Wolverhampton City Council (202120776)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120776

Wolverhampton City Council

8 September 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:
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about damage to her carpets.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 5 November 2021, the landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s home to undertake works to her thermostat. After the operatives left the property, the resident contacted the landlord on the same day, to complain that the operatives had trodden dog faeces into her carpet. She stated that the carpets in the living room, hallway and toilet were in a bad condition and smelt badly. The resident asked to be compensated for the cost of replacing the carpets, as she had already disposed of them.
  3. The landlord did not respond formally to the resident’s complaint, but replied to her query on 5 November 2021, asking her to supply images of the damage and the cost of replacing the carpet. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 November 2021, where it offered to deep clean the carpets for the resident. The resident explained that she had already disposed of the hallway and toilet carpet. She asked for a deep clean of the living room carpet, but still wanted to be reimbursed for the other carpets.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 December 2021. It explained that as the carpets had already been removed it could not reimburse her for the cost of them. It reiterated its offer to deep clean any of the remaining carpets at the resident’s earliest convenience. On 17 December 2021 the landlord signposted the resident to make a claim on its insurance if she wished to do so. The landlord attended the property on 17 January 2022 and undertook a deep clean to the resident’s remaining living room carpet.
  5. The landlord’s insurance team responded to the resident on 11 February 2022, it declined her claim, and signposted her to make a formal complaint if she remained dissatisfied. The resident raised a complaint through this Service, who contacted the landlord on 22 July 2022.
  6. The landlord sent its stage one response on 28 September 2022. It apologised for failing to raise the complaint formally when the resident first complained in November 2021. It explained that having reviewed the complaint, it could not find enough evidence to show that the landlord was liable for the damage sustained to the resident’s carpets. It stated that it was content that its offer to deep clean the carpets was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2022. She complained about the delay undertaking the deep clean, and was unhappy that the landlord did not believe her reports that the operatives damaged her carpets. The landlord responded on 13 October 2022. It explained that as there was no new information to consider it would not be escalating the resident’s complaint. It signposted the resident to this Service.
  8. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident disputed the landlord’s decision. She is also unhappy with its subsequent complaint handling, as she feels its failure to respond formally prolonged the complaint procedure.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has mentioned her dissatisfaction at the outcome of her insurance claim for her damaged carpets. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Insurance complaints are not in the Ombudsman’s remit because they are financial matters, and are better addressed by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This investigation centres on the reasonableness of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, but excludes the insurance decision. FOS’s contact details can be found on their online website.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about damage to her carpets.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that claims for compensation regarding damage caused by the landlord’s negligence will be dealt with by the landlord’s insurance team. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that residents must not make any additions, alterations or improvements to the dwelling without the landlord’s written consent.
  2. In-line with good customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to investigate any reports that its operatives caused damage to the resident’s home, to ascertain if there was any evidence of failure in its repair service. As the resident was claiming compensation for the damaged items, the landlord would be expected to act in line with its complaint policy, and signpost the resident to its insurance team, for her claim to be considered.
  3. After the resident reported that her carpets had been damaged on 5 November 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting her and asking for photos of the damage. The landlord has also stated that it talked to its operatives, who denied the allegation. Following the receipt of the resident’s information the landlord concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that its operatives had caused the mess. While the resident provided photos to the landlord of the affected carpet, that on its own would not usually be considered sufficient to prove that the landlord’s operatives were responsible. In the absence of robust supporting evidence, the resident’s complaint boiled down to one version of events against another. The landlord’s conclusion was therefore not unreasonable, and its advice to make an insurance claim was appropriate.
  4. Despite not agreeing that there was evidence its operatives caused the damage, the landlord demonstrated good service by offering to clean the carpets. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that internal cleaning is the resident’s responsibility, so the landlord’s offer went beyond what it was obliged to do. The landlord’s offer extended to all of the affected carpets. Unfortunately, the resident had disposed of some of them, and could not fully take up the offer. The decision to remove the carpets was the resident’s, and nothing in the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s policies and procedures states that the landlord was obliged to reimburse her for new carpets, especially as it had not had the opportunity to inspect them or attempt to clean them first.
  5. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident complained that the landlord had taken too long to offer and then complete the cleaning. The evidence seen for this investigation shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report about the carpets on the day she reported it, acknowledged the supporting information she provided three days later – at which time it explained it would give her a decision by 16 November 2021– and then made its cleaning offer by that deadline. After further correspondence the resident accepted the cleaning offer on 8 December, and, after two missed appointments (through no fault of the resident), the cleaners attended on 31 December. The resident turned them away because they were not wearing shoe covers. The cleaning was eventually completed in January 2022. The two failed appointments would have been frustrating, however, the resident had already cleaned the affected areas, the landlord was not obliged to offer the cleaning, and the time taken to complete it appears to be in part due to factors beyond the landlord’s control (excepting the missed appointments, which the landlord acknowledged and apologised for).
  6. Overall, the landlord’s conclusion that there was no meaningful evidence its operatives caused the carpet damage was based on the evidence it had to hand. Photos of damage, while useful, are not enough on their own to show who caused the damage or when, cleaning carpets would always be a tenant’s responsibility unless there was evidence the landlord had in some way caused them to become dirty, and the landlord exercised good customer service by offering to clean the resident’s carpets in this case, despite the lack of responsibility for them. Nothing in the evidence shows the landlord was obligated to compensate the resident for the carpets she threw out. In these circumstances, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was therefore reasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction or concern by a resident about the standard of service, conduct, actions or lack of actions by the landlord. Its policy states that when a resident submits a complaint, the landlord will respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord will then escalate their complaint to stage two, and respond within 20 working days.
  2. Once the resident submitted her complaint on 5 November 2021, the landlord should have raised a formal complaint, and responded within the relevant timescales. However, the landlord sent the complaint to its insurance team, which dealt exclusively with the resident’s insurance claim and request to be reimbursed for her carpets. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint formally until 28 September 2022, after intervention from this Service. That was not appropriate, as it was nearly a year after the resident had submitted her complaint. The delays greatly prolonged the matter and caused confusion to the resident, who thought that she had completed the complaint procedure in early 2022.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its significantly delayed complaint response, but given the scale of the delay that cannot be considered a proportionate remedy. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code the landlord should also have considered at least explaining how the delay occurred, what it was doing to avoid such poor service in the future, and providing compensation in light of the inconvenience it had caused the resident. It did not do any of these, and so it did not reasonably resolve its poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about damage to her carpets.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of its poor complaint handling the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation within four weeks of this report.
  2. The landlord must also review this case to identify how it has improved its complaint handling processes since the resident’s complaint, in order to ensure her experiences are not repeated. This review must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within six weeks of this report.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service by their respective deadlines.