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

Peabody Trust (202101739)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101739

Peabody Trust

15 November 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 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 report of damage caused to her kitchen worktop by its contractor.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 9 February 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out works to her boiler. Later that day she forwarded a picture to it of damage to her kitchen worktop, informing it that it was not in this condition prior to that day. The resident said that its contractor may have inadvertently caused the damage as they did not inform her of this. She asked the landlord how this would be rectified and when this could be done.
  3. On the following day the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the damage as she had received no response to her earlier enquiry.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 17 February 2021 to complete the boiler works and advised her that the extent of the damage to the worktop meant that it was likely to require a replacement rather than a repair. The contractor measured the worktop and took photographs of the damage and assured her that they would “sort it out”.
  5. On 1 March, the resident provided the landlord with emails she had sent to it with photographs of the damage.
  6. On 11 March 2021, the landlord sent a holding letter to the resident and informed her that it would be attending the property on 6 April 2021 to repair the kitchen worktop.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 April 2021. It explained that it had contacted its contractor, whose operative denied damaging her kitchen worktop. The landlord therefore said that it could not uphold her complaint as it had not been presented with evidence which supported the resident’s claim. It said that it asked its other contractor to repair the worktop as a gesture of goodwill but they found that the repair was not possible unless the entire kitchen worktop was renewed; it said that it was not currently prepared to do this. 
  8. The landlord said that there was nothing further it could do and it was not obliged to pay any compensation. It referred the resident to her home contents insurer to make a claim for the damage. While the landlord asserted that it was not accepting any liability for the damage, it offered a goodwill gesture of £50 for her time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord added that it had consulted its planned kitchen works and it had found that there were no works planned for a further three years. It additionally provided the details of its insurance team if she believed it had acted negligently and wished to pursue an insurance claim against itself.
  9. Later, on 9 April 2021, the resident escalated her complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s process. She maintained that the damage to her kitchen worktop was caused by its contractor and she provided photographs of this damage. The resident questioned what further evidence the landlord would need. She said that she expected the contractor to deny causing the damage but then asked what evidence the landlord had that they did not cause it. The resident asserted that she was being truthful and said that she refused to “look at this damage every day” until the kitchen was due for renewal. She said that the £50 offered by the landlord was insufficient to address the distress that the situation was causing her.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 May 2021 in which it said that it found its stage one complaint response to be fair and reasonable. It said that it based its decision on the evidence available, which was ultimately her word against the contractor’s. The landlord noted the resident’s admission that no one was present in the kitchen at the time that the damage occurred and that the contractor had denied causing the damage. In the absence of other evidence, such as multiple eye-witness accounts or video recordings of the damage occurring, it said that it had “no alternative” other than to uphold its previous decision.
  11. The landlord noted that its previous complaint response had suggested that the resident make an insurance claim for the damage to her kitchen worktop; however, it found that this was not appropriate as the damage was not to her possessions but to its worktop installed in the property. It said that it had liaised with its own insurance team to look into whether it could make a claim against the contractor and it would update her on this.
  12. The landlord acknowledged its repair responsibilities and said that, as the worktop was not repairable, it had asked for a quote for its replacement. It said that once it received this, it could consider its next steps, which it would update the resident about. It stated that its previous offer of £50 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience was fair and re-offered this.
  13. The resident advised this Service on 22 July 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied as her kitchen worktop had been left in a damaged state. Her desired resolution was for the landlord to repair or replace the worktop to restore it to its previous condition.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy defines a rechargeable repair as one which has been identified as a direct result of wilful damage, neglect or vandalism by the resident or their household. This policy also confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing or replacing kitchen worktops.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it is to provide a response within ten working days; at the final stage it should provide its response to the resident within 15 working days. If the landlord is unable to provide its response within these timeframes it is to contact the resident to explain why and provide a new date for its response. This date should not exceed the original deadline by more than ten working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of between £26 and £75 for a failure to follow its complaints policy or procedure. It further states, in clause 4.9, that the landlord ‘will adopt an evidence-based approach and will generally not make any compensation awards based on the belief of probability.’

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage caused to her kitchen worktop by its contractor

  1. Where a dispute exists between two varying accounts, the landlord would be expected to base its decision on the evidence available. In this case there was a lack of third-party independent evidence to conclusively show how the damage to the resident’s kitchen worktop came about. The resident herself did not witness the damage being caused and there was no recording of the kitchen worktop being damaged. In the absence of this evidence, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it could not conclude that the damage sustained was caused by its contractor.
  2. This does not by extension mean that the resident was being untruthful, only that there was a lack of evidence to substantiate her account. It is noted that there was no record of the landlord attempting to recharge her for the cost of any remedial works to the worktop when it visited the property on 6 April 2021. As stated by the landlord’s repairs policy above, if it concluded that the damage was caused by the resident’s own “wilful damage, neglect or vandalism”, then it would have been entitled to recharge her for this work.
  3. Given that the landlord could not determine what caused the damage to the kitchen worktop, the matter remains part of its repairing obligation. As confirmed by its repairs policy above, it is responsible for the repair or replacement of kitchen worktops. However, on inspecting the worktop, it found that it could not be repaired, and replacement was the only option. It erroneously stated in its stage one complaint response on 9 April 2021 that the resident could pursue the matter as an insurance claim through her own insurers. The landlord acknowledged this in its final response on 26 May 2021 and advised the resident that it was investigating the replacement of the worktop.
  4. Irrespective of the dispute over whether the landlord’s contractor caused the damage or not, if a resident reports a repair, and it cannot establish that the repair should be rechargeable to that resident, it has a responsibility to remedy the reported damage. Considering the landlord’s responsibility to repair or replace the worktop, it is reasonable that it advised the resident of its intention of pursuing the matter with the contractor through its insurer, while also seeking information on the replacement cost. Its offer of £50 in compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in bringing the complaint was also reasonable in the circumstances of the case and proportionate to the events at the time.

Communications after the formal complaint

  1. In her contact to this Service on 22 July 2021, the resident advised that the worktop was yet to be repaired or replaced. No further information has been provided to this Service with respect to the response by the landlord’s insurer. Therefore, following the receipt of this decision, the landlord should consider confirming to the resident the timescale for repairing or replacing the kitchen worktop. It should also strongly consider whether any further delay in its handling of the issue should result in the offer of further compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. In the absence of evidence on the cause of the damage, the landlord provided a reasonable response on its intentions to resolve the damage in its stage 2 decision. The offer of £50 was also reasonable with respect to the events in the case.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should strongly consider contacting the resident to confirm what steps it will now take to remedy the reported damage to her kitchen worktop and agree timescales with her on the repairs. It should also consider whether any delays in dealing with the repairs or communicating with the resident, since the closure of the complaint, warrants a further offer of compensation to the resident.