Stonewater Limited (202202095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202095

Stonewater Limited

11 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s removal of the resident’s belongings following the end of his tenancy.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. On 21 December 2021, a deed of surrender was issued, which stated the resident would vacate the property by 31 January 2022.
3. A tort notice was placed on the resident’s door on 12 January 2022, stating the landlord would dispose of the goods left in the property by 26 January 2022. The resident’s solicitor requested a 2-week extension of the tort notice on 25 January 2022. The landlord noted it had “agreed this in principle but advised I would need to check”. In an internal email on 26 January 2022, the department responsible for void works said the request had not been picked up in time and the contractors had already removed some items from the property. The tort notice was subsequently extended. The landlord remained in communication with the resident’s solicitor, in attempt to facilitate the resident removing the items from the property.
4. Following contact from the resident, this service told the landlord to issue a complaint response regarding its handling of the resident’s reports that his goods had been stolen and the conduct of his housing officer.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 July 2022. It said:
   1. The resident surrendered the tenancy following a court hearing in December 2021, as he was subject to injunction proceedings that he breached. The tenancy ended on 23 December 2021 and a tort notice was served which expired on 26 January 2022.
   2. The resident’s solicitor requested an extension of the tort notice on 25 January 2022. It said the “request was received too late to action and as a result the clearance began”. It requested the contractor to postpone the removal of his belongings and extended the tort notice until 13 February 2022.
   3. It apologised that a staff member had contacted him, despite his requests not to, and said the purpose of the contact was to facilitate him removing the items from the property.
   4. It was satisfied the resident was given sufficient opportunities to remove the items. It said as a gesture of good will, it had written off the debt that would have accrued between the tenancy ending and the tort notice expiring, which equated to £1,059.89.
6. The resident said he escalated his complaint to the landlord on 31 August 2022, but a copy has not been provided to this service. This service subsequently told the landlord to escalate the complaint on 20 October 2022.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022. In addition to the information included in its stage 1 response, it said that the items removed by the contractor on 26 January 2022, before the work had been suspended, were considered to be “rubbish”. The resident had not provided evidence to support his claim that £10,000 worth of items had been stolen. It had also extended the tort notice until 21 February 2022, at its discretion. It acknowledged that it failed to act correctly when the resident said he was unhappy with the stage 1 response on 31 August 2022 and made a compensation offer of £250 for its poor communication and the delays in escalating the complaint.
8. In the resident’s complaint to this service, he said the landlord had removed his belongings from the property before the date agreed in the tort notice. He said when he attended the property to collect his belongings, he found they had been stolen or damaged. He did not think the landlord had offered a suitable level of compensation and wanted £10,000 to cover the costs of the lost items.

Assessment and findings

9. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for removing the items in the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord will notify the resident at their last known address and if the items are not collected as agreed, it may dispose of the items and the resident will be responsible for the moving costs. Furthermore, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 states a landlord may dispose of a resident’s items where objects have been abandoned on private land or property, of which the landlord has become an ‘involuntary bailee’.
10. Following the resident vacating the property, it was appropriate that the landlord notified the resident that it intended to remove the items from the property on 26 January 2022, through use of the tort notice. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attempted to remove the items prior to this date. The landlord therefore reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe it would retain his belongings.
11. The resident’s solicitor requested an extension of the tort notice on 25 January 2022. The landlord would not necessarily be obliged to extend the tort notice. However, in this case, the landlord agreed to the extension “in principle” but said it would need to check if it was possible. It is understandable that the resident would likely assume that the removal of his items would be postponed until he was given a final decision on whether the extension would be granted. The landlord should therefore have taken steps to ensure it could provide the resident with a definitive answer before the tort notice deadline elapsed. As it failed to do so, the resident missed the opportunity to remove the items prior to the contractors removing them from the property. The landlord’s handling of the request for the tort notice extension was problematic.
12. In an internal email, the landlord said as the email was not marked as urgent, or flagged with the timescales, the request was not actioned in time. It stated any further short notice extension requests for tort notices should be raised by call rather than email and it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not get round to the email in time, given that it needed action the very next day. The landlord also told this service that it has taken steps to address how the inbox is monitored to ensure urgent tasks are prioritised. It was appropriate that the landlord learned from the outcome of the complaint and took steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue.
13. It was appropriate that upon being notified of the request to extend the tort notice, the contractors ceased work to remove the resident’s items from the property. The landlord then extended the tort notice until 13 February 2022, and a further extension was granted until 21 February 2022 at the resident’s request. The landlord took reasonable steps to facilitate the resident removing his belongings and met him at the property on 22 February 2022 to enable him to do so. The landlord then removed the remaining items, including his car, that were left at the property at no charge to the resident.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “in some circumstances paying compensation may be appropriate to cover loss, inconvenience caused and/or as a gesture of goodwill where appropriate”. The landlord offered compensation for its handling of the complaint and wrote off £1059.89 debt that would have accrued between the end of the tenancy and the end of the tort notice. It also did not recharge him for the removal of the remaining belongings in the property, despite the tenancy agreement stating he would be responsible for such costs.
15. The landlord did not explicitly award compensation to reimburse the resident for the removed belongings. In an internal email on 25 January 2022, the landlord stated, “if needed we will need to offer compensation here, though the feedback is that they were low value”. However, it is unclear whether the landlord sought further evidence to confirm the value of the disposed items or took steps to assess whether compensation was necessary. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have requested a list of the disposed items and evidence such as photos or receipts. As it failed to do so, it is unclear whether the redress offered by the landlord was sufficient. 
16. The Ombudsman recognises that the removal of the resident’s belongings caused distress and inconvenience, particularly as he said some possessions were sentimental and valuable. Despite this, without proof of the value and ownership of the items, this service has to use its judgment to determine what, if any, redress is due in terms of costs. In view of all the evidence, the landlord has largely taken sufficient steps to redress the complaint by supporting the resident after the failing was identified, not charging the rent costs incurred during the tort notice period; and removing the remaining belongings at no charge to the resident. However, if the resident can provide evidence to confirm the cost of the items removed, the landlord should consider offering further reimbursement if the total value exceeds the redress already offered.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the removal of the resident’s belongings following the end of his tenancy, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

18. It is recommended that the landlord considers offering further reimbursement if the resident can provide evidence that the value of the items removed from the property exceeds the redress already offered. The landlord should give the resident at least four weeks to provide this information.