| Publishing organisation: | Scottish Public Services Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Complaint handling, Repairs |
| Determination: | Partly upheld |
| Tenure: | Secure |
Organisation:
| Hillcrest Housing Association |
| Country of relevance: | Scotland |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
The complainant (Mrs C) said that a faulty boiler in her kitchen caused soot damage to her property requiring redecoration, and the replacement of blinds and curtains. She complained that her claim for the recovery of expenses incurred as a result of this was dismissed by her landlord, Hillcrest Housing Association, without adequate investigation.
Mrs C said that, in a subsequent conversation with an employee of the gas maintenance company that the Association used, she was told that the boiler had caused the damage. She was later informed by the Association that the gas engineer’s report had failed to conclude that the boiler was responsible for the soot damage. As such, the Association did not accept liability for the damage and rejected Mrs C’s claim for decoration costs.
Mrs C complained to the Association in March 2007. A number of letters were exchanged between her, her local Councillor and the Association. Mrs C said that she did not receive all of the letters that the Association told her had been sent, and when she requested copies of the missing letters, the Association failed to provide them. Dissatisfied with the lack of progress on her claim, Mrs C brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2007.
The "sooty deposits" that Mrs C complained about were described as 'staining' by the gas engineer, and have been described by other parties as 'dirty' or 'grimy' marks. Throughout his report the Ombudsman acknowledged that doubts were raised as to whether the marks were actually caused by soot, while retaining Mrs C's terminology for the sake of continuity.
Determination
(a) The Association failed to adequately investigate damage to Mrs C’s property (partially upheld to the extent that more could have been done to investigate the actual source of Mrs C’s soot problem).
The Ombudsman recommended that the housing association should:
- Introduce a policy of seeking third party liability determination for all compensation claims where the claimant is claiming amounts that are higher than the insurance policy excess, and for all claims that require expert technical opinion.
- Consider [in view of paragraph 39 of the report] asking their insurers to reinvestigate Mrs C’s claim. This is because the true cause of Mrs C’s soot problem was not investigated, and the Ombudsman noted that she did not retain evidence to allow this.
(b) The Association’s complaints handling was poor (not upheld). The Ombudsman had no recommendations to make on this point.