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

Central Bedfordshire Council (202302006)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302006

Central Bedfordshire Council

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about its disposal of his belongings after his eviction.

Background

  1. The resident was formerly a tenant of the landlord of a flat from December 2019 to January 2023. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for his family.
  2. The landlord made a possession claim for the resident’s former property to the county court in August 2022 for rent arrears and alleged sub-letting. The court then granted it a possession order in October 2022 for tenancy breaches, and in November 2022 scheduled his eviction for January 2023. The landlord therefore wrote to and emailed the resident in November 2022, explaining he had to clear the property of personal belongings by his eviction. It also told him that any items left at the property would be removed and disposed of.
  3. The landlord described subsequently attempting to visit the resident at his former property a week before eviction in January 2023 to discuss this process. However, it found that he was not at the property. The landlord therefore considered this and alleged furnished subletting meant it was unlikely the resident left valuable, personal, or sentimental items there. It stated he did not then attempt to remove possessions before his eviction until the bailiffs arrived and advised him not to do so. The landlord subsequently made a video inventory of the resident’s remaining belongings on the next calendar day and called him the day after this. This was to discuss his collection and its storage or disposal of the remaining items, arranging this 3 calendar days after eviction.
  4. The landlord recorded the resident then removed belongings from his former property in its presence in January 2023. It noted asking if there was anything else he wanted to remove or keep and him responding he had everything and to secure the property. The landlord also described getting the resident to sign its inventory of the remaining possessions in the property after he had removed the above items. Another video inventory was subsequently taken of these belongings. The landlord recorded the resident nevertheless spoke to it 3 calendar days later about remaining boxed books and other possessions he wanted it to store. It therefore agreed and then emailed him to confirm it would store the boxed items for 14 calendar days before he collected these.
  5. However, the landlord explained it could not store the units the resident had screwed to the walls, disposing of any additional belongings left behind. It nevertheless agreed to extend the collection period for his boxed possessions by a week as he could not return to the country. The resident subsequently collected the items the landlord stored in February 2023, but he contacted it on the same day to query some other belongings. It therefore confirmed at that time and later that anything he had not removed or identified for storage had been disposed of by it. The landlord recorded this was because the resident previously told it he did not want anything else when he last removed possessions from the property.
  6. The resident then sent the landlord a letter before action in February 2023 that it treated as a stage 1 complaint. He complained it disposed of valuable inventoried items including furniture and children’s belongings without informing him, and it should have served him advance legal notice. The resident stated the landlord ought to have given at least 21 calendar days to collect these before disposal, so it was open to claims. He therefore asked it to return his belongings or he might make a legal claim for these, including a list of possessions valued at £9,546. The landlord’s February 2023 stage 1 response considered its above information, storage, and opportunities to collect items gave the resident adequate notice before disposal.
  7. The landlord added the resident was responsible for clearing the property, which could take longer than expected, but it did its best to help. However, he disputed this and alleged his belongings were incorrectly disposed of due to his race in March and April 2023. The Ombudsman subsequently asked the landlord to respond to the resident at the final stage of its complaints procedure in May 2023 at his request. Its June 2023 final response addressed this and his later request for details of the disposal of his possessions. The landlord apologised for not providing its above inventories of the resident’s items, which it gave him, and upheld this aspect of his complaint. It nevertheless confirmed his tenancy agreement made him not it responsible for removing all furniture and belongings when moving out and for what was left.
  8. The landlord therefore considered its above communication, support, and storage meant the resident received adequate contact and legal notice to remove his possessions. This meant it did not uphold this aspect of his complaint, considering him taking items and leaving the country suggested he took everything of value. As a result, the landlord concluded it did not have a duty to compensate for or replace any belongings left in the property. This was because it felt the resident had every opportunity to remove or store these. However, he complained to the Ombudsman the landlord led him to believe he could collect the valuable items disposed of, causing his family emotional trauma. The resident felt this was done quickly without due process or legal guidelines due to his race, asking for his possessions to be returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is of concern the resident considers his belongings were incorrectly disposed of due to his race and seeks for these to be returned. It is nevertheless outside the scope of this investigation to determine if the landlord discriminated against him or was liable for his items. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states the following. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy for through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. We therefore cannot determine if the landlord discriminated against the resident because we lack the authority or expertise to in the way the courts might. We also cannot determine liability for lost or damaged possessions, as we lack the authority or expertise to in the way courts or insurers might.

Disposal of belongings after eviction

  1. Section 41 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 makes the landlord give owners a month’s minimum written notice for belongings found in its properties. This is to require them to collect these by a specified date or lose their right to the items that will then belong to it. This is after these have come into the landlord’s possession or have been deposited with and not collected from it. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that all furniture, carpets, and personal possessions should have been removed when he moved out of his former property. This also says that the landlord was not responsible for anything left in the property when he moved out.
  2. The landlord’s current arrears procedure states it should write to notify residents once they have an eviction date and provide details about what happens now. It should then visit them at least 10 days before the eviction to discuss what they will do once evicted. Following the eviction, the landlord must check and inventory any belongings left in the property, which it is responsible for storing. Residents must be given the opportunity to remove valuables and a few belongings until they can return to remove all goods. The landlord must ensure they sign disclaimers and meet them at the property within 2 working days of eviction. This is to clear the property’s remaining items and it must advise if they fail to do so it will dispose of and clear these.
  3. The landlord initially followed the resident’s tenancy agreement and its current arrears procedure regarding disposing of his possessions due to his eviction. This is because it wrote to and emailed him on receiving his eviction date on 23 November 2022 to confirm this was 10 January 2023. The procedure obliged the landlord to do so, and it also gave details of what happened now to the resident’s belongings, as the procedure required. This accorded with his tenancy agreement, which obliged him to remove these when moving out and stated it was not responsible for anything left behind. The landlord therefore appropriately told the resident he must clear the property of personal items by the eviction date or these would be disposed of.
  4. The landlord recorded subsequently complying with its current arrears procedure by attempting a resident visit to discuss eviction a week before in January 2023. This suitably followed the procedure’s requirement for it to visit him at least 10 days before eviction to discuss what he would do once evicted. The landlord was also not responsible for the resident not being at the property when it visited or removing his possessions before eviction. This was contrary to his obligation from his tenancy agreement to remove these when moving out. The landlord additionally appropriately completed an 11 January 2023 video inventory of the resident’s remaining belongings, in line with its procedure.
  5. As the landlord’s current arrears procedure obliged it to give the resident the opportunity to return to remove items, it was suitable it did so. This is because it called him on 12 January 2023 to arrange the collection, storage, or disposal of his remaining possessions on 13 January 2023. This accorded with the procedure’s requirement for the landlord to meet the resident at the property to do so after the eviction. While this was a working day later than its procedure’s 2-working-day timescale for it to meet him there, this was minor and caused no detriment. The landlord also noted it inventoried the property again after the resident removed belongings, and that he signed this. It additionally checked if he wanted to remove or keep anything else and was told he had everything.
  6. The landlord’s above actions therefore sought to comply with its current arrears procedure. This obliged it to ensure the resident signed a disclaimer for his items and was advised it would dispose of these if he did not clear them. It was reasonable that the landlord got him to sign an inventory for his possessions and checked if he wanted to keep them. However, it is concerning that the Ombudsman was not provided with the inventory, as it is unclear whether this included the necessary disclaimer. There is also no evidence the landlord explicitly told the resident at that time the belongings he left would be disposed of, which was inappropriate.
  7. Nevertheless, the landlord was responsible for initially storing items left in the property under its current arrears procedure. It therefore responded suitably when the resident asked it on 16 January 2023 about remaining boxed books and other possessions he wanted stored. The landlord took another video inventory, which was reasonable, and agreed to store the belongings for 14 calendar days before he collected them. As the resident could not return to the country, it appropriately extended this by a week so he could collect items on 3 February 2023. The landlord also confirmed via telephone and email on 16 and 20 January 2023, respectively, it was unable to store the units screwed to walls. It added on 3 and 6 February 2023 that anything remaining was disposed of.
  8. The landlord did not give the resident a month’s minimum written notice for remaining possessions under section 41 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This is because it did not specify a date to collect or lose them after a month of taking possession on 10 January 2023. The resident was not caused any detriment regarding his boxed books and other belongings, as the landlord extended its storage for him to collect these. However, it was unreasonable that it disposed of his wall units and other items remaining in the property without giving him the above notice. This is due to the landlord’s legal obligation to do so, as well as the need for it to be fair. This required it explicitly clarify this in writing in advance so the resident understood what it would do.
  9. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s November 2022 correspondence suggested his possessions would be disposed of if remaining in the property after eviction. It also told him at least twice in January 2023 after his eviction that it could not store the units he screwed to the walls. The resident nevertheless did not realise his remaining belongings would be disposed of until after the landlord disposed of these in February 2023. He may not have understood this would occur or when due to it storing other items and not serving him the above statutory notice. This was therefore an inappropriate failing by the landlord in handling the disposal of the resident’s possessions after eviction.
  10. While the landlord considered its communication, support, and storage was adequate, it disposed of the resident’s remaining belongings prematurely without giving him statutory notice. It regarded its above actions as complying with section 12 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which he referred to as being breached. However, this relates to the power to sell goods after serving specified notice of intention to do so, which is not relevant to this case. The landlord also acted unsuitably after the resident disputed his items’ disposal on 15 February, 24 March, 8 April, and 10 and 22 May 2023. This is because it did not refer his claim of it damaging his possessions to its insurance section, contrary to its financial remedies compensation guidance.
  11. While the landlord’s complaint responses suitably apologised for not giving the resident its above inventories and provided these, it did not put things right. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to do so. This occurred because the landlord did not acknowledge or remedy its premature disposal of the resident’s remaining belongings without statutory notice. It has therefore been ordered to do so below. Nevertheless, it is noted there was an onus on the resident to comply with his tenancy agreement and the landlord’s communications to remove his items. Therefore, the following orders have taken into account his own contribution to the disposal of his possessions.
  12. The landlord has been ordered below to write to apologise to the resident for prematurely disposing of his remaining belongings after eviction without statutory notice. It has also been ordered to directly pay him £300 compensation to recognise this failure adversely affecting him. This is in the middle of the range recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failures to reflect the resident’s above contribution. This is to be paid directly because our guidance states our awards are separate to existing financial arrangements and should not be offset against arrears. The landlord has additionally been ordered to refer the resident’s damaged items’ claim to its insurance section, in line with its financial remedies compensation guidance.
  13. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to disposing of belongings after eviction. This should include its current arrears procedure and section 41 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This is to ensure items the landlord takes possession of after eviction are only disposed of after correct information, disclaimers, and statutory notices are provided. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about its disposal of his belongings after his eviction.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for prematurely disposing of his remaining belongings after eviction without statutory notice. It shall take responsibility for doing so and acknowledge the impact of this on him.
    2. Pay £300 compensation directly to the resident within 4 weeks to recognise its failure in handling its disposal of his belongings adversely affecting him.
    3. Refer the resident’s damaged items’ claim to its insurance section within 4 weeks, in line with its financial remedies compensation guidance.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to disposing of belongings after eviction within 8 weeks. This should include the landlord’s current arrears procedure and section 41 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This is to ensure items it takes possession of after eviction are only disposed of after correct information, disclaimers, and statutory notices are provided.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.