Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202220883)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220883

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

27 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 the landlord’s handling of the disposal of the resident’s personal belongings stored in a communal meter cupboard.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a ground floor, 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association and the tenancy started in January 2021.
4. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 1 November 2022 and noticed items (recorded as paint tins, boxes of items and general goods) stored in the communal meter cupboard. The surveyor photographed the items, put a sticker on the cupboard (which said the items needed to be removed), and said he posted a notice letter through residents’ doors giving 24 hours’ notice to remove the items. The notice letter said if the items were not moved, the landlord would remove them, store them for 28 days, and dispose of them if not claimed. 
5. The landlord raised a job for its contractor to remove the items on 7 November 2022 and the job was recorded as completed on 11 November 2022. On the same day, the resident called the landlord looking to retrieve his items, saying he had only seen the sticker that day as he had been away, and asking how to get his belongings back. The resident called the landlord a further 5 times from 15 to 30 November 2022 to find out what had happened to his belongings. He said the items that were removed had financial and sentimental value.
6. Around 2 December 2022 the landlord left a voicemail for the resident, saying he would not be able to recover his belongings as they had been disposed of.
7. On 5 December 2022, the resident emailed both the landlord and its contractor to find out when the job was raised and completed and when his belongings were disposed of. The contractor replied the same day and confirmed the job was raised on 7 November 2022, and it attended and disposed of the items on 11 November 2022.
8. The resident emailed the contractor the following day and asked if it was usual procedure to destroy items on the day of collection, and for an inventory of items collected and destroyed. The contractor replied and said the request had been logged as a disposal, and it is the usual process that items collected are disposed of the same day. It said it collected paint pots, boxes of items, and general items. The resident said it had disposed of family photos and videos, two boxes of children’s football kits, golf clubs, power tools, a bag of ten footballs (and other football equipment), a TV, and a shoe box full of collectible baseball and hockey cards. He reiterated the items were of huge sentimental and financial value.
9. An internal landlord email from 7 December 2022 said the resident had agreed he should not have left valuable items in the cupboard but no record of this communication has been provided to this Service. The following day, in another internal email, the landlord said it had a zero tolerance policy for items left in communal areas, and when it attended, it identified and stickered items that were not meant to be in the cupboard, posted a notice letter to residents, and raised a removal request.
10. The resident raised a formal complaint by email on 16 December 2022. He said he called the landlord the day his belongings were removed to find out where they were, and had called regularly since, but had not been told what had happened to them until early December 2022. He said he had previously raised a complaint, which he did not receive a response to, the items had a huge sentimental and financial value, and he wanted compensation. There is no evidence of a complaint raised prior to this date.
11. It is not clear exactly when the resident said he had been told he could store items in the cupboard, but the landlord emailed him on 20 December 2022 to ask who had told him he could. The resident replied the same day and said it was the staff member that showed him the property. He then chased for an update on his complaint on 4 January 2023.
12. An internal landlord email on 18 January 2023 said it would seem it did not follow procedure, as the items were not stored for a period of time giving the resident opportunity to collect them, and it acknowledged this was a failure. The landlord emailed its contractor on 19 January 2023 and asked for its policy for when items are collected, whether it keeps an inventory of items, and confirmation the items had been disposed of.
13. An internal landlord email from 19 January 2023 said the job had been raised under the instruction of the surveyor, but it had been raised incorrectly as it was raised as removal/dispose of items rather than remove and store. It said its policy states residents have 28 days to collect items from its contractor once items are removed, and said the resident had said:
    1. He was given a key to the cupboard, and was told he could use it to store items, when he moved in to the property.
    2. He acknowledged he should not have stored valuable items there.
    3. He did not see the sticker, and had not received the notice letter, as he had been away.
14. The contractor emailed the landlord on 19 January 2023 and said it does not record every individual item that is removed, only a general list. It confirmed the items were disposed of on the day of collection.
15. In an internal email the following day, the landlord discussed the option of an insurance claim, but thought the value of the items would be difficult to quantify. There are no call notes, but it said it called the resident and offered £500 compensation, which he declined.
16. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 January 2023. It said:
    1. Its policy stated no items should be stored in communal areas or cupboards due to fire and other potential risks.
    2. The resident had placed the items in the cupboard, and he had 10 days to remove the items from the day the notice letter was posted, to the day the items were removed.
    3. It had raised the job incorrectly as remove and dispose, rather than remove and store.
    4. It apologised his items had been disposed of, said that his contents insurance may cover the value, and although it could not put a price on items of sentimental value, it wanted to offer £500 compensation.
17. The resident responded on 7 February 2023, declined the offer, and requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2.
18. On 8 February 2023 the surveyor told the landlord he “categorically remembered” it rained on the day he visited, and he had to go back to his car to prepare the notice letters before he posted them through the letter boxes of each property. The landlord requested for jobs to include more information in the future and said it would ask its contractor to store items for 28 days on all jobs. It also asked the resident by email what he wanted as compensation.
19. The resident replied on 10 February 2023, saying he wanted £5,000 compensation to make up for the value of items disposed of, emotional stress, and time. He said he did everything he could to retrieve the items, including calling on the day they were removed, but the landlord did not confirm what had happened to the items for another 4 weeks. He said there was a chance it could have stopped its contractor from disposing of the items on the day he called, and it had had a detrimental effect on his life.
20. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 February 2023, in which it said:
    1. It had spoken with its surveyor, who confirmed he had posted the notice letter and put stickers on the communal cupboard door.
    2. It had raised the job incorrectly as remove and dispose, rather than remove and store, and apologised. 
    3. His contents insurance may cover the value of the items, and he could consider making a claim.
    4. It apologised for the length of time it took for it to confirm what had happened to his items.
    5. No items should be stored in communal areas, and he would have been informed of this when he moved in. As well as posing a fire risk, items stored in a communal cupboard are at risk of theft.
    6. The £500 compensation offer remained should he wish to accept, and he could escalate the complaint to this Service.
21. The resident replied on 15 February 2023, when he reiterated that: he had been given a key to use the cupboard when he moved in; he had not received the notice letter; he had contacted the landlord within 28 days and should have been able to retrieve his items; and the £500 compensation offer was inadequate, as the situation had caused him pain, distress, and frustration.

Assessment and findings

Disposal of the resident’s belongings

22. The tenancy agreement is clear that items should not be left in communal areas as they pose a risk to safety and may stop emergency services operating effectively. It expressly states that the resident should not use communal areas for storage and the landlord reserves the right to remove such items, store them for 28 days, and then dispose of them.
23. The landlord’s fire management procedure says fire risk assessments are carried out by its surveyor. The surveyor is responsible for raising follow on work, for example relating to residents’ possessions in communal areas.  It says the landlord has a zero-tolerance approach to items left or stored in internal communal areas.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy says:
    1. It will consider compensation when its service has fallen below what it would expect to deliver, and when specific financial losses have been incurred or loss or damage to personal property. For a compensation request to be considered, proof of the specific loss is required.
    2. When a compensation claim is for more than £1,000, an insurance claim may be appropriate, and if the claim is referred to its insurers, compensation cannot be considered until the claim outcome is known.
    3. It will accept responsibility for loss or damage to a resident’s personal belongings, where this cannot reasonably be expected to be covered by the resident’s own insurance, irrespective as to whether the resident has chosen to take out insurance or not.
25. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes. This Service must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. When a landlord is at fault, it should seek to put the resident back to the position they would have been in if there had been no fault, however, sometimes it is not possible to do so, and in these cases, financial compensation may be appropriate.
26. There is no evidence to confirm what the resident was told when he viewed the property, but the tenancy agreement he signed clearly stated he must not store items in communal areas. The landlord correctly followed its policy by identifying the need to remove the items, issuing notices to residents, and removing the items in due course.
27. The landlord provided pictures taken on the date of its inspection that show the items stored in the communal cupboard, the cupboard with a sticker on, and the notice letter. However, in the absence of an inventory, it is unclear exactly what items were stored there, and subsequently removed by the contractor.
28. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, and it is unfortunate he was not able to remove the items prior to them being collected, particularly as he had 10 days, rather than the stated 24 hours, to do so. However, the communal cupboard was not secure storage appropriate for keeping items of sentimental and financial value. Instead, it was an electrical meter cupboard which contractors, and likely other residents, would have had access to. Even if the resident had evidence to support the value of the items disposed of, he could have mitigated his loss, or risk of loss, by storing his belongings in his own property.
29. It is not disputed that the landlord made an error disposing of the items when it did, as they should have been stored, in line with its process, until 30 November 2022. It is therefore left for this Service to determine whether the landlord has offered appropriate redress in view of its failing.
30. The landlord has appropriately apologised, acknowledged its failings, and explained the error that occurred. It offered £500 compensation for the items the resident lost, while accepting it was not possible to put a value on sentimental items. It also demonstrated it was looking to learn from outcomes by asking for jobs to include more information going forward, and jobs raised for its contractor will say to store any items for 28 days. Taking into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this represents reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

31. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to resolve a complaint within 10 working days, and when this is not possible, it will ask the resident’s permission for an extension. The landlord did not ask for an extension, and did not send its stage 1 response until 27 working days after the resident made his complaint, even though he chased for an update after 11 working days, and that was a failing.
32. The delay caused the resident to chase for an update which caused further inconvenience. The landlord failed to provide an update when chased and it did not apologise for the delay responding to his complaint within its stage 1 or 2 responses. The Ombudsman acknowledges the stage 2 response was sent in a timely manner and within its policy timeframe.
33. The landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to service failure, and an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handing of the disposal of the resident’s personal belongings stored in a communal meter cupboard.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for its complaints handling failings. 
    2. Pay directly to the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the complaint.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended the landlord ensures its contractor will store removed items for 28 days, if it has not done so already, to avoid a similar situation in the future.