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

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202102442)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102442

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

19 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports of an operative causing damage to his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. An operative employed by the landlord attended in March 2021 and replaced the resident’s toilet and cistern. Following the appointment, the resident reported that the operative had caused damage to his property.
  3. The resident made a claim against the landlord for the damage to his property. He said the operative had damaged his bathroom cladding and stained his carpet. The landlord assessed the claim through its complaint procedure. It inspected the property and explained that its operative denied causing any damage. It suggested how he could remove the stain from the carpet and offered £100 goodwill gesture in view of the evidence provided by the resident.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he said he wanted the landlord to repair the damage (replace the cladding) or pay to have the work carried out as a resolution to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will assess all liability claims and advise residents in writing of the outcome and reasons for its decision.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that when it reviews a complaint, it will consider its liability for any loss or damage incurred.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says the resident is responsible for repairs to decorative items within their property.
  4. The resident said the operative made holes above the cistern when replacing the toilet. The landlord said it had spoken to the operative and they advised that they did not do this. The operative explained that there was a gap in the cladding where it fitted around the old toilet but this gap was now visible as the new toilet was smaller than the previous one. The landlord said it was unfortunate that the new toilet did not cover the gap, but it could not be held liable for this as its operative had not damaged the cladding, it was just that the new toilet was smaller. This was a reasonable response as the landlord had explained that it could not always source exact matches when replacing items, and that there was no reason for its operative to make any holes in the cladding during the toilet replacement. As such, although it is understandable that it would have been frustrating for the resident, without evidence to show the operative had caused damage to the cladding rather than simply exposing a gap that was already there, the landlord would not be expected to repair it.
  5. The resident also said the operative damaged the cladding on the wall next to the toilet. The landlord said the operative denied the allegation. The resident did not witness to alleged incident and as there was no further evidence, the landlord did not agree it was liable for the damage. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony about what happened, the landlord’s operative has given a different account and there is no supporting evidence to support either version of events. As an independent and impartial arbiter, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish with certainty that the operative caused the damage to the cladding where there are conflicting accounts of what happened with no supporting evidence. Therefore the landlord would not be expected to pay for repairing this damage.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted it to put his bathroom right. It said it had made internal enquires, and found that if it removed the cladding, it could potentially damage the wall, and need to replace the entire wall. It said as cladding was a decorative choice, it was not obliged to carry out the work. The resident is responsible for decorations (as explained above). Therefore, given that the landlord had not found evidence to show that its operative had damaged cladding, it was reasonable for it to advise that the resident was responsible for the décor within the property.
  7. The landlord acknowledged that during its inspection it had found staining on the carpet which the resident claimed the operative had caused. It suggested how he could remove the staining and advised him to contact it if he was unsuccessful so it could carry out a further review. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it would not be expected to replace the carpet if it could be cleaned instead and it could not know whether the carpet could be cleaned until this was attempted. As such, it was reasonable for it to suggest exhausting other, more economical options first, whilst reassuring the resident that it had not concluded its investigations into the matter.
  8. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100. It said this was in recognition of evidence and information he had provided. The landlord’s correspondence concerning the complaint acknowledged that it would have been helpful for its operatives to have explained in advance that the new toilet would be smaller to better manage the resident’s expectations about this. The landlord’s compensation policy does not explain in what situations it will offer goodwill gestures. Nonetheless, although its reasoning is unclear, its offer was reasonable when considering the distress and inconvenience that the situation would have undoubtedly caused the resident. This offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complaint. In this case, the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations better regarding the size of the toilet and the resident would have experienced some inconvenience by having to get the carpet cleaned. The landlord’s offer of £100 is reasonable in view of these issues.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns and considered whether it was at fault. It attended to inspect the damage and provided clear and detailed responses which covered the points he had raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactory.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 it previously offered if it has not done so already, as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation would be paid.