The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Stockport Homes Limited (202001435)

Back to Top

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001435

Stockport Homes Limited

29 January 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 request for compensation, following reported damage to his car tyres from the landlord’s refurbishment works on the street.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord carried out building work in the area to flood damaged homes. The resident said that when they cleaned up the site, the workers jet washed debris onto the local road and had left screws and nails which then punctured the car tyres of several of the road users, including the resident’s. The resident since replaced the car tyres and requested that the landlord reimburse him for the costs.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 December 2019. This was flagged and logged within the landlord’s team on 2 January 2020, the landlord also acknowledged the complaint and discussed the timescale.
  3. The landlord’s communication with the site manager and contract manager showed its investigation into the reports (6 January 2020) following an inspection of the area (on 20 December 2019). It did not find that the screw which had punctured the tyre was of the kind used by its contractor, it explained the source of its contractor’s equipment and noted that this varied from that which had caused damage. It did not find a link between the works carried out and when the resident reported the puncture. It considered the timetable of the works, when incidents were reported and the experience of other residents in the vicinity. It also considered the setup of the road and noted that there were other works taking place in the vicinity which could have contributed to the debris that caused the damage. It ultimately found that it could not find a causal link between the damage reported by the resident and its operative’s actions.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2020 and said:
    1. It acknowledged the complaint about work in the area and the resulting screws on the road.
    2. It carried out a full investigation of the site working practices.
    3. It carried out a site inspection to assess the situation and prevent further issues.
    4. It said that the contractors work to a strict code of conduct which involves leaving the area “clean and tidy and free from debris”.
    5. It gave details of a separate report made by a different resident about his tyre, following this the landlord said that on 20 December 2019 the site was cleaned and swept and one screw had been found. The landlord then said it was confident that all site procedures were being followed.
    6. The landlord said its investigation noted “a number of other works being carried out by other contractors in the area” to properties not managed by the landlord, and “it is felt that any of this work could have been the source of any screws picked up by vehicles”. The landlord said that due to the other works in the local area it did not conclude that the punctures reported by the resident was owing to its operative’s activities.
    7. As it did not find itself liable, it did not agree to reimburse the resident.
  5. The resident responded on the same day, he said:
    1. Though the correct procedures were found to be followed, this was not the case before 20 December 2019.
    2. He reported that his wife saw the contractors using the jet wash.
    3. The site sweep and inspection organised by the site manager was reactive and after several residents’ cars had been punctured within the vicinity of the works.
    4. He and other residents he spoke to could not identify other contractors in the area.

Complaint escalation

  1. The resident requested an update on 14 February 2020. The landlord’s customer feedback team replied on 17 February 2020 and said that it had already provided a response but it would look into escalating it if the resident wished. The resident replied on the same day requesting that the issue be escalated. The landlord then asked the resident what additional information they had and the outcome they sought. The resident forwarded his response of 13 January 2020 and requested reimbursement for his tyres. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 February 2020 and said it forwarded this to the relevant manager, highlighting that they were out of office for the week.
  2. On 28 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident; it apologised for the resident not having received its response which it said it had previously sent. It explained that it chose not to progress the complaint to be reviewed at an appeal panel, in line with its policy. It explained the reason for this, stating that it based this decision on whether the “outcome of an appeal is likely to be different than that reached at stage one, and/or whether a substantial element of the complaint has not been investigated or addressed at stage one”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman is not able to determine whether or not the landlord caused the damage to the resident’s property, rather, it can consider if the landlord responded fairly to the resident’s reports about tyre damage.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s claim that its operative’s activities caused the resident’s property to be damaged. It contacted the site and contract manager to escalate the concerns, it considered the possibilities of how the damage could have been caused and the likelihood that this was owing to the actions of its contractors, it arranged an inspection and shared its findings with the resident, it considered the equipment used and the source of the article which caused the damage, and it found that there were other contractors in the vicinity which this could be attributed to. It considered the activity of the road users, when the reports were made and the lay out of the road in connection to the resident’s property and the work site.
  3. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, and whether it could have been responsible for the damage caused to the resident’s property. The landlord explained its reasons, though the resident remained dissatisfied at the conclusions the landlord came to.        
  4. It is reasonable for the landlord not to have offered compensation. This is because it could not determine that there had been any service failure which it would attach any compensation to. This was in line with its compensation policy which states:

“a compensation gesture may be a sum of money in recognition of loss or an apology in the form of a replacement item, vouchers or some other recognition of service failure”.

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 about the request for compensation following reports of damage to the resident’s car.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman cannot determine how the damage was caused, only if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s claims. The landlord took appropriate steps to consider the resident’s claims by investigating this with the relevant agents, before sharing its findings with the resident. There is no evidence of a service failure by the landlord and therefore its decision not to compensate the resident was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.