Bolton at Home Limited (202330496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330496

Bolton at Home Limited

31 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 removing items from outside the resident’s flat.
2. We will also investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder. He signed the lease on 20 December 2004. The property is a top floor flat within a block of flats.
4. The landlord is a housing association. It manages the resident’s building.
5. On 31 August 2023 the resident told the landlord his door mat, plant pots and a hanging basket had been removed from outside his flat. He said a notice had been put up to say they were a fire hazard. He asked the landlord to return them.
6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023. He said the landlord had not given him any prior notice it was going to remove and dispose of the items.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
   1. In May 2023 a TORT notice (a legal document that notifies the owner of items to remove them) was displayed on all block notice boards. The notice listed the items that were not allowed to be left in communal areas in line with its communal area management (Fire) policy.
   2. It inspected the block on 14 July 2023 and items on the ‘non-allowed’ list remained in place. A TORT notice was served on the resident’s items the same day.
   3. In August 2023 it sent all residents 2 leaflets explaining the communal area management (fire) policy.
   4. On 1 September 2023 the building safety team spoke to the resident to explain why the items had been removed and disposed of on 31 August 2023.
   5. It would not offer compensation or reimburse the costs of the items.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 November 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it was satisfied the correct process was followed in removing the items. It was unable to find any failure in service and would therefore not reimburse the resident financially.

Assessment and findings

Sope of the investigation

9. The resident has asked that the landlord to compensate him for the cost of the items it removed from outside his flat. We cannot consider a complaint for damages. This is because under paragraph 42.g of the Scheme it says we will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” It is not within our authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance company or court might.

The landlord removing items from outside the resident’s flat

10. We find service failure for the landlord removing items from outside the resident’s flat. The reasons for my findings are below.
11. The lease agreement sets out the resident’s and the landlord’s responsibilities. The lease says residents cannot place flowerpots or other like objects outside their flats. It also says resident must not obstruct or cause an obstruction to landings or common parts of the building.
12. The lease agreement says the resident must comply with all requirements, regulations and laws of the fire authority and local authority in respect of fire precautions, prevention or provision on fire fighting equipment within the building.
13. The landlord’s management of fire risks in communal areas policy states it operates a zero-tolerance approach to items being left in the communal areas. It’s management of fire risks in communal areas procedure states that residents are not permitted to temporarily or permanently store, keep or leave door mats, plants, and plant pots in internal or external communal areas. It says any items deemed to be of high risk may be removed immediately. Lower-risk items may be removed after a notice period to the owner or the residents of the entire building.
14. On 31 August 2023 the resident told the landlord items had been removed from outside his flat. He said he had not been given any warning they were going to be removed. The resident was aware from the start of his lease that he was not allowed to have plants, plant pots and similar items outside his flat. The landlord’s management of fire risks in communal areas policy and procedure also makes it clear that residents cannot have these items, including door mats, in the communal areas.
15. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it issued a TORT notice in May 2023. After the items were still there during an inspection in July 2023 a second TORT notice was placed on the items giving 28 days for them to be removed. It said it also posted 2 leaflets explaining its policy around fire safety and what items could not be left in the communal area to all residents in August 2023. This is in line with its management of fire risks in communal areas procedure. However, the landlord did not keep accurate records and therefore has not been able to evidence to us that it placed the TORT notice on the noticeboard or on the items outside the resident’s flat.
16. The landlord’s management of fire risks in communal areas procedure states that where items are identified in a communal area it will carry out early intervention and approach the resident to discuss the removal of the items. It also states a letter will be sent by its enforcement team to notify residents of its intent to remove the items. No evidence was provided that the landlord visited the resident or sent him a letter to discuss the items left outside his flat.
17. The same procedure also states that an inventory will be taken of the items left in situ and photographs taken. It says on the expiry of the TORT notice further photographs will be taken before the items are removal. The landlord has provided evidence that it took an inventory of the items removed. However, there was no evidence provided that it took photographs.
18. The landlord disposed of the resident’s belongings on 31 August 2023. This was in line with its procedure which states that if any item removed is assessed as having little or no monetary value, it would arrange for the item to be disposed of.
19. In summary there was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to show it followed all the steps it said it would take when removing items from a communal area. The landlord failed to recognise this in its complaints procedure and therefore did not show learning or that it took steps to put things right. Although it is recognised that the situation caused the resident distress. It would not be reasonable to ask the landlord to award compensation when the resident was aware of the terms of his lease, and the landlord’s policies and procedures. The resident was therefore clear of the risk of leaving personal items in the communal area. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a case review.

The landlord’s complaint’s handling

20. We find service failure for the landlord’s complaint’s handling. The reasons for my findings are below.
21. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days.
22. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 September 2023, which was within its target timescale of 5 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident before issuing its stage 1 response.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain the delay. This resulted in the resident chasing a response to his complaint.
24. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day timescale. On 21 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that he was told someone would contact him to discuss his complaint, but no one had. There was no evidence the landlord contacted him before issuing its stage 2 response.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. This was outside its 10-working day timescale. The resident chased a response to his complaint twice in October 2023. The landlord said the delay was due to staffing issues. However, a landlord should have effective systems in place that prevent issues with its staff from having an impact on its residents.
26. Although it is clear from the landlord’s records that a senior member of staff investigated the complaint at stage 2. The complaint responses were both issued by the same staff member. The landlord should review this to ensure it is being transparent with resident’s on who is carrying out a review of their complaint.
27. In summary there was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint response. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and manage his expectations. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. However, it failed to recognise the other failings identified in this report. The landlord did not show it had learnt from the complaint and it did not offer suitable redress for the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

28. There was service failure in the landlord removing items from outside the resident’s flat (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
29. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaints handling.
    3. Carry out a case review and consider the failings identified in this report. A copy of the review should be provided to this service. The review should include:
       1. Why it did not communicate the enforcement issues with residents. The landlord would be expected to be able to evidence that relevant letters and notices were posted to residents rather than relying on general notice boards.
       2. Why its staff did not follow its early intervention process.
       3. Why it did not take photographs of the items with the TORT notice attached and at the time it removed the items.
       4. Why the landlord did not keep adequate records of the procedure it took before removing the resident’s items. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices. If it has not done so already, it should consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
       5. An equality impact assessment. Some residents could be disadvantaged if notice boards are used as the only means of communication.
       6. A review of its staff training. To ensure its staff are following the correct procedures when items are left in communal areas that are deemed a fire safety risk.