Southern Housing (202408073)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s daughter attended the property with the police and ambulance service on 28 March 2024. It was discovered that the resident had sadly passed away. After the property was secured with a padlock provided by the emergency services who attended in on 28 March 2024, the landlord changed the locks to the property around 9 April 2024. The resident’s daughter made a complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2024. She said the landlord had changed the locks despite her expressly asking it not to. She said some of her late father’s items were stolen from the property.
2. The Ombudsman has the deepest sympathy for the distress the resident’s daughter experienced at the loss of her father. We offer our condolences for her loss, and sympathy for the distress the alleged theft caused.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of theft, following the resident’s death.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. The landlord made reasonable offers of redress for the errors in its:
   1. Response to reports of theft, following the resident’s death.
   2. Complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord cooperated with the police investigation into the theft. The landlord’s initial investigation, and stage 1 complaint response lacked empathy and transparency. When the allegation was made in the resident’s daughter’s stage 2 complaint it investigated the concerns with the operative in question. The landlord conducted thorough investigation of the evidence it had available. It used its stage 2 complaint response to give its findings and explain the case was being investigated by police. Its offer of compensation was appropriate to put right its earlier errors.
7. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were delayed. Its offer of redress was appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. When the resident’s daughter asked us to investigate she said the landlord’s actions had left her traumatised and impacted on her wellbeing. Again, we express our condolences and deepest sympathy for the distressing circumstances of this case. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident’s daughter to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident’s daughter told us some of the items that were stolen were of sentimental value. We would like to extend our sympathies for the evident distress this caused. Theft is a criminal matter and is for the police to investigate. This investigation has not sought to establish whether the alleged theft occurred, who was responsible, or if there was a causal link between the landlord’s actions and the alleged theft occurring. The police are best placed to make a determination on the alleged theft and who was responsible. We have considered the landlord’s response to the concerns raised and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.
10. At the time it changed the locks, in April 2024, the landlord accepted it had gone against the resident’s daughter’s wishes. It apologised and said it would investigate the matter. It used its stage 1 complaint response to explain its position it decided the door was not secure enough and made the decision to change the locks. It was a failing in its communication it did not explain this to the resident’s daughter at the time. We acknowledge the distress she experienced at not being able to enter the property. The landlord promptly put this right by providing details, via email, for the lock box.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked empathy, a fact it later accepted. It also failed to appropriately explain the actions it had taken to investigate the matter. This lacked detail and transparency. The landlord was unlikely to be able to comment in detail while a police investigation was ongoing. But, it was an error in its communication it did not set out its position on the matter.
12. The evidence shows the landlord conducted a thorough internal investigation of the resident’s daughter’s claim made in her stage 2 complaint, she believed the landlord’s operative was responsible for the alleged theft. We have not formed a view on whether the operative’s actions amounted to misconduct. Instead, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
13. Again, the police were the appropriate body to investigate the alleged theft. However, as there was an allegation of misconduct of one of the landlord’s staff it was appropriate to conduct its own internal investigation. We have seen evidence it considered dashcam footage, and tracking data, from the operative’s work vehicle. It also interviewed the operative in question, which was appropriate. It later acknowledged it should have taken a written statement. It was an error in its record keeping that it did not.
14. The stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for the lack of empathy shown in its stage 1 response. It also offered a face to face meeting with the resident’s daughter to discuss her concerns. This was appropriate and evidence it took her concerns seriously. The stage 2 response explained the actions it had taken to investigate and gave the outcome. This was appropriate. At the time, the police investigation was ongoing, so we would not expect the landlord to pass further comment other than on its own actions.
15. Again, we would like to acknowledge the distress the resident’s daughter experienced due to the situation. Our role is not to establish whether the landlord’s actions led to the alleged theft, or identify who was responsible. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s daughter’s concerns. It accepted errors in its communication and its procedural failings in not taking a written statement. This was reasonable. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says up to £100 is appropriate where a landlord’s errors did not significantly affect the overall outcome. For the aspects that are within our remit to investigate we have decided the £30 the landlord offered for its errors was appropriate to put things right.

16. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response 30 working days after receiving the complaint. This was outside the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code. (the Code). The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay.
17. The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response 30 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. Again, it appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, the landlord’s offer of £90 in compensation was appropriate to put right the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord did not take a written statement when it interviewed the operative in question. This was an error in its record keeping. The landlord showed good learning by explaining it would ensure future investigations did so and would remind its staff of the importance of doing so.

Communication

19. The evidence shows the landlord’s communication with the resident’s daughter was poor and it failed to respond to some of her correspondence. Given the distressing time she was experiencing, more effective and empathetic communication may have avoided some of the frustration and distress she experienced.