Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Ongo Homes Limited (202327433)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327433

Ongo Homes Limited

9 June 2025


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 reports that her computer monitor was damaged by its contractors.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 3 August 2023 the landlord’s contractors completed repairs in the property, which included installing a radiator. On 4 August 2023 the resident sent images and expressed dissatisfaction directly to the contractors about damage caused to her computer monitor. The resident said that on 4 August 2023 when she went to use her monitor, she noticed that her monitor was damaged. She said that the contractors dropped the radiator on the monitor when it was being installed. On the same day, the resident contacted the police about the damaged monitor.
  3. The police advised the resident on 7 August 2023 that without any further evidence the matter would be filed. On 8 August 2023 the landlord received the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord requested further information from its contractor about the resident’s complaint on 9 August 2023. On the same day, the landlord also acknowledged the resident’s complaint and requested:
    1. The police crime reference number.
    2. The value of the monitor or receipts.
    3. Any images that would help its investigation.
  5. On 15 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord had carried out an investigation and said:
    1. The monitor was in the bedroom when contractors attended the property on 3 August 2023.
    2. The radiator was being installed on the opposite side of the room. The monitor was not moved and did not need to be moved. The contractors had not touched or damaged the monitor.
    3. The contractors said there was no damage to the monitor when they left the property.
    4. It appeared that the monitor was hit 3 times by a blunt object with a surface area larger than the corner of a radiator. It did not consider this to be consistent with the type of damage that a radiator might cause.
    5. Its contractors have a duty to report any damages at the property and no damage to the monitor was reported.
    6. It would not award costs to cover a new monitor as the damage was not caused by it.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked for her complaint to be escalated on 17 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 August 2023. The landlord reiterated its investigation findings from its stage 1 complaint response.
  8. The resident first asked us to look at her complaint on 10 November 2023. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt the landlord had not helped her. She told us the monitor had sentimental value to her as it was gifted by her grandmother. She wanted the landlord to replace the monitor as she said that contractors damaged it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s contractors were responsible for the damage caused to her monitor. In the landlord’s final response, it said did not cause the damage and did not uphold the complaint.
  2. While we can appreciate the resident has said the damaged monitor has sentimental value to her, it is not our role to assess liability for damage to personal items. These matters are likely better suited to an insurance claim or consideration by a court. However, we can assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, including its actions or inactions.

Damaged monitor

  1. The evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations and gave them reasonable consideration. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out an investigation and speaking with the contractors who attended the property on 3 August 2023. This was 1-working day after it was put on notice of the resident’s complaint.
  2. It was also reasonable the landlord asked for any further supporting evidence from the resident prior to its stage 1 complaint response. This showed the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord’s communication with the resident about its findings were also clear. We have seen the landlord reviewed the evidence, interviewed the contractors involved, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
  3. Overall, the landlord appropriately explained its position on the complaint to the resident during its internal complaints procedure. The response provided by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of this case. As there were no service failures, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her monitor was damaged by its contractors.
  4. While we have made a finding of no maladministration, we understand the resident disputes the landlord’s final position on the complaint. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to provide details of its insurer should the resident wish to make a claim. There was no evidence provided to us that the landlord spoke to the resident about her options to claim via insurance. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her computer monitor was damaged by its contractors.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident with information about submitting a claim via its insurance for the damaged monitor.