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

Manchester City Council (202315682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315682

Manchester City Council

28 January 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the communication of its fire safety policy particularly the clear communal areas section.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the removal, and return of personal items stored in communal areas of the building.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, they have held the lease since December 2019. The landlord is a local authority and is the freeholder of the block. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities.
  2. The property is a flat which is located within a wider block of flats. The resident’s property is accessed via a communal walkway.
  3. On 1 June 2023 the landlord sent letters and placed posters in the buildings communal areas informing resident’s that communal areas would need to be cleared of personal items due to fire safety concerns.
  4. On 13 June 2023 the landlord placed warning stickers on personal decorative items the resident had placed outside of their home on a communal walkway. The stickers informed the resident the items would need to be removed within 24 hours.
  5. On 13 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said:
    1. They were frustrated to return home from work to find warning stickers on their items. The resident said they had decorative items outside of their home for years and this had never been an issue before.
    2. They thought it was rude that the landlord had demanded removal of the items within 24 hours, and that the landlord intended to charge the resident for removal and storage fees.
    3. The resident had back problems and could not move the items themselves.
  6. On 14 June 2023 the landlord responded to the resident via a stage one complaint response. The landlord said:
    1. It had decided all personal items from communal areas of the building needed to be removed for the landlord to meet its obligations under the Fire Safety Act.
    2. Personal items stored in communal areas and walkways could affect a person’s ability to safely use the building’s escape routes should a fire occur.
    3. The landlord would remove and store the resident’s personal items free of charge. The landlord also offered to place their plants into the communal garden if the resident preferred this option.
    4. The landlord apologised to the resident for its lack of notice about its intention to clear all communal areas. It said the usual process would be to give a resident 7 days notice to remove items, before applying the 24 hour notice stickers if the items had not been removed.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and on 22 June 2023 the resident requested that the matter be escalated to a stage 2 complaint.
  8. On 27 June 2023 the landlord responded to the resident via a stage 2 complaint response, which included:
    1. The landlord apologised for its lack of prior communication with the resident, and said the resident should have received a letter outlining the upcoming changes.
    2. On 15 June the landlord had arranged for the items to be returned to the resident at and agreed time, but the resident was not present at the property.
    3. The landlord would not charge the resident any storage or removal fees.
    4. The landlord had decided to leave the plants in the communal gardens so they had access to water. Items which held significant sentimental value to the resident were being stored in a secured area. As the resident was away on holiday, the landlord said it could return the items to the resident when they were back home.
    5. As the resident was unable to keep the plants outside of their property, the landlord offered to donate them to a local scheme or it suggested the plants could remain in the communal gardens.
    6. The landlord said it had learnt from this experience and said in future it would ensure letters specific to leaseholders were produced and sent. The landlord also said it had updated its training and processes to ensure leaseholders would in future receive written warnings, warning stickers and then a final warning sticker.
  9. On 30 July 2023 the resident contacted this service as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord. The resident felt the compensation offered by the landlord was inappropriate and did not make up for the damaged caused to their items. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s communication with the resident around its communal spaces policy

  1. The landlord operates a complaints policy, under this policy the landlord will assess the detriment caused to a resident and will use this to consider the appropriate outcome to remedy the situation.
  2. When assessing detriment, the landlord will also consider relevant circumstances surrounding a complaint. These include the frequency of issues, length of time, cumulative incidents and a resident’s vulnerabilities.
  3. On 1 June 2023 the landlord sent out letters to residents of the building. The letters gave notice that from 14 June 2023 any personal items in communal areas of the building would be removed. The letter said this was to ensure fire safety escape routes remained unobstructed. The letter said if residents were unable to remove the items before the 14 June 2023, they could contact the landlord and make alternative arrangements. Both the resident and the landlord have said the resident did not receive this letter.
  4. In addition to the 1 June 2023 letter the landlord placed fire safety posters in the communal areas of the building. The poster said the landlord was operating a policy were all landings, walkways, foyers and stairways would be cleared. This was to ensure there were no potential obstructions in communal areas should residents need to evacuate their homes. The landlord said it would be adopting a zero-tolerance approach and carrying out regular inspections.
  5. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for the caretaking of the communal walkways. As such it was appropriate for the landlord to inform all resident’s they would need to clear their personal items from the walkway within a specific timeframe.
  6. The landlord’s procedure for enforcing its clear communal policy was to inform residents of its new commitment to having clear communal areas. It would then place 7 day warning stickers on any personal items found in communal areas, if the items were not removed then it would place 24 hour notice stickers on any items remaining in the communal areas. The landlord would then take steps to remove and store the items, and it would charge for these services.
  7. The resident said they did not receive the letter dated 1 June 2023, and the landlord did not place 7 day notice stickers on the resident items as per its own procedure. This was inappropriate and meant the resident only had 24 hours notice of their requirement to move the personal items they stored at the front of their property. It is understandable why the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s actions, as they had been given very little time to make the required changes.
  8. The resident told this Service that they would have had space in their property to store the items, and had they been given 7 days notice by the landlord they would have had time to move the items.
  9. In its stage one and stage 2 responses the landlord acknowledged its own shortcomings about it not notifying the resident of the upcoming changes. The landlord apologised for this, which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the landlord could have shown additional flexibility in extending its deadline to the resident around clearing their communal items, considering it had not followed its own policy in notifying the resident of the changes in writing and then utilising the 7 day notice stickers.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had learned from the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it would ensure leaseholders were sent communications by the landlord in the future, and it would update staff training around its own policies and processes. This was appropriate, as the Ombudsman encourages landlords to use its complaint processes to learn from its shortcomings and improve its services.
  11. The detriment caused to the resident by the landlord was limited, as the issue in question was not linked to any ongoing or prolonged issues. However, the landlord did fail in implementing its own policies, and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience. If the resident had the resident been provided with a 14 day or 7 day warning by the landlord, then this would likely have prevented the distress the resident experienced.
  12. The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred after considering:
    1. The landlord failed to communicate its policy changes to the resident.
    2. The landlord did not give the resident adequate notice of its clear communal policy.
    3. The landlord offered the resident an apology but failed offer appropriate redress for the distress caused by its failures in service.
    4. The landlord recognised its own failings and made changes to its policies, procedures and staff training around its communication with leaseholders.
  13. In light of the finding of a service failure, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation after considering the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s actions in removing and attempting to return the resident’s items

  1. The landlord operates a fire safety policy. Under this policy residents are advised they should ensure all landings, corridors and doorways are clear of obstructions to help keep the building safe. The policy says items left in communal areas could block possible escape routes, and add fuel to a fire.
  2. In accordance with the resident’s lease the landlord is responsible for the caretaking and cleaning of all communal areas and pathways, and the resident is required to pay a service charge for this work.
  3. In its stage one response the landlord told the resident it was removing the items stored outside of the resident’s property due to its obligations under the Fire Safety Act.
  4. The Fire Safety act 2022 came into force on 23 January 2023. Under the act responsible persons (which includes landlords) for residential buildings above 11 meters in height are responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent building safety risks. This include taking reasonable steps and actions to prevent fires from occurring and to take steps to limit the severity of a potential fire. This obligation also includes the responsibility to ensure escape and/or evacuation routes are kept clear.
  5. Considering the landlord’s obligation to take reasonable steps to limit the risk of a fire occurring, its decision to adopt a clear communal area policy was appropriate.
  6. On 14 July 2023 the landlord removed the items stored outside the resident’s home. The landlord told the resident it had removed the items on the resident’s behalf because of the resident’s back injury. The landlord told the resident it would store the items securely without cost until the resident wanted the items returned. The landlord also suggested it could move the resident’s plants into the communal gardens.
  7. The landlord could have contacted the resident to ascertain their wishes about the removal or storage of the items rather than deciding on the resident’s behalf. This would have been fair and reasonable considering the landlord had not given the resident reasonable notice of its policy change and had not applied the 7 day warning stickers as per its own procedure.
  8. The landlord said on 15 June 2023 it tried to return the items to the resident at a pre-arranged time, but no one was present at the resident’s property. On 22 June 2023 the landlord said it tried to contact the resident over the phone, but it was unable to contact the resident. The landlord then emailed the resident and asked if they would like the items returned, or if they would like the plants to be placed in the communal garden. The landlord tried to call the resident on 23 June 2023, and learned they were on holiday.
  9. It appears the landlord made a significant effort to contact the resident, this was appropriate. The landlord also provided the resident with different options in relation to the items such as donating the plants to local initiatives, or to place the plants in the communal areas of the garden. This was appropriate as it provided the resident with options and showed the landlord was considerate of the resident’s wishes.
  10. On 23 June 2023 the landlord decided to move the resident’s plants into the communal garden, so the plants would have access to water and sunlight. The landlord said to the resident it would still assist with returning the items to the resident’s preferred location. This was an appropriate action.
  11. However, at this point the plants had been in storage for 9 days and could have already been damaged from the lack of light and water, as such, the landlord should have come to this decision earlier. Although it is likely that the landlord was anticipating storing the items for a short period of time, and decided to move the items once it realised this was not the case.
  12. The landlord did keep items which the resident said had significant sentimental value in storage so they would be protected from any potential damage. This indicated the landlord was attempting to maintain the condition of the resident’s items.
  13. On 31 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the items it had placed in the communal gardens were damaged. It was unclear if the items were vandalised, or damaged as a result of bad weather.
  14. On 4 August 2023 the landlord offered the resident a high street gift voucher to the monetary value of the damaged items. The landlord specified the offered voucher would not cover the initial retail value of the damaged items. The resident was unhappy with this offer as they felt it didn’t reflect the cost of the damaged items, and the time and care they had put into growing the plants.
  15. The detriment caused to the resident related to the damage to their personal items and any subsequent distress and frustration. As such the detriment was limited as it was not linked to any prolonged issues, and the issue in question did not affect the resident’s ability to enjoy the use of their home.
  16. The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress after considering:
    1. The landlord tried to contact the resident about returning the items on several occasions.
    2. The landlord offered to assist the resident by returning the items to a place of their preference.
    3. The resident’s items were damaged after being placed into storage and then placed in communal gardens.
    4. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord intended to damage the resident’s items.
    5. The landlord offered the resident compensation, but the resident did not believe the compensation offered was sufficient for the value of the damaged items.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident around changes to the communal areas of the building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in relation to its actions in removing and retuning the resident’s items.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £50 for its communication with the resident about its changes to the communal areas of the building.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should apologise to the resident, and send the resident its most up to date policy or communication policy which references its commitment to having clear communal areas.
  2. The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of a gift voucher of the residents choosing, to the value of the damaged items, is paid to resident within 28 days of this report. If the landlord has not already been paid this sum.