Citizen Housing Group Limited (202543767)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has said she has a physical health condition that restricts her movement. In November and December 2025, the landlord’s contractor undertook a kitchen refurbishment at the property. The resident reported that the works caused damage/soiling to several personal items, created hazardous levels of dust, and resulted in unsafe waste materials being left near the property entrance.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damage to the resident’s belongings and concerns about the property’s cleanliness after the kitchen refurbishment.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damage to the resident’s belongings and concerns about the property’s cleanliness after the kitchen refurbishment.
   2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

Damage to belongings and cleanliness of the property

4. The landlord is responsible for kitchen installations and refurbishments.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy requires residents to clear personal belongings from a repair area, while placing a duty on the landlord to ensure its operatives work safely, cleanly, and tidily, protecting themselves, the resident, and the home environment during works. Its compensation policy states that payments are discretionary and may be offered where service failure has caused financial loss, inconvenience, or unreasonable impact.
6. The refurbishment works resulted in soiling to the resident’s cooker, damage to her TV aerial, and damage to her car’s paintwork. No dust protection measures were put in place, as residents were usually advised to cover their belongings themselves. The contractor confirmed that it was not standard practice for it to protect items and that dust was “inevitable”. This led to significant dust throughout the property, which the resident found difficult to manage due to her health condition. In addition, sharp and unsecured waste materials were left near the resident’s entrance for several days, creating unsafe access and falling below the landlord’s obligation to maintain a safe and tidy working environment. The contractor stated that, due to the property’s location and the distance involved in travelling to the site, rubbish was only collected every other day.
7. The resident reported that the cooker was left in an unsatisfactory condition and subsequently chose to purchase a replacement. The contractor explained that temporary cooking facilities had been offered and that it had also offered to clean the existing appliance, which the resident declined. While the contractor’s actions in offering cleaning and temporary cooking provision were appropriate, the situation arose because adequate protection was not used in the first place.
8. The TV aerial also required reconnection following the works, and plaster splashes caused by the contractor’s activities affected the resident’s vehicle, for which the contractor later offered a contribution towards valeting. Although the landlord stated that the TV aerial had been reconnected, the resident disputed that it was working correctly and requested that a specialist contractor attend. The landlord attempted to resolve the fault but was unable to do so, indicating that a specialist may have been required. Given the technical nature of aerial systems and the resident’s ongoing concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange for someone suitably qualified/experienced to ensure the aerial was properly reinstated.
9. In recognition of the disruption caused, the landlord offered £250 compensation at stage 2. The evidence also shows that the contractor separately offered the resident £150 in compensation and £50 towards a car valet on 11 March 2026. Taken together, these offers represented a reasonable and proportionate attempt to put matters right, having regard to the period over which the issues occurred. The landlord demonstrated an acknowledgement of service failings in how the works were carried out and managed, and its actions were consistent with our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord provided its complaint responses within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. The responses were sympathetic in tone, and the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s concerns had not been fully addressed during the complaints process. To recognise this, on 16 January 2026 the landlord offered £100 as a goodwill gesture. While this was a delayed offer, it was issued within 5 working days of the stage 2 response and appropriately acknowledged the shortcomings in its handling of the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.