Ash-Shahada Housing Association Limited (202224114)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224114

Ash-Shahada Housing Association Limited

9 June 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 the resident’s reports regarding the loss of her possessions.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident had a licence arrangement with the landlord to occupy a room within the property. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing and the property was maintained by its managing agent. For the purposes of this report both the landlord and the managing agent will be referred to as the ‘landlord’. The resident had a support worker provided by the landlord for housing related support while living at the property. The resident moved out of the property in March 2021. She has stated that she has had post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this complaint and is undergoing therapy.
On 18 January 2021, the resident reported that on her return to the property she found her possessions had been removed from one of the secure rooms. She informed staff members who said they were unaware of her items being removed. The CCTV footage showed that on 16 January 2021 a charity worker who was not a member of the landlord staff had attended the property and loaded what was alleged to be all the resident’s possessions from the room into a van. The resident said her whole life was in the room and she was very upset and anxious about the situation.
The incident was reported to the police who subsequently closed the case with no further action. On 8 March 2021, the police confirmed that the charity worker had disposed of the resident’s belongings via a recycling centre. They said the landlord gave the worker permission to remove the items from the room.
On 4 April 2021, the resident contacted the project director of the landlord. She outlined the events that had taken place and said she had been contacting the landlord regarding the charity worker with little response. She said she had submitted photos and prices of the items which were in the room in question. The resident continued to contact the landlord in 2022 via her solicitor, she felt the landlord’s direct actions and inaction led to the theft of her belongings.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 January 2023. She said she had raised complaints in the past which the landlord had not acknowledged. She said the complaint was in relation to the theft of her property which had occurred on its premises. She said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge what had happened and to resolve the issue of financially recovering her losses. The resident said a member of landlord staff told her to provide a list of items. She said the member of staff was using their personal email address. The resident said she did not wish to continue contact with the staff member via their personal contact details. She asked where she should send the list to.
The resident said she had been very unwell and the situation had been overwhelming and psychologically distressing. She said the landlord’s actions so far had been unhelpful and disrespectful.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. It said the resident had alleged that items were missing from the room which was being used by the charity worker for drop in sessions. It said it had worked with the resident to try to resolve the matter and asked for evidence to support her claim. The landlord said the evidence did not support the allegations made. It said the matter was referred to the police who concluded no further action. The landlord said it would not uphold the complaint as there was insufficient evidence the resident’s items were stolen and the matter was not progressed by the police.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 April 2023. She said it was not true that there was insufficient evidence that her belongings were stolen. She said the landlord was in denial that it had some responsibility to its tenants over the property held within its building. She said the matter was not progressed as the landlord had withheld information. The resident said she would like an apology from the landlord for the way it had mishandled the complaint and for accusing her of lying. The resident also said she wanted the landlord to pay for her stolen property and for failing to support a victim of crime.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 June 2023, it said it did not uphold the complaint. It said that no further evidence had been provided to support her claim. It said the photos supplied did not support that she had purchased the items, that she had stored them in the property, or that they were stolen. It said no information was withheld from the police and it could not comment on the police’s actions. It said the alleged property was not stolen from the room allocated to the resident and there was no evidence of forced entry into her property.
The resident found the response to be unsatisfactory and escalated her complaint to stage 3 on 2 August 2023. The landlord provided a stage 3 response on 9 August 2023 and reiterated the reasons provided at stage 2 for why it would not uphold the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she had tried to correspond with the landlord since the events which took place in January 2021 and it had not been responsive. She said the landlord said it had helped her but it had gone out of its way to cover for the people who took her belongings without her consent. She said the situation had significantly impacted her health and caused her psychological and emotional distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence to this Service, the resident has accused the landlord of being negligent in its handling of her possessions which subsequently led to the loss of them. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for the loss of the resident’s personal possessions. This is because such claims are normally a matter for insurers or the courts to decide. We will, however, consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and consider any inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports.
The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
As part of her complaint, the resident has referred to the actions of the police and the founder of a charitable organisation. As these are third parties who are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are not able to make any findings on their handling of the matters. Any reference to them will be for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the loss of her possessions

The licence agreement stated that the landlord was not liable for any damage, theft, losses, claims, demands, action, proceedings, damages, costs or expenses, or other liability incurred by the licensee.
It stated that the parties agree that the courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim that arises out of or in connection with the licence.
Article 1, protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. This protects our right to enjoy our possessions without interference, deprivation, or control of these possessions by a government or public body. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached a resident’s rights, the courts can only do this. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has paid due regard to an individual’s rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 acknowledges a lawful basis for landlords interfering with resident’s property. However, this law says that there are different steps that a landlord must follow before interfering with the possessions of a resident. These steps include providing residents with notice and keeping a record of any items disposed of.
Following the resident’s report made on 18 January 2021, the landlord’s initial response was reasonable. It obtained witness statements from the resident, staff members, and the charity worker. It also reviewed the CCTV and liaised with the police. It also provided the resident with foodbank vouchers. Upon conclusion of the police investigation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide its position on the outstanding matters. It is a failing that it did not do so.
On 18 January 2021, the resident said that the landlord has supported her in storing her items at the property and had provided a removal van. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses, however, it did not dispute this account either.
If the landlord had been party to arrangements for storage of the resident’s items, then it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed this in writing. As it was on its premises it would have been in the landlord’s interests to have an inventory of the resident’s items and the condition of those items when it took them into storage. This would have allowed both parties to quickly establish what may have been taken. In not doing so, it was unclear what was agreed with the resident about the storage of her items and why they were kept in a room which was not part of the licence agreement.
The information provided from the police and the resident supports that the landlord did give permission to the charity worker to remove the possessions. The resident has provided an account for why she believes the landlord did this, however, there is no evidence of the landlord confirming this. If the landlord had given permission for the resident’s possessions to be removed, it should have outlined how it came to provide the permission and under what lawful basis. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide a legitimate reason for its actions and reasonable notice to the resident.
On the balance of probabilities, it does appear the landlord permitted the resident to keep some of her possessions in a separate room in the property. It also appears it did give permission to the charity worker to remove items from that room. As there was no written agreement for the use of the separate room, the permission for the storage of the resident’s possessions could be withdrawn. However, the landlord did not provide any notice to the resident or complete an inventory of any items removed or disposed of. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s actions were therefore not proportionate and did not show due regard to the resident’s right to enjoy her possessions.
An order will made for the landlord to review its processes for storing items, its agreements with third parties using its rooms, and what its procedure is for removing or disposing of items. This order is to ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen again.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord asked the resident if she could provide a list of her missing items and the approximate value of them. It said it would need to carry out an investigation and any decision regarding compensation would be made by its directors. On 5 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had sent images of the items taken and that management would be updated. On 8 February 2021, it said it had contacted the charity worker asking them to return the items but they had not responded. On 25 March 2021 and following the conclusion of the police investigation, the resident asked the landlord for its position on refunding her items. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident.
The landlord’s lack of response was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable to have provided the resident with a timescale for its investigation and the outcome of it upon completion. It said its directors would consider if compensation should be paid to the resident but it did not provide any update on that decision. In not doing so, it did not manage the resident’s expectations and led her to repeatedly raise the issue.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said no further evidence had been provided to support her claim and the previous photos she had supplied did not support her claim. The landlord’s response was again not appropriate. It did not take into account that it had asked her to provide a list of the missing items and the value. It did not acknowledge that the resident had sent some of this information and asked the landlord on more than one occasion where she should send any evidence. It also did not confirm what evidence would be sufficient to support her claims and what action it could take, if any, once it was provided.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the alleged theft did not take place from her room and the room in question was used by a charity for drop in sessions. It said there was insufficient evidence that the items were stolen and there was no evidence of forced entry into the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response was dismissive and unempathetic to the resident’s concerns. It focused on the allegation of theft and that it had already been addressed by the police. It is reasonable for a landlord to be guided by the outcome of a police investigation. However, it is important that reasonable steps are taken by the landlord to investigate any incidents reported itself. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have applied context, considered the evidence it did have, and provided clarification on:
1. What it agreed with the resident in relation to storing her belongings.
2. Whether it gave permission to the charity worker to remove the items from the room in question and if it did, the reasons why.
3. The outcome of its own investigation into the matter.
The license agreement stated that the landlord had no liability over any losses incurred by the resident. However, given the unusual circumstances and that the landlord appeared to be considering compensation at one point, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have referred the claim to its insurers or to have sought legal advice. This may have been particularly beneficial following receipt of the resident’s pre-action letter in July 2022.
As part of her complaints to the landlord, the resident expressed concerns about having contact with a member of landlord staff via a non-business email and what may have been their personal contact number. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding this matter, which is a failing. It therefore remains unclear whether there were any failings made in relation to the contact details provided.
If the resident remains concerned about this matter, she may wish to raise it with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to review its policies and procedures regarding staff using their personal contact details and to consider if any changes are required to its guidance on the matter.
Overall, while the landlord initially evidenced that it took positive steps in response to the resident’s reports, its communication following the police investigation was poor. It failed to evidence that it fully investigated the complaint and it did not manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the outcome of its own investigation. In not doing these actions, this led the resident to spend significant time and trouble in chasing the landlord, which also likely caused distress and inconvenience to her.
As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the loss of her possessions. As per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must pay the resident £750 in recognition of the above failings. This is broken down as:
1. £100 for failing to evidence that it fully investigated the incident.
2. £100 for its poor communication with the resident.
3. £100 for failing to consider what steps it could take regarding liability.
4. £100 for failing to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the storage of her items.
5. £100 for failing to manage the resident’s expectations regarding any redress it could offer in relation to her belongings.
6. £100 for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and any impact caused as a result of its handling of the issues.
7. £100 for failing to show due regard to the resident’s right to enjoy her property.
8. £50 for the failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about a staff member using their personal email address.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints procedure. It said it would respond within 10 working days at stage 1, 15 working days at stage 2, and 20 working days at stage 3. It said if it needed longer to respond, it would write to inform the resident with the reasons why and provide a date for the outcome.
The policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff or those acting on its behalf.
From the evidence provided it is clear that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord on more than one occasion prior to the complaint made on 10 January 2023. This is evident in the email sent to the project director on 13 April 2021 and the pre-action letter dated 8 July 2022, which the landlord did not respond to. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that as per its policy, the landlord should have treated the resident’s contact as a complaint and followed its complaints procedure. In not doing so, this caused the resident significant time and trouble in chasing the landlord, taking legal advice, and approaching this Service prior to receiving a complaint response from the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response, 73 working days after the formal complaint made on 10 January 2023. This was not appropriate, nor was it in line with its policy. No evidence has been provided of the landlord updating the resident or providing her with any reasons for the delay.
The Ombudsman considers that some of the delay was a result of the landlord’s disagreement that the case was within our jurisdiction to investigate. However, despite clarification from this Service, the landlord still failed to respond to the resident. On 17 April 2023, the Ombudsman issued a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) to the landlord for the lack of response provided to the resident and its failure to provide requested information. It also failed to provide a copy of its self-assessment of the Code. The landlord was ordered to issue a stage 1 response to the resident by 25 April 2023.
While we acknowledge that the landlord disagreed with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional aspect if this complaint, it is unclear why it had still not responded to the resident’s complaint. The resident’s complaint was in line with its definition of a complaint and therefore the landlord should have provided a response. It is a failing that it took the intervention of the Ombudsman for the landlord to follow its policy. It is a further failing that the landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its responses, consider the impact on the resident, or offer appropriate redress.
The stage 2 response was provided 34 working days after the resident’s stage 2 escalation. Again, this was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policy.
The stage 3 response was provided 5 working days after the resident’s stage 3 escalation. While this was in line with its policy, the response was a repeat of its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate and would not have addressed the resident’s concerns. If the landlord felt it had no further information to offer or the resident’s escalation request was insufficient, it should have discussed this with the resident prior to providing the response. In not doing so, the landlord did not show a commitment to trying to reach a resolution for the resident.
Taken altogether, the landlord failed to provide any meaningful redress to the resident which may have put things right and resolve her complaint locally within its complaint procedure. The delays in responding to the complaint were not acceptable and the responses were brief and failed to consider all the concerns raised. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord must pay the resident £250 in recognition of its poor complaints handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for not acknowledging its failings and making no attempt to put them right.
The Complaint Handling Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and ultimately to provide a better service to residents. This, alongside the issued CHFO means that no other orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the landlord should reflect on the above failings and consider if staff training is required to ensure it does not repeat the above failings in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports regarding the loss of her possessions.
2. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures to evidence its actions around its handling of the resident’s report, the time taken to respond to the resident, and for not following its complaints policy. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must review its policies and processes for storing items, its agreements with third parties regarding using its rooms, and what its procedure is for removing or disposing of items. The landlord must provide an overview of whether it feels its guidance is appropriate and why, or what changes it proposes which would make its guidance clearer.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation. It is broken down as:
1. £750 for the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue.
2. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its policies and procedures regarding staff using their personal contact details and if any changes are required.
The landlord should reflect on its complaint handling failures and if any staff training is required.