Curo Places Limited (202212813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212813

Curo Places Limited

26 July 2023

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 resident’s report of the landlord removing and disposing of his personal belongings.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom, first floor flat.
4. In December 2020, the landlord asked the resident for permission to move his personal belongings out of his allocated cupboard in the basement to address a rat infestation. With the resident’s approval, two landlord staff members moved the belongings to the other side of the basement within an alcove.
5. On 25 May 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint advising that the landlord had removed and disposed of his belongings from the alcove. He stated he was not notified by the landlord that his belongings would be removed and requested £1,000 compensation.
6. The landlord advised this Service it did not issue a stage 1 complaint response as it deemed it more appropriate to escalate straight to stage 2 given the value the resident was seeking as compensation.
7. On 7 June 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response which stated:
   1. The landlord failed to issue a tort notice before disposing of the resident’s belongings on 5 May 2022. It offered the resident £250 compensation in line with this Service’s guidance.
   2. The resident supplied an email to the landlord from a prospective buyer intending to buy the belongings for £1,000. No further evidence was supplied by the resident to evidence the value of the items disposed.
   3. The landlord would be more thorough in its process of issuing tort notices.
8. The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 3 on 7 June 2022. He felt the landlord should have known the belongings disposed of were his, as landlord staff members had asked his permission to move them to the alcove. He felt the compensation offer was insufficient and did not represent the value of his belongings which were removed.
9. The landlord issued a stage 3 final complaint response on 10 June 2022. It believed the contents of the bags to be rubbish. It advised the items had not been placed in a suitable location and they had remained in the alcove for over a year. The £250 compensation offer for not issuing a tort notice remained, but no further award was made.
10. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 3 October 2022. He is dissatisfied that the landlord disposed of his items without notifying him and feels he has not been appropriately compensated for the items. As a resolution, the resident is seeking a higher level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

11. Landlord records show that two landlord staff members moved the resident’s belongings from his secure locker to an alcove in the basement to allow access for pest control to attend to a rat issue. When identifying the need to move his items, the landlord should have sought a suitable storage space for the belongings. For example, a secure garage or other suitable storage facility to safeguard the items. It was inappropriate for the landlord to store the items in an unsecure communal space.
12. When the landlord received a report from a neighbour about abandoned belongings 18 months later, it failed to carry out enquiries to identify who owned the belongings or issue a tort notice. It instead assumed the items belonged to an ex-tenant and raised a work order for the items to be disposed of, dealing with the issue as a fly tipping matter. Whilst making this decision, the landlord did not acknowledge it was responsible for placing the belongings in the alcove and failed to notify the resident his belongings were being disposed of. It was unacceptable for the landlord to place the belongings within an alcove in the basement in the first instance. Further, this was not a behaviour it would tolerate had a resident carried out the same action, given the matter was dealt with as fly tipping.
13. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 and 3 complaint responses for failing to issue a tort notice and awarded £250 to put this right. However, it defended its decision to dispose of the belongings in its final response and stated, “It would appear everyone has confirmed that where the items were removed from, wasn’t great and they had been there for over a year”. There was no accountability from the landlord for placing the items in the alcove or disposing of them, and an apology was not offered.
14. Further, records show the landlord had previously agreed with the resident that he would return his belongings to his storage cupboard once ongoing pest control works were complete. Works were still ongoing in the basement at the time the belongings were disposed of, and it was no fault of the resident that his belongings had remained in the alcove for 18 months. The landlord’s complaint responses evidenced a lack of investigation into the matter which would have caused significant frustration to the resident who had followed the landlord’s advice throughout.
15. The resident advised the landlord had disposed of his specialist gardening equipment which included but was not limited to, six light tubes, plastic planters, pots, self-watering trays, and grow bags. The resident advised this Service that the alcove had been full to the ceiling with equipment, and he had lost a significant number of items. He explained he had been offered £1,000 from a prospective buyer as a reduced rate for the equipment which had been disposed of. A landlord staff member who placed the belongings in the alcove corroborated seeing some of the items including six light tubes, plastic planters, pots, and a bag of personal belongings which they did not look in.
16. The landlord advised within its final complaint response that having considered photos and colleague’s reports, it believed the belongings which it disposed of to be bags of rubbish which were covered in dust and cobwebs. In addition, the landlord questioned whether the electrical equipment would work now given the conditions it was stored in.
17. It is unclear where this information derived from as it was contradictory to the description of the belongings provided by the landlord staff member who moved the items. Although the items may have looked to be in a poor condition, it was inappropriate for the landlord to make an unfounded claim that the belongings were ‘rubbish’. Furthermore, the landlord did not consider that its decision for the belongings to be placed in the alcove for 18 months where rats were present was likely to have caused deterioration to the belongings.
18. The landlord confirmed to this Service that an inventory of the resident’s items was not carried out at any point (when it initially moved them into the alcove, or when it disposed of them). The only evidence the landlord supplied of the belongings included two photographs, one of a light and the second of a grow bag tray. The two photographs do not account for the full complement of items. Due to the lack of evidence and in the absence of an inventory, it is unclear exactly what was removed by the landlord.
19. It was poor practice for the landlord not to log the items it moved and later disposed of. Although the landlord asked the resident for receipts as proof of purchase of his belongings in line with its compensation policy, the resident advised he was unable to supply this due to the items being purchased in 2015/2016. In light of this, the landlord should have looked into an offer of compensation to address its failings, or referred the resident to its insurer so he could make a claim against the landlord if he wished to. It was inappropriate for the landlord to decide it could not compensate further without proof of purchase.
20. The landlord portrayed an unsympathetic manner towards the resident, undermined the situation, and failed to consider the financial loss or distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Its complaint responses did not acknowledge the landlord’s failings and would have caused damage to the landlord, tenant relationship.
21. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered £250 for its failure to issue a tort notice. This Service deems this an appropriate offer of redress for this failing. However, the landlord did not offer redress for storing the resident’s belongings in an unsecure location, failing to retain a record of the resident’s belongings which were disposed of, and failing to consider the distress, inconvenience and financial loss caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the matter.
22. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100-£600 should be considered where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident. In this instance, the landlord’s compensation offer of £250 was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In addition, the landlord has not addressed the detriment caused to the resident. In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £350 for its handling of the belongings and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
23. The Ombudsman notes that this compensation is meant to reflect the landlord’s failure in service and is not considered to reflect the value of his possessions. A recommendation has therefore been made below that the landlord signpost the resident to its liability insurer regarding a potential claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

24. The landlord’s decision to address the resident’s initial complaint at stage 2 is contrary to its complaints process whereby it adopted a 3-stage process. In addition, the decision was contrary to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code which outlines that, “landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident”.
25. The landlord’s decision not to issue a stage 1 complaint response would have caused confusion to the resident. The landlord did not explain to the resident that the complaint would not be responded to at stage 1, or provide a reason for this decision.
26. There has been service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, and it is therefore ordered to pay £50 compensation to put things right for the resident.

Determination

27. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of his personal belongings being moved and disposed of by the landlord.
28. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
30. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £650 comprising of:
    1. £600 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s belongings, including its unsecure placing of the belongings and failure to retain a record of the items it had disposed of, and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord disposing of his belongings. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £250 for failing to issue a tort notice.
    2. £50 for its failure to issue the resident a stage 1 complaint response.
31. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with details of how he can raise an insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer should he wish to claim for his possessions.
32. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendation

33. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with its complaint policy to ensure that complaints are identified, responded to, and escalated in accordance with its complaint process. If it has not already done so, it should refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for guidance.
34. The landlord is recommended to review its handling of this case with reference to the failings identified in this report to determine what actions will be taken to prevent a recurrence.