First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202104917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104917

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

6 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the termination of the resident’s former tenancy.
2. Handling of the administration of the resident’s rent account.
3. Handling of the resident’s possessions.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the former property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord at the former property which had been transferred to her from her father in 2019. This tenancy ended on 29 November 2020. The resident’s tenancy agreement at the former property stated as follows:
1. If the landlord intends to get a court order against the resident under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 (Grounds for Possession of Dwelling-houses let on Assured Tenancies) it will give the resident at least 4 weeks’ notice in writing. It can apply for possession in a number of circumstances including if rent is not paid.
The resident’s assured tenancy at her current property (also with the landlord)began on 5 October 2020. There was therefore a period of time between 5 October and 29 November 2020 where the resident had two tenancies with the landlord running at the same time.
The resident has health issues and was also grieving the passing of her partner at the time of the events considered in this investigation. She also experienced the passing of her father in 2019. Before moving into property two, the resident spent time living in a care home and was supported by a social worker. She had advised the landlord that she did not want to return to the former property as she was fearful of other residents on the estate. The landlord was supportive of her views and subsequently arranged for her to move.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the Decent Homes Standard, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy conditions to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair. It must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time and it should be aware of the hazards associated with damp and mould and take action to remedy such disrepair.
The Housing Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report was published in October 2021, after the timeframe considered within this investigation. The report was written to help guide landlords on best practice when dealing with cases involving damp and mould. It sets out that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord’s former tenants arrears policy says as follows:
1. It will only pursue debts where it is practical and economical to do so.
2. It will deal sensitively with former residents who have arrears due to matters related to their support needs, such as ill health, learning difficulties and mental and physical disabilities.
3. There may be occasions when an applicant with arrears may need re-housing due to exceptional need. These situations will be resolved at management discretion. A special tenancy condition will be attached to any new tenancy agreement for recovering outstanding debts at the point of sign up.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says as follows:
1. External leaks and containable leaks are classed as priority repairs and will be completed within 5 working days.
2. Minor containable plumbing leaks or roof leaks that have been made safe are classed as routine repairs. These will be completed within 20 working days.
3. Some repairs will require a pre-inspection before the repair appointment can be arranged in order to establish the extent of the works.
4. It will follow the HHSRS when diagnosing the condition of homes and communal areas.

Summary of events

On 30 July 2019 the resident reported wet patches on the walls at the former property. The landlord arranged a condensation visit on 7 August 2019. The landlord advised this Service that it did not have a record of the outcome of this visit and it had no notes of any works raised on its system. It subsequently confirmed to this Service that no work had been done to the property in 2020.
The resident advised this Service that the landlord had told her to paint over the mould and that it said it would reassess the situation in 6 months. She said that she did as advised but that the mould reappeared. She stated that she had informed the landlord of this but it did not reattend as promised. She explained that the landlord had advised her during a telephone call that she should open a window as it was condensation.
In early 2020 the resident was placed in temporary accommodation by Social Services due to issues with her mental and physical health.
On 14 May 2020 the landlord advised the resident that the £300 she had paid it in April 2020 did not cover her full rent. It also explained that her discretionary housing payment had ended in March of that year. It asked her to call so that it could help her reapply for discretionary housing payment.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 May 2020 and said as follows:
1. She would pay £300 that day.
2. She had been advised by the landlord that she was in credit.
3. She was shocked that the discretionary housing payment had ended as she had not been informed. She said she would reapply for this.
Following this call the landlord noted internally that the resident had health issues and had experienced difficulties with some of the residents on the estate and did not feel safe to return to the former property.The landlord helped her to reapply for discretionary housing payment on 20 May 2020.
The following week (27 May 2020) a hospital home discharge officer asked the landlord to speak to the resident as she did not want to return home. The landlord enquired if the resident had registered to move on medical grounds but there were no records of her having done so.
On 5 June 2020 the resident asked the landlord if she could use her credit to pay her rent that month. She said she was in respite and was paying to keep furniture in property one whilst she looked for somewhere else to live. The landlord agreed and noted that the resident was waiting for discretionary housing payment to pay £306 per month from July 2020. Shortly afterwards, on 8 June 2020 the landlord noted internally that the resident had a sundry debt of £154.46.
On 31 July 2020 the resident said that she would pay £325 per month from 15 August 2020. On 13 August 2020 she advised the landlord that she had paid it £330 and that she had been “knocked back” for discretionary housing payment.
The resident was offered and accepted another property by the landlord on 20 August 2020. The resident said she would pay £155 to her rent account to cover the amount she owed on her sundry account. She did so that same month.
On 10 September 2020 the resident advised the landlord that the former property had been put on notice with a tenancy end date of 20 September 2020. She said she was not sure if the other property would be ready by then. The landlord advised her that she had enough to cover the following week’s rent and advised her to pay weekly until things were confirmed. The resident said she would call the following week to pay £330 for the credit to be transferred to the new property.
The exact date is not clear but before the tenancy ended, the landlord did a transfer visit at the former property. The landlord advised this Service that as the resident was not present, it did not get written notice from her. It acknowledged that it should have followed this up to get it in writing.
On 5 October 2020 the resident’s tenancy began at the current property. The landlord asked her to confirm if she had moved out of the former property and said that if she did not confirm this then the tenancy at the former property would remain open. The landlord contacted the resident again on 12 October 2020 and said that it needed her to confirm if she had left the former property.
During October 2020 the landlord messaged the resident and said that a social worker had offered to meet her at the former property so that she could label up the items she wanted to take with her. The resident’s text message response that was provided to this Service is cut off but begins “I won’t be pestered and made upset everyday”. Further messages show that the landlord asked the resident to confirm via email that she was giving four weeks’ notice on property one. The resident responded that she had a stomach bug and said “I’m getting to the stage where you can just empty the property and I will put in for a massive compensation claim I am being forced to go somewhere I don’t want to.”
As the resident had declined to return to the former property to collect her belongings and declined to give notice, she had two tenancies running. The landlord sought legal advice for this.
On 21 October 2020 the resident called the landlord who noted she was upset. She explained to the landlord that its housing officer had threatened her with legal action as she has not removed her things from the former property. The landlord advised the resident that she needed to remove her items that week so that the tenancy could be ended. It noted that the resident was aware that she would be recharged for any belongings left behind.
The resident explained to the landlord that she did not have enough money to pay for removals. The landlord suggested that she pay and it would subsequently refund her. The resident declined this and shortly afterwards the landlord offered to pay for the removals.
On 28 October 2020 the landlord gave the resident a “notice to quit” saying that she must leave the former property by 29 November 2020. It served this notice on her at both properties. It subsequently wrote to her at the former property and said that her tenancy would expire on 29 November 2020 and that she needed to vacate the former property by 12pm that day. If she failed to do so it would commence possession proceedings it would charge her £80.89 a week for the tenancy.
On 5 November 2020, with the resident’s agreement, the landlord referred her to a community impact team to support her with the move. It noted internally that she would not return to the former property due to her “mental state”. It also noted that she had no furniture at the current property and that she needed support.
The landlord told the resident on 9 November 2020 that her rent account at the current property was in arrears and it needed to discuss it with her. It then wrote to her at the current property on 16 November 2020 and advised that she was at risk of being evicted from the property as she owed £136.26. It said she had broken the tenancy agreement and it was her last chance to avoid legal action.
On 18 November 2020 the landlord had a meeting with the resident’s social worker. The following actions were agreed or noted:
1. The social worker would contact the focus care practitioner, mental health nurse and “Key-ring” to see how the resident could be supported.
2. The landlord would put together a removal of goods letter to be sent to the resident.
3. The resident had been referred to the landlord’s community impact team.
That same day the resident’s social worker advised the landlord that she had spoken to the resident about the tenancy ending but the resident had terminated the call. The landlord advised this Service that other similar calls were terminated by the resident.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. The resident had two tenancies running since 5 October 2020.
2. It had served the notice to quit to end the tenancy at the former property and would change the locks on 30 November 2020.
3. It had spoken to social services who in turn had spoken to other professionals. They would be closing their case as the resident had capacity and no social care needs.
4. It questioned what it should do with the resident’s belongings from a “moral standpoint”. It noted that social services felt the risk of the resident ending her life was low, but that social services could not risk assess the possible impact of the landlord disposing of her belongings.
That same day the landlord spoke to the resident who said she wanted the removals to go via storage as she was concerned about someone following the van and finding out her new address. The landlord said it would try to facilitate this.
The resident’s tenancy at the former property ended on 29 November 2020. The final rent balance outstanding was £298.02. The following day the notice to quit expired. The landlord changed the locks at the former property and served the resident with a notice requiring removal of goods on her at the current property. It explained that items left in the former property were now the property of the landlord. It advised that she needed to collect the items within 14 days and to pay any costs incurred in connection with clearing, removing or disposing of the items.
After the tenancy had ended, the landlord inspected the former property and noted that each room was full of possessions including a fully decorated Christmas tree. It noted that it believed that the resident had not been to the property since she went into the residential home. The landlord has been unable to confirm to this Service the date when the resident went into the residential home. The landlord also noted internally:
1. It had visited the resident at the current property and had explained that the tenancy at the former property had ended and the locks had been changed. She appeared shocked.
2. It explained that she had 14 days to collect her belongings and that it would meet her at the former property to let her in.
3. The resident said “touch my stuff and we’ll see” and slammed the door shut.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would collect a list of items that she wanted to take from the former property. The resident responded by saying that the landlord that it should not tell her when it was coming, and instead it should ask her. Following this on 9 December 2020 the resident agreed a list of items she wanted to be collected from the former property.
The landlord arranged and paid for the removals which took place on 21 December 2020. The landlord was present at the former property and called the resident as the removals were ongoing, to ensure everything on the list was accounted for. Following this, at the resident’s request, the landlord paid for overnight storage of the items.
The items were delivered to the current property the following day and the landlord called the resident to ensure everything on the list was accounted for. The resident signed a “key receipt/disclaimer” form to hand back the keys and to confirm that the landlord had delivered all of her belongings. The landlord noted internally that she was happy to sign the form. In addition, it noted that over £3000 worth of work needed to be done to property one but it would not charge the resident for this.
The resident called the landlord on 4 January 2021 to say it had collected items she did not want. The landlord noted internally that she did not mention any broken or missing items.
The following day the landlord completed a void report at the former property and identified work required, which included the following:
1. Treat and paint the back kitchen wall and plaster. Although not stated, the chemicals listed by the landlord were ones designed to treat mould.
2. Run a dehumidifier to dry out the kitchen walls.
3. Clean and service the extractor fans.
4. Disconnect, repair and renew as necessary illegal wiring and components.
5. Repair rear door and vestibule door.
6. Reseal window frames and renew trims.
7. Screed floor and apply damp proof membrane.
8. Renew plaster vent.
9. Rectify leak from above fridge.
10. Repair leak from overflow from flat above.
11. Repair leaking gutter joint between lounge and bedroom window.
12. Clear blockage in gully.
On 15 January 2021 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. She was not happy that she had debts outstanding and would not pay these due to the way the landlord had treated her.
2. She would submit a complaint and “demand” compensation as the landlord disposed of sentimental items such as her deceased partner’s diaries.
On 1 February 2021 the resident complained to the landlord as follows:
1. On the day of the removals the landlord had called her at 10:20am instead of 1pm as arranged. She had been in pain and had not had much sleep the night before. She felt rushed to discuss the contents of each room as she had just woken up.
2. Even though she had made a list of items to be moved, the landlord moved items to property two which she had not included on the list.
3. When she heard that the former property had been cleared of her belongings she was “really upset and sobbing” as her “special memories were gone forever”. She said she was still grieving and had turned to drink and had self-harmed.
4. She had found the calls from the landlord to be stressful and said she felt “harassed”.
5. The former property had been “riddled with damp” which the landlord ignored. She said that this contributed to her partner’s death from bronchial pneumonia.
6. She had to pay a debt of £155 which was not hers and she knew nothing about. In addition, she had paid two weeks rent in advance but this was “not paid” which put her into debt.
7. She requested compensation for the lost items.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 9 February 2021 and said as follows:
1. It had altered its usual process to accommodate the resident’s circumstances when ending her tenancy.
2. As the resident had declined to collect her belongings and declined to give notice, there had been two tenancies running at the same time. It had sought legal advice about this.
3. It had liaised with the resident’s social worker who had offered to take the resident to the former property so that she could identify the items to be removed and collect any small items. The resident had declined this.
4. It had paid for the removals but had needed the resident to engage with this to allow access to the property and to ensure the right items were collected.
5. On the advice of its legal team about the lack of engagement from the resident, it had served her with a notice to quit in order to end the tenancy at the former property.
6. During the process, it made numerous attempts to speak to the resident however she terminated the calls.
7. When the notice to quit expired, it changed the locks and photographed the items in the former property. It then served a 14 day TORT notice on the resident at the current property.
8. It arranged and paid for storage to support the resident who believed a neighbour would follow the removal van and find her new address.
9. When the resident called on 4 January 2021 to say that the landlord had collected items she did not want, she did not mention any broken or missing items.
10. It had provided the resident with a “specialist service” and had not charged her for the cost of removals and storage as a gesture of goodwill.
11. The amount of £155 which the resident had paid was for an overpayment of housing benefit which the landlord had to repay and recover from the resident.
12. The landlord had inspected the former property in July 2019 following a report of condensation. It had not received any reports of damp at the property whilst the resident was living there.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord completed a rent adjustment form which said as follows:
1. The account balance of £154.46 was on the resident’s deceased partner’s tenancy and so it could not pursue the resident for this.
2. An end of tenancy cleansing charge of £162.50 had been added to the resident’s account in January 2021.
3. The balance on the resident’s account for the former property was £161.96.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that she was £298.02 in debt on her rent account for the former property. That same day the landlord spoke to the resident and said it had waived the charges under its discretionary powers for her sundry charges for leaving items behind. It noted that the resident started shouting and disconnected the call.
On 1 April 2021 the resident told the landlord that she would not be paying anything towards the outstanding debt as a member of staff had confirmed the 4 weeks’ notice had been done incorrectly. The resident did not provide details of which staff member had told her this, or when.
On 16 July 2021 the landlord reiterated to the resident that she was £298.02 in debt on her rent account at the former property.
On 19 July 2021 the resident referred her complaint to this Service who asked the landlord to respond at stage 2. The landlord did so on 6 August 2021and reiterated what it had said in the stage 1 response. It also said as follows:
1. It had tried to get the resident to engage about the tenancies by calling and sending text messages.
2. The resident engaged with the video call it had arranged so that she could identify items that needed to be moved to the current property.
3. It had reviewed its housing management system and confirmed that it had not received any contact from the resident about damp. It acknowledged that following a call from the resident in July 2019 about wet patches on the walls, it had arranged a condensation visit on 7 August 2019.
4. It had not been aware of the full extent of her partner’s health condition and it offered its condolences for his passing.
5. The resident had declined to sign a tenancy termination form, leaving it with no option but to serve her with a notice to quit and the 14 day TORT notice. This resulted in the arrears at the former tenancy. The notice to quit came to end on 29 November 2020 and the final rent balance was £298.02.
6. It concluded that it would not offer compensation for any lost belongings. It had supported the resident with the move, including arranging and paying for the removals and wavering the cost of cleaning the property. The resident had identified the items she wanted to take to the current property. She did not raise any concerns about the items moved at the time and signed the disclaimer form to confirm that she did not want any of the belongings that had been left at the property.
7. It had tried to help and support the resident throughout the notice period. It acknowledged that it had been a difficult time for her.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident again say that £298.02 was outstanding on her rent account for the former property. It asked her to make the payment within 14 days. It wrote to her again on 9 September 2021 as she had not made the payment. It said she must pay straightaway to avoid further action.
On 11 October 2021 the resident advised this Service that she believed the landlord had overcharged her for four weeks which she wanted refunded. She said the landlord was ignoring her.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord agreed to waive the outstanding amount of £298.02 as there was a credit on her original tenancy. It apologised for any distress caused to the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 December 2021 and said she was not satisfied with the stage 2 response as follows:
1. The landlord had ignored her and dismissed her concerns, causing distress and anxiety.
2. She wanted her debt from the former property to be cleared.
3. The two weeks rent she paid in advance should have been added to her account.
4. Items had been lost and could not be replaced.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 23 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she disagreed with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It had not followed the list of agreed items to move from the former property.
2. It had made her sign the disclaimer form before any items were taken into the current property.
3. She had mentioned broken and missing items during the telephone call with the landlord on 4 January 2021.
4. It was not condensation and some of her furniture still smelt of damp.
5. She did not refuse to sign the tenancy information form. Instead the landlord had said that she did not need to worry as it would be extended.
6. She did not receive a video call from the landlord as arranged. It had been arranged for 1pm but the landlord called at 10:15am.
On 19 September 2023 the resident spoke to this Service and said as follows:
1. When the landlord called her on the day of the removals, it was to say that the removal company had almost finished. It did not discuss any of the items with her as it had said it would.
2. The landlord asked her to sign the key hand over form quickly as the member of staff had to get to an appointment. She did not know that she was signing about the items and she was asked to sign it before any of the items had been brought into the current property. When she tried to follow this up with the member of staff her messages were not responded to.
3. The landlord did not acknowledge the loss of the items or ask how it had made her feel. The items included unique wooden puppets, a number of sentimental ornaments, her mother’s wedding ring and anniversary items. The landlord did not discuss the kitchen store room with her which is where these items were stored.
4. After she had advised the landlord about the mould it did not re-inspect the former property at any point. She went to a hub to report the mould again but the member of staff she had spoken to no longer worked for the landlord.
5. She said that the mould at the former property had been in every room and walls below the windows were black with mould. She also said there was furry mould on the bed which was where her partner had been sleeping prior to his death.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she believes that the damp and mould at the former property caused her partner’s death. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and the resident’s partner’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her partner’s health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
Whilst this investigation cannot decide on the causation of health conditions, it has considered if any general distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident as a result of errors by the landlord.

The termination of the resident’s former tenancy

The resident had accepted the move to the current property which the landlord had arranged in order to support her as she felt vulnerable in the former property. The resident was aware that the landlord had given her notice to end the tenancy at the former property in September 2020 as she raised concerns that the current property might not be ready in time.
The landlord acknowledged to both the resident and this Service that as the resident was not present during the transfer visit at the former property, it did not get written notice from her. It acknowledged that it should have followed this up to get this in writing. Where something has gone wrong, this Service expects the landlord to try to put things right. It is noted that the landlord was transparent in its acknowledgement of its error. It also noted that the resident had not been disadvantaged by this.
When the resident’s tenancy began at the current property in October 2020 the landlord appropriately told her that she needed to leave the former property in order to avoid having two tenancies. When the resident declined to leave the former property the landlord acted appropriately in seeking advice from its legal team. Following legal advice, it gave the resident notice to quit the former property and appropriately served this on her at both properties. It also explained that not leaving the former property would have financial implications for the resident.
It is clear that the resident had wanted to move to a new property due to her fear of other residents on the estate. The landlord assisted her with finding and securing a suitable property and acted in a resolution focused way to support her. The actions taken by the landlord to end the tenancy at the former property, which involved it liaising with its legal team were appropriate. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlords’ handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy at the former property.

The recovery of the resident’s former tenancy arrears and use and occupation charges

The landlord advised the resident in November 2020 that the outstanding balance she owed for the former property was £298.02. It then confirmed in February 2021 that some of this amount had been against her deceased partner’s account and confirmed it could not pursue her for it. It confirmed that the money she owed for the former property was actually £161.96 which was a cleansing charge.
Despite confirming the amount outstanding as £161.96, the landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on at least three occasions between March and September 2021 saying that she must pay the £298.02 she owed or it could pursue further action.
The landlord did not appear to have had an accurate record of the amount outstanding and as a result it gave the resident contradictory figures which led to confusion. It is also understandable that being pursued for an amount that she had been told she was not liable for caused distress to the resident.
It appears that the landlord recognised its error in November 2021 when it agreed to waive the outstanding debts against the account at the former property and it apologised for any distress caused to the resident. It is noted that the resolution the resident had been seeking, that the outstanding debt be waived, is what the landlord offered.
This Service acknowledged that there are times when things go wrong and when this happens the landlord should take appropriate steps to put things right. The landlord’s actions in apologising and waiving the outstanding amount on the account were appropriate and provided the resident with the remedy she was seeking. This Service has determined that the actions of the landlord amount to reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the recovery of the resident’s former tenancy arrears and use and occupation charges.

The resident’s possessions

This Service acknowledges the distress caused to the resident at the discovery that her late parent’s and late partner’s possessions, which held significant sentimental value, had been disposed of by the landlord. The Ombudsman offers its condolences for the resident’s loss and appreciates that this must have been, and still is, an upsetting situation. This investigation focuses however on whether the actions the landlord took in handling the removal of the possessions was in line with procedure and was fair and reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord had informed the resident that if she did not move out of the former property within the given timeframe, the items left would become its property and it would be permitted to dispose of the possessions. As the resident did not move out of the former property within the timescale, the landlord was at that point (October 2020), entitled to dispose of the items left. Despite being able to, the landlord did not take such action and instead it took a number of steps to ensure the resident received the items she wanted from the former property as follows:
1. It discussed the best way to handling of the items left in the property with external agencies.
2. It offered to meet her at the property to collect smaller items and to put together a list of items to be moved.
3. It video-called her on the day of the removals to provide her with the opportunity to see and discuss what was being packed.
4. It paid for the removal and storage of the items.
Although the landlord has advised this Service that it does not have a vulnerable resident’s policy, is it clear that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering how to address the items left. It liaised with the resident’s social worker about how it could support her and internal notes show that it considered what was morally right and what the impact of not having her possessions could have on the resident.
The landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to encourage the resident to collect and move her belongings going beyond its procedural requirements. The landlord also acted in accordance with its procedure when ending the tenancy and issuing notices about the ownership of the possessions transferring to the landlord.
On the day of the removals, the landlord called the resident as promised, however it is acknowledged that this call was around two and a half hours earlier than scheduled. The resident felt this impacted on her ability to discuss the items to ensure all of the possessions she wanted had been packed.
When a third-party removal company is involved, the landlord has to adapt to changes in scheduled timings on the day to accommodate the timeframe and pace of the removal company. The landlord would not have been able to anticipate that the removal company would finish the job earlier than planned.
It was therefore appropriate in the circumstances that the landlord called the resident whilst the removal company were still there and not wait for 1pm as scheduled. Although earlier than planned, as the resident answered the call, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the conversation that followed gave the resident the opportunity to tell it which items she wanted moving.
When the items were moved to the current property, the resident signed a form which is titled “key receipt/disclaimer” to say that she did not want the belongings that had been left in the former property. The resident has said that she thought she was only signing for the keys and that she did not know she was signing to say she did not want the items left. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident said she felt rushed to sign this form and had not looked at the items, it remained her responsibility to ensure she had read and understood the disclaimer before signing it. It is noted that the disclaimer is one sentence long so it was reasonable for the landlord to assume the resident had read it before signing.
The evidence seen in this case indicates that the landlord followed the correct procedure in advising the resident that she needed to collect the items. When she did not do so, it supported her in a number of ways and facilitated their removal and storage. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident did not feel the landlord did enough to ensure she had all the items she wanted, there is no policy or law requiring it to do more. It is also clear that the landlord demonstrated empathy and consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities in identifying additional steps to ensure the resident’s possessions were either collected by the resident or moved to the current property. The resident’s loss of her possessions was clearly a highly distressing situation and it is appreciated that these items, some of which had a significant sentimental value, cannot be recovered. Nonetheless, in all the circumstances, the Ombudsman views the actions overall actions taken by the landlord to have been reasonable. It gave the resident numerous opportunities to work with it to ensure her belongings could be returned to her. As such the landlord’s actions were reasonable and there was no maladministration in how it handled the resident’s possessions.

The resident’s reports about damp and mould at the former property

The landlord has a damp and mould policy which came into effect in 2023. Despite asking the landlord, it did not confirm to this Service whether it had such a policy prior to this.
It should be noted that this Service is unable to rely on events which were not reported or recorded at the time they happened. Due to the evidence based nature of this investigation it is therefore not possible to rely on the information provided by the resident about reports made to the landlord in 2019 as there are no records to support these from either the resident or the landlord.
It is clear from the landlord’s internal correspondence that the resident reported damp patches on the walls in July 2019. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy and arranged a condensation visit the following week. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it did not have a record of the outcome of this visit and did not have any notes of any works raised following this visit.
The landlord, during its own investigation of the property once the resident had moved out, found that there were significant issues with the condition of the property which included action needed to tackle damp and mould. It is noted however that the property had been left vacant for a period of time as the resident had been residing at the care home. It is not possible to conclude whether the property being left vacant led to the deterioration of its condition prior to the landlord taking possession. The repairs identified by the landlord upon possession do however support the resident’s assertion that the property had significant damp and mould issues.
It is acknowledged that the spotlight report on damp and mould had not been published at the time of the report in 2019. Whilst the landlord’s actions in attending the property following the report were in accordance with its repairs policy, it would have been appropriate however for the landlord to have recorded what action it had taken to resolve the issues and if any repairs were needed. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to have followed up with the resident to see if the issue had been resolved. There is no evidence that it took any such action after it had initially attended the property. This was not reasonable.
As the landlord ultimately identified extensive works required at the property, this does indicate that it missed an opportunity to identify and action these earlier. Although the landlord does not have a vulnerable resident’s policy, it should also have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to her reports of damp and mould, particularly considering the associated health risks. Given the lack of any repair and follow up action from the landlord in responding to and monitoring the damp and mould, a finding of maladministration has been made.
The Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, compensation of up to £600 is appropriate. As the landlord could have taken further action to ensure that the damp reported had been resolved by its visit in 2019 and taking into consideration the impact of this on the vulnerable resident who was distressed by the condition of the property, compensation of £300 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the former property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the recovery of the resident’s former tenancy arrears and use and occupation charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of the termination of the resident’s former tenancy.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s possessions.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately by attending the property following the report of damp by arranging an inspection, however it was not able to provide any records or confirmation relating to what occurred at or following this inspection. When the landlord took possession of the property, a number of repair issues were identified including damp and mould. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to resolve this sooner.
The landlord acknowledged its error in respect of the outstanding arrears at the former property. It agreed to waive the outstanding debt which is the resolution the resident had sought.
The landlord followed correct procedure when ending the resident’s tenancy at the former property.
The landlord supported the resident with the removal and storage of her items in a number of ways. The resident had the opportunity to speak to the landlord on the day of the removal and signed to confirm that she did not want any of the remining belongings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation to acknowledge the impact of its failure to follow up on the damp and mould reported.
3. Review the failures from a damp/mould handling perspective to ensure that current processes would not permit similar issues occurring. The review is to result in written findings that are to be shared with this Service

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord action the repairs required at the former property to bring it up to the appropriate standard. The landlord should maintain the condition of the property in line with the spotlight report on damp and mould.
It is recommended that the landlord establish a vulnerable residents policy.