Wokingham Borough Council (202333811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333811

Wokingham Borough Council

29 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a contractor damaged her television and her subsequent request for compensation.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom house where the resident lives with her 2 children.
The landlord said that it did not initially hold any information regarding vulnerabilities for the resident or her household. It advised that during the complaint process the resident disclosed that she had a head injury.
On 1 May 2023 the resident reported to her landlord that during electrical works on 28 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor had damaged her new television. On 10 May 2023, at the request of the landlord, the resident sent photos of the damaged television. Within her email she said:
1. that she was initially at home whilst the works took place, but after a while she went to her neighbour’s house because she could not handle the “chaos and noise due to her brain injury.” When she returned the contractor had completed the work and said they were leaving.
2. she returned to the property at approx. 3pm. When she switched on the television later, she saw that it had been chipped, and the screen damaged.
3. the television was covered in dust and had not been moved out of the way whilst the contractor completed the works.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email within 5-days and raised the matter as a stage 1 complaint. On 31 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it did not uphold the complaint, and its investigation had found that:
1. it was unable to confirm when the television was broken, if it happened on the day in question or if the contractor was responsible.
2. the contractor confirmed they had attended the property on 28 April 2023 and carried out electrical remedial works.
3. the contractor confirmed that the television was switched on, working and that they did not see any damage.
4. at around lunchtime, the resident left the property to visit her neighbour and returned at approximately 3.00pm.
5. the contractor confirmed that it did not have any contact with the television and it did not accept liability.
6. it would be best for the resident to contact the contractor directly and they would provide the details for its legal representative.
On 10 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said this was because the contractor had denied that it was responsible for the damage and had told her to go back to her landlord for a resolution. Further, the resident said that due to the time that had elapsed since reporting the damaged television the option for the supplier to repair the television had been revoked.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This referred to the same findings in its stage 1 response and confirmed that:
1. the complaint was not upheld due to the absence of conclusive evidence regarding the cause of the damage to the television.
2. the issue was reported on 1st May 2023, several days after the alleged incident took place, the delay in reporting the issue had complicated the matter and it could not accurately establish a timeline of events.
3. without additional supporting evidence, it was unable to uphold the complaint given the existing circumstances but if further evidence were provided, it would investigate further.
On 10 November 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints process, a tenants panel. The resident said that she had escalated the complaint as she remained unhappy with the decision made by her landlord at stage 1 and 2. The panel acknowledged the complaint and reviewed the resident’s case on 12 December 2023.
On 19 December 2023 the tenant complaint panel provided its stage 3 response. It said that it did not find sufficient evidence to confidently confirm that the television was damaged by the contractor and could not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 28 December 2023 the resident asked us to investigate. She said she was unhappy that the landlord was not taking responsibility for the damage caused to her television and that the contractor should have moved the television before it commenced the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint the resident stated that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her television because the contractor had broken it whilst completing electrical works. In its responses the landlord said it was not responsible for causing the damage and did not uphold the complaint.
While we can acknowledge the upset that may be caused by damaged items, it is not our role to consider if the damage was due to any failing by the landlord or its contractors or if it was liable to pay the resident’s compensation claim as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers. However, we will consider below if the landlord provided appropriate information to the resident in regards to making an insurance claim during the complaints process.
We can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, any advice or guidance it offered, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where we find a failing in these areas, we will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord’s contractor damaged her television and request for compensation.

The damage to the television was reported to the landlord on 1 May 2023, on 10 May 2023 at the landlord’s request the tenant supplied photos and a statement. The landlord logged, acknowledged, and recorded the resident’s email on 10 May 2023 as a complaint, opened an investigation and on 18 May 2023 requested information from the contractor, which included a timeline of events.
The landlord uses the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint. This is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. In complaints which involve contractors, it is the landlord’s responsibility to investigate as the contractor is the landlord’s representative. The landlord’s advice in the stage 1 response, that the resident discuss the complaint directly with the contractor, was not appropriate or reasonable.
It is evident that between May 2023 and October 2023, the resident raised the matter directly with the contractor in line with the advice provided by the landlord and attempted on several occasions to obtain a response. The resident did not receive the contractor’s legal details as confirmed in the stage 1 response, instead it carried out a further investigation. In October 2023, 4-months later the contractor responded to the resident and said that it did not accept liability and referred her back to the landlord for a resolution. The lack of communication, and excessive delay was unreasonable and resulted in the resident’s opportunity to have the television fixed revoked. This would have left the resident feeling disappointed and her time wasted.
Within the landlord’s housing service tenant’s handbook, the landlord makes it clear that residents are responsible for contents insurance to cover personal possessions. Contents insurance protects residents from suffering financial loss because of a sudden and unexpected incident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord referred the resident to her content’s insurance or the handbook throughout the course of the investigation.
Given that the resident disputed the cause of the damaged television, it is expected that the landlord would have also referred the resident to its liability insurers. There is no evidence throughout the complaint responses or information submitted to us that the landlord referred the resident to its insurers. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have provided this information.
The landlord’s interactions with the contractor shows that the resident could have asked for the television to be moved out of the way with the use of a disclaimer. There is no evidence that this option was communicated to the resident or if she was advised to move her belongings when the contractors were on site. Further, photographic evidence shows that the television had a large amount of dust on it, which suggests that the television was in the area being worked upon and was not sufficiently protected either by being removed or using dust sheets.
In the stage 2 complaint response dated 12 October 2023, 5–months after the initial complaint, the landlord stated that without additional supporting evidence it could not uphold the complaint. The resident had already supplied photographic evidence in May 2023 at the landlord’s request. To request further evidence at such a late stage of the complaints process and without detailing what exactly could be provided caused uncertainty and was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that the timeframe in which the incident was reported raised significant doubts. It said it was reported several days after the event and the delay reporting it complicated and made it challenging to establish the timeline. It is evident that the damage to the television is suggested to have occurred on Friday 28 April 2023 and the resident reported it on Monday 1 May 2023. The landlord operates an emergency repairs helpdesk over the weekend. The information contained in the stage 2 complaint response is therefore unreasonable as the resident reported the damage at the earliest opportunity given the landlords operating hours.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints policy. This sets out that a stage 1 response is provided within 15 working days, stage 2 response within 25 working days and the stage 3 process (a tenants panel) would be held the following month after receipt of the complaint. Where further time is required during an investigation, this is communicated to the resident.
It is noted that during stage 3 of the complaint process, it was identified that the resident should not have been referred to the contractor within its stage 1 response. As a result, the panel recommended training for managers to ensure awareness of the complaint handling process. It was right for the landlord to have identified this and demonstrated a good understanding of the dispute resolution principles.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it offers discretionary payments for poor complaint handling, a failure to follow policy and procedure, and for unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation. The landlord outlines a sliding scale of financial redress depending on the severity of the matter. This is £50 for minor, £100 for moderate, £150 for severe delays, or failures to provide a service. Each failure should be taken into consideration and each point at a time.
The landlord’s overall approach, in its handling of the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged the residents television were inadequate, unfair, and unreasonable. The landlord did not direct the resident through the appropriate complaint process and did not offer the correct advice and guidance. This delayed the resident in obtaining a final response in the resolution of her complaint and due to the timescale involved is likely to have impacted on the opportunity for the resident to seek a claim through insurance.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with landlord’s compensation policy for a moderate failure for poor complaint handling, a failure to follow policy and procedure and for an unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint that a contractor damaged her television and her subsequent request for compensation.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £350 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord’s contractor damaged her television and request for compensation.
3. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
4. The landlord must provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for damage to her television.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. reviews the information and guidance provided to residents about insurance in the event of a disputed claim.
2. has provided clear information to residents around the expectations of contractors to move or protect belongings when works are being undertaken in line with the contractor’s code of conduct.
3. ensures that the vulnerabilities of the household are accurately updated and recorded on its systems.