Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202220476)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220476

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 April 2024

 

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 handling of removal of the resident’s vehicle and its contents.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant.
  2. On 30 November 2022 the landlord authorised a company to remove the resident’s van from the property. The van was subject to a statutory off-road notice (SORN) which the landlord did not permit to be stored on its property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 9 December 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 December 2022. It stated that it had provided warnings to the resident in advance of the removal of the van. It also stated that SORN vehicles were not allowed to be kept on the property.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 January 2023. The landlord responded on 1 February 2023. It re-iterated that the tenancy agreement does not permit SORN vehicles to be stored on the landlord’s property. The landlord also stated that the resident was present when the 10-day notice to remove the van was issued. It was therefore satisfied that the resident was aware the vehicle would be removed.
  5. The resident remains unhappy. He states that the vehicle was not abandoned and that the van and its contents were worth £9,150.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has stated that due to a cyber-attack it cannot provide evidence of warnings it sent. The Ombudsman has seen a photograph of a 10-day notice of removal taped to the resident’s van. This was dated 3 November 2022. The landlord advised that the resident was present when this notice was served. The landlord had informed the resident that the van was subject to removal.
  2. Paragraph 18c of the tenancy agreement confirms that SORN vehicles cannot be stored on the property unless the landlord has given written permission. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support that the resident had written permission. The van was not permitted to be on the landlord’s property.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident does not feel he was given notice of his van being removed. The Ombudsman also understands that the resident did not consider his vehicle to be abandoned as he was completing works on it. It is noted that the stage 1 complaint was submitted in Spanish. There was an accompanying translation, although the English was broken. The Ombudsman has not been able to speak to the resident, so we are unable to confirm if there were any language barriers in this case.
  4. It would be considered best practice for the landlord to ensure that the resident fully understood the terms of his tenancy agreement, and any subsequent warnings regarding the removal of the vehicle. However, the landlord has advised that it gave several warnings to the resident. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that SORN vehicles cannot be stored on the landlord’s property. A 10-day notice was put on the resident’s vehicle, and the landlord has advised the resident was present when this happened. We therefore consider that the landlord acted appropriately.

Determination

  1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of removal of the resident’s vehicle and its contents.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider if there are any additional actions it needs to take when there is a potential language barrier, particularly in advance of removing property from its residents.