The Riverside Group Limited (202216106)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216106

The Riverside Group Limited

26 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 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 level of compensation the landlord has offered for damage caused by its contractor to the wallpaper and a set of drawers in the resident’s bedroom.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 4 July 2022, the resident reported that repairs were needed to the bedroom ceiling in her property. A contractor inspected the property on 11 July 2022 and discovered that the ceiling was cracked and needed to be repaired. On 3 August 2022, a contractor attended the property and completed the plastering works needed to the ceiling. However, before the appointment had finished the plastering bubbled and fell away from the ceiling. The works were rebooked and were completed on 5 August 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2022 to inform it that during the works on 3 August 2022, the wallpaper in her bedroom had been damaged when plaster fell from the ceiling and she was seeking £110 compensation to replace the wallpaper. The landlord raised this as a formal stage one complaint. On 8 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as during the remedial works on 5 August 2022, the operatives moved her chest of drawers and had cracked the bottom drawer. She stated that the drawers cost £500 and she was therefore seeking a total of £610 compensation which the landlord added to the resident’s complaint.
  4. On 9 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had also noticed damage to the top of her wardrobe, and stated that dust from the plaster had gone on to her clothes. This was not included in the resident’s formal complaint but the landlord stated it would be raised with a manager. The landlord then refitted the resident’s light to the ceiling of her bedroom on 17 August 2022.
  5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 24 August 2022, it apologised for the damage caused to the resident’s drawers and wallpaper during the repairs in her property. It offered the resident £300 compensation in view of the damage which was made up of:
    1. £100 for the damage to the wallpaper and,
    2. £200 for the damage to the chest of drawers.
  6. It stated it was unable to provide further compensation as there was no evidence or receipts to provide proof of the cost of the chest of drawers and in consideration of the fact that they had been purchased five years ago.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 24 October 2022. The resident stated that she had been unable to sleep in the room since August 2022, and the inconvenience of this had not been considered. She was dissatisfied with the compensation offered as she stated that the total cost of her wardrobe, wallpaper and chest of drawers was £1200, which she was seeking a full reimbursement for.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident informed this Service on 24 October 2022 that she was seeking for repairs to be completed in the bedroom as she had been unable to stay in her bedroom since August. However, from the evidence provided to this Service, the plastering works were completed on 5 August 2022, and the light in the bedroom was reattached on 17 August 2022. Therefore, as this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with this Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
  2. In addition, the resident had informed the landlord on 9 August 2022 that she had discovered that her wardrobe had also been broken, and dust from the plaster had gone on to her clothes. The resident informed this Service that the total cost of the items including her wardrobe was £1200. As this was raised prior to the stage one response being issued, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the additional concern as part of the resident’s complaint. However, as the resident did not pursue this aspect in her complaint escalation, and the landlord has therefore not addressed it, it has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Whilst this issue is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect, it is recommended that the landlord raises this as a separate complaint if it has not already done so.

The level of compensation offered for damage to the wallpaper and a set of drawers in the resident’s bedroom.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that claims for damages should only be reported to its liability insurer if the property damage claim is over £2000. It also states that the landlord should follow the ‘Third Party Property Damage (TPPD) framework’ when dealing with a smaller third-party property damage claim itself. The TPPD framework states that the landlord should request receipts as evidence of any claim. In the TPPD guide for tenants, it states that the amount the landlord pays the resident would be reduced to allow for fair wear and tear, as residents cannot be compensated on a new for old basis, and the landlord would therefore need to know the age of the damaged items. It states that the only way to obtain a new for old replacement is for the resident to pursue the claim through their own home contents insurance policy. It also states that the residents would need to provide an original receipt as proof of age and ownership of any items claimed for.
  2. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the matter with its management and the contractors who had attended once the resident had reported that the damage had occurred. This was a reasonable attempt for the landlord to investigate the resident’s claim. Following its internal investigation, which took place between 10 August 2022 and 15 August 2022, it appears that the landlord had accepted that its contractor had caused the damage as it offered the resident compensation in view of the damages. Therefore, this investigation will focus on whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation was in line with its policies, and appropriate when considering all the factors of this case. In doing so, this Service will assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. In this case, the landlord put things right by completing the repairs to the bedroom ceiling on 5 August 2022, after the remedial works on 3 August 2022 had been unsuccessful. As it did not dispute that the damage was caused by its contractors, the landlord also attempted to put things right by offering compensation of £300 to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s TPPD guide for tenants’ states that if a contractor damages a resident’s belongings whilst completing remedial works in the property, the resident should inform it at the time so that it has a fair opportunity to put things right. Following the remedial works being completed on 3 August 2022, the resident informed the landlord on 5 August 2022 about the damaged wallpaper. In addition, following the works carried out on 5 August 2022. The resident informed the landlord of the cracked chest of drawers three days later on 8 August 2022. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by accepting the resident’s claim, and in considering how it could compensate her for the damage once it had investigated the claim.
  5. As the resident had stated that the total cost of the wallpaper and chest of drawers was £610, the landlord opted not to process the claim through its own liability insurers. This was in line with its compensation policy, as the claim was not over £2000.
  6. . As the resident had stated that the chest of drawers were five years old, and originally cost £500, it was reasonable for the landlord not to compensate the full amount, in line with its policy not to provide compensation on a new for old basis. Furthermore, the resident was not able to provide any proof of purchase, or evidence of the original cost. Whilst it is understandable that residents may not have receipts for such items, the landlord would not be obliged to reimburse a resident for the full amount of a product without any evidence of its cost. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to offer the lower amount of £300, which was in line with its policies.
  7. The resident has complained that the figure of £300 does not include compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the damage to her possessions. Taking into account the likely distress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman consider this is a reasonable offer because as explained above, the landlord is not obliged to pay the full cost of a new chest of drawers, in line with its policy.
  8. It may have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with a calculation on how it decided on the specific amount of compensation, such as whether compensation had been removed due to the likelihood of wear and tear over the five-year period. However, the landlord was not strictly required to do this as the resident had not provided evidence of the cost of the chest of draws. In view of this, the Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord considers adding a calculation matrix to its compensation policy for any future damage claims dealt with internally, to make such decisions more transparent.
  9. The landlord communicated clearly with the resident about the compensation at each stage in the complaint process, ensuring the resident’s expectations were appropriately managed.
  10. The landlord’s ‘Financial Redress and Compensation’ procedure provides examples of letters which should be sent to residents in specific circumstances in relation to a claim being made for damages that is being dealt with internally. Within the contents of the letters, it provides useful information to residents about the other options which are available in relation to claiming for damages such as claiming on their own home contents insurance. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is not wholly clear whether the landlord provided any of these letters to the resident, but it would have been appropriate for it to do so as part of the claim.
  11. In addition, it would have ensured that the resident was aware of the other options available to her such as pursuing a contents insurance claim. It is unlikely that this information would have affected the overall outcome as the resident was still able to make a claim to the landlord, however it would have been beneficial for the resident to be aware of her options.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord’s procedure includes an example of a letter which is to be used if the landlord has made an offer which the resident was dissatisfied with, but the landlord is not prepared to increase the offer. Within the letter, it explains to the resident that it recommends the resident to take legal advice following the offer being refused in order to determine any next steps which are available. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord dealt with the claim internally and communicated any offers with the resident through its complaint responses and via phone call, the letter would have been useful in providing the resident with guidance on the next steps available to her. As above, although this was also unlikely to change the outcome of the complaint, the landlord should ensure it is following its framework for compensation claims when dealing with a claim internally in the future.

Determination

  1. 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 regarding the level of compensation the landlord has offered for damage caused by its contractor to the wallpaper and a set of drawers in the resident’s bedroom satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord upholds its offer of £300 if the resident wishes to accept it, rather than pursuing her claim through an alternative route.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers adding a calculation matrix to its compensation policy for claims for damages which are being dealt with internally. This should indicate how reductions are made based on fair wear and tear or the age of the item to clearly show how compensation has been calculated for compliance purposes. 
  3. The landlord is recommended to respond to the resident’s reports of her wardrobe being damaged during the works, if it has not already done so.