Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202121575)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121575

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

15 June 2022


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 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:
  1. The landlord’s decision to pay its compensation into the resident’s rent account for his reports of damage to his belongings that he attributed to its cleaners.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant residing in a flat on the second floor of a block of flats.
  2. On 29 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to lodge a stage one complaint with regard to water damage at his property to his belongings, in the form of a £75 gift card from his Internet Service Provider (ISP), and to a GP’s letter that he had paid for. In his complaint, he asserted that its cleaners had dropped water outside his flat that had spilled under his front door, soaking and damaging his gift card and GP’s letter. The resident also later felt dissatisfied as he believed that the landlord had subsequently suggested that he was “lying” about this.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 16 November 2021 to obtain updates on his complaint. On both occasions he was advised by it that it had contacted the relevant departments that would be in touch with him. On 18 November 2021, the landlord’s records showed that it did attempt to call the resident, however it recorded that the call was not answered and that he did not return its voicemail. On 22 November 2021, he contacted it again and advised that he had still not received a response from it to his complaint. The landlord responded to the resident on 23 November 2021 to point out that it had tried to contact him, but that its call had not been answered or returned.
  4. On 9 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord once more, and he requested that his complaint be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure, as he had still not received a response to his stage one complaint. It repeated its advice to him that the complaint would be passed on to the relevant department. The resident further contacted the landlord on the 12 December 2021 to get an update on this, which appeared from its records to have been mistakenly logged with the start date of the stage one complaint as 13 December 2021.
  5. On 15 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It apologised for the mistake that had led to the resident’s complaint not being lodged on the actual date that he had made this, and it told him that feedback would be given to the relevant members of its staff to remind them of the importance of logging calls correctly. The landlord also apologised for the delay in its complaint response and, in recognition of the delay, it offered £20 compensation, which was to be paid directly into the resident’s rent account, as this was in arrears.
  6. The landlord explained that its investigation of the resident’s complaint had found that there had been no water spillage outside his flat by its cleaners. They had instead advised that water had not been carried up to the second floor, on which his flat was located, and it stated that it had attempted to contact him a number of times about this unsuccessfully. The landlord also apologised for any misunderstandings that had led to the resident feeling that it had suggested that he was “lying”.
  7. The landlord also offered £12 compensation to cover the cost of a replacement GP’s letter for the resident’s letter that had been ruined by the water damage. With regard to the damaged £75 gift card, it stated that, since the card had not been used, it advised him to contact his ISP that should be able issue him with a replacement card as a result. Therefore, the landlord would not compensate the resident for the gift card.
  8. On 16 December 2021, the resident again asked for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the complaints procedure, as he was not happy with the landlord’s stage one response. He believed that the offer of £20 compensation for the delayed response was too low, and he also wanted compensation to cover the damaged £75 gift card. The resident disputed that the landlord had tried to call him on the date in question, and reiterated that it had breached its complaint response timescale.
  9. On 20 December 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It upheld its previous decisions for the reasons that it had given previously, but it increased its compensation offer to a further £75 in recognition of the number of times he had to chase it, to be credited to his rent account for his arrears, confirming that it had already paid the £32 that it had earlier awarded him. The landlord also advised the resident that it had contacted his ISP on his behalf to enquire whether they would replace an unused and damaged gift card. The ISP had confirmed that their gift card provider should be contacted to request this.
  10. Therefore, the landlord repeated that it would not be further compensating the resident for the damaged gift card, as this was replaceable. It additionally advised him that, following his feedback, it would remind its staff to provide updates to customers in a timely manner and to record these on its system.
  11. The resident then approached this Service, as he was still unhappy with the decision of the landlord regarding its handling of his reports of damage to his belongings that he believed had been caused by its cleaners. This was also because he was unhappy with the amount of compensation that it had offered to credit to his rent account, which he reported that he was making regular payments towards and wanted to be paid to him directly, and the ISP had told him that they took no responsibility for the damage to his gift card and to seek the party involved in this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident attributes the damage to his belongings to the actions of the landlord’s cleaners, the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine whether or not the landlord was liable for this in the way that a court or insurer might. Therefore, the question of liability is outside of the scope of this investigation.

Policies and procedures

  1. Regarding stage one complaint responses, the landlord’s complaints, compliments and feedback procedure states that it will provide a response to the customer within five working days, informing them of the reason for any delay and when it will be able to provide a response. Regarding final stage complaint responses, it will aim to respond within ten working days, and will similarly inform the customer of the reason for any delay and its alternative response timescale.
  2. Under the landlord’s compensation and claims policy, it states that compensation may be offered in cases where there was damage to possessions even though no liability exists. It can award payments of up to £50 and £100 compensation for some impact on customers of failures that it is at least partially responsible for. Although any compensation awards will normally be offset against any outstanding rent arrears or other debts that a resident may have.

The landlord’s decision to pay its compensation into the resident’s rent account for his reports of damage to his belongings that he attributed to its cleaners

  1. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, some landlords will wish to offset any payment of compensation against a resident’s rent arrears, which will often be set out in their compensation policies. In some instances, the Ombudsman will say that the landlord is entitled to do this, for example, compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience that has been caused to the resident. However, there will be other occasions where it would not be appropriate for a landlord to offset a payment against arrears in this way, for example, where legally obliged to make a payment or if it would not be fair to as the landlord caused the arrears in the first place.
  2. In this case, although the landlord’s investigations with its cleaners had found no evidence to suggest that that they had caused the damage to the resident’s  belongings, it still decided to award him £12 compensation to cover the cost of his damaged GP’s letter. It also awarded £75 further compensation, which matched the value of his damaged gift card, in recognition of the number of times he had to chase it. This was permitted by the landlord’s compensation and claims policy, which enabled it to pay the resident up to £50 and £100, including for damage to his belongings even if it did not find that it was responsible for this and for at least some impact on him of failures that it was partially responsible for.
  3. Additionally, the landlord took the step of contacting the resident’s ISP on his behalf about replacing the gift card, for which the ISP signposted requests for this to their gift card provider. As it acknowledged that his belongings had been damaged, and that he had to repeatedly chase it to progress his reports attributing this to its cleaners with it, it was reasonable that it exercised the discretion available to it under its compensation and claims policy to award him compensation matching the value of his damaged belongings, to try and resolve his complaint.
  4. It was also appropriate for the landlord to pay the compensation that it had awarded into the resident’s rent account for his arrears, as its compensation and claims policy permitted it to offset this against any outstanding rent arrears that he might have. While the resident wanted it to pay this to him directly, including to replace the damaged gift card, it was not required to do so and he could have sought a replacement card from the gift card provider instead of from the ISP, as the latter directed him to do though the landlord. Therefore, there were no failings by the landlord in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

  1. The resident had informed the landlord of his wish to make a stage one complaint on 29 October 2021 but, due to a mistake on its part, this was only logged on 13 December 2021 and responded to by it on 15 December 2021, which it acknowledged together with the fact that he repeatedly had to chase it to progress the complaint. This was a failing by it, but not one that had more than some impact on him or the complaint.
  2. Therefore, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for this by awarding him £20 compensation, and then £75 further compensation. It also addressed these issues by apologising to him, stating that it would communicate the need for complaints to be logged correctly to the relevant members of its staff, and agreeing to remind them to provide updates to customers in a timely manner and record these on its system. This was appropriate because the landlord both recognised its complaint handling and record keeping failings with the up to £50 and £100 compensation recommended by its compensation and claims policy for at least some impact of failures that it was partially responsible for, and learnt from these by seeking to prevent them from occurring again with its staff.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling delay also did not require to award the resident the higher level of compensation that he requested for. This is because, while its response to his 29 October 2021 stage one complaint was 28 working days later than its complaints, compliments and feedback procedure’s five–working–day response timescale on 15 December 2021 and it did not inform him of this or its revised response timescale as required by the procedure, its above actions put things right. The resident’s final stage complaint of 16 December 2021 was also responded to by it on 20 December 2021, which was two working days later and therefore within the ten-working-day timescale specified by the procedure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to pay its compensation into the resident’s rent account for his reports of damage to his belongings that he attributed to its cleaners.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling and record keeping satisfactorily.


Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the compensation that it previously awarded to the resident, if this has not been paid already.