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

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202227100)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227100

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

17 December 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s possessions while it rehoused her.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lived in the property, a first-floor flat, from 24 October 2016 until 13 December 2021. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities, and we understand her mother has acted as a point of contact between her and the landlord since at least December 2021 for this reason.
  2. On 2 December 2021 the landlord removed squatters from the flat next door to the property. On 9 December 2021 the resident reported that people had broken into the communal area of her block and “smashed in” her front door. The landlord contacted the police to report this and moved the resident into a hotel on the same day. The following day the landlord contacted the resident’s mother and advised it would be in touch regarding an emergency move to a different property. It also advised that it had raised works to board up the communal door of the block which meant that her possessions could remain safely within the property in the meantime.
  3. On 4 January 2022 the resident reported that, having walked past the property, she could see that someone had smashed the spare bedroom window. Based on this she raised concerns that someone may have gained access to the property. The landlord visited on 6 January 2022 and found that people had accessed the flat and used intravenous drugs within it. We understand it then contacted the police who removed the squatters. Due to the risk from discarded needles, it raised a job to complete a needle sweep.
  4. The landlord updated the resident on 11 January 2022 and explained it needed to do so to ensure her safety before she could go and check on her things. On 13 January 2022 the landlord then visited the property, completed a needle sweep, but mistakenly disposed of all the resident’s possessions. On 28 January 2022 the landlord became aware of this mistake and contacted the resident’s mother to apologise.
  5. On 3 February 2022 the landlord apologised again and advised the resident’s mother that it was considering what appliances and furniture it may be able to provide to the resident once she was moved into a new property. The resident’s mother agreed to wait to discuss any material resolutions until the landlord had secured a new property for her daughter.
  6. Both parties communicated intermittently about this over the next month. On 18 March 2022 it appears the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation to resolve things, which she refused. It also offered £150 in shopping vouchers, which we understand she accepted. On 22 March 2022 the landlord logged a formal complaint about the disposal of the resident’s possessions. The following day the resident moved into a new property. On 12 May 2022 the resident’s mother emailed the landlord and asked it to address her complaint.
  7. On 7 June 2022 the landlord contacted her and asked her to provide more context and explain what she wanted it to do to resolve things. She responded on the same day and explained that the compensation offered was not enough to reimburse the resident for all the possessions lost. She explained that many were of sentimental value and so could not be valued monetarily. She also explained that any compensation needed to address the significant distress this mistake had caused the resident.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 June 2022. It apologised for its mistake and offered the resident £1,500 to reimburse her for her lost possessions. It also explained it had provided £150 in shopping vouchers and installed various appliances and furniture in the new property. The resident responded on 22 July 2022 and complained that the compensation offered was insufficient. The landlord replied on 27 July 2022 and explained how to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was not satisfied. It also asked her to provide a breakdown of the possessions lost and the value of these.
  9. On 5 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and explained she wanted £3,500 in compensation. The landlord advised that she had not responded to its 27 July 2022 email and directed her to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She did so on 6 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and asked her again to provide a breakdown of the value of the lost possessions. On 14 November 2022 she provided this and calculated the total value at £5,500. She also emphasised that this figure still failed to address the loss of sentimental possessions and emotional impact.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 December 2022. It apologised again and explained some of the actions it had taken to decant the resident and then find her a new property. It also restated that it had offered £150 in vouchers and fitted new furniture and appliances in her new property. It explained that, based on the available evidence, it remained of the view that its offer of £1,500 was sufficient to reimburse the resident for the possessions it disposed of.
  11. The resident was not satisfied with this and contacted the Ombudsman in March 2023. To resolve her complaint, she would like £5,500 to reimburse her for her possessions, and further compensation to remedy the distress and inconvenience she says she has been caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complains that the landlord has failed to offer compensation which would fully reimburse her for her lost possessions. While the Ombudsman can order compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by a landlord’s actions or omissions, we do not typically order compensation for lost possessions as we do not operate in the same way as an insurer. Therefore, this investigation will not attempt to determine the value of the resident’s possessions or make related compensatory orders.
  2. Furthermore, this investigation will not attempt to determine the monetary value of sentimental or priceless possessions which the resident claims the landlord incorrectly disposed of.

How the landlord handled the resident’s possessions while it rehoused her

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy does not cover damage to tenant’s belongings in excess of £500. However, it explains that its own liability insurance covers loss to a customer due to its own negligence. It states that, when there is no personal injury but there is doubt as to whether the case is covered by the liability insurance the case should be discussed with the insurance team who will refer to the insurer for guidance.
  2. The landlord has accepted unequivocally and consistently since late January 2022 that it made a mistake when it disposed of the resident’s possessions on 13 January 2022. Given the resident’s significant mental health vulnerabilities, and the fact she had fled her home due to serious threats to her safety, the impact of this mistake likely caused her severe distress. For this reason, we will make an order for compensation to put this right.
  3. Internal emails from 24 January 2022 indicate that the landlord became aware of this mistake around this time. An exchange between landlord staff notes “looks like [we] have made an error here I had both flats cleared out along with needle sweeps.” This is in reference to the resident’s flat and the neighbouring property. Further emails on 28 January 2022 note that “[the resident’s] belongings…were cleared and disposed of by mistake.” We can see the landlord contacted the resident’s mother on 28 January 2022 to explain its mistake and apologise for it.
  4. Although its mistake was significant, the landlord acted positively by engaging with her within a few days to discuss how it could resolve it. On 3 February 2022 the resident’s mother agreed to wait “a little while” until permanent accommodation had been arranged before reengaging to discuss the value of the lost belongings.
  5. On 18 March 2022 the landlord explained that it would fit white appliances in the new property and “give vouchers for the other items”. It also explained it “would look to be offering £500” in compensation. The resident’s mother advised that she would discuss this with her daughter and get back in touch.
  6. On 22 March 2022 the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s possessions and its subsequent offer of compensation. She explained that the sum was not enough to fully reimburse her daughter. She also advised that it had disposed of sentimental possessions and that this had caused significant emotional distress to the resident.
  7. Therefore, as per its compensation policy, the landlord should have at this stage contacted its insurance team for advice on a potential claim via its liability insurance. We have seen no indication it did so, and this likely delayed a resolution and caused the resident further distress.
  8. The landlord then failed to address the resident’s request for greater compensation until it contacted her mother on 7 June 2022 to ask to restate her complaint. She explained again that the compensation it had offered was not sufficient to reimburse her daughter or address the emotional impact she was caused.
  9. In its stage 1 response on 28 June 2022 the landlord then increased its offer to £1,500 and explained it had also provided £150 in vouchers. There is no evidence to show how the landlord calculated this figure. Furthermore, given the resident’s repeated insistence that the value of her lost possessions was over £500, the landlord should have referred this case to its insurance team as per its policy. We have seen no indication it did so, and we consider this was another missed opportunity to resolve the material impact of its mistake.
  10. The resident, via her mother, replied to the stage 1 response and explained that the increased compensation offer still did not go far enough to reimburse her or put right the distress she was caused. The landlord directed her to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and provide a breakdown of the value of her lost possessions. While it was correct to advise her how to escalate her complaint, the landlord missed another opportunity here to refer the case to its insurer. We can see no indication that it considered doing so as per its policy, and we consider this likely further delayed any resolution.
  11. On 5 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord for £3,500 compensation. It replied on 7 October 2022 and advised her to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and include a breakdown of these costs. The resident’s mother provided this on 14 November 2022 and valued the lost possessions at £5,500. The calculation of material loss of this scale and type is most appropriately handled by an insurer. However, the landlord failed again at this point to refer this to its insurer despite being provided with the breakdown it requested.
  12. On 14 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response and restated its offer of £1,500. We have seen no evidence to show how it calculated this, and no evidence that it involved its insurance team at any stage. Its failure to do so means that it was unable to meaningfully justify its calculation to the resident. Had it done so at this stage, or agreed with the resident that it would refer the case to its insurer as per its policy, then it would have given the resident the opportunity to seek recompense via this defined process. It’s failure to do so was a significant shortcoming and likely caused her distress.
  13. Ultimately, we consider the landlord erred significantly in disposing of her possessions, and then repeatedly failed to address the consequent material loss as per its policy. For this reason, we will order it to pay the resident compensation to put both omissions right.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay sums of £700 or over in cases of maladministration or severe maladministration which have had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. It explains that remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.
  15. The resident has significant vulnerabilities, and internal emails from 3 February 2022 indicate the landlord was aware of these. We also note the resident fled her own home due to serious threats to her safety, and that she was being housed in temporary accommodation at the time the landlord disposed of her possessions. This in turn means that the likely distress caused by this mistake was likely experienced more severely than it would have been by someone in less extreme circumstances.
  16. The resident has also explained that this emotional impact has been long-term, and we accept her view. With these considerations in mind, we will order the landlord pays her £1,000 to put this right. This payment is separate from the £1,500 compensation and £150 in vouchers already offered, since these were offered to reimburse her for lost possessions only. Given that it should have referred to its insurer to determine the compensation for material loss, and that it has no evidence to show how it arrived at this figure, we do not consider this was offer was appropriate.
  17. Following the disposal of her possessions, the landlord then failed to refer her case to its insurer from March 2022 onwards. We consider that this has delayed a resolution which in turn has likely compounded the resident’s distress. We also note that this situation remains unresolved. With these considerations in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident £700 in accordance with its policy to remedy this emotional impact.
  18. To address the material loss claimed by the resident, we will order the landlord to refer a claim on its liability insurance as per its policy. If the insurer refuses to consider the claim due to the passage of time, the landlord must engage with the resident and consider her evidence of any lost possessions. It must then set out its position on her request for compensation and fully evidence this.

How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 days, and then address them within 10 working days of this. If it needs to extend this deadline it will provide updated timescales. This updated timescale will not exceed a further 10 working days without an exceptional reason.
  2. Its policy obliges it to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 days and address them within 20 working days of this. If it needs to extend this deadline it will provide updated timescales for this. This updated timescale will not exceed a further 20 working days without an exceptional reason.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, which was in line with its policy. However, it did not provide a stage 1 response until 7 June 2022. This exceeded its timescales by 41 working days. It emailed the resident on 7 June 2022 and asked her to restate her complaint, but did not explain why it had been unable to address her email of 22 March 2022.
  4. It should have updated the resident and provided new timescales as per its policy, and we consider this omission likely caused her some distress. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to pay her compensation to put this right.
  5. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that it will pay sums between £50 and £250 to put right instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls. Considering this guidance, and the length of the complaint handling delay, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £100.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged this and asked her to provide a breakdown of the costs of her lost possessions so it could investigate further. The resident did so on 14 November 2022, and the landlord acknowledged this on 16 November 2022. It then provided its stage 2 response on 14 December 2022. If we treat 6 October 2022 as the escalation date, this response was 30 working days late.
  7. However, we note that the landlord requested further evidence from the resident when it acknowledged her escalation request and advised her that it needed this to investigate further. The resident did not provide this until 14 November 2022. Therefore, we are minded to treat 14 November 2022 as the escalation date. On this basis, the stage 2 response was 3 working days late. While this delay was likely slightly frustrating, it is relatively slight and so any impact would have been marginal. For this reason, we will not make any related orders.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s possessions while it rehoused her.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology is to be made by the Chief Executive either verbally or in writing, depending on which the resident prefers.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £1,800, inclusive of:
    1. £1,000 for incorrectly disposing of her possessions.
    2. £700 for failing to refer her case to its insurer.
    3. £100 for complaint handling delays.
  3. The landlord is to facilitate a claim by the resident on its liability insurance for the losses which she considers it is responsible for.
  4. If the insurer refuses to consider the claim due to the passage of time, the landlord is to engage with the resident and consider her evidence of any lost possessions. It is then to set out its position on her request for compensation and fully evidence its response.
  5. The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.