Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202217029)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217029

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

16 June 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:
  1. The resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat.
  2. On 26 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He stated that the operatives who replaced his boiler four days earlier, on 22 July 2022, had left dirty marks on his carpet. He also stated the operatives had moved a coffee table with a vase on it in his lounge and that these two items had been damaged.
  3. The landlord attended the property the following day, 27 July 2022, to inspect the damaged items. The resident claimed he had since had his carpet cleaned. He stated he wanted compensation for the damage to the table and vase as well as reimbursement for carpet cleaning. He stated the vase cost £50 and the table £100. The landlord noted that the resident refused to show where the carpet was cleaned or a receipt for the cleaning and did not remember the name of the company who did the cleaning. It took pictures of the vase and table and left.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 3 October 2022. It explained that it had investigated the resident’s claims and concluded that the damage was not in line with the work that was completed on 22 July, when the boiler was replaced. It stated it would not be offering compensation.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 October 2022, because he wanted to be compensated for his damaged items and carpet cleaning.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 31 October 2022. It stated that it was satisfied that the original complaint was appropriately investigated because the resident could not show its officer, when they visited to take pictures of the damaged items, where the carpet had been cleaned, nor could he advise which company did the cleaning or provide a receipt. It also stated that the contractor disputed the allegations of damage. It would not be offering compensation.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he was dissatisfied that the landlord would not offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damage caused by the landlord’s contractors.

  1. A landlord would be expected to conduct an internal investigation when a resident claims an operative damaged their property or possessions. In this case, the landlord’s investigation was fair and thorough.
  2. It visited the property and took pictures of the damage, it asked the resident to provide evidence and it reached out to the contractor, who confirmed that it did not touch the items in question nor did it enter the room where the items were situated. As there was not any evidence to support the resident’s claims, the landlord was unable to find any fault on the part of the contractor.
  3. In cases where the contractor or landlord is found to be at fault for damage it would be appropriate for the matter to be referred to their liability insurance. In this case, as there was not any evidence that the contractor damaged the resident’s property or of any costs incurred by the resident with regards to the carpet clean he said had been necessary, it was reasonable that the landlord did not refer the matter to its liability insurance.
  4. Likewise, it was also reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord did not find any grounds to offer any compensation to the resident. In short, there were not any failings in its handling of reports of damage to the resident’s property and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 July 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord should have provided its stage one response within 10 working days of receipt of the resident’s complaint. However it did not do so until 3 October 2022, 44 working days later and 34 working days outside of the timescales given in its complaints process.
  2. The resident then escalated his complaint on 10 October 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord should have provided its stage one response within 15 working days of receipt of the resident’s escalation request. The landlord issued its final response on 31 October 2022, 15 working days later and in accordance with the timescales given in its complaints process.
  3. As a result of the unreasonable delay in the landlord providing its stage one response, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in order to put this failure right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Order

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £50 for the delay of 34 working days in it providing him with its stage one response to his complaint.