Adur District Council (202440819)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor. Following the installation of a new fire door the resident reported that her carpet in the hallway was damaged by the landlord’s contractors. The landlord initially denied fault for the damage, but then later agreed to replace the carpet.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged carpet.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged carpet.
   2. The was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience the resident had been through in bringing the complaint and for its initial staff attitudes. It also sought to put things right by replacing the damaged carpet. However, it did not appropriately acknowledge the time and trouble the resident had expended in collating evidence and pursuing the matter.
5. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint in line with its complaint policy timeframes.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) says that complaint handlers must deal with complaints on their merits and have an open mind. It also says complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position and to consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
7. The resident raised concerns that she was not initially contacted by the landlord to discuss her complaint prior to it issuing its stage 1 complaint response. She raised this in her complaint and again in her escalation request. The landlord has not disputed this and there is an absence of evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the Code requires the landlord to allow the resident a chance to set out their position, it was in contravention of the Code by not contacting the resident. It was unreasonable of the landlord to not allow her a chance to present her views and evidence, especially because she had evidence which contested the landlord’s version of events. For this reason, the complaint handler missed an opportunity to collate all relevant evidence and review matters carefully with an open mind before making a decision at stage 1 of its complaints process.
8. The landlord did however act to respond to the resident’s concerns about its staff and apologised for a ‘rude’ staff member and said it was not intentional. However, this apology lacked sincerity and empathy and did not fully acknowledge the resident’s concerns about its lack of communication and its staff attitudes. Therefore, we consider a meaningful apology is appropriate here to recognise the full impact to the resident. Given this, we have made an order for the landlord to make a genuine apology to the resident with reference to our apologies guide.
9. The landlord did act at stage 2 to put things right. It contacted the resident and allowed her to submit evidence in support of her views. It also agreed to replace the carpet as it could not conclusively say what happened to it. Given the minimal evidence it had to inform its decision and the evidence provided by the resident, this was a reasonable conclusion to make.
10. While the landlord did apologise to the resident for the time and frustration across its complaints procedure, it should have acted further to put things right. It should have considered the time and trouble the resident went to in contesting the landlord’s view. She said to the landlord she had spent a lot of time chasing the complaint and its contractors to establish what had happened to the carpet. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to consider discretionary compensation for the time and trouble a resident has gone to in attempting to resolve an issue. Given the landlord did not consider the above, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged carpet, and we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident went to in pursuing this matter.

11. The resident complained on 5 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2025. It took the landlord 87 working days to produce its stage 1 response which was not in accordance with its policy timeframe of 10 working days. This delay was also not acknowledged by the landlord across its complaints procedure. It was unreasonable of the landlord to delay its stage 1 complaint response for such a long time and to not acknowledge the delay and the resulting impact to the resident.
12. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 January 2025. This was issued within 5 working days and this was in accordance with its policy timeframe of 20 working days. A member of the landlord’s staff also called the resident to discuss the case and allowed her an opportunity to present her evidence. This was a reasonable approach to take.
13. Overall, while the landlord acted to handle the complaint appropriately at stage 2 of its complaints process, there was a lengthy delay at stage 1 which remains unexplained and unacknowledged. For this reason, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

14. It is important to allow a resident to have a fair opportunity to be heard prior to stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This means the resident should have a chance to present their views and evidence in support of their case before a decision is made that has the potential to impact them. It is positive to see that the landlord has since adopted a Corporate Complaints Policy in July 2025 which records how complaints are to be managed, in particular, that contact is to be made with the resident prior to it making a decision at stage 1 of its complaints process to get a full understanding of the complaint and to explore what the resident would like it to do to seek a resolution.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The landlord should keep sufficient records to inform its decision making. In this case, the landlord could not establish with sufficient clarity what had happened to the carpet for it to become damaged. This indicates that improvements can be made to its record retention practises, especially with its contractors.