Swindon Borough Council (202213848)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213848

Swindon Borough Council

15 February 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 handling of the resident’s allegations that its operative damaged her fence.

Background

  1. According to the information in the landlord’s complaint responses, the resident raised a complaint alleging that one of its operatives had damaged her fence with a vehicle. She stated that she had recently installed a trellis to her fence and she wanted the landlord to reinstall it when putting up a new fence. Evidence of the resident’s complaint has not been provided.
  2. The landlord issued a stage one response on 1 September 2022. It explained the actions it had taken to investigate the complaint, which included interviews with both the resident and the operative and an assessment of the alleged damage. The landlord stated that the driver of the vehicle had denied hitting the resident’s fence, but had explained he hit a concrete bolder outside the resident’s property. The landlord sent a photograph of the concrete bolder and apologised for any inconvenience.
  3. Following the resident’s escalation request (a copy of which has also not been provided by the landlord), the landlord reinvestigated the issue. It explained that it had spoken with the officer driving the vehicle once again, who reiterated having hit a concrete bolder, not the resident’s fence. The landlord inspected pictures of the damage to the fence, as well as to the van. It concluded that there was no evidence of sustained damage to the resident’s fence, and explained its reasons to conclude that. It also explained how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  4. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to repair her fence and trellis. In November 2022, the landlord confirmed it had replaced the resident’s fence, although it explained that it had done so due to an administrative error.

Assessment and findings

  1. In complaints where there are no independent witnesses, or other corroborating evidence, a landlord would usually be expected to investigate the issue to the best of its ability, based on the information and evidence it has available. However, the nature and circumstances of this type of complaint mean that sometimes no firm findings can be made.
  2. In this case, the landlord spoke with the operative involved, with the resident, and inspected the site of the incident. These were appropriate and proportionate actions to take, in light of the specific nature of the issue.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. It is not apparent if any new evidence was presented. The landlord subsequently repeated its previous actions, but did not find any new information supporting the allegation. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that the landlord’s handling or decision were unreasonable or misguided, or that it overlooked any specific information available to it which could have affected its decision.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.