Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202301139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301139

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

10 May 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:
   1. Assistance provided by the landlord during a decant and transfer process.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The second element of the resident’s complaint (paragraph 1.b. above) concerns her request that the landlord should compensate her for items damaged and lost during and after the fire. It is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine that the landlord is liable for items damaged by the fire and in the events after. Determining liability and awarding damages requires a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim.
4. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer or more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.’ It follows that the resident’s complaint about reimbursement for items damaged during and after the fire falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

5. The resident and her family lived in a flat in a modern block under an assured tenancy since 1999. The freehold is owned by the landlord, a housing association.
6. There was a major fire at the block on 9 November 2022 and the resident and other neighbours were moved to temporary accommodation while the building was assessed. The landlord said the block would take up to 18 months to be repaired and the resident’s personal items were placed in storage.
7. The resident moved from a hotel into a 2-bedroom house less than 3 months after the fire, and said she wished to accept the property on a permanent basis. She submitted a complaint on 28 February 2023, stating that she had purchased white goods as it was not clear what the landlord would pay for and she wanted compensation for what they went through living in a hotel. She also wanted compensation for all the belongings and furniture which were damaged after the fire as the landlord did not allow them to take them earlier.
8. In the landlord’s response on 14 March 2023, it said that it had carpeted and decorated the new property as a gesture of goodwill. It was not responsible for the loss of personal items and furniture, and all tenants were advised to take out contents insurance on sign up. The resident had no contents insurance.
9. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 March 2023 and the landlord’s final response on 5 April 2023 restated its previous position. The landlord also said that it recognised that the resident was out of pocket due to having no insurance so it had referred her to the Housing Team, who it said may be able to offer vouchers from the tenant welfare fund.
10. The resident wants the landlord to compensate her for the cost of white goods and furniture she has had to purchase for her new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. As above, the payment of compensation for the resident’s personal items is not an issue the Ombudsman can decide. This investigation will consider the appropriateness of the landlord’s actions and information provided to the resident during the decant and transfer process and its liability to pay for new items.

Decant

12. The landlord’s compensation policy says at page 9 that the landlord will not consider compensation when ‘loss or damage is caused by a third party not contracted to MTVH i.e. …a neighbour’ or ‘customers home contents are lost stolen or damaged through no fault of MTVH (customers are encouraged to have home insurance). ‘We encourage you to take out contents insurance to cover your belongings and decorations against accidental damage, loss, fire or flood.’
13. There was no information provided by the landlord relating to its responsibility to residents following a fire. A high-level flow chart was provided which illustrated executive functions around decants, but this did not show the practicalities of residents being rehoused. This investigation therefore considers if the action taken by the landlord was fair and reasonable in the resident’s particular circumstances.
14. In this case, the landlord rehoused the resident and her family in a hotel immediately after the fire. It wrote to residents on 17 November 2022, acknowledging the traumatic event, and explaining that work on the block would take up to 18 months to repair.
15. The landlord said that flats needed to be emptied of all belongings by 5 December 2022, as there would be no power or heating and any possessions left would be likely to deteriorate and become valueless. It said it was aware that residents had collected essential items. Contact details were provided for the resident to arrange for goods to be transported to storage or a location of her choice.
16. The letter said the landlord was not obliged to provide storage, but given the lack of contents insurance, it was making an exception. It said that storage would be provided until the resident was into settled accommodation, but any items were left at the resident’s risk and the landlord was not liable. The landlord wrote to residents on 7 December 2022 and said it was doing all it could to get them into temporary accommodation. The removal of the residents’ possessions to storage was booked for 9 & 10 January 2023.
17. The landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP on 22 December 2022, and said that the resident had been back to the property 3 times since the fire on 9 November 2022, but did not arrive on 8 December 2022 when asked to collect items as arranged. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s family did have to move to another hotel for 1 night as it was unable to secure a reservation for 2 rooms at the hotel.
18. The landlord did not delay in obtaining approval for residents to return to their homes to collect items, and it is reasonable that this would have to be scheduled and supervised. There were many households affected by the fire, and it would require considerable resources to arrange. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s actions around the temporary hotel accommodation was unreasonable.
19. It is understood that moving to a second hotel for a night would be disruptive and inconvenient, particularly with school age children, but the landlord has explained that this was unavoidable. The Ombudsman understands that living in a hotel, without your own possessions is unsettling, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s actions were inappropriate. Given the extreme shortage of social housing and the demands on it, the resident was able to move into what became her permanent home in a reasonable timeframe.
20. On 10 January 2023 the resident reported going to her former property the day before, where she found furniture, linens and clothes were mouldy and the landlord’s contractors said electrical items could not be used as they were not safe due to the water damage. The removal company said there were other items such as wardrobes they were unable to remove as they were too large and mouldy and would cause damage to other items if stored with them. The resident listed items which were left.
21. The landlord wrote to all residents on 20 January 2023, 1 and 3 February 2023 with a reminder to remove remaining items to storage as the building would be handed over on 5 February 2023, with building work starting the next day.
22. There is no date on the photograph which shows damaged items and walls, but it is assumed these were taken on 9 January 2023, when the removal company were booked to remove items to storage and the resident raised the issue. The landlord has said that it was unable to allow residents to remove items prior to this as it needed a report to show the property was safe for this to happen. This is not unreasonable and demonstrates that it was proactive and diligent in its actions.
23. The landlord wrote to all residents several times to remind them to remove their possessions, and of the likelihood of items being damaged. It is understood that the resident had no insurance, however, this was not the fault of the landlord, which says it regularly reminds residents of the need to take out their own insurance.
24. There is no documentary evidence of the landlord telling the resident she was responsible for contents insurance at the previous address. It is referenced on the landlord’s website, and it advised that the tenancy agreement states this. The tenancy agreement seen by this Service dated June 1999 does not include reference to contents insurance but does state at section 4 of the general terms that the landlord would insure the property against fire and other risks.
25. However, there is no evidence that the resident was told or would reasonably expect that the landlord would be responsible for her possessions. As above, the actual liability for losses is not for this Service to decide.
26. The landlord kept the resident updated, informed her she was able to arrange her own removal of the items, and made arrangements as soon as possible for the residents to return to the property.
27. The resident said she wanted compensation for how the fire disrupted her life, the inadequate space and living on take aways. The landlord explained in the complaint response dated 14 March 2023 that costs for food was reimbursed monthly while residents were in the hotel. It noted that she was offered temporary accommodation which was more comfortable, but the resident opted to remain at the hotel. The resident has explained why these properties were not suitable for her family and challenged that they would have been more comfortable.
28. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident and her family have experienced an extremely traumatic event. Having to leave their home with no notice and losing their belongings due to the fire would have been devastating. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has misled the resident in respect of her belongings and its liability for them after she left the property. The landlord acted correctly in arranging temporary shelter and is not responsible for the disruption caused by living in a hotel. The situation was caused by a fire at the property and compounded by the resident’s lack of contents insurance which, as stated above, is not an issue for this investigation.

Transfer

29. On 27 December 2022 the resident said that the property she was offered was not ideal, but she had accepted it. However, it was unfurnished, and she required some support to furnish it as soon as possible.
30. The landlord says that when the resident came to inspect the new property on 13 January 2023, it was not painted or carpeted. The resident was advised that it could help with paint vouchers and help to buy some household items, but the resident would need to do the carpeting herself. The resident agreed to let the landlord know during sign up for the property. The resident then advised that she had spent £4,000 on white goods and asked when she could be refunded.
31. The landlord said it suggested organisations who may be able to assist with used furniture. It advised the resident that as a goodwill gesture it could purchase a household item up to the sum of £400. It said it did not give cash or reimburse money spent but could help purchase items for their new home.
32. The landlord explained to the resident that she would not receive a ‘home loss payment’ which did not apply in these circumstances, as the resident would have the option to return to her home after the renovations.
33. The resident complained that she was not made aware of what was available before she and her husband bought items for the property, and they had already purchased their own beds, mattresses and white goods. She said that being given paint vouchers would mean they had to pay for labour.
34. In the end, the landlord had already redecorated the property prior to the resident moving in, so there was no loss to the resident in terms of the cost of labour. The landlord had said that it would pay towards white goods, but the resident had already purchased these prior to moving to the new address on 2 February 2023.
35. However, it is noted that in its email dated 27 April 2023, the landlord said it was willing to pay £400 to purchase 1 white good or pay into an account and asked the resident for their bank details. There is no evidence to show what happened with this offer. There is no obligation on the landlord to pay this sum after the items have been bought, but as this email appears to suggest that it would do so, it may wish to re-offer this to the resident if not already paid.
36. It is not now possible to know what was said between individuals in cases such as this where recollections differ, but there is no evidence that the landlord offered more than it has confirmed. There is no obligation on the landlord to offer any furniture or carpets. It has gone beyond what it initially offered by decorating and carpeting the property, when it could have merely provided vouchers for paint, leaving the resident to pay for labour, and carpets. It has given a reasonable explanation in its complaint responses about its obligations and explained what was available to the resident.
37. The resident says that she was not aware of what they could have got and suggests that they lost out on the cost of new items for their property. She said that the landlord had a responsibility to furnish the house.
38. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was entitled to more than was provided by the landlord, and in the case of the decoration and carpets, she was provided with more than the landlord was obliged to or had initially said it would give.
39. The landlord responded to the complaints submitted within its published timescales and referred the resident to a welfare fund which it said may have been able to assist with costs. It also made enquiries to various charitable organisations that may have been able to assist the resident, although it was unsuccessful.
40. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its duties and obligations as a landlord.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of assistance provided by the landlord during the decant and transfer process.
42. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the compensation for damaged items is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that the landlord revisit its offer made on 27 April 2023 to pay £400 to the resident’s bank account if not already paid, as it made the commitment to do so.