London Borough of Camden Council (202443612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443612

London Borough of Camden Council

1 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a contractor damaged her belongings and her request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since May 1990. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a garden. The resident lives with her adult son in the property.
3. The landlord said it is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities. The landlord records that the resident has depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions along with physical issues. The resident was supported in the pursuit of her complaint by her son, who is also her carer.
4. In March 2024, there was a fire at the resident’s home, which resulted in extensive fire damage. The resident and her son were moved into temporary accommodation while the landlord completed significant works to the property.
5. On 17 October 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to her landlord. The resident said:

a.     The contractors damaged a new oven worth £1,000, which was left in the property wrapped and securely packaged. She said the contractors opened and measured it for the new kitchen and did not protect it once opened. It was used as a worktop to place belongings on, and this damaged the top and dented the front.

b.     A new velvet bed, worth over £1,000, had paint splashed on it and required re–upholstering.

c.      Her late mother’s mid-century teak table had been left with ring marks from drinks. Previously, it was in pristine condition and kept covered with a tablecloth.

d.     The damage caused to her belongings had left her in debt and impacted her mental health. She said the matter had made her depressed, and she was shocked at the level of the damage.

e.     The items had both monetary and sentimental value, and the carelessness displayed by the contractors had left her heartbroken and stressed.

f.        She had provided evidence regarding the damage and wanted the landlord or the contractors to take responsibility for the damage they caused.

6. On 17 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it did not uphold the complaint, and its investigation had found that:

a.     The contractor was handling the repair works on behalf of the building insurer.

b.     Any claim for damages caused to personal belongings would need to be assessed via the resident’s own insurance, and that the contractor had also provided this advice.

c.      It recognised that the resident had struggled to communicate with the contractor, therefore, it asked the contractor to contact her directly.

d.     It was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace the resident’s damaged belongings.

e.     It apologised for any inconvenience and acknowledged that this may not be the response the resident would like.

7. On 1 November 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said this was because:

a.     The contractor had denied responsibility and told her to contact her own insurance company. She said she did not have insurance, as she could not afford it, and felt that this was unfair because the contractors had caused the damage. They should be held accountable for the repairs or replacement.

b.     She felt the investigation was not conducted fairly, as she had not been spoken to or asked for her evidence.

c.      The contractor had failed to protect her belongings with protective sheets, and that this was upsetting because she had already lost so much in the fire.

8. On 29 November 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This referred to the same findings in its stage 1 response. The landlord:

a.     Acknowledged the distress and damage to the resident’s belongings would cause following the loss of other items in the fire.

b.     Confirmed that damage to belongings should be handled via an insurance claim. This is because negligence and liability is required to be assessed by a loss adjuster through an insurance claim investigation process. The previous advice provided, which was to make an insurance claim, was correct.

c.      Acknowledged that the resident did not have insurance. As a result of this, it provided a link to its website, where it detailed the information regarding claiming against its public liability insurance. A claim form was also provided.

d.     Apologised that the liability insurance details were not provided sooner.

e.     Acknowledged that the resident’s mental health had suffered as a result of the complaint and referred her to its adult social care services to establish contact and offer support, aid, and advice.

9. On 10 January 2025 the resident wrote to her MP regarding her concerns. The letter confirmed the resident’s position as outlined within her stage 1 and 2 complaint. She said the impact on her mental health regarding this had been severe.
10. On 17 January 2025, the landlord responded to the MP. The response confirmed the landlord’s position as outlined within its stage 1 and 2 responses. It said following concerns raised through an MP enquiry, it had re-examined the complaint and spoken to its contractor. The contractor confirmed it had spoken to the resident and had provided their position that they were not responsible for the damaged belongings. The contractor offered £100 as a goodwill gesture, which it said was declined by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. In her complaint, the resident stated that the landlord and the contractor were responsible for damage caused to her belongings. In its responses, the landlord said it was not responsible for causing the damage because the contractor was appointed by its building insurers. Its position was that it was therefore not its responsibility to replace the resident’s damaged belongings. The landlord’s response suggests that the contractor had a contractual relationship with the building insurers, who are independent of the landlord, and there is no direct relationship between the landlord and the contractor.
12. While we acknowledge the upset that may be caused by damaged items, it is not our role to determine if the damage was due to any failing by the landlord, its building insurer, or that of the building insurer’s contractor. Or if the landlord, building insurer, or contractor is liable to pay the resident’s compensation claim, as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers. In the absence of any acceptance of liability from the respective insurers, this would be a matter for the courts to decide, and the resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice regarding this.
13. Additionally, throughout the investigation, the resident has informed the landlord that the distress and upset regarding the damage to her items have severely affected her mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her vulnerabilities and subsequent impact on health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue these concerns.
14. What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint and whether its actions and communication was timely, clear, and accurate.

Damaged belongings and request for compensation

15. The landlord’s tenancy conditions guide states that residentsshould have home contents insurance because the landlord’s building insurance does not cover residents’ possessions. Home contents insurance may protect residents from suffering financial loss because of a sudden and unexpected incident. The landlord offers a scheme that allows weekly payments to be made to support its residents with regards to affordability.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it is flexible enough to allow for complaints regarding contractors to be taken through stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process before a referral to a contractor is made. It may ask them to put things right and respond to the complaint directly at stage 1.
17. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident, and she has spent time and trouble reporting the damage to both the landlord and the contractor in an attempt to seek a resolution. The resident provided us with a statement and photographic evidence of damage to her belongings. Within the statement, she said:

a.     The contractors put some belongings into storage, which included the table. The velvet bed and oven were left within the property.

b.     Her son moved the bed from the area being worked upon but later noticed 3 areas where paint or plaster had been dripped upon the bed. He sent a message to the contractor and asked if it was paint or plaster and how it should be cleaned. Evidence provided shows that the contractor responded and said to use sponge and water.

c.      The contractor met the resident’s son at the property and agreed to take the bed to be cleaned. When it was returned, although still marked, it had faded.

d.     The day she returned home from temporary accommodation, she noticed the damaged table. The landlord’s Works Supervisor visited and took pictures of the bed and table. They said a furniture restorer could mend the table. She assumed that an investigation would be undertaken.

e.     The damage to the oven was found when she removed the remainder of the packaging and various items left on top of it by the contractor. The resident provided a photo, which showed worktops stacked against the side of the oven, work tools stacked up against the front, and decorating supplies located on the top.

f.        She said she emailed the contractor with photos of the damage to all items and quotes for the repairs or replacement, yet they did not respond. The contractor only responded to her following an MP complaint and confirmed that it continued to deny responsibility; however, it offered a £100 goodwill gesture.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that when a complaint is raised, it will undertake an investigation. The resident said that the landlord did not complete an effective investigation because it did not ask for her version of events or her evidence. The resident’s frustrations, distress, and upset were acknowledged by the landlord in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, which was appropriate.
19. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord did not make enquiries into how the damage occurred, it did not dispute the resident’s reports of events or photo evidence. Instead, it took a stance not to investigate but to provide information and guidance to the resident. Given that it did not dispute the resident’s reports, it was reasonable and proportionate not to investigate further.
20. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had struggled to communicate with the contractor. Therefore, it asked the contractor to contact the resident directly. It was reasonable of the landlord to support the resident in seeking a resolution where it could and within reason.
21. Despite the information within the landlord’s stage 1 response being correct, the landlord could have explained the relationship between the contractor and the building insurer more clearly and explained in more detail why it could not support the resident further. This would have helped the resident to understand the process better and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
22. Additionally, the landlord said that a determination regarding liability is a matter for an insurance team. This was because negligence and liability are required to be assessed through an insurance claim investigation process. The landlord was unable to determine liability, as that is the role of the insurers. The information provided by the landlord was correct in the circumstances.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response said any claim for damages caused to personal belongings would need to be assessed via the resident’s own insurance and that the contractor had also provided this advice. It is noted that the resident does not have contents insurance, and she was frustrated that the landlord assumed this. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this advice in the first instance in accordance with its tenancy guide, which recommends that residents should hold contents insurance.
24. In the absence of the resident’s own policy, it may be possible in some circumstances to make a claim through the landlord’s liability insurer. As part of her escalation request, the resident noted she did not have her own policy, which led the landlord to provide the relevant details and claim form in its stage 2 response. While it would have been proactive for the landlord to have presented all options in its stage 1 response, it was appropriate that it provided them within its stage 2 response and apologised for not having provided them sooner.
25. The resident said that the landlord had a clause within its public liability insurance that meant she could not make a claim. The landlord’s public liability insurer states that it will not consider claims that are a result of the negligence of contractors and if the landlord’s contractors have caused the damage, the claimant must notify the contractor in writing. The landlord’s liability insurers are, similar to the building insurers, a 3rd party company. It is up to the insurer to determine what it will or will not cover, and the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the insurer’s position is correct. As noted above, where a claim is not accepted, the resident has the option to consider further legal action. While this is disappointing and frustrating for the resident, it was right of the landlord to provide the insurer’s information to the resident in the eventuality that a claim could be made.
26. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord recognised and acknowledged that the resident’s mental health had suffered as a result of the complaint and referred her to its adult social care services to establish contact and offer support, aid, and advice. It was right of the landlord to complete a safeguarding referral and to offer further support to its resident.
27. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable and proportionate. This is because the landlord responded fairly and appropriately by providing the correct advice and guidance to the resident in a timely manner.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a contractor damaged her belongings and her request for compensation.