Clarion Housing Association Limited (202210484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210484

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 March 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:
   1. The landlord’s decision to evict the resident and dispose of her personal belongings from the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which started on 16 December 1996. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident said that the landlord was aware that she has complex mental health needs.
3. The resident’s sister has had delegated authority on the resident’s tenancy account since May 2011. The resident’s sister brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as her representative. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.

The eviction

4. Following information received from a neighbour that the resident had “abandoned” the property, the landlord considered the resident had lost her security of tenure and sought to end the tenancy. The landlord sent the resident a Notice to Quit on 7 December 2020. The landlord sent the resident a new Notice to Quit on 14 December 2020. The landlord changed the locks in the property on 13 January 2021.
5. The resident contacted the landlord between 12 and 15 March 2021. The resident explained that she had stayed with her sister during lockdown. The resident explained that she could not access the property and her possessions were still inside. The landlord disposed of the resident’s personal belongings on 15 and 16 March 2021.

The complaint procedure

6. On 19 March 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
   1. The landlord had not contacted her delegated authority contact and had not sent any letters to the delegated authority’s address (the care of address).
   2. She felt that if the landlord had sent the notice to the care of address, it would have prevented any unnecessary possession action.
   3. She was unhappy that the landlord had changed the locks in the property without an order of the court.
   4. She had always intended to return to the property but had been shielding with a friend during the COVID-19 pandemic.
   5. She felt that the landlord had not given her appropriate support.
7. On 29 April 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
   1. It had not received any contact from the resident for over a year, which had resulted in an abandonment investigation.
   2. After an investigation was actioned, the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession and changed the locks as per its abandonment process.
   3. On 15 March 2021, the resident advised the landlord that she had returned to the property to find the landlord had changed the locks.
   4. It had requested removal of the resident’s goods to be stopped but it was too late, and its clearance company had already removed all the items.
   5. A manager was overseeing the resident’s complaint.
   6. It had raised the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of a staff member with a line manager. The landlord said it would investigate the issue in line with internal procedures.
8. On 5 May 2021, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request she said:
   1. She wanted to raise a complaint about her Housing Officer. The resident said her Housing Officer had not followed all available avenues to establish if the resident had left the property.
   2. Family and friends had attended the property multiple times while the resident was shielding. The resident said that when someone attended the property, they removed tape from the door lock. The resident explained that this would have shown that someone had accessed the property and that she was still occupying the property.
   3. The landlord had not contacted her delegated authority contact and had not sent any notices to the care of address.
   4. She had tried to telephone her Housing Officer on 12 and 14 March 2021 to gain access to the property. The resident said her Housing Officer did not telephone her back. The resident said her belongings were still in the property on these dates.
   5. She had tried to contact the landlord multiple times to access the property and her personal belongings.
   6. The landlord returned the keys to her on 18 March 2021. However, the resident said that the landlord had contacted Universal Credit to inform them that she had abandoned the property. As such, the resident’s Universal Credit payments for rent had been stopped. In addition, the resident said the landlord had stopped the gas and electricity supply to the property.
   7. She wanted compensation for the personal belongings that the landlord had removed from her property. The resident said that the landlord had left her with no belongings and had also removed personal and sentimental items.
9. On 9 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
   1. It had carried out an abandonment investigation and had tried to contact the resident by telephone and letter.
   2. It had noted that someone had removed the tape it had placed on the door of the property, but as the resident had not contacted the landlord, it served a Notice of Seeking Possession.
   3. It changed the locks in the property on 15 January 2021.
   4. It had waited for the resident to contact it before removing goods from the property. The landlord said when the resident contacted it to gain access to the property, it returned the keys to her. However, it was unable to retrieve the goods.
   5. It was sorry that its stage 1 response lacked details about the outcome of the investigation and that it did not address all issues.
   6. It would consider the case internally and it would feedback any lessons learned to the business areas involved.
   7. It had offered the resident £5,050 compensation (£5,000 for the distress and inconvenience and contribution towards personal belongings and £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint). The landlord said it would offset the compensation against any rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
10. On 19 June 2023, the landlord offered the resident a further £5,000 compensation. The landlord offered a total of £10,050 compensation to the resident.
11. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
    1. The landlord should not have taken steps to evict her from her property. The resident said she did not receive any of the notices that the landlord sent.
    2. She is unhappy with the level of compensation that the landlord has offered and does not feel that it reflects the value of losing all her possessions. In addition, she feels the compensation does not reflect the level of stress, inconvenience, and impact on her health that the issue has caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. In the resident’s letter to the landlord on 5 May 2021, she raised a complaint regarding the conduct of a staff member. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern “terms of employment or other personnel issues”.
13. However, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s communication with the resident as a whole. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be against the landlord rather than the individual.

The eviction and disposal of the belongings

14. During the complaint procedure, the landlord accepted it got things wrong. It has sought to put those things right by allowing the resident to return home and offering compensation.
15. Following our enquiries with the landlord, it has agreed to:
    1. Conduct a learning lesson review on this case and share the outcome with the Ombudsman and the resident.
    2. To refund the rent debits onto the rent account from the date it changed the locks (13 January 2023) until the date it allowed the resident to return (18 March 2023).
    3. Pay the resident £7,000 to contribute towards the goods disposed of.
    4. £5,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused – by the way it handled the abandonment investigation as well as the complaint.
    5. Confirm in writing that it does not agree the resident lost her security of tenure.
16. The critical question for the Ombudsman is whether this level of award of appropriate. In deciding this, the Ombudsman has considered the events that have occurred.
17. In this case, there is no dispute that restricting access to the property will have been significantly distressing for the resident. However, £5,000 compensation plus refunding the rent debits onto the rent account during the period of displacement is a fair sum of money to recognise the distress and upset caused. Often no amount of compensation can take aware the distress and upset caused to a resident. Compensatory awards should be fair to recognise the impact of what has happened. The Ombudsman is satisfied that £5,000 is appropriate to recognise the frustration and upset caused. It is also appropriate that the resident is not charged rent for that period.
18. In respect of the disposal of goods, this is trickier. The landlord accepts it disposed of them, but that it does not have an inventory. The role of the Ombudsman here would be to make orders to put the resident back into the position the resident would have been in had the landlord not disposed of the goods. That means assessing what the resident had and what it was worth immediately before the landlord disposed of it.
19. The resident has not been able to produce an inventory together with proof of age and ownership (substantiation) to demonstrate the level or magnitude of her loss. Therefore, any award here will be speculative and will either award the resident too much or too little.
20. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s offer of £7,000 to replace household goods and contents, clothes and documents is unreasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusions

21. Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.”

22. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the redress now offered to the resident is reasonable in the circumstances based on the failures identified in this case.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress.

Recommendations

24. The landlord should now, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Refund the rent debits onto the rent account from the date it changed the locks (13 January 2023) until the date it allowed the resident to return (18 March 2023) or refund the rent for that period onto the rent account.
    2. Pay the resident £12,000 compensation and ensure she receives the full payment into her nominated account within 28 days of the date of this determination. This is made up of:
       1. £5,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the eviction and complaint handling; and
       2. £7,000 contribution to the household goods and contents. The resident can elect to agree to clear all or some of the arrears with this money if she wishes – but the Ombudsman’s approach is that all compensation should be paid to the resident.
    3. Write to the resident and confirm in writing that the resident did not lose her security of tenure (assured or secure status). The landlord should retain a copy of this letter on the resident’s tenancy file.
25. Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should complete a learning lesson review and share the full review with the Ombudsman. It should share the review or parts of the review it can share with the resident subject to any GDPR considerations.