Lewisham Council (202005458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005458

Lewisham Council

24 November 2021

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 disposal of the resident’s belongings, following an eviction.

Background and summary of events

The resident lived in a property owned by the landlord under an extended introductory tenancy from March 2017. There was a history of arrears and possession action in 2017 and 2018.

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. The tenancy agreement in this case has not been seen, but a ‘notice of intention to extend an introductory tenancy’ was issued by the landlord on 2 January 2018.

The abandoned and unwanted goods procedure 2018

The landlord’s Abandoned and Unwanted Goods Procedure details the action to be taken by the landlord in relation to resident’s possessions. Section 4.1 covers notice being given for disposal of goods. If notice cannot be given as ‘reasonable enquiries,’ after the goods were taken into the landlord’s possession do not locate the owner, then goods must be kept for six months, after which the landlord becomes the owner, and the goods can be disposed of. Section 4.4 says that photographs (or video footage where there are excessive items) of all rooms in the property should be taken and retained. Appendix 1 is a tick box list for the landlord, to remind residents of the disposal of goods, taking a forwarding address, a full inventory, checks with various agencies for a forwarding address and documenting all contact with the resident.

The obtaining possession procedure 2021

The landlord’s Obtaining Possession Procedure, section 4.8.1 covers notifying the resident of the requirement to remove belongings before the eviction. Section 4.9.2 covers the day of eviction and obtaining a forwarding address from residents and advising them that belongings will be removed, that they will be liable for storage costs, and must contact the landlord to advise when they will be collected. Items will be kept only for one month and one day and items of sentimental value and ID documents must be taken by the residents before the eviction is concluded. The landlord should take photographs/video of everything in the property and a record made of what items are taken to storage.

The complaints policy April 2021

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that first stage responses will be issued in 10 working days, and second stage within 15 working days. Residents will then have the right to refer their complaint to this Service.

Summary of events

On 20 March 2019, following court judgment which granted the landlord repossession of the property, it issued a letter to the resident confirming an eviction date of 10 April 2019. It advised the resident to ensure her belongings were taken, as she would be charged for the cost of removing and disposing of any belongings.
The landlord stated that, in accordance with the Local Government (Misc. provisions) Act 1982 (LGMPA), any items not collected before the eviction would be stored for one month and one day, after which it would dispose of or sell the items and any money raised would go towards the debt owed by the resident. The resident may claim the items before one month and one day, but only on payment of the cost for transporting and storing the items. If the resident had no immediate plans to remove the items, she should make arrangements to store them. If the resident vacated before this time, she should give a forwarding address as she will need to clear the £4942.42 rent arrears debt, plus £2739.48 costs.
The eviction was completed on 10 April 2019. The landlord log indicates that the resident returned from the court hearing and was told to collect all her valuables, including her passport. She was told that her belongings would be cleared and stored for one month and a day, and she should contact the landlord as soon as she had a place to stay. The landlord said that the resident was given a letter to confirm the eviction, collected some goods and left.
On the same day, the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord to ask if it was correct that the landlord had told the resident her belongings, some of which were her children’s, would be placed in storage. The email said that the resident had presented as homeless, and that safeguarding was in place in respect of a former partner.
The landlord was contacted by the storage company on 10 July 2019 and was advised that the belongings had to be cleared. The landlord asked the storage company to hold any further action for a while. The landlord rang the mobile number held for the resident but was unable to leave a message. A note was made to check if the resident got back to the landlord.
On 2 October 2019, the landlord sent an email advising the resident that her belongings would be cleared out of storage if she did not come and collect them. She was asked to make contact before 4 October 2019. On 18 October 2019 the storage company contacted the landlord again. The landlord rang the resident’s support officer who said that her organisation was not working with the resident at that time, but the support officer was aware that she did not have stable accommodation.
On 27 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord. The landlord log recorded that threats were made to an officer regarding the loss of her belongings. The following day, the resident responded to the email of 2 October 2019 and asked for pictures of her belongings including items belonging to her autistic daughter, pictures of her late father and a gold and diamond ring.
The resident emailed again on 2 December 2019 and asked for an inventory, pictures, and an estimation of the value of the items as a matter of urgency, as well as the address of where the items had been taken. A further email said that the landlord had been in contact with the support worker and could have found where she was.
The landlord responded that under LGMPA it is required to place items in storage if no forwarding address is known. The landlord was unaware of a forwarding address, and since the eviction date, no attempt was made by the resident to contact the landlord. The officer had spoken to the support worker and was told they were no longer working with her.
The next day, the resident emailed the landlord and said on the day of eviction she was told her belongings would be kept safe, but that week, she had been told they were destroyed. She felt unable to work due to the devastation for her and her daughter, who had learning difficulties, losing sentimental items. The support worker said that the landlord had not mentioned belongings before they were destroyed. She now paid rent to the landlord for accommodation. She claimed that the landlord breached the Interference of Goods Act 1977. She had contacted her MP and the police and requested proof of signed delivery of the letter stating where her belongings were held, and when she could collect, under the Interference of Goods Act 1977.
The response from the landlord confirmed that under the LGMPA, the landlord was obliged to place items in storage if a forwarding address was unknown. The items were in storage for over six months. The resident made no contact, and the landlord emailed her on 2 October 2019 to advise she must collect them, or the items would be destroyed, the landlord also phoned and was unable to leave a message.
The resident asked for an inventory of her belongings and photos of the property and contents the day the locks were changed and an estimation of the value of the belongings as matter of urgency.
The landlord responded that it was unable to locate an inventory but had located pictures, which it attached. It confirmed that the operative who placed the items into storage recalled seeing bikes, furniture, wardrobes, boxes with kitchen utensils and a 3-piece suite. The locks were changed on the eviction date, 10 April 2019. For security reasons, it was unable to provide the storage address.
On 4 December 2019, the resident made a complaint regarding the destruction of her and her children’s belongings. She stated that the issues had affected her financially and emotional. It had also impacted negatively on her work and studies. She asked for an investigation into the poor practice and negligence of staff. The following day the resident said she wanted to know where her belongings were, and to have them returned.
A stage one complaint response was issued on 16 December 2019, further to a conversation with the resident on 4 December 2019, the concerns were:
1. The resident was not given enough time to collect her belongings from storage and was not informed where her things were stored.
2. The items were of great sentimental value and irreplaceable.
3. The resident did not understand why the landlord was not aware of her address as her current address was managed by the landlord.
4. The resident had asked for an inventory and pictures, but the landlord had said the inventory could not be located.
The landlord had investigated and found:
1. It was not aware of the forwarding address when the resident was evicted. According to the Local Government (Misc. provisions) Act 1982 (LGMPA), the landlord was obliged to place items in storage for up to six months, if the forwarding address was unknown, which it did. It wrote to the resident to advise of the eviction and said the belongings would need to be removed and warned they would be disposed of if left. An email was also sent on 2 October 2019 advising the items would be destroyed if left and it tried to call on 8 October 2019 but could not reach her. It also tried to make contact via the support worker but was told they were no longer working with her. By the time the resident replied on 27 November 2019, the landlord had already asked that the items be disposed of due to the time they had been held and the lack of response to the landlord’s attempts to make contact. Due to security, residents are not permitted time on the eviction day to remove items and are not advised where items are until collection has been arranged.
2. The landlord reiterated its empathy for the distress caused by losing the belongings, and how much they meant to the family.
3. At the date of the eviction, the resident was not housed by the landlord, so the address was not found. There was a two-month gap between the eviction and her being rehoused in temporary accommodation. The landlord could not serve a notice that the items were moved into storage, as it had no address for her at that time. There was no record of the resident having contacted the landlord regarding her belongings. Although the landlord followed its procedure, it did feel there should be a process to identify she had moved into the landlord’s property elsewhere so it could have made contact, and it had requested a review of this procedure.
4. The landlord had emailed the resident photographs of the items in storage, but the inventory could not be located. The landlord had raised this with the staff concerned to improve the system of inventories going forward. The operative who cleared the items confirmed there were bikes, wardrobes, boxes of kitchen items and a three-piece suite, which were destroyed.
5. Having investigated the case, the landlord had found that although procedures were followed, it appreciated the distress caused by the loss of belongings and offered £250 as a goodwill gesture. Further appeal rights were given.
On 29 December 2019 the resident said she was still expecting belongings to be returned to her, there were confidential documents including passports, birth certificates etc as well as her children’s first teeth/hair etc. She felt that the landlord had breached confidentiality by passing these to a third party. She needed her belongings to be returned urgently.
The landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged the stage two complaint on 2 January 2020. The resident wanted to add that the landlord’s officer had caused her distress by falsely claiming to police that she had threatened her. This had affected her mental health.
In its response of 21 January 2021, the landlord stated as follows:
1. It disagreed that it failed under the LGMPA, as at the time of the eviction it was unaware of the resident’s forwarding address, was unable to serve the eviction notice, and her items were put into storage for six months. This was because there was a two-month gap between the eviction and the resident being housed elsewhere by the landlord in temporary accommodation (TA).
2. It apologised if the resident felt the officer’s email was inappropriate but having reviewed the email, the officer needed to inform her of the need to collect belongings. She had unsuccessfully tried to call her, and this was all in line with expectations.
3. The officer had emailed the resident on 2 October 2019 and called her on 8 October 2019 hoping to arrange collection of the items. By the time the resident replied on 27 November 2019, the items had been disposed of. The landlord felt the resident had sufficient time to arrange collection.
4. It clarified that when it previously said it was not aware of the forwarding address, this referred to the time immediately after the eviction not 29 December 2019 when it was aware she was in TA. However, the landlord was reviewing its process for when residents with belongings in storage move into TA. The officer did chase this with the support officer who was no longer working with the resident.
5. The landlord found no evidence to suggest the officer deliberately took any action to cause the resident distress but apologised if the resident felt this had impacted on her work. The landlord apologised that it had been unable to locate the full inventory of her belongings, this had been highlighted with the staff concerned to ensure they take full inventories in the future. Investigations had found this was due to human error rather than any deliberate act, and there was no evidence that anyone had stolen her belongings. The resident was directed to make her a claim for her belongings, which she had valued at over £50,000, to the landlord’s insurance department. The landlord recognised this would not replace sentimental items and apologised for the distress this caused and assured the resident that it recognised the impact this will have on people’s lives.
6. It had no alternative but to remove the items from the property, but it did ensure any third parties used to remove belongings showed care and sensitivity in handling items to protect confidentiality.
7. The officer who alleged the resident harassed her had spoken to the police as she felt threatened. As the police investigation was ongoing, the landlord would not comment further.
8. The landlord found that it acted in accordance with procedures. The complaint had identified improvements in procedure and the landlord was making a report of these. The landlord noted the resident did not wish to accept the goodwill gesture and reiterated the resident’s option to make an insurance claim. The resident was invited to escalate the complaint to the Independent Adjudicator (IA) as stage three of its complaints process.
During February and March 2020, the resident submitted a claim form to the landlord’s insurers, and a third stage complaint to the IA.
In the IA report of 9 March 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay and referred the resident to this Service. It also stated as follows:
1. The complaint issue was that the landlord had not done enough to contact the resident before disposing of her belongings in 2019.
2. This would normally have been out of time, but the resident had been waiting for an outcome to the insurance claim.
3. It explained the methodology of the investigation including the LGMPA and the landlord’s ‘Abandoned Homes and Unwanted Goods procedure’.
4. It quoted from the eviction letter of 20 March 2019, and records that the officer and support worker had tried to contact the resident by phone but there was no message facility. It observed that a court would likely find that the landlord complied with the law as it gave more than the required one months’ notice and it kept the items for at least six months anyway.
5. However, more could have been done to trace the resident. There was no record that further enquiries were made by the landlord after the call to the support worker, including to the benefits team or housing options team. But the resident did not contact the landlord until 27 November 2019. Given that the eviction letter said her items would be destroyed on 11 May 2019, she had no reason to suppose the landlord still had them, six and a half months later. It seemed unlikely that the resident would have had the funds to pay the charges necessary to release the belongings, or the space to store them, so it could not conclude that if the landlord had made more effort, the items would not have been destroyed.
6. It was reasonable for the landlord to only take photographs when there was a large number of belongings, and the resident was advised to remove valuable items. As the landlord became the owner of the property, the usual data protection rules around confidential items did not apply, although the Information Commissioner’s Office may take a different view.
7. The complaint was partially upheld as the landlord did not make reasonable enquiries or upload an inventory, but there was no injustice beyond that remedied by the £250 previously offered. The landlord had already identified some changes to its procedures and it recommended that the landlord add taking photographic inventory in appropriate circumstances.

Since the stage two response was issued

The resident approached this Service and advised the insurance claim had concluded that the landlord had sent her a notice in writing. The landlord’s records confirmed that the insurance and risk claims handlers had denied liability on the basis the resident did not reply to correspondence.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman recognises that this is an extremely emotive issue for the resident and that many of her personal possessions will have a sentimental value that cannot be replaced. This will have been a very difficult time for the resident and her family, and this is not underestimated.
This investigation has considered whether the landlord took adequate steps to inform the resident what would happen to her possessions after the eviction. It has also considered whether the resident might reasonably expect that her possessions could be returned to her by the time she contacted the landlord in November 2019.
The resident did receive the eviction notice as she was at the eviction hearing on the day. This notice advised her that goods would be disposed of after one month and a day. The resident was again advised on the day of the eviction to remove valuables and that items left would be stored for one month and one day.
The items were kept for more than six months, and the resident did not make contact to discuss her belongings. The landlord attempted contact in July and October 2019, including via the support worker. It was later found that, by July 2019, the resident had been re-housed by the council. Had the landlord made further checks at this stage, it is reasonable to conclude it would have located the resident. It must be clarified that the council department dealing with homelessness and temporary accommodation is not necessarily the same department which would have dealt with the issues of her previous accommodation. It follows that the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there has been a service failure in the way the landlord behaved in relation to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord was also aware that the resident had been notified that the belongings would not be held indefinitely, and when contacted by the storage company, the landlord did delay the destruction of the items while further contact was attempted. There is no evidence that the landlord staff acted in any way out of malice.
It is encouraging that the landlord has learned lessons from this complaint and put steps in place to make further checks to avoid a similar situation arising in the future. While this does not change the outcome for the resident, it indicates that the landlord has considered the serious implications of this type of incident.
The landlord has also accepted that it should have taken a full record of the resident’s items. If this had been done, the disparity between what the resident had listed was in the property, and the items which the member of staff later reported seeing would be explained. However, the items would still have been destroyed so it would not have changed the outcome for the resident.
The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt what the resident has said, but also notes that the resident was given the opportunity to take valuables from the property on the day of the eviction. While it is appreciated that the resident may not be able to easily transport bulky items, it is reasonable that passports and birth certificates would be a priority.
The email the landlord sent on 2 October 2019 did only give two days’ notice, however it was a further two weeks before the items were destroyed, so had the resident made contact at any time before 28 October 2019, the belongings would still have been in storage. It was almost two months before the resident contacted the landlord. The resident responded to the email on 27 November 2019, so the email address was correct.
Details recorded by the IA included that the resident had not contacted the landlord about her belongings because she did not have space for them. If this was the case, the resident could not have paid the accruing storage costs and removed her items before they were destroyed in any event.
The landlord does not dispute that its processes were inadequate, and in particular that it did not routinely check again if the resident could have been found via its own records, at a later stage than it did. If this had been done, it is likely that the resident could have been told again that her belongings would be taken out of storage and destroyed. However, the resident had already been told several times that this would happen. Therefore, the reason the items were destroyed was not that the resident was unaware that this would happen, but that she failed to make contact within the period she was initially advised, being one month and one day after the eviction, or the six-month period given by the landlords ‘abandoned and unwanted goods procedure’.
The landlord has offered £250 compensation to reflect the distress caused by the resident losing her belongings. This seems fair in all the circumstances, given that the loss of the belongings was not caused by the landlord’s actions, but it could have had better processes in place to demonstrate it had done all it could to trace the resident.
The resident has since said she was unhappy she had been directed to the insurance claim, however, it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case that the landlord directed her to do so. This is because, her claim for reimbursement for the damaged personal items is best considered as an issue of liability under legal procedure.
This Service is unable to assess the insurer’s decision, as it is not a member of the Ombudsman’s Scheme. The resident may wish to contact the insurer directly to challenge its findings and ask about escalation, but the decision to deny liability cannot be considered by this Service in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme Paragraph 39(i) when complaints ‘concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
It is worth noting that the landlord has provided two complaints procedures, both dated 2021, and neither include the third stage to the IA. However, this third stage has not hindered the process and provided an opportunity of a further in-depth investigation of the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the concerns regarding its handling of the formal complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has not acted outside of its procedures and had taken reasonable steps to make the resident aware that her belongings would be destroyed prior to her making contact.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the sum of £250 compensation already offered if it has not done so already.