Jigsaw Homes Tameside (202212415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212415

Jigsaw Homes Tameside

4 January 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 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 reports regarding damage to his garden furniture.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat with access to a communal garden. The resident owns garden furniture which is kept in the communal garden.
3. The resident first reported damage to his garden furniture on 5 May 2022. He believed that the landlord’s gardeners had thrown his furniture set into a bush when they had moved it to mow the grass of the communal garden in April 2022. He later reported that the gardeners had also left items on top of the furniture which had also caused damage. The resident described how his sun loungers had been ripped and a chair arm had been broken. He provided the landlord with photos of this damage.
4. Following the resident’s report on 5 May 2022, the landlord did not offer a response to the resident despite telling him the report had been escalated within its team. This caused the resident to chase the landlord for a response on 25 May and 21 June 2022, which prompted the landlord to chase the response internally, and the resident was told someone would contact him. The resident had to further chase the landlord on 30 June 2022 as he had not received an update.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 August 2022 and repeated it on 15 August 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his report, and felt as though he was being ignored by the landlord. He advised he intended to contact the police to report criminal damage to his furniture. He sought replacement furniture or financial compensation to cover the cost of replacement furniture.
6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord stated it had investigated the resident’s reports by interviewing the team members involved, and reviewing the photos provided to it. It acknowledged that the furniture was damaged, but without independent evidence it was unable to assess with certainty when or how this damage occurred and it was unable to agree to the request for compensation. The case did not meet its public liability insurance criteria; however, the landlord signposted the resident to check his own household contents insurance to see if he was able to claim on this. It acknowledged that the resident had difficulty in raising a complaint and receiving a response, and offered an apology to the resident for his time and trouble, as well as £100 compensation.
7. The resident escalated his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation. He stated that the £100 compensation by the landlord was an admission of liability. In its final response, the landlord maintained its previous decision that there was insufficient evidence to assess with certainty whether its contractors caused the damage, and declined to provide replacement furniture. It further explained that the £100 compensation previously offered was not an acceptance of liability for the damaged garden furniture, but an apology for the issues he experienced in raising a complaint.
8. The resident subsequently complained to this service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not provide replacement furniture. He is seeking replacement furniture and compensation for the stress and anxiety he has suffered as a result of the events.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. This service cannot determine the landlord’s liability for damages to the resident’s garden furniture or award him damages for this because we don’t have the authority to do so under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Our investigation will therefore instead be limited to considering whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the damages in line with its policies, procedures and other obligations.
10. It is of concern that the resident has reported his ill-health as a result of the damage to his garden furniture, and of the landlord’s handling of the report. While we do not doubt his comments about the effect of the case on his health, this service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
11. The resident has referred this matter to the police concerning criminal damage. Criminal damage is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and subsequently this investigation will not comment on criminal damage.

Damage to garden furniture

12. When receiving a report of damage caused by the landlord’s staff, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to complete a reasonable investigation, including gathering information and evidence from the parties, within a reasonable timeframe.
13. Following the resident’s report, there was a considerable delay before the landlord commenced its investigation, which led to the resident having to expend time and trouble in chasing a response from the landlord on several occasions. The landlord also failed to follow up with him having raised his expectations that it would do so, causing him to chase further updates. This would have left the resident unclear about how is reports would be addressed and would have caused him distress.
14. Once the resident raised a formal complaint, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the reports by seeking further information from the resident, including when the damage occurred, a description of the damage, the price paid for the furniture, as well as its age, how long the furniture had been stored in the communal area, and reasons why the resident believed the damage was caused by the contractors.
15. Furthermore, in its stage one response the landlord appropriately outlined the evidence it had used to arrive at its decision, which included interviews with the gardeners and their manager and photos provided by the resident. It acknowledged that the evidence showed its contractors had handled the furniture, but that there was not enough independent evidence to assess with certainty how the damage occurred. It is reasonable that the landlord arrived at a conclusion which considered the evidence provided to it.
16. In addition to explaining its decision, the landlord appropriately measured the resident’s expectations regarding a claim on its public liability insurance. The landlord had explored this option and due to the lack of evidence proving the landlord’s liability there was a high likelihood this claim would have been unsuccessful. This prevented further inconvenience to the resident, had he sought to subsequently explore this route. It was also appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to his own contents insurance policy, as this showed the landlord had considered alternative routes for the resident to achieve a positive outcome on this case.
17. It was appropriate that following its stage one response, the landlord investigated further by interviewing a neighbour of the resident, who he reported had witnessed the events. This witness testimony confirmed that the gardeners had handled the furniture, but provided no further evidence on the cause of the damage, which the landlord clearly explained in its final response. Throughout the investigation process, the landlord acted reasonably by assessing all available evidence provided to it, determining whether the resident was able to claim on its insurance, signposting the resident to his own insurance, and clearly communicating the outcome of its investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports.
18. The Ombudsman notes that there is a difference between making a report and raising a formal complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy also outlines that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standards of service, actions of the landlord, and can be made by email, telephone, social media or in person. The resident first raised a report in May 2022; however, the landlord only accepted the reports as a complaint in August 2022 after the resident advised he would be “logging a formal complaint.” While this was the first mention of a formal complaint, it is evident that the resident expressed dissatisfaction over the handling of his reports to the landlord, which in accordance with its policies, it should have recognised this was a complaint and dealt with it as such. While it does not amount to service failure that it waited for the resident to formally complain, this delay demonstrates a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity.
19. As noted above, there was a considerable delay between the resident’s initial reports, and the landlord’s investigation. Following the resident’s repeated request for updates, the landlord should have managed his expectations, provided him with information on how long its investigation would take, and offered follow up communication to the resident, and kept him informed about its investigation. It is a failing in its communication that the landlord did not keep the resident informed on its investigation or respond appropriately to his emails.
20. The landlord’s stage one complaint response therefore appropriately acknowledged this failing and apologised for the difficulty that the resident experienced in raising his complaint and receiving a response from it. It also offered £100 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble expended by him in his attempt to raise a complaint and receive a response from the landlord. This was within the range of compensation recommended by its compensation and payment schemes for time and trouble as a result of its failings, as well as that recommended by this service’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.
21. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer of compensation, along with its apology, was proportionate to the impact on the resident, and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
22. While the landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident, it has not shown it has taken any steps to address the issue to prevent a similar situation from occurring again. A recommendation has therefore been made below that it review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and this service’s complaint handling in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Reiterate its offer of £100 compensation that it previously awarded to the resident, if he has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and this service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review its gardeners’ training needs regarding their handling of residents’ belongings in communal areas, to avoid future disputes over damaged belongings, such as that which occurred in this resident’s case.
25. The landlord shall contact this service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.