Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (202223874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223874

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

18 October 2024

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 handling of the resident’s concerns that contractors had disposed of his personal belongings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. The landlord is aware that the resident suffers with poor mental health, and it had previously assisted him in accessing health services and support. The landlord advised this Service that in 2020, the resident had self-reported issues such as severe anxiety and depression and hoarding behaviours.
On 12 October 2022, the resident moved into temporary accommodation. The landlord had obtained a court injunction to gain access to his property. This was to enable the landlord to carry out a gas service on his boiler. Upon entering the property, the landlord determined that an urgent biohazard clean was required by specialist contractors.
On 23 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that various items were missing from the property including (but not limited to) clothes, earphones, an electronic tablet and a valuable painting.
The landlord’s contractors contacted the resident in response to his concerned. It said it left any items considered to be of monetary or sentimental value in the corner of one of his rooms, with photographs taken. It had advised staff not to handle contaminated items and to dispose of them. However, it confirmed that a bag of clothing had been handed to “ladies that were there” on the day that the resident moved out.
On 7 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the disposal of his belongings. He advised he had reported the matter to the police and said that the situation had made him depressed. The resident also raised his dissatisfaction at his clothing, which he had not received, being handed to unknown females.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 December 2022. It explained that due to the situation faced by contractors, it needed to take immediate action to resolve the issue and reduce the fire risk posed by the resident’s property. It confirmed that contractors had advised that despite its efforts to check all bags for their contents, the level of contamination to the resident’s belongings made it difficult to check and keep all belongings. However, it kept all non-contaminated belongings in the property.
The landlord advised the resident that it would continue to support him pursuing the matter with the police, should he wish to do so. However, the resident escalated his complaint as he did not believe that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated its stage 1 response, and stressed that staff, to the best of their abilities, saved items that were not contaminated or could be cleaned. The landlord said that it would continue to support the police, alongside its contractors.
The resident has reported that he remains dissatisfied due to the detrimental impact, both mentally and financially that the incident has had on him. The resident wants the landlord to compensate him for his belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman recognises and does not underestimate that this is an extremely emotive issue for the resident and that many of his personal possessions that cannot be replaced will have a sentimental value. This will have been a very difficult time for the resident.
However, it is outside of the Service’s remit to determine who is liable for the loss of the resident’s belongings. Such liability issues are more appropriately handled by another process, such as through an insurance company or by the courts. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for this investigation to determine whether the landlord or its contractor are liable for the financial loss incurred by the resident because of the disposal of his belongings.
This Service will be able to consider the landlord’s handling of the matter, including the support it provided to the resident, and make a finding on this basis.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of contractors disposing of his personal belongings.

The landlord does not have a policy that sets out its approach to the specific events that occurred in this case. While not an expectation, the landlord may benefit from adopting a policy that outlines the landlord’s responsibilities when dealing with tenants with hoarding behaviours.
Alternatively, the landlord may benefit from implementing a temporary accommodation policy that outlines the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities regarding the removal of belongings from a property. This could reasonably cover emergency situations, particularly where hazardous contaminated belongings are identified by landlord staff or its contractors.
In the absence of such policies, this Service can only assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his belongings being disposed of by its contractors.
Following the resident advising the landlord of the missing belongings, the landlord took proactive, positive action by:
1. Establishing details and reported location of missing belongings from the resident.
2. Contacting the contractor promptly to discuss the resident’s concerns.
3. Encouraging the resident to contact the police to discuss the possibility of theft.
4. Conducting a meeting with the contractor’s senior staff members to discuss the reports made by the resident.
5. Providing the resident with the contractor’s details so he could liaise directly.
Considering the limited action that the landlord could take, the above were reasonable and appropriate steps in the circumstances.
This Service does not dispute the difficulties faced by the landlord and its contractors in clearing the residents property. Photographs reviewed by this Service supports the landlord’s comments that the property posed a fire risk, as well as health and safety hazards with no clear access route for staff.
The landlord and contractors have confirmed that it did not take an inventory of items. Taking such action would generally be considered to be good practice. However, considering the exceptional circumstances of this case, and the severity of the situation faced by staff clearing the property, this Service accepts the landlord’s explanation that this was not possible due to the high level of hazardous contaminated items.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a disclaimer or asked him to sign a waiver to advise of its intention to clear the property and dispose of any contaminated items. Had it done so, the resident would have been given the opportunity to retrieve any items he wished to keep prior to contractors clearing the property.
The contractors confirmed to the resident that the clothing had been handed to ‘the ladies that were there’ at his property. The terminology used indicates that there was a degree of uncertainty about who the clothing was handed to. The landlord failed to address the issue surrounding the bag of clothing in its complaint responses. Contractors confirmed to the landlord that the clothing had been handed to landlord staff, yet there is no evidence of the landlord following this up. This was inappropriate and more care should reasonably have been exercised. The resident has advised that he has not been in receipt of this bag, and its whereabouts are therefore unknown. This has undoubtedly been the cause of distress and frustration for the resident.
Overall, while the landlord took some positive action in responding to the resident’s reports, it failed to initially take robust action in communicating its intentions with the resident about disposing of contaminated items. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about a bag of clothing going missing, despite its awareness of it being handed to a staff member.
This Service is unable to assess or award damages owed to the resident. The appropriate avenue would be for the resident to make a claim for the lost/disposed of items on the landlord’s insurance or pursue the matter through the courts. However, compensation will be ordered for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings that we have identified. The landlord must also provide the resident with all relevant insurance information, to ensure the resident can make a claim if he wishes.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The Code is clear in that landlord’s must address all points raised by a resident and provide a response. It must provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
As above, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about clothing being handed to landlord staff and not returned to the resident. It failed to;
1. Reference it in its stage 1 or 2 responses.
2. Evidence how it had followed up on this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
3. Provide an appropriate remedy.
This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters. Had it done so, the resident may not have taken the time and trouble to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s;
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of contractors disposing of his personal belongings.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to;
1. Issue a written apology for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of contractors disposing of his personal belongings.
3. Pay the resident £50 in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.
4. Provide the resident with all its relevant insurance information, to ensure the resident can make a claim for the cost of his lost belongings if he wishes.
The landlord must send evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider the benefits of adopting a policy for tenants with hoarding behaviours and/or a policy for tenants moving into temporary accommodation. The landlord should reflect on the findings of this investigation to inform those policies if it chooses to implement them.