Swindon Borough Council (202008806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008806

Swindon Borough Council

9 June 2021

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 reports about damage to her sofa.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord began as a weekly tenancy on 3 July 2006.
3. At the beginning of April 2020, the resident was moving from one property to another. The Ombudsman does not know the reason for the move, but the resident was apparently experiencing problems in her old flat and she says that the move was done in a rush.
4. The resident arranged the removal of her belongings to the new property herself. However, she had a leather corner sofa and, although she was able to get the smaller section out, the main part was too large to remove. This was because the flat had had a new front door and door frame installed since the resident had originally moved in which had apparently reduced the size of the doorway. The main part of the sofa therefore remained in the flat.
5. The resident says she told the landlord about the situation with the sofa at that time and explained that the door and frame would need to be removed to get the sofa out. She says she was told: ‘ok, leave it with me’. The next thing she knew was that the sofa was delivered to the outside of her new property on 6 April 2020.  The resident said that she would probably have to take a window out to get the sofa inside. However, when she later inspected the sofa, she found that it had been damaged – the feet were missing, there were scratches and scrapes, a big rip underneath, what looked like oil and mud, and tears. She contacted the landlord on 7 April 2020 to report this and provided some photos of the damage.
6. On 14 April 2020 the landlord responded to say that it was sorry that some marks were caused to the sofa.  However, having spoken to the neighbourhood warden supervisor, the sofa had been seen to have several existing marks and stains. It was inevitable that further marks would happen due to the narrow doorway and using a work van but it denied that there were any new ‘marks of consequence’. It also said that, with hindsight, its team should not have carried out the undertaking as they were not furniture removers but were simply reacting to a request for help to facilitate a move and took the utmost care. It was a good deed and they were under no obligation to assist. Due to Covid 19 all removal companies were closed and the team went beyond the call of duty and risked their own health to try and help.
7. The resident responded the same day to say that the sofa had previously had some marks that were consistent with normal wear and tear (later explaining that the marks were on one seat). She suggested that the landlord look at the photos she sent, or better still, come and look at the damage that had been caused.
8. On 21 April 2020 the resident told the landlord that she suffered from bad legs and was finding it uncomfortable only having the small part of the sofa to sit on.
9. Following further correspondence, the landlord asked the resident what she was seeking to resolve the matter. On 4 May 2020 she clarified that she wanted £1,200 as that had been the purchase price of the sofa.
10. On 27 May 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had instructed its insurance department to investigate the resident’s claim for compensation.
11. Based on the available evidence, having heard nothing substantive from the landlord, the resident made a formal complaint on 21 July 2020.
12. On 9 August 2020 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord thanked the resident for her patience, saying it had explained to her from the outset that staff were working from home with limited access to systems and/or had been redeployed to work in other departments during the pandemic, which was affecting its response times. It said that, for all the reasons mentioned in previous emails, it refuted that the damage sustained to the sofa was the result of the neighbourhood wardens who had moved it. It said that it assumed that the sofa did not fit through the front door of the resident’s new house and therefore she was seeking compensation for a sofa she could not use. The response enclosed an insurance claim form that the resident could complete if she wanted to take matters further. It said that, before any compensation could be paid, it would be necessary for the resident to demonstrate that there had been some negligence on the landlord’s part. It would be for the insurance department to consider the information in conjunction with any supporting evidence.
13. On 11 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to correct what she felt was a misunderstanding. She said that the reason the sofa remained outside her property was because of the damage it had suffered in the move and not because she could not get it into the house, which she could easily do by removing a window.
14. On 7 September 2020 the resident told the landlord that she had sent in the claim form. She requested that the sofa be removed as it had been there long enough for someone to come and inspect the damage and the missing feet. The landlord replied that the insurance team had sufficient photos of the sofa. The sofa was then removed from outside the property on 9 September 2020.
15. On 8 October 2020, the insurance department wrote to the resident, saying that it had completed its enquiries. It said that, despite initial attempts to remove the sofa herself, the resident was unable to do so and therefore in an effort to try and resolve the situation it arranged for its neighbourhood wardens to do it.  On arrival the wardens noted that there were already scuffs and marks on the sofa, they say they took care when removing the sofa and strongly deny causing any further damage. It said that, as the sofa would not fit in the new property, it was left outside in the elements for further damage to occur. It said that the wardens had acted in good faith in an effort to help and it was not considered that the resident had established negligence on the part of the landlord and it was therefore not putting forward any offer of compensation.
16. On 10 October 2020 the insurance department then responded to an appeal from the resident.  It said that damage to the sofa had been noted in respect of marks and stains prior to removal by the wardens which was presumably a combination of general wear and tear together with earlier efforts to move the sofa. It said that all of the sofa feet that were at the old property were handed to the resident’s partner. The insurance department therefore maintained its earlier position.
17. On 30 October 2020 the landlord emailed the insurance department to say that there had been no discussion with the resident about it removing the door and door frame at the resident’s previous property to get the sofa out. The landlord also re-affirmed its position that the resident had left the sofa outside of her new property because it would not fit in, either through the door or via a window.
18. On 19 November 2020 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord responded on 27 November 2020, it confirmed that its insurance team had rejected the insurance claim and reiterated the findings from its stage one response, namely that it had carried out the removal of the sofa in a ‘satisfactory’ manner and that no damage had been caused. It said that it had not charged the resident for the removal and that its team had risked its own health and safety to help during a period when no removals forms were operating.

Assessment and findings

19. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of damage to her sofa and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances. This Service’s remit does not extend to consideration of the decision by the insurance department as the Ombudsman does not have the required authority or expertise to make decisions about liability.
20. The resident’s position is that she told the landlord that the door and door frame would have to be taken off in order to remove the sofa. She said that the landlord could have contacted her and asked her what she wanted to do in the event that the operatives were having difficulty as she could then have arranged to move it herself, having the door and frame removed as part of that process. Then, if the sofa had still been damaged, that would have been down to her. The resident also said that she had left the sofa outside her new house because of its condition, though had she wanted to do so, she could easily have got it inside by removing a window.
21. The landlord’s position is that no conversation took place about removing the door and door frame in advance of the sofa removal. It said that its team acted in good faith to complete the resident’s house move which had to take place in a hurry, and had gone out of its way to help during a pandemic; it also disputed that it was responsible for any significant new marks on the sofa. Furthermore, the resident had left the sofa outside the new property because she was unable to get it into the house and was seeking compensation to buy a new sofa that would fit in.
22. In cases where there is a disagreement about what was agreed, or what happened in a particular circumstance, the Ombudsman is not able to make a ‘balance of probability’ finding which measures the credibility of one position against the other. Instead, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to consider a resident’s point of dissatisfaction, investigate and make a suitable offer of redress if appropriate. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed to remove the door and door frame at the old flat to facilitate removal of the sofa. The landlord looked into this issue and did not identify that this had been agreed, instead stating that it had agreed to move the sofa as a gesture of goodwill as it understood that the resident was unable to secure a removal service.
23. The photos provided by the resident show some damage to the sofa. However, the landlord says that the neighbourhood wardens reported some existing marks and stains. Also, the resident’s partner had told the team that he had tried to move the sofa himself but was unable to because of the narrow doorway. Therefore, it is possible that some damage was caused during an earlier attempt to remove the sofa.
24. Although the landlord has stated from its stage 1 response onwards that it refutes being responsible for any damage to the sofa, this differs from the comments in an email it sent to the resident on 14 April 2020 in which it apologised that some marks were caused and that, although the neighbourhood wardens tried to be as careful as possible, the removal was extremely tight due to the new door and frame having been fitted. It said that, admittedly, further marks were inevitabledue to the narrow doorway and using a work van. Although it denied that the further marks were of consequence, it said that, with hindsight, the team should not have carried out the undertaking.
25. Overall, based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was responsible for adding some further damage to the sofa as it acknowledged as much in its correspondence with the resident. There is no evidence however, to conclude that the additional damage was significant or that it meant that the sofa was now unusable. It is of concern however, that the landlord’s formal complaint responses did not recognise its earlier position and instead refuted that any damage had been caused. Had it done so, the landlord could have offered a sincere apology for its part in the damage caused to the sofa.
26. There is no doubt that the landlord was trying to be helpful and offer assistance to the resident over and above its obligations. However, having agreed to help, there would have been a reasonable expectation on the part of the resident that the task would be performed competently or that the landlord would re-consider its offer if the task proved to be beyond the abilities and experience of its staff. Having acknowledged that additional damage was caused to the sofa (albeit not a significant amount of damage) in the process of moving, the landlord has effectively accepted an element of service failure in its provision of the service it agreed. 
27. The resident is seeking compensation equivalent to the value of a new sofa. However, this issue has already been considered by the landlord’s insurance team and therefore sits outside of the remit of the Ombudsman. This investigation is limited to identifying suitable redress for any service failure identified which, in this case, amounts to the limited damage to the sofa that resulted from the landlord’s actions during the move. The landlord apologised for this in its correspondence from 14 April, it also acknowledged that it should not have agreed to provide the service in the first place. The landlord’s apology is not considered a reasonable remedy for the service failure identified as it was not offered as part of the complaints process. In the circumstances, a further sincere apology is ordered, together with a small amount of compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
28. It is noted that the landlord stated that, in hindsight, it should not have provided the service it offered. Whilst this position was understandable, the Ombudsman would always seek to encourage landlord’s who look to exercise reasonable discretion to help its residents. In the circumstances, rather than look to refuse any such requests in future, it would be helpful if the landlord ensured that it has a process in place that provides reassurance to all parties about what is expected and what will happen in the event of a dispute. As with all aspects of a landlord’s service delivery, maintaining accurate and contemporaneous records would be crucial to such a process.
29. The resident has also mentioned that she should receive compensation for the way that the landlord handled this matter, particularly the lack of communication and delays in responding to her. This incident happened in April 2020, right at the beginning of the first Covid lockdown. In its very first reply to her, the landlord apologised and explained that the current situation was impacting its ability to respond to customer enquiries. There is evidence that the resident continued to make contact on a regular basis, despite the landlord having explained that its service delivery was restricted, thereby increasing the pressure on its team. Her view was that other people had been working from home and had not let it (the pandemic) slow them down. Given the unprecedented events, the landlord would have had to prioritise its commitments.  There were delays, for example, the relevant insurance officer had been seconded to another post and did not immediately respond to the landlord. However, overall, looking at the contact between the parties and the time it took for the landlord to respond, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and makes no award for this aspect of the complaint.
30. The resident has also suggested that she would like compensation because of having only the small section of sofa to sit on, which was uncomfortable because she has leg problems. However, the resident has said that it would have been easy to remove a window to get the main part of the sofa into her new house. Therefore, she could have done this to alleviate her discomfort. It is appreciated that the resident was unhappy about the state of the sofa, but there was no reason why she could not have made use of it whilst trying to settle the dispute. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes no award for this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage caused to her sofa during its removal.

Reasons

32. The landlord accepted that some minor marking had resulted from the removal of the sofa during its initial response to the resident, however, its subsequent complaint responses did not recognise this damage, instead refuting that any damage was caused at all. There is no evidence that the landlord caused significant damage to the sofa and, as such, a sincere apology and a small amount of compensation is considered to be a suitable remedy for any failures on the landlord’s part.

Orders and recommendations

33. The landlord is ordered to offer the resident a sincere apology for any damage caused to the sofa in its removal from the property.
34. The landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the damage it caused to the resident’s sofa.
35. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders by 7 July 2021.