Swindon Borough Council (202226351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226351

Swindon Borough Council

16 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s belongings including her disability equipment, following flooding at the property.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy on an adapted 1-bedroom bungalow owned by the local authority landlord. The landlord’s records show the resident has a spinal condition and uses a mobility trolly. She also has diabetes and epilepsy.
On 12 January 2023, the resident returned home from a 6-week stay abroad and discovered her property was flooded. The landlord sent its emergency operatives to the property later that evening. Operatives reported that the outhouse’s roof and the kitchen’s ceiling had collapsed. They said that the place was ‘severely’ flooded and needed to be drained. The landlord provided temporary accommodation for the resident in a nearby hotel that evening. It also changed the lock to the resident’s property to prevent access due to the safety risk posed by the failing structure and the loss of electricity.
On 17 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to access the property so she could take some needed items. However, the landlord considered it unsafe for her to return to the property because of her mobility and respiratory conditions.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord met the resident at her temporary accommodation. It said her belongings would have to be moved from her home for the work to start. It said it could let the resident clear her belongings from the property herself, or as a “gesture of goodwill”, it could arrange to remove and store her belongings. It said this would be at no cost to the resident and “without liability to the landlord for any loss, breakage, or damage” of her belongings. The resident agreed that the landlord would move her belongings but said she urgently needed items from the property before the removal began. The landlord asked the resident to make a list of the items she needed from the property, and it said it would collect these for her. The items were:
1. Her hearing aids, orthotics, medical stockings, and dressings.
2. Computers and a bag of important documents.
3. Work uniform, clothing, and shoes.
The resident approached this service on 30 January 2023 for advice. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord. However, the crux of her complaint was that the landlord did not give her access to retrieve her belongings from the property, and that it did not deliver on its promises to retrieve her urgently needed items.
On 31 January 2023, the resident’s neighbour informed her the landlord started removing her belongings and that reportedly operatives had caused damage to the resident’s belongings. She said she went to the property on 1 February 2023 and asked operatives to retrieve the items, however they referred her back to the landlord. She said she had planned, with the help of her friends, to collect some of her belongings directly from the removal operatives. She asked that the landlord keep her updated.
Throughout the complaint process, including in its 10 February 2023 final response letter, the landlord said:
1. It had collected the list of items from the resident and went to the property to pick up her items. However, mould spores grew over the 2-week period that had passed, making it unsafe for its operatives to search for the resident’s belongings.
2. This was also the reason why it asked the resident to stay away from the property. Despite this, the resident went to the property while the removal operatives were trying to work, which resulted in increased costs to the landlord.
3. It had asked the removal company to box the resident’s belongings by room and list the contents of each box. It would ensure all the items were placed in its garages so the resident could go and pick up her belongings safely.
The resident contacted this service again on 4 March 2023. She said that:
1. The landlord had reassured her she would be given access to get her belongings, but this did not happen. It then reassured her that it would collect her urgent items, but this did not happen either.
2. Despite telling the landlord she had help from her friends and a storage place to keep some of her belongings safe, such as her adjustable bed, the removal operatives refused to give her these items even from the outside of the property.
3. The removal was completed nearly a month after the flooding had been discovered, meaning her belongings stayed saturated in dirty water for an extended period, causing additional damage.
4. Her belongings were then put in storage wet and dirty, and she was still unable to access one of the garages because the flooring had pebbles, and her mobility trolley could not go over it.
5. Light and dry items were stored on the floor with heavier and wet items put on top, meaning water leaked onto the rest of her belongings which would have been otherwise unaffected.
6. Her hearing aids and her professional documents were still missing.
This service was unable to get hold of the resident during our investigation. From the evidence supplied by the landlord, it appears that sometime after the final response letter the resident accepted a permanent relocation to a different property. She could not find her hearing aids and that there was damaged to her belongings, which the landlord stated should be a matter for its insurer. It reimbursed the resident the cost of replacement hearing aids.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively affected her health has been noted. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s belongings including her disability equipment, following flooding at the property

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The resident returned home from her travel on 12 January 2023 and discovered that the flat was flooded. In text messages she sent to the landlord she described that the flood was significant to the point that her feet and trousers got wet. There was no electricity supply, and she said she could not open the kitchen door to inspect the source of the leak. The landlord acted appropriately by sending its operatives to inspect the resident’s property on the same day. Operatives discovered that the kitchen ceiling had collapsed, and reported the flooding was ‘severe’.
Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord is responsible for identifying hazards within its rented properties and take appropriate action to minimise the risk to its residents. Structural failure is one of the risks identified under HHSRS. The landlord appropriately assessed the risks and consequently decided that it was unsafe for the resident to remain at the property. The landlord mitigated the risk to the resident by providing her with temporary accommodation on the same evening. Having established that the property was unsafe, it was appropriate that the landlord restricted access to the property by changing the locks.
On 13 January 2023, the resident requested access to the property to collect some essential belongings. This was a reasonable request. The landlord acted appropriately by sending 2 of its officers to meet the resident at the property at 2 pm. At 3:30 pm, with the resident still in the property retrieving items, it started to get dark. As there was no electricity on the property, the landlord considered it was no longer safe and ended the resident’s visit. Given that the resident uses a mobility trolley and has respiratory conditions, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the decision that it was not safe for the resident to continue to search for her belongings.
The resident provided screenshots of text messages she sent to the landlord on 13 January 2023. In one of the messages, the resident reported she had visited her GP earlier on the same day because her asthma had been ‘triggered’. Her GP reportedly advised that the humidity and dampness could further worsen the resident’s health, and therefore she should not return to the property. This further indicated that the landlord acted reasonably by restricting access to the resident’s property.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord said to the resident that the initial inspection revealed extensive damage to the building, which would take several months to repair. It offered the resident a permanent relocation or temporary accommodation while the works were underway. The landlord was not obliged to offer permanent relocation as it had identified that it would be able to complete the remedial works to the property, albeit with some delay. Its decision to offer permanent relocation therefore represented a reasonable exercise of its discretion. The resident said she wanted to stay in her property, which had been adapted for her. Therefore, the landlord arranged a more comfortable temporary accommodation for the resident which was appropriate.
However, the resident highlighted that she needed to retrieve some items from the property as a matter of urgency. These were medical devices she needed including her hearing aids, orthotics, as well as work uniforms and urgent documents. The landlord was not expected to compromise on the resident’s safety, and it was therefore reasonable that it did not allow the resident to enter the property, based on its earlier assessment that the property was not safe for her to enter. However, the landlord was not resolution focused here. Given its understanding of the resident’s circumstances and its inability to allow her access to her home, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline what it could do to assist her. It did not do so for until 25 January 2024, leaving the resident chasing it almost daily which was understandable given the urgency of the situation she found herself in.
On 25 January 2023, the landlord said to the resident that all her belongings would have to be packed and moved out of the property and sent to storage. It said the resident could do this, or the landlord could do it for her. It is not clear why it was deemed safe to allow the resident to arrange and collect all of her belongings, but it was not safe for her to collect just her urgent list of items she needed. The resident and the landlord signed a disclaimer which together with other assurances provided to the resident in writing around the same time, formed an agreed action plan between the resident and the landlord on the following terms:
1. The landlord would arrange for the removal and storage of the resident’s belongings at no cost to the resident.
2. The landlord would not be liable for any loss or damage to her belongings during removal, transport, and storage.
3. The resident would provide the landlord with a list of the items she needed to retrieve from the property. The landlord would get these for her.
4. It would wrap and protect her adjustable bed before removing it from the property.
5. Each storage box would be labelled with its contents. These would be stored in the landlord’s garages so that the resident could access her belongings safely.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord collected the list of items from the resident. It said if there were any issues retrieving the items, it would let the resident know. The landlord later explained to the resident that it travelled to the property, but the mould spores made it unsafe for it to remain in the property and retrieve the resident’s belongings. This was reasonable; however, it is not clear why the landlord was not able to explore alternative solutions, such as asking the removal operatives to keep the items on the resident’s list aside for it to collect from outside the property. The landlord potentially missed an opportunity here.
On 31 January 2023, the resident’s neighbour told her that operatives started to remove her belongings from her property. It transpired that the landlord did not collect the items on her list. She travelled to the property to retrieve these with helps from her friends, but operatives did not release her belongings. In its February 2023 stage 1 response the landlord assured the resident that once clearance of the property was completed, it would store the resident’s belongings in its garages, and it would provide her with keys so she could access her belongings safely. This was a reasonable solution to put things right.
However, the landlord transported the resident’s belongings into 3 separate garages, 1 of which was in a remote location and was not accessible with the resident’s mobility trolley due to the pebble floor. She informed the landlord of this on 6 February 2023. It took the landlord a further month to relocate the third garage to an accessible location. However, it then became clear that none of the storage boxes had a list of contents, as had been confirmed prior to the removals. It was unreasonable to expect that the resident, in her condition, could take all boxes out of the garages, unpack each one to locate her medical equipment, pack it all back and put all boxes back in the garages.
The resident needed to retrieve medical equipment including her hearing aids, orthotics, medical bandages, and special stockings. These were necessity products. The landlord did not explain within its complaint responses why it could not retrieve her items for her between 16 January and 30 January 2023. It then failed to explain why it could not have asked the removal operatives to retrieve her belongings. In its final response letter, the landlord provided no further explanations including why her items had been stored in a garage she could not enter. No explanation was provided why it took a month to relocate the content of the third garage to an accessible garage, and there was no recognition that throughout this time the resident did not have access to the urgent disability equipment she needed. Throughout the complaint journey, there is no evidence that the landlord’s property assessed the impact on the resident. The landlord’s expectation that the resident would accept being unable to retrieve her disability equipment was unreasonable.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. Despite its knowledge of the resident’s protected characteristics, and despite her communications which set out what she needed to retrieve from the property and why, the landlord did not demonstrate it had due regard for the resident’s disabilities, or the duties placed on it as set out in the Equality Act 2010.
In summary, the flooding at the property was outside of the landlord’s control. It was not responsible for any immediate damage caused to the resident’s belongings as a result. The landlord’s decision to restrict access to the property was reasonable based on the risk to the resident’s health and safety, as well as the safety of its own staff. The landlord’s ‘gesture of good will’ to remove and store the resident’s belongings free of charge was also reasonable. Although the execution of which should have been better, for it to align with the resident’s expectations which had been raised by the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to exercise a greater degree of sensitivity and do all it reasonably could to assist the resident retrieving her disability equipment, and where it could not have done so, or experienced a delay, it should have thoroughly explained the reasons why, apologise, and set out what it might be able to do instead.
The resident needed her hearing aids, her orthotics, her special bandages and stockings. She reported ‘begging’ the landlord for updates, leaving voicemails, texts, and emails. She said in order for her to recover her private life, the landlord needed to stop failing in its obligations to her. She reported that the landlord failed treating her with “fairness, dignity and respect”. Evidently, the situation caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. There was clear evidence of commendable actions on its part, both during the substantive issue and during the complaints process. However, overall, the significant concern about the extent to which the landlord considered its obligations to a vulnerable resident warrant an adverse determination.
In line with the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles, orders have been made below for the landlord to put things right for the resident and to learn from the outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s belongings including her disability equipment, following flooding at the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Send a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident directly compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s belongings following flooding of her property.
3. The above amount is additional to any compensation already paid by the landlord in respect of these issues.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a case review. It must identify learning from the case and the measures it would need to take to ensure its staff would routinely conduct an impact assessment. The landlord may do this through a policy review, staff training, or other measures that better suit its operations The aim of the review is to ensure its staff routinely assesses whether there were reasonable adjustments the landlord could make to better accommodate the needs of its vulnerable residents, as may be appropriate, according to the circumstances of a case. The rationale for its decisions must be explained in its case review.