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

Saxon Weald (202322046)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322046

Saxon Weald

21 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 request to take carpet to her new property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lived in a 2-bedroom flat but moved to a 2-bedroom bungalow in late 2020. She has since moved to another of the landlord’s properties.
  2. The landlord sent its end of tenancy letter to the resident in relation to her flat on 9 October 2020. It said:
    1. Her home must be left empty and clean.
    2. All furniture and carpets must be removed before the end of tenancy.
    3. If she failed to do this, it would charge her.
    4. It expected her tenancy at the flat to end on 8 November 2020.
  3. The tenancy ended on 6 December 2020. The resident returned her keys to the landlord the next day but had not removed the carpet. On 6 January 2021 she emailed the landlord and asked if she could remove the carpet from her previous address. The landlord replied the same day and said the property had been cleared, and it could not allow access as the keys had been returned. The resident replied 2 days later and said she could not take up the carpet as she had no help. She asked whether her carpet could be left for her to collect as she had no flooring at her new property. The landlord declined the request as new residents were due to move in.
  4. The resident emailed her MP on 24 February 2023 and expressed her dissatisfaction with the carpet situation. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 March 2023 (later saying this was the stage 1 complaint response). It said:
    1. It could see there had been discussions in relation to her request for flooring at her new home.
    2. It would contact her with an update.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord directly on 6 September 2023. She said:
    1. The landlord said it would charge her for carpet disposal which caused her anxiety and stress.
    2. She could not remove the carpets as she moved during lockdown.
    3. She offered to return and remove the carpets but the landlord refused.
    4. She wanted the landlord to provide floor covering in her new property.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It said:
    1. It spoke to her at the start of November 2020 and suggested she contact removal and carpet companies.
    2. When the resident emailed on 6 January 2021:
      1. The country was in a lockdown and due to Covid-19 restrictions it could not allow her to return.
      2. 5 weeks had passed since she moved out.
      3. It declined her request to be reimbursed for the carpet.
    3. It offered £300 as a gesture of goodwill as it did not issue a formal stage 1 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to take carpet to her new property.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy guide says:
    1. The resident is responsible for floor coverings e.g. tiles, vinyl, laminates and carpets.
    2. At the end of a tenancy, all carpets and underlay should be removed unless agreed with the incoming residents or the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s voids procedure says:
    1. 4 weeks notice is usually given by the outgoing resident.
    2. Once keys are returned and the property is empty it will carry out a void inspection.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 October 2020 and said it expected her tenancy to end on 8 November 2020 in line with its policy. The letter made it clear she was responsible to remove her carpets. The evidence showed that the resident emailed the landlord approximately 2 weeks after the expected end date, but she did not mention the carpet. She then moved out on 30 November 2020 and returned her keys to the landlord on 7 December 2020. This meant she had over 2 months to take action in relation to the carpets. There was no evidence she made any arrangements in that time. However, we acknowledge the government introduced Covid-19 restrictions and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020 which made it more difficult for her to find help.
  4. There was then a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021 and the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. After the keys were returned to the landlord, there was no evidence the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the carpets for another month. The landlord responded on 6 and 12 January 2021 and explained its position, which was a reasonable approach to take.
  5. We acknowledge it was a stressful time for the resident and the situation was frustrating. She said she was on her own and had no one to help. But overall, there was no evidence to suggest she was treated unfavourably or that she was significantly impacted by the issues raised. The landlord could have charged her for leaving the carpet, but it did not do so. It is common practice for landlord’s to ‘gift’ flooring to new residents left behind. There was no indication the resident wanted to keep the carpet between October and November 2020, prior to the end of the tenancy. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assume that once keys were returned, the resident had taken everything she needed from the property and it could continue its voids procedure. The landlord’s handling and responses were reasonable. We therefore find that there was no maladministration by the landlord. However, the resident said the landlord’s “language” caused her anxiety and stress. A recommendation has been made to avoid similar issues arising in future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to take her carpet to her new property.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should re-word its tenancy termination letter to say it ‘may’ charge residents rather than ‘will’ charge residents, if furniture and carpets are left.