Lambeth Council (202217219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217219

Lambeth Council

1 September 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 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 request for compensation for damage to her carpets.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. Its contractor fitted a new boiler to her property shortly before September 2022. The resident subsequently reported that workers had damaged her carpets. This was disputed by the contractor who asserted that it had used dustsheets during the work. The contractor found no evidence of damage but offered professional carpet cleaning as a goodwill gesture, which the resident declined.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 September 2022. She said that she experienced a leak due to the landlord not correctly reattaching pipework in the loft during the boiler installation. She said she had been informed of this by an emergency plumber who had attended. The resident highlighted that further damage to her carpets had been caused by workers shoes.
4. The landlord issued its complaint response on 1 November 2022. It explained that at least 4 of the contractor’s staff, including a senior supervisor, had visited her property to inspect the carpets and photographs had shown no evidence of damage. It asserted that the contractor was “incredibly vigilant” and took measures to prevent any mess in a resident’s property. The landlord also relayed that its contractor did not consider it had caused the reported leak and it did not uphold the complaint.
5. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 3 November 2022. She maintained that the landlord’s contractor had caused the leak, and disputed that protective coverings had been used during work. The landlord provided its final response on 16 December 2022. It maintained that dustsheets were used during work at her property. It did not uphold the complaint and noted that the resident had declined the contractor’s offer of carpet cleaning.
6. The resident informed the Ombudsman, on 20 December 2022, that she remained dissatisfied as she wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the damage to her carpets. She wanted it to replace her carpets or reimburse her for their replacement.

Assessment and findings

7. Photographic evidence has been provided for consideration in this investigation. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence, as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images. Because of that, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. This investigation focuses on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns based on the documentary evidence available.
8. The landlord’s tenants handbook confirms that floor coverings are the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, it would fall to a resident to pay for, or claim through their insurance, the costs of rectifying any damage to these. However, if any damage were sustained to a resident’s possessions through the landlord’s actions, or failure to act, it would be appropriate for it to rectify this, either through repairs, compensation, or facilitating a claim on its liability insurance. When a landlord receives a report that it, or its contractor, caused damage to a resident’s possessions, it would expected to make reasonable efforts to satisfy itself of whether or not this was the case. It would then be expected to respond appropriately based on the outcome of its findings.
9. There were two reports of damage to the resident’s carpets made in her complaint to the landlord. In both her original complaint and her escalation request, she reported that there was damage caused to her carpets from both a leak from her ceiling, which she reported was caused by the landlord’s work to a water tank above, and damage caused to her carpets by workers’ shoes.
10. The landlord liaised with its contractor during its investigation of the complaint at both stages, and confirmed that photographs had been taken of the carpet. It confirmed that the property had been inspected, and that workers had used appropriate protective measures when working in the property. This was a reasonable approach to investigate this report from the resident.
11. While the resident disputed that the workers had used protective coverings while working in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its contractor and the photographic evidence obtained to investigate the resident’s concerns. Based on that information and evidence it explained that it could not see indications of damage to the carpets, regardless of whether protective wear had been used. Apart from the resident’s different view, nothing in the information provided for this investigation appears to undermine the landlord’s conclusion.
12. It is noted that the resident expressed concern that the landlord had sent its workers to take photographs, rather than inspect in person. It should be borne in mind that attendance to take photographs for an inspection still constitutes a physical inspection. The landlord’s attendance to photograph the carpets was also an opportunity for the worker to observe any immediate issues and feed this back to a surveyor or supervisor. There was no evidence to suggest that if each attendance had been by the landlord’s supervisor or surveyor, that this would have altered the findings of the inspection.
13. As there was no apparent evidence of damage to the carpet, the landlord’s decision not to provide compensation was reasonable. Nonetheless, the landlord’s offer of professional carpet cleaning demonstrated that, in excess of its obligations, it sought to provide a reasonable resolution to the resident’s concerns. Overall, there was no evidence of the landlord acting unreasonably in the response to the resident’s complaint.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her carpets.