From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Portsmouth City Council (202325790)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325790

Portsmouth City Council

14 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to remove personal items from communal areas and its handling of the matter.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a third floor flat. There is a communal walkway in front of the resident’s flat which also serves as access to neighbouring properties.
  2. The resident has explained from mid-March 2023 he reported concerns about the landlord’s plan to remove personal items from communal walkways (in front of flats) in his block. The evidence shows after a fire risk assessment (FRA) dated 13 March 2023 identified the resident’s plant pot as “combustible/personal items”, it visited the resident to ask him to remove it. On 14 March 2023 it wrote to all residents about removing personal items saying, “failure to comply could affect your tenancy”.
  3. On 26 April 2023 the resident raised complaints such as the landlord not showing identification at the 13 March visit or replying to a letter he had sent on 12 April 2023. On 9 May 2023, he added more complaints including that the landlord could not ask residents to remove personal items and that its “eviction threat” was a form of intimidation, bullying and harassment.
  4. After visiting the resident on 8 June 2023 to discuss his complaint, on 16 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the 13 March visit and its 14 March letter but disagreed that residents had been bullied or intimidated. It said it had been waiting for legal advice about the resident’s 12 April letter and apologised for not replying. It explained the resident could keep plant pots on his bedroom balcony. But it said while tenancies were not at risk, personal items could not be kept in communal areas such as walkways. It also said from 20 June 2023 it would be contacting residents about removing items from communal areas.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied. In letters from 2 to 14 July 2023, he escalated his complaint. He added to his original concerns including that he had been told not to keep plants on his balcony and the landlord was re-interpreting the way it managed “clear” communal areas. He requested the evidence it had relied on to support its position such as the FRA. He asked it to return a plant pot which the landlord removed in early July 2023.
  6. On 14 August 2023, the landlord issued its final complaint response. It again apologised for its 13 March visit and 14 March letter. It said personal items could be kept on private balconies (accessible by flats). But it had always been the case that these items were not allowed in communal areas. It said recent building management changes were due to among other things the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). It said an 8 June visit to the resident allowed it to give him an opportunity to explain his position before it issued its stage 1 response. It agreed to return the plant pot to the resident without a release fee. Finally, it provided the FRA.
  7. On 27 October 2023 the resident brought his complaint to the Service. He wants the landlord to apologise and return his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s communication with the Service in April and May 2025, he has raised new issues such as the landlord’s consultation with residents’ about its “zero tolerance” fire policy. As these matters were not part of his April 2023 complaint to the landlord, he should raise a formal complaint about any additional matters with it. If he remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process, he has the option of bringing the new matters to the Ombudsman for consideration.
  2. The resident has explained the landlord’s actions have also had an impact on other residents and he wants the landlord to apologise to all residents affected and return any items removed from them. We are unable to consider matters raised on behalf of another without their authority. If other residents have concerns, they can raise a formal complaint with the landlord and also bring the matter to the Ombudsman for consideration.

The landlord’s decision to remove personal items from communal areas and its handling of the matter

  1. The resident’s lease states the flat excludes the “surface of the floor balcony” and residents shall not leave items in or on areas such as “passages”. The landlord has informed the Service it does not have a communal areas policy.
  2. The landlord has informed the Service that at the time of the resident’s complaint it applied a ‘managed use’ fire policy to manage risks in communal spaces. The policy has not been provided to the Service.
  3. The FRA dated 13 March 2023 describes “fire hazards or fire precautions”. It identified “combustible/personal items” found in the common areas which included the resident’s plant pot. The FRA recommended the landlord give the highest priority to taking action to reduce personal items within communal areas and “especially along the means of escape”.
  4. On 26 April 2023 the resident complained that at the 13 March visit the landlord did not show identification or explain why he should remove items from the walkway. Further, he said it did not reply to his 12 April 2023 letter (about mistakes in its 14 March letter). On 9 May 2023 he said tenancy agreements and leases did not say plant pots were not allowed in communal areas. Nor that the landlord could ask residents to remove personal items, take them away if they did not and then charge for returning such items. He considered its actions as threats of eviction, intimidation, harassment, and bullying.
  5. On 16 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the March 2023 visit and letter. It said it should have explained the reason for the visit and provided identification. It said its officer had used an incorrect letter template, so the letter was “misleading” and recognised this had led to concerns. But it did not agree that its actions could be seen as bullying or intimidating. It apologised for not replying to the resident’s 12 April letter explaining it had been waiting for legal advice. It said tenancy agreements required that communal areas were clear of personal items and the landlord was responsible for safe access in those areas for residents and visitors. Accordingly, it said to comply with the FRA, it could remove items identified as a risk including his items, which it wished to do so with his support. It however confirmed the resident could keep plant pots on his private bedroom balcony.
  6. The landlord confirmed tenancies were not at risk and apologised for the impact of the 14 March 2023 letter. It said it had held team discussions to improve processes around clearing communal areas and replying to letters. It informed him that from 20 June 2023 it would be visiting and writing to him about removing his personal items from the communal areas.
  7. The landlord has not provided its “managed use” fire policy. This has meant that the Service has been unable to assess its application of the policy.
  8. The lease states the resident’s flat does not include the “surface of the floor balcony”. Therefore, areas such as staircases, passages or fire escapes are the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord acknowledged residents had historically kept items in communal areas. However, it explained its reasons for now asking its residents to remove such items. This included protecting residents and visitors by providing safe access. This was a reasonable explanation as the FRA required the landlord to prioritise its recommendations to address “combustible/personal items” such as the resident’s plant pot.
  9. While the 14 March 2023 letter would have understandably caused concern, the landlord’s complaint response provided reassurance that tenancies were not at risk. It also appropriately gave sufficient notice of its plan of action (from 20 June 2023) as well as confirming the resident had the option of putting plant pots on his private balcony. Given the FRA findings and as the lease said items could not be left in areas such as “passages”, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. Its response showed it was trying to carry out its safe areas plan while considering the resident’s concerns and engaging him.
  10. The landlord appropriately accepted its failings and apologised for the March visit and letter. It demonstrated learning saying it had put in place actions to improve its service. For instance, the officer, who had sent the 14 March 2023 letter, which it recognised was incorrect and poorly written, now had all their letters approved by a manager. In addition, it said it had met teams internally to communicate the background and reasoning for clearing communal areas such as the items set out in the FRA. This was reasonable and showed it was putting right its acknowledged mistakes.
  11. The landlord’s explanation of the delays with replying to the resident’s 12 April letter was reasonable. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It also demonstrated learning as it said it had spoken to the relevant manager about replying to letters.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint in letters from 2 to 14 July 2023. He added to his original concerns saying he had previously been told not to keep plants on his balcony and the landlord was interpreting “clear” communal areas differently to the way it had in the past, including with its use of the “eviction” warning. He said on 8 June 2023 the landlord said that it had a “genuine desire to understand”, but it had used a follow up email from him “as though it formed a legitimate part of my complaint”. It had not provided him with the evidence it had relied on such as the FRA. He also wanted it to return his plant pot, which it had removed.
  13. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 14 August 2023. It again apologised for the 13 March 2023 visit and the 14 March letter saying both should have been more personal, accurate and clearer. It accepted the resident felt the language used in the letter was “threatening” and apologised for any distress caused. It confirmed while personal items could be kept on private balconies in flat, it said it had always been the case such items were not allowed in communal areas. It explained recent changes to the way it was dealing with communal areas was because of the BSA along with advice from the Fire and Rescue Service. The 8 June visit and the resident’s follow up email was intended to let him explain his position before the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It agreed to return the resident’s plant pot and waive any fees.
  14. The Service has not seen evidence the resident had previously been told he could not put plants on his bedroom balcony. By again clarifying he could, the landlord responded appropriately.
  15. The landlord appropriately offered an explanation about developments in its building management and fire safety advice to explain its proactive actions around removing items in communal areas. It also provided the evidence requested by the resident such as the FRA. This was reasonable.
  16. The Service has not seen the email the resident sent to the landlord after the 8 June 2023 meeting nor the visit note. The landlord said the resident had been invited to consider the matter and email it to allow it to better understand the issues. This showed the landlord’s intentions had been to give the resident the chance to set out his full concerns for its consideration before making its decision and therefore, this was reasonable.
  17. Following the landlord’s action plan set out in its initial complaint response, the resident’s plant pot was removed in July 2023. The evidence shows on 21 June a visit took place to ask the resident to remove the plant pot. This request was followed by a letter on 26 June 2023. The letter stated that if the landlord removed the plant pot it could charge a release fee or dispose of the item. Despite this the landlord’s offer to return the plant pot without a fee is reasonable and shows a willingness to build its relationship with the resident. The landlord has told the Service it still has the pot which the resident can arrange to collect.
  18. Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings, provided explanations, apologised, took action to put right its mistakes, and also offered to return the resident’s plant pot. The landlord is responsible for communal areas. Given the items identified in the FRA, such as the resident’s plant pot, its overarching objective was to prioritise the safety of residents and visitors and minimise potential fire risks. While the landlord appropriately tried to work with the resident to achieve this aim, ultimately it is unable to compromise safe access in the communal areas. The complaint was resolved with the landlord’s responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove personal items from communal areas and its handling of the matter.