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

Citizen Housing (202310811)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310811

Citizen Housing

7 February 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 a freezer being unplugged and food being affected.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a 3 bedroom house, since 1991. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. Following routine electrical work in the property on 9 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that the contractor had left the freezer plug socket off. She sought compensation for the food she had to throw away.
  3. The landlord requested details of the work completed from the contractor. As there was no evidence of a failure to turn the freezer on after the works, the landlord did not offer any compensation. In its stage 1 response it advised the resident to speak to her home contents insurer about any loss.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and, in the landlord’s response, it confirmed its position that there was no evidence it was directly responsible for the loss of freezer food. It did, however, offer £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to us, seeking compensation for the cost of the food.

Assessment and findings

  1. The electrical work was completed by the landlord’s contractor on 9 December 2022. In the resident’s complaint of 20 December 2022, she said the contractor had turned off the plug socket for the freezer while replacing it and failed to switch it back on. She said the freezer food had spoiled and had to be thrown out so she was seeking compensation.
  2. The landlord rang the resident the same day to acknowledge the complaint and advise of timescales for a response. This was prompt and well within its 5-day target for acknowledging complaints. It was positive that the landlord rang the resident, rather than writing to her, to ensure she felt listened to and had the opportunity to discuss the matter further.
  3. The landlord then liaised with the contractor, who provided details of the electrical works that had been completed. There was no evidence that the contractor had failed to turn the socket on following completion of the works. This is not to say the resident was mistaken, but to note the information the landlord had.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023, 2 days over its target response time of 10 working days. However, this short delay was understandable given the intervening Christmas and New Year period. The minor delay did not have any impact on the substantive issue and the landlord had spoken to the resident to advise the complaint was in progress.
  5. In its response the landlord said it was sorry to hear about the impact the situation had had on the resident. It said it was unable to offer compensation for any food that had been thrown away as residents were responsible for purchasing their own home contents insurance. It recommended she discuss whether it was appropriate to make a claim for the freezer food with her insurer. It is not within our remit to comment on insurance matters but this was reasonable advice in a situation where the resident had reported financial loss but the landlord did not have any evidence that it was responsible for those losses.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 April 2023, stating she wanted compensation for the damage. The landlord responded on 21 April 2023, within its target timeframe, to confirm its position as per stage 1. It reiterated that the resident should consider claiming from her contents insurer as it was not possible to prove the landlord was liable for any damage.
  7. The landlord’s policy states compensation may be awarded for costs of repairing damage caused directly by its negligent action or inaction. The landlord had no evidence this was the case here and so was fair in its assessment. While not admitting liability or failure, the landlord offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill. This was a reasonable offer which could cover some of the food loss.
  8. The landlord communicated with the resident promptly following her complaint and liaised with the contractor to seek further information. It carried out an appropriate and proportionate investigation into the issues raised and based its conclusions on the information available to it. While understandably frustrating for the resident, the landlord made a reasonable assessment in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the freezer being unplugged and food being affected.