West Northamptonshire Council (201915625)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915625

Northampton Partnership Homes

11 January 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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of missing belongings.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The landlord’s records note that she has a long-standing disability. The resident’s carer made the complaint to the landlord on her behalf and I will refer to him as the representative in this report. 
  2. The landlord’s complaint and feedback policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction or concern about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by it or anyone else acting on its behalf, which affects an individual customer. The policy says that complaints do not include, among other things, cases where a resident is pursuing the issue through legal proceedings.

Summary of events

  1. On 4 and 5 December 2019 employees of a sub-contractor of the landlord (the sub-contractor) carried out work at the property to clear a route to windows and a door that were due to be replaced later that month.
  2. On 9 December 2019 the landlord noted that the representative had been in touch unhappy that food had been cleared from the kitchen in the property which meant the resident had been left without food for Christmas. 
  3. The landlord called the representative later that day noting that he seemed mainly frustrated about food items being cleared from the cupboards when he believed that had not been necessary. The landlord said that it understood this was done specifically to make room for the other food items from the sides and table into the cupboards and therefore clear the space in preparation of the works.
  4. The landlord made the sub-contractor aware of the complaint and asked it to respond to it.
  5. On 17 December 2019 the sub-contractor wrote to the resident about the allegation of theft. It said she should report it to the police and that it would fully cooperate with any police investigation.
  6. On 10 January 2020 the resident reported the alleged theft to the police.
  7. On 17 January 2020 the representative made a formal complaint to the landlord about the alleged theft of various items from the property. He gave details of these items which included: a rain poncho, a dressing gown, a glass domed clock, a stand-alone grill, a hand-held mixer, oven gloves, a cassette player, a large fridge magnet, seven bottles of wine, two cases of cider and various foodstuffs.
  8. On 24 January 2020 the police contacted the landlord for further information about the clearance of the resident’s home in early December 2019. The landlord responded on 27 January 2020.
  9. On 27 February 2020 the landlord issued its response to the complaint from the representative. Its main points were:
    1. It had advised the resident to make a complaint direct to its sub-contractor. The sub-contractor had responded to the initial complaint saying that the matter should be reported to the police.
    2. It understood a police report had been made and the police had contacted both the landlord and the sub-contractor and they had both responded to the police questions.
    3. It believed that the correct procedures had been followed and there was no intervention that it could make.
    4. It was satisfied that the sub-contractor had dealt with the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure as well as fully co-operating with the police.
    5. The outcome of the complaint with the sub-contractor would be dependent upon the findings from the police investigation. It said it hoped the resident understood that the police investigation needed to run its course.
  10. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  11. This Service understands that the police brought no charges in this case.
  12. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she wanted the landlord to admit liability for the theft and compensate her for the losses and distress she had suffered.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord acted appropriately when the representative first approached it by contacting the sub-contractor about the alleged theft and asking it to respond to the resident about this matter (paragraph 7). That was reasonable action to take because the alleged theft concerned the sub-contractor’s employees.
  2. Theft is a crime and therefore the sub-contractor’s advice to report this matter to the police was appropriate (paragraph 8). This is because the police have the power to investigate such matters. This includes the power to search a property; to arrest, detain and question those suspected of a crime; and to seize evidence. Neither the landlord nor the sub-contractor have such powers.
  3. The landlord and sub-contractor acted appropriately by responding to the enquiries from the police (paragraph 12). 
  4. The landlord’s response to the complaint from the representative was appropriate (paragraph 12). Its view that the sub-contractor had acted appropriately by directing the resident to the police was reasonable for the reasons set out above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of missing belongings.

Reasons

  1. The landlord and its sub-contractor took appropriate action by responding to the concerns raised by the resident and her representative and by directing them to the police who have the appropriate powers to investigate allegations of theft.