It was reasonable for the landlord to make its decision based on the available information, which demonstrated an evidence based approach, and for it to relay this to the resident in its complaint responses.
At stage 1 of its process, the landlord was under the impression that the resident was already pursuing an insurance claim for the washing machine damage, which the resident corrected in his escalation request. As such, the landlord could have demonstrated a customer focused approach by using its stage 2 response to advise the resident how he could make a claim against its own insurance. However, it is noted that the resident was pursuing a related, but separate, insurance claim, as well dealing with other longer running matters with the landlord. It may therefore have been the case that the landlord had previously provided him with its insurance details.
The landlord’s tenant complaint panel wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf 4 months after the conclusion of his complaint. The letter referred to the resident’s dented washing machine, and suggested that, despite the contractor’s denial of liability, the landlord should offer the resident a “token payment”. The landlord acted on its tenant panel’s recommendation, and its £150 goodwill payment to the resident demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
The landlord’s goodwill gesture to the resident stated that it was being offered in “full and final settlement”. Some residents will interpret that phrase to mean that their acceptance of the landlord’s offer prevents them from referring the matter to the Service. While the resident understood that not to be the case in this instance, the landlord should consider whether its use of the phrase is appropriate. The landlord should also ensure that residents clearly understand that any acceptance of compensation or other redress, cannot prevent them from approaching the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint that its contractor damaged his washing machine.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint, notified him that its response would be delayed, or otherwise acted in line with its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to apologise to the resident for its lateness. Its stage 2 response was also provided to the resident outside of the timeframe of its policy. While the landlord did apologise for its stage 2 delay, it failed to offer the resident appropriate redress.
The landlord based its investigation of the resident’s report of washing machine damage on the available information. After the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, it demonstrated a resolution focused approach when it agreed to the goodwill payment recommended by its tenant complaint panel.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further delays and failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £75 for the time and trouble caused by the identified delays and failings (this amount is separate from the landlord’s subsequent goodwill payment).
3. Reviews its resource and staff training needs with regards to ensuring that it can handle complaints in line with its policy, and writes to the Service with its findings.
Additional compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears on the resident’s rent account should they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance of these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.