Bristol City Council (202414359)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414359

Bristol City Council

31 October 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s notice to quit.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 31 January 2022 and ended on 12 November 2023. The property was a one-bedroom flat. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and had been subject to a formal safeguarding enquiry due to harassment and attack from the local community.
The complaint was raised on the resident’s behalf by his mother as his representative because of his vulnerabilities. To avoid confusion and for the purpose of this report the representative will be referred to as the resident.
On 25 February 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint. In summary he said:
1. He had been removed from his home since last year. All attempts to get matters resolved had been ignored. Phone calls and emails had not been responded to.
2. He had written to the landlord to say he wanted to end his tenancy in July 2023, but he had changed his mind, and all his property was still in the flat. His housing officer had said he needed to fill in the appropriate form otherwise he could not cancel his tenancy. He did not do so as he had changed his mind.
3. He was not contacted before the locks were changed. When he contacted the landlord, he was told he was still the tenant, and it was unclear why the locks had been changed. Housing benefit had informed him that the last payment was made on 28 November 2023 because it had been informed that the resident had moved away.
4. He was homeless now and needed to be re-housed. The area his mother lived in was unsafe as threats to kill him were why he had to move from the area. All of his belongings had been removed without his permission. He wanted these back or to be reimbursed for the cost. He listed items that were in the property.
On 15 March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The resident submitted a notice to quit by email on 11 July 2023. The notice clearly stated why the resident did not want to remain in the property. It gave 4 clear weeks’ notice to end the tenancy by 14 August 2023. The email stated that no response was required.
2. It had gained entry to the property on 2 November 2023 as no keys had been returned. It discovered the property to be in an unoccupied state. There was an accumulation of unopened post and none of the white goods were plugged in. It was after this date that the resident contacted to ask why the locks and been changed.
3. It accepted that call backs had not been responded to in November 2023, and it apologised for this oversight. It would not however have been able to rescind the notice to quit as the notice period had expired.
4. In respect of the belongings in the property these had been disposed of. They had remained in the property over a month after expiry of the notice to quit. The resident could claim for compensation by submitting details to its insurance team listing the value of the items being claimed. He should supply receipts if possible.
On the same day, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In summary he said:
1. He had followed the instructions given by the housing officer on 11 July 2023 when he was told that he had to complete a form to end the tenancy. As he had not done this the tenancy had not ended. His belongings should not have been disposed of.
2. When he contacted the landlord, he was told that he was still a tenant. He had left messages for call backs but received no response.
3. Housing benefit had been continued to be paid, and it was the landlord who cancelled the housing benefit.
4. The strap line at the top of the notice to quit was because he considered the housing officer was intimidating, racist, abusive and untruthful and he did not want interaction with him other than through the post. He disagreed that this meant that no response was required.
On 28 May 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint that it had failed to respond to the resident within 10 working days as emails and telephone messages had been left.
2. It upheld that it had not adhered to its complaint procedure. It had failed to respond to the residents stage 2 complaint escalation made on 4 April 2024 in accordance with its own timescales. It apologised and explained that the complaint had been closed in error rather than being escalated as it should have been.
3. It liked to gather more information when a resident had submitted a notice to quit so that it can have further insight into why. The email should not have implied that the notice to quit was not valid. It had fed this back to the relevant team. It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint and apologised for any distress caused. To rectify the matter, it would make 1 reasonable offer of a like for like property. It would contact the resident to discuss his choice of areas.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint that it had disposed of his belongings and apologised. It offered £400 compensation.
5. It had considered its files, and it could not identify that its member of staff had been verbally abusive, rude, intimidating or racist. The staff member had left so it could not interview him directly. The information was inconclusive in respect of this matter so it could not uphold the complaint.
6. In conclusion it considered it had made an error when it emailed the resident and told him he had to complete a form to quit his tenancy. The resident subsequently lost his home, and his possessions were disposed of. There was also no response to the contact made. It apologised and offered £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. He said he had lost white goods, sentimental items and furniture. The compensation offer of £400 did not cover the cost of these items. Losing his home had also had a serious impact on his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Its adverse impact on his mental health is also acknowledged as well as the loss of his belongings. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of his belongings and any damage to his health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being discriminatory. In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s notice to quit.

The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that safeguarding vulnerable adults is defined as recognising that adults sometimes have complex interpersonal relationships and may be ambivalent, unclear or unrealistic about their personal circumstances and therefore there maybe potential risks to their safety and well-being. If it suspects that an adult is at risk of harm it should determine whether the threshold is met for making a referral to adult social care.
The terms of the tenancy agreement state that the resident must give at least 4 weeks’ notice in writing if they want to end the tenancy. The keys must be returned on or before midday on the day that the tenancy is due to end. If the keys are not returned, then the landlord reserves the right to charge for any period up until the keys are returned. It states that when the tenancy ends the property must be returned to the landlord empty.
The landlord’s tenancy policy states that residents must provide at least 4 weeks written notice to end their tenancy. The format this comes in is not standardised but should contain specific information including the residents full name, address, tenancy end date and signature. Keys must be returned on the date when the tenancy ends.
The resident should provide vacant possession of the property meaning that no property should be left behind. It mentions that it can provide exit interviews to gain further insight into the residents experience. As part of best practice, it could provide a pre-exit inspection prior to hand over of the tenancy to ensure the property is fit for letting.
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’. In order to deal with the goods, it is necessary for it to serve the resident a notice setting out a reasonable period for the resident to collect the goods. It should also show that it has taken reasonable steps to locate the resident. Under the Act as an ‘involuntary bailee,’ the landlord is able to dispose of the goods should the resident fail to collect the goods within the reasonable period provided for in the notice.
The landlord’s website provides that it can offer a local crisis and prevention fund. It states that resident’s experiencing a financial crisis can apply for this as an emergency payment for items such as food or furniture.
On 11 July 2023, the resident sent a lengthy email to the landlord asking to end his tenancy. At the head of the email, it said that he did not want a particular housing officer to contact him directly but by post at an alternative address. He said this was because he felt his housing officer had not assisted and had been racist to him in the past.
The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Particularly as the issues with the member of staff relate to his handling of reports of anti-social behaviour which are historic and do not form part of this complaint. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately responded to this part of the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
It is not disputed that the resident felt discriminated against by a member of the landlord’s staff and that lessons can be learnt on how to reduce the risk of such interpretation in the future. However, based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not conclude that the staff members’ actions were deliberately prejudicial or discriminatory particularly as the member of staff had now left the organisation. As such, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the member of staff during the complaint process.
The resident’s email to end his tenancy contained a lot of details about the issues he had experienced with his neighbour which do not form part of this complaint. The impact he describes however is relevant to this complaint. In summary he described that he felt harassed and stalked by a neighbour which had caused him significant distress. He explained that he felt overwhelmed, alarmed, distressed and that it was having a dramatic effect on his mental health. He said he felt he was being forced out of his home. He said he was not coping and had not stood a chance of living in comfort and safety.
The contents clearly evidenced that the resident was distressed, and he had also explained that it was having a detrimental impact on his mental health. The landlord was already aware that the resident was a vulnerable adult and had in the past been subject to a safeguarding enquiry. Not only did it fail to contact the resident to discuss the issues and obtain further information. It also failed to offer relevant additional support or consider whether a referral to appropriate safeguarding should have been considered in response. The landlord’s lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and associated risks constitutes a serious failing.
The landlord then caused further confusion by responding to the resident informing him that notice needed to be given by completing the correct form to enable it to end the tenancy. The resident did not complete the form and therefore reasonably assumed that the tenancy had not been terminated.
The landlord did acknowledge this failing within its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident and said that it would make one reasonable offer of a like for like property to restore the resident’s position. This was appropriate. However, the resident has informed this Service that the landlord has not yet done this. The resident said that he still remains in temporary accommodation and has continued to bid on properties for over a year. An order will therefore be made for the landlord to make a direct offer if it has not done so already. If it has it will need to set out its position in respect of what it will do now to ensure that the resident is aware of the next steps and timescales moving forwards.
Part of the complaint was about the fact that the resident had been trying to contact the landlord, but it had not responded. The records provided to this Service do not show when this contact was made and how often. This is an indication of poor record keeping. The landlord did not however dispute the resident’s version of events. It acknowledged that it had not responded but said that the contact had been made in November 2023 after the tenancy had ended so it would not have changed the outcome. It failed to explain however why it had not responded to the resident. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put matters right and offer any reassurance that this would not happen again.
The landlord said that it did not take back possession of the property until 2 November 2023 which according to its acceptance of the notice was 58 working days after the notice had expired. It said that it had been waiting for the resident to return the keys after expiry of the notice. The landlord however made no effort to try to contact the resident itself during this period.
The Ombudsman would consider it best practice and fair and reasonable for the landlord to proactively seek to make various attempts to contact the resident during this period to clarify matters. Had it done so then it could have been appropriately informed of the resident’s intentions. By not doing so it treated the resident in a heavy-handed manner.
The evidence indicates that the rent was still being paid by housing benefit. The resident had not therefore sought to cancel this either. The landlord had the resident’s contact information, and he had even provided his mother’s address within the notice. The landlord’s lack of action has had serious consequences and is a further serious failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord then disposed of the resident’s belongings that were in the property. The Ombudsman recognises that this is an extremely emotive issue for the resident and that many of his personal possessions will have a sentimental value that cannot be replaced. This will have been a very difficult time for the resident.
This Service asked the landlord to provide details of any procedures or policies it has in place relative to disposal of personal items left in a property. The landlord provided its tenancy policy which fails to specify a process. An order will be made for a full case review and part of this will require the landlord to consider implementing a policy/procedure for disposal of items left in a property to avoid the same thing happening again in the future.
The few photographs provided in the evidence do not account for the full complement of items left in the property. Due to the lack of evidence and in the absence of an inventory, it is unclear exactly what was removed by the landlord. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord made any attempts to contact the resident and serve appropriate notices prior to it disposing of the items. This was very poor practice and a failure by the landlord to apply The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
In its stage 1 response the landlord suggested that the resident provide a list of items, and it explained that the resident was welcome to make a claim on its insurance. It went further in its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £400 compensation as well as a direct offer. Internal email correspondence suggests conversations took place in a meeting with staff on how the calculation was made, the landlord accepted the process was not sufficiently transparent or quantitative in correspondence with the Ombudsman.
Under the circumstances the landlord should have clearly provided the resident with details of how to make a claim on its liability insurance. An order will therefore be made to ensure that it provides this information to the resident and if necessary, assists the resident to do this. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. We cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit.
The landlord portrayed an unsympathetic manner towards the resident despite its apology in its complaint response. The resident had been left without furniture and everyday essentials such as clothes. The landlord had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to minimise the hardship that had been caused to the resident. Crisis grants could have been considered or appropriate referrals made to agencies who could assist. Its lack of concern about the resident’s position was another serious failing in its handling of the matter.
It is unclear when the resident became aware that the locks had been changed and his possessions disposed of. The resident informed this Service that he had been in hospital and had been staying with his mother during some of this period because of his mental health. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord in December 2023 and again in January 2024. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until he raised a formal complaint in February 2024. Its communication was therefore poor causing the resident further stress and inconvenience over an extended period of time.
The Ombudsman must consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and whether it treated the complainant in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic, or inappropriate manner. As noted above, the landlord failed to communicate or provide support to the resident throughout the process or after it had taken the property and disposed of his belongings.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord offered £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused, this does not adequately reflect the failings identified in this investigation or the detriment caused to the resident.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email ending his tenancy effectively despite its awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It missed multiple opportunities to contact the resident about the tenancy and his belongings and only doing so once it was too late. The landlord’s failure to take the resident’s circumstances into account, caused him significant detriment, and amount to severe maladministration in the circumstances.
In light of these findings, an order for compensation is appropriate to reflect the severe distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The order for compensation is intended to reflect the landlord’s failings, not the value of the possessions lost by the resident. Should the resident wish to pursue legal action for the value of the possessions, he should consider obtaining legal advice.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that compensation of £1,000 and above is appropriate for instances of severe maladministration where there have been significant failings which have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. An order has therefore been made for compensation of £4,000. This being £2,500 for the landlord’s failure to effectively respond to the resident’s email or his failure to return keys to establish his intention. And then its action of disposing of his possessions without making any effort to contact him first. A further £1,500 will be awarded for its heavy handed and unsympathetic approach, and its failure to demonstrate that it had considered his vulnerabilities when taking action.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge and define the complaint to the resident within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 Working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
There is no evidence that, despite appropriately opening a complaint investigation, the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was a failure to apply its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that when acknowledging a complaint, the landlord must set out its understanding of the complaint. That it did not do so caused an inconvenience to the resident, as he missed an opportunity to ensure the landlord had the correct understanding of his complaint.
The landlord appropriately opened a complaint investigation and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 February 2024. The acknowledged was issued 2 working days into the complaint and within the permitted timescales of its policy.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint response within 12 working days of its acknowledgement. This was outside of its own timescales and a failing, however it was a small delay. Its response did not show a meaningful assessment of how the landlord had handled the issues. It lacked any empathy for the resident’s circumstances. It was unclear what records it had relied upon to satisfy itself that it had done all it could in the circumstances. The response demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 49 working days after the resident’s escalation request on 15 March 2024. This was outside of its own timescales. The landlord did acknowledge this within its response and apologised. It said that this was because the complaint has been closed in error. It failed however to consider the impact of its delay and whether compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that its communication about completion of the form had caused confusion. It apologised. It sought to put matters right by offering a like for like direct offer as well as compensation of £400 to resolve some of the issues. It considered learning and said that it had fed this back to the service to avoid it happening again in the future.
In summary this Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses lacked empathy and failed to put things right, consider an appropriate amount of redress or provide a meaningful apology. The landlord also failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s notice to quit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. The chief executive officer of the landlord is to contact the resident and apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £4650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. £500 of the landlord’s compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
3. £4000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s notice to quit.
4. £400 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not been paid already.
5. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within the next 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss verbally and provide confirmation in writing the following:
1. Details of its liability insurer and how the resident can make a claim. If the resident requires assistance to do this, it should consider whether it can offer, or sign post the resident to any additional support.
2. Whether it has made a direct offer of property as stated in its stage 2 complaint response. If it has done this already it should set out its position in respect of what it will do now in respect of re-housing to ensure that the resident is aware of the next steps and timescales moving forwards.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should within 8 weeks complete a senior officer review into the failings identified in this investigation to identify how it can prevent similar happening again. The review should be undertaken by officers who were not involved in the original complaint, with a particular focus on:
1. Its poor communication
2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
3. Reviewing its policies/procedures to ensure that all proper consideration to a resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances are given when taking any action.
4. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures and training in place to ensure that its staff are aware of consideration of vulnerabilities and how to apply its safeguarding policy.
5. Whether it should consider implementing a procedure for how it should respond to tenancy terminations.
6. Whether it should consider implementing a policy/ procedure for how it will dispose of items left in properties.
7. It should consider its handling of other cases from 2023/24 financial year to date where the resident has given notice to quit. It should consider what steps it might need to take in those cases where there has been:
  1. Delays and/or
  2. Concerns raised over possessions being disposed.
The findings of the review must be shared with the landlord’s governing body and this Service also within 8 weeks.