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

Citizen Housing (202317688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317688

Citizen Housing

27 February 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 disposal of the resident’s belongings, following an eviction.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, from June 2017. He was evicted on 5 June 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. There is no record of the resident having any vulnerabilities.
  2. Following an accumulation of rent arrears, on 11 April 2023 the court issued a Notice of Appointment (with Bailiff) for Execution of the Warrant of Possession listing the date of eviction as 5 June 2023 at 11.30am. On 20 May 2023, the resident applied for the warrant to be set aside and explained that his employer had unlawfully withheld his wages which led to his rent arrears. He stated that an employment tribunal was scheduled for October 2023.
  3. The resident’s application was dismissed by the court following non-attendance at the hearing, and the eviction went ahead on 5 June 2023. On the eviction day the landlord told the resident to collect his essential items as he would have to leave the property that day. The landlord’s records state that the income officer (IO) provided him with their phone number so that he could arrange to collect the rest of his goods.
  4. The same day it issued a tort notice imposing obligation to collect goods and of intention to sell in compliance with the (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. This gave the resident 14 days’ notice of the landlord’s intention to sell or dispose of the goods within the property. The notice also stated that the resident should contact the IC to arrange for collection of the goods, and failure to collect them would be seen as consent to dispose of them.
  5. Notes made by the IO state that they contacted the resident on 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 June 2023 to reiterate the deadline of 19 June 2023. On 18 June 2023, the resident confirmed he would be at the property at 12pm on 19 June 2023 to clear his belongings. He arrived at the property at 12.15pm, and his appointed removals company arrived at 1.45pm. The landlord’s notes state that the IO and removals company helped to remove the resident’s belongings, and the IO advised that they needed to leave at 2.20pm. All parties left the property at 2.20pm on 19 June 2023 and the resident signed a consent form to say that he gave permission to dispose of any remaining items.
  6. Later that evening the resident made a complaint to the landlord stating:
    1. He felt rushed into collecting his belongings and this meant that he had to leave valuable belongings behind including:
      1. A laptop
      2. An iPad
      3. A smartwatch and earbuds
      4. A sculpture
      5. Jewellery
      6. He also stated that he had food in his fridge which was lost.
    2. He felt that the landlord violated his rights by not providing him with a clear timescale to collect his belongings. On the final day the landlord told him that he could collect his belongings from 12pm but he was not told that the removal had to be completed by 2.20pm. This only changed when the IO told him she needed to leave to collect her child.
    3. He had experienced damp and mould in the property which the landlord failed to address.
    4. The landlord did not replace a rotting skylight within a reasonable time.
    5. He had to replace his kitchen as the cabinets were mouldy and “falling apart.”
    6. He had a severe insect infestation that he believed was the result of mouldy kitchen cabinets which the landlord did not manage appropriately.
    7. To resolve the complaint, he requested compensation for the belongings he had left behind, and for the removal costs.
  7. The landlord responded on 3 July 2023 and partially upheld his complaint. It found that there had been service failure in its handling of the skylight replacement and offered £100 compensation comprising of £50 for its failure to make a follow up appointment and £50 for associated distress. It did not find any service failure in the other areas of the complaint. It said:
    1. The resident had not reported damp or mould until the date of his complaint.
    2. He had not asked for permission to replace his kitchen cupboards so it would not reimburse him.
    3. Pest issues were the responsibility of the resident as stated in the tenancy.
    4. It had given the resident many opportunities to collect his belongings, and he had signed a document to permit the disposal of goods on 19 June 2023.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 12 July 2023. He said that the landlord had not addressed the fact that he lost goods from his fridge and freezer, nor did it provide proof that it gave him a specific period to collect his belongings.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It said:
    1. It had given the resident two weeks to collect his belongings, and the IO had provided their phone number to contact to arrange attendance. They had also communicated with the resident via text message for several days before the deadline to arrange the removal.
    2. He had confirmed by text message that he would be at the property by 12pm.
    3. It did not accept responsibility for the removal company arriving at 1.30pm which was 90 minutes after the resident arrived.
    4. It reiterated the offer of compensation for the skylight but did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  10. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s decision to dispose of his belongings and has made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Disposal of the resident’s belongings, following an eviction.

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that this is an extremely emotive issue for the resident and that many of his personal possessions may have a sentimental value that cannot be replaced. We also do not underestimate that this will have been a challenging time for the resident.
  2. This investigation has considered whether the landlord took adequate steps to inform the resident of when and how he could collect his possessions, and whether it gave him a reasonable amount of time to do so.
  3. The landlord’s Tort in void process states that:
    1. It should determine whether any items left in the property hold monetary value or are high value items. These would be considered tort items under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
    2. It should photograph all items in situ and complete an inventory.
    3. Where there are Tort items the landlord must confirm a storage address and issue the resident with a 14-day Tort notice. In exceptional circumstances it could extend the notice to 28-days. After the notice period had expired it would dispose of the goods.
    4. Where no Tort items were present it would dispose of all belongings that remained.
    5. In all cases, it would upload the inventory and photographs to its system.
  4. The resident was evicted on 5 June 2023, and the landlord issued the tort notice the same day. This was consistent with its void process. The IO made an inventory on a standardised form on 19 June 2023. The form and tort policy state that photographs and video should be taken of very room however there is no record that this happened.
  5. In the inventory the IO used general descriptions such as “bin bags” and “all other items” which meant it was impossible for it to confirm to the resident or us which items were disposed of. There were no valuables listed on the form and there is no record of any discussion between the resident and IO regarding any items he considered to be of high monetary or sentimental value.
  6.  We have seen evidence that the appointment was set for 12pm on 19 June 2023. This is supported by text messages between the IO and resident where he confirmed he would be at the property by 12pm. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident he would need to complete the removal by 2.20pm. It is reasonable that the resident may have believed he had until the end of the working day to move his belongings. The landlord should have informed the resident of a specific timeslot in advance so that he had the opportunity to plan his day.
  7. The landlord’s records indicate that the IO told their manager that they needed to leave the property during the appointment, not in advance. This meant that the decision was made spontaneously, and the resident could not have known this in advance.
  8. The landlord should have taken steps to ensure the resident had enough time to take any valuables and remove as many possessions as possible. It should also have ensured he was aware of how long he would be permitted to be at the property so he could plan his day.
  9. The IO contacted the resident on 15 June 2023 to say that he needed to arrange to remove his belongings before 12pm on 19 June 2023, or they would be disposed of and valuables stored at a cost of £25 per day. The resident confirmed he would be present at 12pm. It is not clear whether the resident was aware how the landlord would classify belongings as valuables given that it could not know the sentimental value without speaking with him.
  10. Considering the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s belongings. While it issued the appropriate tort notice, it did not complete a detailed inventory and did not take photographs or videos. It also failed to inform the resident in advance that he would need to have all belongings removed by 2.20pm. The landlord should have taken steps to ensure that there was a reasonable amount of time allocated to complete the removal.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it may agree a compensation payment where there is evidence that a resident has suffered financial loss, inconvenience or unreasonable impact.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced in 2022. It states that landlords must acknowledge where things have gone wrong and make clear how it intends to put things right. Such actions can include an apology, providing a financial remedy, acknowledging where things went wrong or reconsidering a decision.
  3. In its stage 1 investigation, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement regarding the IO leaving for childcare reasons. It stated that it would send feedback to their line manager who would retrain them if required. It did not apologise for the appointment being cut short.
  4. It also stated that records showed that the resident was given a time of 12pm to 2.20pm to remove his belongings, and this was a verbal discussion. The evidence shows that he was told to attend the property at 12pm but there is no evidence that he was given an end time. This should have been considered as part of the complaint investigation.
  5. The landlord stated the resident was aware of the expiration date of the tort notice, and that it had contacted him to arrange collection of his property prior to the final day. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident on 15 June 2023, and notes from the IO say that they told him to contact them to arrange access to the property. However, the resident being aware of the expiration date of the tort notice did not automatically mean that he was aware of the latest time that he would be able to access the property on that date.
  6. The complaint response also referred to the form the resident signed to allow disposal of his goods. It said as he had given permission for the goods to be disposed of it did not find any service failure. The resident said in his complaint that he felt rushed by the IO, so it is possible that he may have felt rushed into giving consent without time to consider what that meant for him. The landlord should have considered this when investigating the complaint.
  7. The resident made his complaint the same night that the appointment took place, and the landlord processed it on 20 June 2023. It is not clear when it disposed of his possessions. When it became apparent that the resident could not collect all his items within the allocated time the IO could have considered extending the time. The landlord’s tort policy would have permitted this and it may have gone some way to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  8. The landlord stated in the stage 1 response that it tried to arrange for the resident to collect his belongings several days before the tort deadline. While this is accurate, it was not relevant to the amount of time that the resident was given on the final removal appointment.
  9. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. While it complied with its policy timescales for responses, the complaint investigation itself was not thorough. It acknowledged in its stage 1 response that there was a failing as it said it would retrain the IO however it did not apologise or provide an appropriate remedy. It should also have recognised that it did not give the resident a clear timescale for collecting his belongings and considered this when deciding whether to uphold the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s belongings following an eviction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified, including poor communication regarding the time he would have to collect his belongings, and the distress and inconvenience caused. This should be in the format preferred by the resident and it should provide a copy to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
    2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £700 made up of:
      1. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s belongings.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must review its post-eviction tort process and ensure:
      1. Residents are given a specific time frame to collect their belongings which is communicated clearly in more than one way such as text message and email.
      2. A staff member is present for the entirety of the appointment.
      3. If an appointment is cut short due to unforeseen circumstances that are not the fault of the resident, an alternative time should be offered to the resident.
    4. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must ensure all appropriate staff are fully trained to compile an inventory. This should include, but not be limited to:
      1. Ensuring inventories are detailed and contain photographic or video evidence as supporting evidence.
      2. Ensuring the landlord discusses with the resident whether there are any belongings of high monetary or sentimental value and categorises them appropriately. This should then be recorded clearly on the inventory form.