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

Derby City Council (202321778)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321778

Derby City Council

27 March 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 his carpet had been damaged during his bathroom refurbishment. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2 bedroom house. The resident has fibromyalgia, arthritis, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He said the complaint had triggered his PTSD.
  2. The landlord has an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), created to manage and maintain its housing stock. The landlord retains ownership of the housing stock. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the landlord and the ALMO as the ‘landlord’.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023 to apply for compensation. He said when he had his bathroom done, there was damage to his stair carpet. He said the workers lifted the carpet when new flooring was put down and ripped it when trying to put it back. The landlord responded on 5 July 2023, it said it had spoken to the person who supervised the works. It said the supervisor visited the resident in May 2023 and they confirmed there was no visible damage caused by its operatives at the time of refurbishment. It said the resident accepted that at the time.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 October 2023. This was following the landlord informing him that it would not be compensating him for damage to his carpet as there was no negligence on its part. The resident had provided before and after photos of his carpet. He said the before photo showed his carpet was flat and not “bumped up”.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It outlined the action taken by the supervisor in May 2023. It said the resident’s photos did not show any damage. It said there was a slight ripple in the carpet which could possibly be fitted back under the threshold strip. The landlord confirmed that the team had used a self adhesive carpet protector while they undertook the work. It said the slight ripple was evident in the photo where its carpet protector was in situ. It said that would indicate there was movement in the carpet prior to the works beginning.             
  6. The landlord said it would not be replacing the carpet as it could not see where it had been negligent or neglectful.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 November 2023. The landlord noted that the resident believed the damage had occurred because the new bathroom flooring had been cut too short. He said the workers damaged the carpet as they had pulled it in order to meet the bathroom flooring when they re-laid the threshold strip.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. It said it had reviewed the photos and other than the small ripple in the carpet, it could not see any damage. It said the ripple may be “smoothed” by lifting the threshold strip. It reiterated its position on the ripple being present prior to the works commencing. The landlord also reiterated that the supervisor confirmed they had protected the carpet with a carpet protector.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the workers had damaged his carpet and the landlord should compensate for or replace his carpet. The resident said the photos he provided showed there was damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We should clarify that we cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or worsened, a resident or their household’s physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. However, we can consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused, and if the landlord should have done more during these events.
  2. The resident has stated that he is seeking reimbursement for his damaged carpet. The Ombudsman cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. Therefore, we do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability. And we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  3. We will, however, consider if there were any failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his carpet had been damaged during his bathroom refurbishment. 

  1. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damage to the carpet. The reasons for this are outlined below.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will only pay compensation if it concludes that it has been negligent or neglectful. It states that if it is at fault, it may consider paying compensation for damaged possessions. It says its policy is not a replacement for household contents insurance.
  3. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damage to his carpet was reasonable. It said it spoke with the supervisor at length about the issue. The supervisor confirmed they inspected the carpet in May 2023 when the resident first raised the issue with them and could not see any visible damage. The supervisor stated that the resident accepted that at the time. Obtaining the supervisor’s version of events and providing them to the resident was an appropriate action to take.
  4. Following the resident’s disagreement with its response, the landlord asked the resident to supply the photos he said he had taken. On 24 July 2023, the landlord confirmed it could not see any significant damage from the photos provided. It said it was happy to look at any additional photos.
  5. The Ombudsman is in receipt of the photos provided, but we are limited in the extent to which we can rely on photographic evidence. It is not possible for us to authenticate the time, location, or circumstances of the images. As a result, we would be unable to solely rely on photographs in reaching a decision. With this said, the landlord’s assessment was fair. We would not dispute that it is difficult to see any significant damage in the photos provided. There does appear to be a “ripple” or “bump” as referred to by the landlord and resident.
  6. In relation to the ripple, the landlord explained why it believed it was there prior to the works commencing. It suggested the resident could remedy it by lifting the threshold strip and smoothing the carpet. The landlord asserted that it had not caused any damage to the carpet and therefore it would not be offering any compensation to the resident.
  7. As stated, it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the extent of the damage or if the landlord was liable for any damage caused. As the landlord disputed it was at fault, the landlord could have suggested the resident contact his contents insurer. If the resident had submitted a claim via his insurance, this may have addressed the issue of liability and damage to the carpet. If the resident did not have contents insurance, it would not be the landlord’s responsibility to compensate the resident in the absence of it.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman does not doubt that the situation was likely distressing for the resident. However, we are satisfied that the landlord took proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and clearly outlined its position. It also offered a sensible resolution to what it felt was the issue. While the resident may not agree with the assessments made, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff in inspecting the property and the photos provided.  As such, we have not identified any failures by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his carpet had been damaged during his bathroom refurbishment.