Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202222155)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222155

Guinness Housing Association Limited

10 June 2023

 

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 response to the report that it caused damage to the resident’s front door, window and car.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner (leaseholder) of the property, the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 1 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that while its operative had been undertaking gardening maintenance, damage had been caused to his front door and kitchen window. The car window was also damaged. He explained that the operative had been strimming the grass near the property. This had caused pebbles to hit the windows and car, marking marks on the glass.
  3. The landlord checked its policy and ascertained that the damage was too minor to be sent to its liability insurer for consideration. It therefore dealt with the matter through its complaint procedure.  It asked the resident to provide evidence of the operative causing the damage and discussed the issue with the operative in question.
  4. The landlord sent its stage one response on 15 November 2022. It stated that it had been unable to determine that it had caused the damage, as its operative denied any knowledge of the incident. It explained that the resident had also been unable to provide any evidence that supported his claim. Consequently, the landlord was unable to uphold his complaint.  It also stated that as the resident was a shared owner, he was responsible for repairing the property.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 November 2022. He stated that as the damage had been caused by the landlord’s negligence, it was responsible for repairing the damage. The landlord responded on 16 December 2022. It stated that there was still no evidence to show that the damage had been caused by its operatives. It reiterated that as a shared owner, the resident was responsible for his own repairs. To prevent any further issues, the landlord instructed its estate management team to refrain from strimming around pebbled areas on the estate when undertaking garden maintenance.
  6. In his complaint to this Service, the resident complained that the landlord refused to take responsibility for damage caused by its operatives’ negligence. He stated that this issue had happened before to his neighbours, but the landlord had refused to acknowledge the problem.

Assessment

  1. The purpose of this investigation is to ascertain if the landlord applied its policies correctly with regard to the resident’s reports of the damage caused to his property. The role of this Service is to consider the landlord’s response to the report it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. As the resident is a leaseholder, under the terms of his lease he is responsible for repairing and keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The landlord would only be liable for a repair if its negligence had caused the damage.
  3. The resident has stated that the landlord’s operative behaved negligently by using a strimmer too closely to an area of pebbles. He has stated that this caused the stones to rebound and cause damage to his property and car windows. The main focus of his complaint was for the landlord to repair the damage or to provide compensation for the damage caused.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not consider complaints that relate to ongoing or possible insurance claims. After receiving the resident’s complaint concerning the damage, the landlord acted appropriately by checking with its relevant teams, to ascertain if it should forward the report to its liability insurer, or if it should deal with the claim through its complaint procedure. It found that the financial cost of the damage was too low to be considered by its insurers. Therefore, it was appropriate to deal with the resident’s concerns through its complaint procedure.
  5. Once the landlord had ensured that it was dealing with the resident’s claim in the correct method, it asked the resident for evidence to support his claim that its operative had caused the damage. The landlord also asked the operative for their version of events. This was appropriate and in-line with its compensation policy, which states that when a resident makes a claim for compensation, they will need to provide evidence to support their claim. This may include proof of ownership, or of the damaged incurred. Without relevant evidence, the landlord may be unable to deal with a request for compensation. The landlord would be expected to consider the available information and conclude if there was enough evidence to show who was responsible for the damage. The resident explained that he had footage of the operative strimming, but not of the pebbles making contact with his property. The operative denied causing damage. She stated that the resident had also not discussed the issue with her when she was at the property.
  6. As the evidence did not conclusively show that the operative had caused the damage, the landlord was unable to conclude that it was liable for the repairs. It acted appropriately in its complaint responses by explaining this to the resident. It also explained that as the resident was a leaseholder, he was obliged to undertake the repairs to his home. The landlord asked that if the resident did obtain any further information, that he send it in for review. The landlord advised the resident to claim for the damage on his own content’s insurance. It would have been good practice if the landlord had also explained that the resident should claim for any damage to his vehicle through his car insurance.
  7. To prevent any further claims, the landlord also discussed the issue with the resident. As an outcome, the landlord asked its team to refrain from strimming near pebbled areas of the estate. This was reasonable, as although there was not enough evidence for the landlord to provide compensation, it continued to work with the resident to provide assurances that there would be no risk of future issues.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports that it caused damage to the resident’s front door, window and car,