South Holland District Council (202233115)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233115

South Holland District Council

22 July 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings in his former property following a fire.
2. The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s access to his former property following a fire.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and resided in his former property from October 1997 when he was allocated the property via succession. Prior to the date of succession this was his family home. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a garden.
On 5 July 2021 there was a fire in the resident’s kitchen which according to the landlord’s records was caused by a faulty appliance. The fire brigade attended to extinguish the fire, and the resident was given a small window of access to collect enough belongings for a temporary placement. The landlord offered a room in a guest house as a temporary measure, however the resident decided to reside with a family member.
The resident visited the office of the landlord on 14 July 2021 to request access to the property to collect more of his belongings. The landlord advised that the property was unsafe as there had been asbestos present, and the fibres were likely to have contaminated the property following the fire. Contemporaneous notes from this visit indicate that the landlord told the resident that his property was in poor condition due to hoarding, and his garden was very overgrown. It stated that his temporary placement ending up in the same condition would “not be tolerated.”
A local MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 28 July 2021, to ask for the outcome of the asbestos testing, as this was what was preventing the resident accessing his belongings. The resident was also concerned that his relative would be required to pay additional council tax while he was residing there and did not want them to be at a detriment. The MP requested that the landlord contact the resident to arrange supervised access to the address so he could retrieve his belongings.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord responded to say that a housing officer had contacted the resident and confirmed that it would pay any additional council tax liability incurred by his relative. It also confirmed that:
1. It offered a temporary placement on the day of the fire but this was rejected by the resident.
2. Confirmation had been given by an asbestos specialist that the property was no longer a risk following a swab test.
3. It had arranged for the resident to be given access to his belongings the following week, and then it would arrange for longer term storage until the new decant property was ready.
The resident signed a letter on 11 August 2021 which stated that he gave permission for the landlord to remove his possessions from the property and store them until a month after he was given the keys for the new property. The letter confirmed that the landlord would pay for the costs of moving his belongings to the storage facility, and the costs for ongoing storage until 1 month after the keys for his new property were handed over. After this date, the landlord would dispose of the belongings unless the resident wishes to take over the costs of the storage.
On 17 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to express his concern about where his belongings would be stored, as he had needed to stay with family for longer than originally planned. He felt that 1 month of storage being paid for was not enough and that he needed more time to make plans. He asked whether he would be supported to move his belongings from the storage unit to his new property. The resident stated that he took offence to the landlord’s implication that he could not manage his tenancy and that he was “hoarding.” He stated that he had an “extensive and much-loved book collection” which had not been highlighted as a concern on a previous fire inspection.
The landlord responded on 23 August 2021 stating the following:
1. It offered temporary accommodation on the day of the fire which was declined by the resident.
2. It agreed to pay for the packing up, moving and storage of the resident’s belongings until one month after the date the keys for the new property were released.
3. The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s belongings, and contents insurance should have been in place. In the absence of contents cover it was supporting the resident as a goodwill gesture but it would not replace the actions of a contents insurer. It recommended the resident purchase contents cover for his new property.
4. The storage fee would stop being paid by the landlord one month after the keys to his new property were released. It directed the resident to contact the storage company to gain access to his belongings and arrange transit from the storage facility to his new property.
5. It stated that it would not pay for the resident’s belongings to be moved to his new property and suggested he began to save for the fee. Information was provided regarding Government funded discretionary housing payments (DHP) as an avenue for funding. It suggested approaching the storage company for a quote for the DHP application but stated that he did not need to use them if he did not want to.
6. It advised it would keep the resident updated on the progress of work in his old property but stated that it was likely to take a long time. While the works were ongoing, rent was still payable on his old property but not for the temporary placement.
7. The landlord stated that keeping the garden in good condition was a condition of the resident’s tenancy and it was poorly maintained at the time of the fire. It said that it expected the resident to maintain the garden in his new property.
8. It apologised for offending the resident by implying he was not able to cope with his tenancy. It said the property was “severely hoarded” at the time of the fire and wanted to determine whether he needed any support. It confirmed that the resident can maintain his book collection provided it did not pose a risk to himself or others and said it did not wish to ‘punish’ the resident.
9. The new property was being readied for him to move into until his original property was ready and was a 2-bedroom bungalow. It stated that the resident would need to get new white goods, but it would confirm the move in date as soon as it was finalised.
10. It confirmed that his relative would not be penalised for allowing him to stay longer, and that the resident needed to sign and return a decant agreement in order for it to release the keys once the new property was ready.
On 25 August 2021, the moving company informed the landlord that it was delayed in clearing the property, due to the number of possessions. Internal notes from the landlord on 16 September 2021 indicate that an update was provided to the resident, who remained unhappy that his belongings would not be taken to the new property. The notes indicate that further discussions were had regarding contents insurance, and the landlord stated that hoarding in the new property “would not be tolerated” and action would be taken if it happened again. The resident had informed the landlord that he was considering involving the police as he felt the landlord was unlawfully preventing him from accessing his belongings.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 September 2021 to discuss the meeting from the previous day. He said he was unhappy that his belongings had not yet been moved from the property as the movers were falling behind. He was not provided with the keys for his former home as it was stated that he was not insured to enter. He expressed confusion regarding the maintenance of the garden as his housing officer had “moaned” about the condition however he received a letter saying the landlord would maintain it. He stated that he had injured his foot and this restricted his ability to maintain the garden. The resident also stated that an electric kettle had been found as the cause of the fire but he had not received a full report.
According to internal notes, on 20 October 2021 the moving company began to clear the property. Completion was scheduled for 24 November 2021 however notes state that the resident attended the property to prevent the movers from entering. This eventually resolved and the resident left the property, and the movers continued the clearance. The landlord received a call from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) the same day on behalf of the resident. The landlord provided the CAB with an update and reiterated that the resident needed to purchase contents insurance at the new address. The landlord’s note show that it informed the CAB that “there may be recharges due to his negligence” and if the resident moved all his belongings into the new property himself and put the property, himself, and neighbours at risk it would “take tenancy action.”
A letter was sent to the resident on 25 November 2021 to say that the movers had cleared his former property and his belongings were in storage. It advised:
1. He needed to consider his options from 26 December 2021 when it would cease paying for the storage.
2. He could either continue to store there and pay the fee himself or arrange for his belongings to be moved to his new property.
3. It would visit the resident on 7 December 2024 to discuss his options further.
4. A copy of the licence agreement for the decant property was included.
5. A notice was given in compliance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 s41, advising the resident that he had 1 month to collect his property or its ownership would transfer to the landlord on 5pm on 26 Dec 2021 and it would be disposed of.
6. A reminder was given to take out contents insurance in his temporary accommodation.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 9 December 2021 and summarised the actions it had taken relating to the movement of the resident’s belongings. Smoke damage was cited as a reason for not moving all belongings out of the property. It also stated that a home visit had been scheduled at the resident’s new property on 7 December 2021 but he had not attended. It said it would write to book another visit and as it was a tenancy condition to allow inspections, if he continued to refuse it would lead to enforcement action.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord sought legal advice from its solicitor, to confirm that it had a legal right to dispose of belongings once the notice period ended on 26 January 2022. It stated that it would allow slightly longer given the festive period, however it would not be holding the belongings indefinitely. The solicitor recommended that the landlord keep evidence of any belongings which needed to be disposed of and refer to support agencies for the resident.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him that he was required to maintain rent on his property but would not need to pay rent on the decant property. It confirmed that it would maintain the garden at his old property while it was completing repairs, however it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden at the decant property. It also confirmed that it would be completing inspections at the decant property in line with the licence agreement due to the “level of hoarding.” An appointment was booked for 4 January 2022, and the landlord stated that this was the last opportunity for the resident to allow access to the decant property before solicitors would be engaged and court costs charged to him “could be as much as £3000” should eviction take place. The resident arranged for a moving company to transport his belongings to his new property on 12 January 2022
Internal notes from 18 January 2022 indicate that following a safeguarding referral submitted by the landlord, adult social care felt that there were no identified care and support needs. They recommended that the landlord consider other methods of support. This Service has not seen a copy of the original safeguarding referral and has not seen evidence of the date that it was submitted.
The landlord emailed community health services on 24 February 2022 to ask for their assistance with finding appropriate support for the resident. It stated that a hoarding advocate had attended the resident’s new property and scored the property as a 9 on the hoarding scale. The advocate had also reported that there was fire risk to officers and neighbours and there was concern from both parties that the resident may not fully comprehend the fire risk. A notice to quit was made by the resident on 11 March 2022, to end the tenancy on his old property. The landlord confirmed that the resident moved permanently in to the decant accommodation which was supported accommodation.
The resident made a police report on 13 March 2022 with a complaint of theft and criminal damage against his housing officer. He included a list of items that had not been included in his stored belongings and said that items in cupboards were untouched by the fire and should have been moved to storage. He felt that the housing officer had disposed of his belongings without his permission which amounted to gross misconduct. He made a complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2022 and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 14 April 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 13 May 2022 and found that the complaint was not upheld. It stated that some belongings had to be disposed of due to asbestos contamination, and that denying the resident access to the property was consistent with its decant policy, and for health and safety reasons. The resident wrote back to the landlord on 14 June 2022 reiterating that he had seen his missing belongings in the upstairs rooms and they were not damaged. A number of the missing items were in cupboards downstairs and he believed that they had not been affected by smoke. The resident also stated that 2 televisions which had been in storage were damaged when he got them to his new property and he held the landlord responsible. The police confirmed on 14 October 2022 that they were taking no action in relation to the resident’s complaint as there was no proof of dishonesty in the actions taken by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2023 to escalate his complaint to stage 2, citing the delay in the police response as being the reason for the delay in requesting escalation. In its stage 2 response which was issued on 10 February 2023, the landlord stated that the complaint was not upheld. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions following the fire and approached the Ombudsman on 15 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

This Service has seen an asbestos report completed in 2015 which confirms the presence of asbestos containing materials in the lounge, ground floor toilet, kitchen, and the outside shed. While this would not have been a concern at the time of the survey, there would have been a risk of asbestos contamination following the fire. It would have been difficult to determine what items were affected and so it is understandable that the landlord exercised caution.
It did advise the resident that it would allow access to a third party on his behalf provided they had adequate insurance, and this was reasonable given the presence of asbestos. Once additional asbestos testing came back negative, the landlord did allow the resident access to collect belongings, although this was for short periods. Given the property was subject to building and repair works it was appropriate for the landlord to restrict access as the property would likely have been uninhabitable. However, it could have communicated to the resident more effectively so he fully understood the reasoning for access being limited. For the reasons above, the Ombudsman finds that while communication could have been improved, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to restrict access to the resident’s former property after the fire.
There is no record of an inventory compiled by the landlord to record which items were disposed of and why, and which items were stored. While the number of items in the address may have been a contributing factor, an inventory should still have been completed. If a written list was not possible, photographs should have been taken to show which items were unable to be saved. This would have given the resident an explanation for any missing items, and knowledge of which items were in storage. The landlord’s solicitor advised it to keep a record of items which had been disposed of, however this was not done.
The notes depicting conversations between the landlord and the resident on 25 August 2021 indicate that there was some tension between the parties. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the tone came across as judgmental, and insensitive to the resident’s circumstances. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the difference in process given there was no contents insurance in place, but repeatedly mentioning the fact that the resident had not taken out contents insurance was unnecessary. The landlord’s statement regarding potential court costs amounting to £3000 if the resident did not allow access also came across as heavy-handed.
From records provided by the landlord, it identified that hoarding an issue in 2012, and following the fire there was an increased effort to engage the resident alongside a community care coordinator. This appears to have been unsuccessful, and a fire risk survey carried out on 23 February 2022 at his new property found that there was a high fire risk due to hoarded items.
While this Service understands that it may be frustrating for landlords to manage properties with a large number of possessions in an emergency such as a fire, it should treat the resident with sensitivity and offer support rather than criticism. The landlord may not have seen value in many of the possessions in the property, but they did hold value for the resident. It was not necessary for the landlord to understand the resident’s motivation for keeping these items in order to offer appropriate support. The property had been the resident’s family home for over 20 years, and the landlord did not appreciate the distress that the fire and displacement may have caused.
The landlord’s decant policy states “where the move is an emergency decant and the tenant does not have contents insurance, applications to the tenant hardship fund for basic items of furniture such as beds and whitegoods will be considered up to a total maximum of £500.” There is no evidence that this was offered to the resident, despite it stating that the resident would need to buy new white goods. It is unclear to this Service what furniture the resident had in storage due to the lack of an inventory.
The landlord’s insistence that it would not pay for the resident’s belongings to be moved to his new property came across as punitive based on the tone of its communication, in particular its position that hoarding would “not be tolerated.” However, this decision was supported by the landlord’s decant policy which states that residents who are unable to remove and store goods themselves during an emergency decant will be required to pay for the landlord to do so. In this case, the landlord has covered this cost rather than charge the resident, and this is a positive step. It was also positive that the landlord advised the resident that he could apply for a ‘Discretionary Housing Payment’ from the council to pay for moving costs, however given its concerns about the residents ability to manage his tenancy it should have offered more support with the application or signposted him to support agencies.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident does not agree with the landlord’s position that his former property was hoarded. Despite this, the landlord should have communicated in a non-judgemental manner in order to engage him. Phrases such as “will not be tolerated,” and “not acceptable” should not have been used, and instead a supportive person-centred approach should have been taken. The landlord’s records of conversations with the resident appeared combative at times, particularly around the areas of contents insurance, the condition of the garden and the number of belongings in the address.
Hoarding disorder is a defined mental health condition, and any individual residing in a property where hoarding is present should be considered vulnerable and signposted to appropriate support. From the immediate aftermath of the fire until the resident had moved his belongings to his new property, the tone of communication from the landlord was more of chastisement than support. While it is understandable that the landlord may have been concerned about the number of belongings being transferred into a smaller property, it should have considered productive ways to support the resident to sort through his belongings rather than simply refusing to move them.
The resident has highlighted to the landlord that specific items were missing that he believed had not been damaged by the fire including shoes, coats and chess sets. The landlord states that any items which were disposed of were contaminated in the fire. The Ombudsman cannot say with any reasonable confidence what happened to these missing items due to the lack of an inventory and this will be considered as part of our overall findings.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings following a fire in his former property. While there is evidence that it had been attempting to engage the resident regarding improving the hoarding situation it did not treat him sensitively during the period investigated. There had been a fire in his family home, he had been staying with a family member temporarily and then was placed into a new property which was unfurnished. He was unaware of which belongings had been placed into storage and which had been disposed of and was therefore unable to plan to purchase any required essential items. Items which held great value to him, either financial or sentimental, had been either damaged in the fire or were disposed of without his knowledge when he had previously believed they were in storage. There was a lack of empathy in the landlord’s handling of the situation, with its focus being on what it believed the resident had done wrong rather than how to support him to navigate the situation. The landlord also failed to keep a record of which items were destroyed and which were stored, leading to additional distress for the resident when several items remained unaccounted for.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings in his former property following a fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s access to his former property following a fire.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A copy must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks in order to demonstrate compliance.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £650 for distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not be made towards his rent account. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks in order to demonstrate compliance.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord must review and update its emergency decant process and procedures within 8 weeks of this report. It should be clear how it will keep a record of any goods which are to be disposed of and also ensure that regular communication is made with residents so that they are aware of which items are being stored. A copy of the review with proposed updates should be sent to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review the current support and communication arrangements for the resident and seek specialist advice to ensure the level of engagement is appropriate considering the fire risk in the new property.