Birmingham City Council (202339542)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat and outside the property is a shared communal area. However, at the time of the events complained about she was living in temporary accommodation and would occasionally visit the flat. In November 2023, the resident reported that her pram had been removed from the communal area. The landlord confirmed that it removed an old, damaged pram, but stated it did not remove a new pram from the communal area. The resident would like the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of her pram.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of her pram from the communal area.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of her pram from the communal area.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not follow the correct procedure for the pram it removed from the communal area, and it did not acknowledge this failing.
6. The landlord failed to address all of the resident’s complaint points when it provided its responses at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. It failed to acknowledge this, and as a result, did not put things right.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

7. On 15 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and stated her pram had been removed from the communal area outside her property on 14 November 2023. The resident explained she was staying in temporary accommodation and visited her flat that morning around 7am. She explained she left the pram outside her door whilst she was inside the flat. The landlord responded appropriately by logging a complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns.
8. On 16 November 2023, the day after the resident reported her pram had been removed, the landlord delivered a letter to her property about items left in the communal area. The letter said there were bikes, scooters, and a black bag in the communal area, and that these posed a fire and trip hazard which needed to be removed immediately. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing the resident with a letter about these items and asking her to remove them. Its action was in accordance with its conditions of tenancy booklet. This states that residents should not block, obstruct, create, or leave any hazard on any landing, corridor, stairwell, or communal area. The pram was not mentioned given that it had been removed the previous day.
9. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it removed a pram from the communal area because it had a wheel missing and was considered to be unsafe and a trip hazard. Therefore, it said it was disposed of. The landlord’s comments are noted. However, when items are left in communal areas, landlords are required to follow a procedure before removing the item. The landlord does not have a policy in place for removing or disposing of items left in a communal area. Therefore, we have considered the relevant legislation, The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. This requires a landlord to take reasonable steps to trace the owner of the item and give them notice to collect the item within a reasonable time. The landlord has failed to provide any evidence that it completed these steps before removing the pram from the communal area.
10. In response to the stage 1 correspondence, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that the pram which was removed was new and cost £1000. The resident also explained she had an additional pram which was old and had one wheel and was left next to the industrial bins the night before. She confirmed she wanted the removal of her new pram looked into. Shortly after this, the landlord took appropriate steps by speaking to the caretaking team for further clarification on the pram which it removed. This was a proportionate step to investigate the resident’s concerns. It then responded at stage 2 of its complaint response.
11. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that the pram it removed was not in working condition and had missing wheels. It stated if the resident was reporting that another pram had been taken, or was stolen, then she would need to report this to the police as theft. The landlord also gave the resident a compensation form to complete if she wished to submit a claim to its insurance team for the pram. It asked her to provide supporting evidence, including proof of purchase.
12. The landlord acted reasonably in referring the resident to its liability insurance. This is because a landlord would only be responsible for reimbursing the resident if there was sufficient evidence that it was directly responsible for the resident’s missing pram through its actions or inaction. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to claim on its liability insurance to determine this. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing such claims, and the landlord was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process. The landlord confirmed in its file submission that it did not receive a completed claim from the resident. The resident has also told us she does not remember submitting a claim to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s insurance department was unable to consider a claim for the pram as the claim form was not completed.
13. The landlord took appropriate steps by providing the resident with the option to submit a claim under its liability insurance. However, the landlord failed to follow the correct procedure for the pram that it said it removed because it was not in working condition. It did not give notice before removing the item. Therefore, given this failing we have ordered compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced from this error. In deciding what would be a proportionate sum, we have referred to our remedies guidance published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.

14. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
15. The Code also states that a landlord must address all points raised in a resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. It also explains that a stage 1 response must include details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
16. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 December 2023, which was 30 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The response was late and not compliant with the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord did apologise for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
17. The landlord also failed to include details in its stage 1 complaint response of how the resident could escalate the matter to stage 2 if she was not satisfied with the response. It appropriately acknowledged this error in its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the error.
18. On 29 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 29 January 2024. The response was on time and within the 20 working days timescales referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
19. The resident raised as part of her complaint and escalation request that’s she was living in temporary accommodation and not staying at her property. Therefore, she stated she was not receiving any letters or post. The landlord failed to address this complaint point, which would have inconvenienced the resident and was not compliant with the Code. As the landlord did not acknowledge this failing, we have ordered further compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In deciding what would be a proportionate sum, we have referred to our remedies guidance published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there is a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

21. The landlord’s overall communication was adequate following the resident’s report that her pram had been removed from the communal area.