Wolverhampton City Council (202217164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217164

Wolverhampton City Council

6 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of items being disposed of during a deep clean.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2018. The landlord is a local authority. The resident and landlord have a contact arrangement in place.
3. On 30 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor carried out a deep clean of the hallway, bathroom and kitchen in the resident’s property. The resident then complained to the landlord (via the Ombudsman) that it had taken extreme measures in throwing away items without his consent including an industrial cleaner worth £300 (or £500 as reported on a different occasion), food items, and cleaning materials. Although he was told to remove anything he wanted to keep and any valuable items, he felt it should have been obvious for the contractor not to dispose of some of the items he had left.
4. In April 2022 the landlord posed the allegations to the contractor and it was established that: 
   1. The resident had been advised on the day of the deep clean and prior about ensuring that no items were left in the areas to be cleaned or they would be disposed of.
   2. When it arrived, the contractor gave the resident a further hour before it started, and he was given time to put anything he wanted to keep aside and told that everything else would be thrown away.
   3. The resident was told if he wanted to keep it, he should move it, otherwise it would ‘go in the bin’. The contractor then returned and disposed of the items which were left as part of the deep clean. The housing officer was also on site.
   4. The areas to be cleaned were the hallway, kitchen and bathroom, in order for repairs to be carried out to the window frames.
5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 April 2022, as follows:
   1. To gain access to the property to carry out repairs, a deep clean was needed in the bathroom, kitchen and hallway. Though it was the resident’s legal responsibility under the tenancy agreement to clean the property and keep it in a suitable condition, and despite a suspended possession order by the court requiring the resident to keep the property clean and tidy, the landlord arranged and paid for a deep clean to assist the repairs being carried out.
   2. Prior to the deep clean, the resident was advised to ensure all items were moved prior to the appointment as anything left would be cleared, including items of value. The resident confirmed this communication with a member of the team.
   3. The contractor provided an additional hour to clear the items on their arrival, as there were still some items in the kitchen. Any items then removed were done so after the resident was given instructions.
   4. The resident could apply for a claim with its compensation team, if he was unhappy with any items that were removed.
   5. The resident could escalate the complaint within 28 days if he remained dissatisfied and/or make a claim on items from its insurance.
6. The landlord took steps to manage various housing issues raised by the resident from February to May 2022. In its letter of 29 June 2022 regarding a separate matter the landlord discussed the resident’s insurance claim. It explained that bank forms had been sent to him in May 2022 and it was awaiting their completion and return. It said, when the forms were ready, they could be collected and processed by hand, as the resident had previously advised he had returned forms by post and received no response. A claim was subsequently submitted to the landlord’s insurer.
7. On 14 November 2022 in declining the resident’s claim the landlord’s insurer explained to him that he had not provided evidence such as proof of purchase of the items being claimed on, and that for the claim to succeed it needed evidence of negligence or a breach of duty to care by the landlord. It cited the events and highlighted that the landlord had told the resident prior to the event of the need to remove items he wanted to keep for the duration of the clean, and the resident understood that any items left in place would be disposed of. It did not therefore identify negligence or a breach in the duty of care and declined the claim.
8. In November 2022 the Ombudsman directed the resident’s concerns to the landlord and asked that it escalate the complaint. At the time, the landlord considered that the matter may fall within the remit of legal action it was undertaking against the resident, and was therefore unsure whether to progress the complaint to stage 2. It was communicating with the resident under the contact arrangements it had in place and made a safeguarding referral to the local authority due to concerns about the property and the resident’s wellbeing. In January 2023 it noted continued concerns about the property.
9. The Ombudsman directed the issue to the landlord for escalation again in January 2023. The landlord accepted the escalation request alongside legal action it was preparing for as part of a broader housing issue.
10. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2023 and issued its stage 2 response 10 February 2023. It reiterated the contents of the stage 1 response in relation to the circumstances of the deep clean, the advice given to the resident about removing all items he wished to keep, and the opportunities he was given to do so. In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement, it referred him to the letter from its insurer. As a result, it did not uphold the complaint.
11. In June 2023, the resident made a new report to the Ombudsman that, during the deep clean in March 2022, contractors had also entered the bedroom and removed items from there. The landlord confirmed that it had not received this report previously.
12. The landlord provided its witness statement from the tenancy officer who was on site during the deep clean, and they confirmed that the contractors arrived and gave the resident extra time before they started their work. They said the resident did not indicate any issues in removing the items himself, and there was no report made to them about the contractors entering the bedroom. Instead, the contractors had only cleaned as per the scope of the work in the bathroom, kitchen and hallway.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. The resident disputes the outcome of his insurance claim but, as the insurance provider is not a member of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about its service delivery or decisions (reflected at paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome, he may wish to appeal it with the insurer and/or contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.
14. The resident’s more recent concerns about the contractor accessing the bedroom, which were not raised as part of the formal complaint under investigation here, are also not within the scope of this investigation. This is because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to investigate and resolve these matters internally through the operation of its complaint process (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied with this point, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord in that regard. 

Disposal of items during deep clean

15. It is acknowledged that the landlord was managing a difficult situation in attempting to deliver its repair service and experiencing access problems due to the condition of the property, and broader concerns about the housing situation in general. The Ombudsman has not formed a view of the condition of the property or the circumstances of the deep clean, and instead focuses on how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about his items being disposed of in March 2022.
16. The evidence shows that, following the resident’s reports that items were disposed of without his consent, the landlord appropriately approached the contractor and presented the allegations to them. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate and seek to establish the facts of what had happened with the contractor, to get their account of events.
17. No evidence of the landlord’s/contractor’s communication with the resident prior to the deep clean has been provided. However, the resident corroborated the contractor’s account which confirmed that he was told, both before and on the day of the deep clean, that items would be disposed of if they were not removed. This was also corroborated by the tenancy officer on site.
18. The resident has not disputed that he was told this information, but he submits that there were some items which should have been obvious to the contractors not to throw out. It was understandably frustrating for him to have experienced this situation. However, it would not be appropriate for the landlord or its contractors to make assumptions or decide for themselves what to keep or throw away. Instead, it was reasonable for it to provide clear instructions that left no room for subjective interpretation or ambiguity by any of the parties involved, and then to implement this when proceeding with the work.
19. There is no evidence that the resident told the contractor not to throw away items he had left. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that they clearly advised him they would return in an hour and anything that was left would ‘go in the bin’. Following the resident’s claims of an item that was unduly disposed of, the landlord took reasonable steps to direct him to make a claim on its insurance. This was appropriate as the insurer could properly consider elements of liability and determine whether the landlord was at fault. The evidence shows that the landlord proactively engaged with the claims process, by providing the resident with the necessary forms and collecting them from him. Therefore, there was no evidence of failure in the landlord’s actions and so a finding of no maladministration is made.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of items being disposed of during a deep clean.

Reasons

21. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the allegations against the contractor and share its findings with the resident. The resident corroborated the fact that he was instructed before and on the day that his items would be disposed of if they were left in place during the deep clean. In response to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction about the loss of his items, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost him to claim on its insurance.