Hyde Housing Association Limited (202307147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307147

Hyde Housing Association Limited

3 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of staff conduct.
2. The removal of the resident’s property from communal areas.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a ground floor flat in a low-rise block. She has lived there since 2021.
Between November 2021 and October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident 5 times regarding her personal belongings that had been left in communal areas of the property. On 16 February 2023, the landlord removed several of the resident’s personal belongings from the communal garden.
On 27 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of some of its staff members (complaint 1). The resident said:
1. Members of the landlord’s staff had been harassing and bullying her with regards to her personal property.
2. This behaviour was racist.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 1 on 21 June 2023. It explained it had a duty to ensure that communal spaces within the property were kept free from unwanted or unauthorised items. The landlord said:
1. All contact with the resident regarding her property was in line with its policies and procedures for managing unwanted items in communal areas.
2. The contact was not harassing or bullying, it was outlining the expectations to the resident.
3. As such, there was no evidence of racism or that she had been treated differently.
4. If the landlord received any evidence to suggest a prejudice, this would be fully investigated and appropriate action taken.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord (complaint 2) on 2 January 2024. She said that her property had been wrongly removed and disposed of, and the landlord had not followed the correct procedures.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2024. In summarising its findings, the landlord said:
1. The stage 1 response was fair, and it would not be changing its decision.
2. The resident should ensure her personal items were not left in communal areas to avoid further action being taken in the future.
3. It had awarded the resident £100 compensation for the delay in dealing with her complaint.
The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this service that she felt discriminated against by the landlord. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaints.

Staff conduct

Prior to the resident’s complaint (complaint 1) about the conduct of its staff, she was contacted by the landlord on 5 occasions:
1. 10 December 2021 – The landlord wrote to all residents of the block to advise them that under their tenancy / lease they were responsible for keeping the communal areas free from obstructions.
2. 11 March 2022 – A torts notice was issued to the resident for 3 items that belonged to her, contained within the communal hallway. A torts notice is an official notice to move goods / belongings from an area under the Torts (Interference of Goods) Act 1977.
3. 6 April 2022 – The landlord wrote to the resident regarding her personal belongings left in the communal garden and asked her to move them.
4. 27 June 2022 – The landlord wrote a further letter to the resident asking her to remove her items from the communal garden.
5. 20 October 2022 – A torts notice was issued to the resident for 1 item that belonged to her, contained within the communal hallway.
The resident’s lease defines the property and states it does not include the communal garden. Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 1.5 of the lease states the resident must not leave any object in the common parts of the property. The common parts are further defined as including internal communal areas and the shared garden.
The landlord’s disposal of goods procedure sets out how it will deal with goods left in communal areas. The procedure states the landlord will contact all residents to establish ownership of the goods before contacting the owner and asking them to remove the items.
The resident agrees that her personal belongings were left in the communal areas and garden, and she accepts that she should not have stored them there Given that all communication with the resident prior to her complaint in March 2023 was related to her personal belongings being wrongly stored in communal areas, the communications from the landlord were reasonable.
In her complaint dated 27 February 2023, she said she felt the contact amounted to bullying and harassment, and there had been a “degree of racism”.
In its complaint responses, dated 10 March and 21 June 2023, the landlord confirmed the actions taken by its staff were done so to enforce the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and they did not stem from a racial or prejudicial perspective. It said it had acted in line with its processes and if it received any evidence to insinuate a prejudice had occurred, it would investigate fully and take appropriate action. The landlord’s response was reasonable and gave valid non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
While the resident may have been frustrated by the landlord’s communications, they were necessary for it to enforce the terms of the lease and prevent any breaches. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.

Removal of the resident’s property

The Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977 provides that a landlord must issue a torts notice before disposing of any goods belonging to another person. The notice must set out the contact details of the landlord, a description of the goods and a reasonable period of time for the owner to remove the goods.
The landlord’s disposal of goods procedure sets out the action it will take when goods are stored in the communal areas of a property:
1. It will make reasonable efforts to identify the owner of abandoned goods.
2. When the owner is identified, it will ask them to remove the items within an agreed timescale.
3. If the goods are not removed following contact, the landlord will make a detailed inventory of the items, including photos and the estimated value of the goods.
4. The landlord will then issue a torts notice to the owner (setting out the date in which the goods must be removed by), with a copy of the inventory and items photographed. The notice and inventory will then be:
  1. Attached to the goods left in the communal area.
  2. Sent to the owner of the goods.
5. If the goods are not removed by the date stipulated in the torts notice, the landlord will arrange for the goods to be removed. Goods left in communal areas will usually be disposed of upon removal.
6. The landlord will send a “removal of goods” letter to the owner to confirm the actions taken.
The landlord’s letter dated 10 December 2021, was a generic letter to all residents of the block, reminding them of their obligations to maintain the communal garden and keep it free from obstructions. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord placed a torts notice on goods left in the communal hallway, asking for the items to be removed by 11 March 2022. The goods belonged to the resident. The landlord has supplied us with photographic evidence of the items in situ with the torts notices attached. While the landlord did not supply the resident directly with a copy of the notice, it is reasonable to assume that it was unaware of the identity of the owner. The resident removed these goods from the communal hallway.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 April 2022 and asked her to remove her personal goods from the communal garden by 20 April 2022. The landlord also said:
1. It was disappointed the resident had not moved the items following the torts notice served in March 2021.
2. If the items were not moved, she would be breaching her tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest a torts notice was issued in March 2021. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the landlord was referring to the torts notice issued in March 2022. However, this notice did not include any goods in the communal garden and was therefore not relevant. The landlord also referred to conditions of a tenancy agreement when the resident was leaseholder. Overall, the landlord’s letter was confusing to the resident and unreasonable, given no relevant torts notice had previously been served.
The landlord provided us with an image of wooden planks, situated in the communal garden area, which appears to have a notice attached to it. The photograph does not show the date of the notice or any further details to confirm what action the notice required. The landlord has not provided any further images of items in the communal garden with notices attached.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident again in relation to goods left in the communal garden. It referred to the torts notice issued in March 2022, and asked the resident to remove her items from the communal garden. The landlord said if the items were not removed, further action would be taken. It did not specify what that action was. The torts notice issued in March 2022 did not cover items in the communal garden.
The resident told us that she did have goods in the communal garden and was aware that she would need to remove them when a torts notice was issued. She said that as this did not happen, and other residents had goods in the communal garden also, she did not move the items.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord removed the resident’s property from the communal garden. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2023 and asked if she could collect the items. The landlord informed her that all items had been disposed of by its contractor, and she would be charged for the removal of them. The resident told the landlord that it had removed items such as patio heaters, garden furniture and wooden decking. She estimated the total cost of the items to be over £2,000.
While it is reasonable to assume that the wooden decking had been subject to a torts notice previously, the rest of the items had not. The landlord’s removal of the resident’s personal items was not in line with its policy and was unreasonable.
It is clear from the landlord’s communication with her during her complaint, that it had not created an inventory of the items it had removed. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with “evidence” of the items removed. This should have been recorded under its policy and was unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge its failings. It did offer compensation for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may offer compensation where a customer has suffered a loss as a result of a service failure. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable to offer the resident compensation for the items it had disposed of.
The landlord’s notes from after its stage 2 response, dated 9 April 2024, confirm the landlord was aware that the torts notice issued in March 2022 was for internal items only. When the resident queried her stage 2 response further, the landlord informed her that the power to remove the items came from a torts notice issued on 10 December 2021. However, the only letter sent to the resident on that date was the generic advisory letter to all residents, which cannot be considered a torts notice.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to remove her items from the communal areas in line with the lease agreement. However, the landlord’s handling of the matter was not in line with its policy. The tort’s notice in March 2022 did not cover items in the communal garden and when the landlord realised this, it did not act to put things right. While its repeated requests for the resident to remove her property were reasonable, a torts notice should have been issued, with an inventory of all items the landlord was referring to before the items were removed and disposed of.
This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has not acknowledged, or put right, its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s property from communal areas.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £600 compensation for its failures in handling the removal of the resident’s property.
3. Refund in full any charges that were subsequently passed onto the resident following the removal of her property.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord signpost the resident to its liability insurer if she feels the landlord’s removal of her property has left her financially disadvantaged. Alternatively, the resident may wish to consider taking the matter to the small claims court.