Charnwood Borough Council (202325335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325335

Charnwood Borough Council

27 August 2025

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 amount of compensation the landlord offered the resident.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant. His tenancy of the property began in 2019. He lives with his partner and 3 children. The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house.
3. The landlord began work to replace the kitchen in the property on 4 July 2023. On 1 August 2023 the resident complained about the length of time it was taking to complete the work. He explained that he and his family had been suffering “mentally and physically” due to the ongoing disruption. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for the additional costs he had incurred due to the work. He estimated that this amounted to £1,600, comprising of:
   1. £400 due to the family having to use a camping stove in the living room while living at the property.
   2. £1,200 for a week (24 July to 31 July 2023) when the family stayed in a caravan as they felt unable to continue living in the property.
4. The resident also asked the landlord to pay him an additional £45 per day from the date of his complaint up until it completed the kitchen work.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 14 August 2023. It said:
   1. its original contractor had stopped working at the property on 10 July 2023 as it had gone into administration. The landlord was not permitted to use the contractor’s materials so had to reorder them. This led to its delay in completing the work.
   2. it was originally due to complete the work on 19 July 2023. It was now aiming to complete it by 25 August 2023.
   3. it acknowledged its delay had caused distress and inconvenience. It intended to compensate the resident for this and would write to him separately with an offer.
   4. it would consider compensating him for financial loss if he provided evidence of this.
6. On 4 September 2023 the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation. It said this comprised of:
   1. £250 for its 5 week delay in completing the kitchen work.
   2. £300 for the “mental stress, frustration and inconvenience” caused by its delay.
7. The resident accepted this compensation offer. He then provided the landlord with copies of bank statements so it could consider his request for compensation to cover his financial loss.
8. The landlord reviewed the bank statements. On 14 September 2023 it offered the resident £1,207 compensation for financial loss. It calculated this based on the cost of the caravan accommodation plus a fixed food allowance for each family member for the week they were away. It said that it drew on guidance contained in its decant policy to determine what costs it would pay. It explained this meant it would not cover additional expenses such as soft drinks, snacks or entertainment.
9. The resident did not accept this offer. He was unhappy that the landlord had excluded some of the costs he incurred during the family’s week away. He explained that he would not, for example, have had to buy soft drinks for his children if he was at home with a working kitchen. He also wanted the landlord to compensate him for financial loss incurred during the other weeks of the kitchen work when the family was at home. He said he incurred additional expenses during this time as he did not have a functioning kitchen or washing machine.
10. The landlord escalated the financial loss aspect of the complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2023. During its stage 2 investigation, it asked the resident if he had any further supporting evidence in addition to his bank statements, such as receipts. He said he did not.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. Within this it included a revised offer of £1,500 compensation for financial loss.
12. The resident asked the landlord to pay him the £1,500 compensation, which it did, but said he did not accept this as a final offer. He then referred his complaint to us. He told us that the £1,500 paid by the landlord was approximately £2,850 short of the amount he had spent on credit cards during July and August 2023. He explained he would not have incurred this cost had it not been for the landlord’s delay in installing the kitchen. He wanted the landlord to fully compensate him for his financial loss, including interest charges on his credit cards.

Assessment and findings

13. It is to be expected that there will be disruption and inconvenience caused to residents during kitchen replacement works. We would not normally expect a landlord to compensate a resident for this, unless there have been delays or other failures that have caused detriment over and above what would normally be expected.
14. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that it took 5 weeks longer than it originally planned to complete the kitchen work. We recognise that the resident and his family suffered distress and inconvenience due to this delay. They were a family of 2 adults and 3 children, living in a 2 bedroom property. Their kitchen, including the washing machine, was out of use throughout the month of July 2023. During this time, they set up a temporary cooking area, using a camping stove, in the living room.
15. By1 August 2023 the landlord had installed the new kitchen. However, it did not complete the flooring, tiling and decorative works until 25 August 2023. Therefore, while the family may have been able to use the cooking and washing facilities in the kitchen during August, their use and enjoyment of it was regularly disrupted by the landlord and its contractors completing the work.
16. All of this coincided with the school summer holidays, meaning the 3 children were at home for most of the day. The resident told the landlord that this made it even more difficult for the family to manage in the property while the work was ongoing. He said in his complaint that his family had suffered “mentally and physically” as a result of the landlord’s ongoing delay in completing the work.
17. The landlord’s complaint handling guidance distinguishes between compensation for distress and inconvenience and compensation for financial loss. The landlord appropriately made this distinction when handling the resident’s complaint. It recognised that its 5 week delay in completing the kitchen work had caused the resident and his family “mental stress, frustration and inconvenience”. It offered him £550 compensation for this.
18. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we view £550as a reasonable amount of compensation for distress and inconvenience given the nature and duration of the delay.
19. The resident accepted the £550 compensation offer. When escalating his complaint to stage 2, he only asked the landlord to reconsider the separate compensation it offered him for financial loss. Therefore, by the time of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord had resolved the resident’s complaint about the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing the kitchen work.
20. In relation to financial loss, the landlord’s complaint handling guidance distinguishes between quantifiable and unquantifiable loss. The guidance states that for unquantifiable loss, the landlord should make a “judgement call” in relation to the costs “on the balance of probability and reasonableness”.
21. In this case, the resident provided the landlord with bank statements only. It asked him for receipts but he was unable to provide these. This meant that while the cost of the caravan accommodation was quantifiable, the other costs he incurred were not. For example, it would not have been clear from a bank statement showing spending in a supermarket, what items he purchased. This meant the landlord had no way of working out which items he would not have bought, but for its delay in completing the kitchen work. Similarly, a bank statement showing spending in a restaurant would not have shown how many meals were ordered or whether alcohol was included. The landlord would therefore have been unable to consider how much of the bill it should reasonably reimburse.
22. Given this, the landlord decided it would calculate compensation based on a fixed food allowance of 3 meals a day for 7 days, for 2 adults and 3 children. This came to £658 for the week the family was at the caravan. It added the accommodation cost of £549 to this, bringing the total compensation it offered to £1,207. It then increased this in its stage 2 response to £1,500 as it said its original offer was “low”.
23. In our view the landlord’s method of calculating the financial loss compensation for the week away was fair. It was not obliged to cover every cost incurred by the resident during that time. Had it not delayed in completing the kitchen, the resident would still have had to pay for every day living expenses. The caravan was a self-catering facility, with the resident confirming in his complaint that he had a “working kitchen” while there. It would therefore not be reasonable, for example, that the landlord should have to pay the full cost of all meals the family chose to have in restaurants or cafes while away.
24. The resident was unhappy that the landlord relied on guidance in its decant policy when determining what costs it would cover. He said the policy was not applicable in this circumstance given the landlord had not arranged or pre-approved the temporary accommodation. While that was correct, the complaint handling guidance required the landlord to determine what costs it should reasonably pay. It was therefore appropriate for it to consider the types of payment it would make in similar circumstances, such as a decant, and use this to determine that it would not pay for alcohol, soft drinks or entertainment.
25. In the circumstances, particularly given the absence of receipts, a daily food allowance plus the accommodation cost was a fair and reasonable way of calculating compensation. We note the overall amount the landlord offered, £1,500, was more than the £1,200 the resident said in his original complaint he had spent on the week away.
26. A further complaint the resident made about the landlord’s compensation offer, was that it only related to financial loss for the week the family were at the caravan. He indicated in his initial complaint that in the month prior to going to the caravan, he had spent an additional £400 due to the family having to use a camping stove in the living room. He did not clarify what specifically these additional costs related to and did not provide it with receipts.
27. If the additional cost included, for example, takeaway food, the landlord was not obliged to pay for this. We have seen no evidence that the resident sought prior agreement that it would cover such costs or that it at any stage indicated it would do so. We understand the landlord provided the camping stove. It therefore appropriately ensured the family had alternative cooking facilities in place before the work started. While we acknowledge the logistics of cooking on this every day for 5 people would have been difficult, we are satisfied the landlord reasonably compensated the resident for this through the £550 offered in its stage 1 response for distress and inconvenience.
28. Overall, we are satisfied that the £1,500 compensation for financial loss offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response was fair and reasonable based on the evidence available to it. We have therefore found that it provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint prior to our investigation.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint about the amount of compensation it offered him.