Sovereign Network Homes (202304408)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304408

Sovereign Network Homes

26 March 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:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed personal items belonging to the resident without his knowledge or consent.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to his bicycle.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner. The property is one of several maisonettes that are separate from the main building. The property has an allocated car parking space, which is located within a semi-enclosed car park on the first floor of the main building.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 March 2023. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that without any notice, the landlord had removed items belonging to him from an area near his car parking bay. He did not understand why these items had been removed as they were not combustible or causing an obstruction. In the process, the landlord had damaged his bicycle, which was secured to the crash barrier adjoining his parking bay. To remedy the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to explain why the items had been removed, provide a copy of its risk assessment, provide an inventory of the items that were taken, and return the items to him in a good condition. The resident asked the landlord to provide details of its compensation policy.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for a response on at least 3 occasions between 9 March 2023 and 14 March 2023. The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2023. The resident said:

a.     The landlord had not responded to his emails or phone calls. He expressed a feeling that the landlord was ignoring him.

b.     The items removed by the landlord without notice, included some fishing equipment, 2 umbrellas, a small metal trolley, a pair of fishing boots, a fishing net, and some car tools. The resident said he had temporarily placed these items between the building line and the crash barrier behind his parking bay. His neighbour later informed him that the landlord had removed the items and had destroyed them.

c.      He recognised the need to maintain a safe environment but the landlord had not given fair warning of its intention to remove the items. It had not stored the items for an appropriate period of time before their disposal. The resident considered that the landlord had acted unlawfully.

d.     The landlord had deliberately and maliciously damaged his bicycle. In the absence of any alternative storage, he had been locking his bicycle to the crash barrier without challenge for the last 18 years. Since his bicycle had been damaged, he was having to use his car or public transport to get to work. This was an additional expense.

e.     To remedy his complaint, the resident said the landlord should pay compensation in the sum of £1,700 (£1,300 to replace his bicycle and £400 to cover the cost of the items the landlord removed and destroyed). The resident also said the landlord should pay £50 per month in travel expenses.

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2023. The landlord said it would provide its stage 1 response by 30 March 2023. The following day, the resident told the landlord that he was hoping for an earlier resolution. The landlord told the resident on 17 March 2023, that it had 10 working days to provide a response in line with its complaints policy. On 27 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide its procedure for removing belongings, to explain its legal basis for removing the items, and evidence that the items had been destroyed.
  2. On 29 March 2023, the resident reported that sometime during that day, his bicycle lock had been removed, along with his bicycle. The resident said he had again received no prior notice from the landlord. The resident felt that he was being deliberately targeted by the landlord, since there were other bikes chained to the crash barrier that had not been removed. The resident asked the landlord to add this to his existing complaint and return his bicycle and belongings to him immediately.
  3. The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 30 March 2023. The landlord said it was responsible for keeping the building fire safe and it worked hard to fulfil its fire safety obligations. It referenced several sections from its fire safety policy and the resident’s lease, to justify its actions. It said although the resident felt that the items were causing no harm or obstruction, they had been left in a non-permitted area. The landlord said it had no reason to believe that its contractor was responsible for damaging his bicycle. There were no witnesses and no images had been captured on its closed-circuit television (CCTV). It suggested that the resident may wish to report the matter to the police.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 2 April 2023. The resident said:

a.     The landlord had not investigated his complaint properly or impartially.

b.     The landlord had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. Its communications had been poor, which he felt was a deep rooted and systemic problem.

c.      It had failed to give fair warning of its intention to remove his personal belongings. Its timeline for issuing notices was vague.

d.     The landlord should have issued a new notice if it was unable to carry out the clearance within 28 days. He questioned why it had left the items in the car park for several months if it perceived these to be a fire hazard. He suggested that his belongings had been removed unlawfully. He asked the landlord to provide an itinerary of the items that were removed and provide evidence of their disposal.

e.     He was given permission by a caretaker around 20 years ago, to chain his bicycle up within the boundary of his parking bay. His bicycle had been stored in this location without challenge ever since.

f.        His bicycle had been in perfect condition prior to the day of the clearance. Later that evening he found its frame damaged beyond repair. He suggested that this could not be a coincidence.

g.     He was insulted by the landlord’s suggestion that he report the matter to the police. Any attempt at a meaningful police investigation had been prevented when the bicycle was removed entirely on 29 March 2023, without further warning.

h.     Noted that the landlord had quoted sections from his lease and its fire safety policy to justify its actions. He questioned whether his parking bay could really be considered as a communal area. He suggested that the landlord could not rely on its fire safety policy as justification for removing the items immediately, as they did not present an immediate fire risk. The resident said that the landlord should not have disposed of his belongings without following a lawful process.

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 April 2023. The landlord said it would issue its final response within 20 working days, in accordance with its complaint policy. The resident felt that the landlord should expedite its response.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 11 May 2023. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord actually issued its stage 2 response by email on 5 May 2023. The landlord:

a.     Apologised for any inconvenience or distress caused to the resident following its fire safety checks. It recognised there had had been delays in it contacting the resident, for which it had already apologised. It extended a further apology for this.

b.     Accepted that its stage 1 response was vague in relation to issue of relevant notices. It clarified that tort notices had been placed on unauthorised items left in the car park in July 2022. It had also displayed tort notices on the walls of the car park and on the communal notice board of the main building. Photographic records held by the landlord suggested that the resident’s bicycle and fishing equipment were not present at the time the notices were issued.

c.      Clarified that it did consider the space behind and in front of the crash barrier as a communal area, but even if it was not, the area was reserved for the keeping of a car or motorcycle only. Any other items stored in these locations, on a temporary or permanent basis, were liable for removal.

d.     There had been some delay in arranging for removal of items following issue of notices. This was partly due to it arranging clearances in phases across the estate. It had reviewed photographs taken on the day of the clearance. No items matching the resident’s description had been removed by its contractor. It suggested that it was just as possible that these items had been taken by persons unknown.

e.     Explained that it was required to take action to remove any item left without permission in line with its fire safety policy. The resident’s lease contained similar provisions. It agreed that removal of items should be covered by a tort notice, left on any items of concern. Although it had also left a tort notice on the communal notice board in the main building, it accepted that the resident may not have been aware of this, since he did not have access to the main building. The landlord would make arrangements for a permanent tort notice to be placed in the car park area.

f.        It suggested that the resident seek his own legal advice if he was concerned about the validity of the tort notice. It clarified that there was no expiry date on a tort notice. It accepted that it had not acted on notices within a timely manner. It would ensure that its contractor cleared items more frequently in the future.

g.     It noted dents in the bicycle frame from photographs sent in by the resident. Its contractor had denied damaging the bicycle. It stated that any bicycles that were unable to be removed on the day of clearance had been left on–site. Without further evidence, it was unable to investigate the matter further. 

h.     Refuted that its fire safety officer had suggested there was no issue with the resident keeping his bicycle chained to the crash barrier. Its fire safety officer had committed to clarifying the landlord’s process relating to the clearance of personal belongings. This had now been explained.

i.        Offered £107 compensation, in recognition of delays contacting the resident and providing information he had requested. The landlord explained that this compensation was broken down as follows:

  1. £45 in respect of delays.
  2. £45 for distress.
  3. £27 for time and trouble.
  1. After issue of the stage 2 response, the resident challenged the landlord’s understanding of the complaint. The resident said that the landlord had not addressed his subsequent complaint that his bicycle had been removed without notice, which was prior to the landlord issuing its stage 1 response. The resident asked the landlord to provide details of its procedure for removing personal property, a copy of its fire risk assessment, and photographs taken from the day of the clearance. The landlord responded by sharing links to its fire risk assessments and providing a copy of the procedures requested. It committed to sharing relevant photographs with the Ombudsman upon request.
  2. In view of the resident’s concerns about its handling of the complaint, the case was reviewed by senior management. A follow-on stage 2 response was issued on 6 June 2023. On review, the landlord was satisfied that the resident’s concerns had been dealt with. It recognised there had been some confusion over the bicycle but felt that complaint handlers had addressed this as soon as they became aware. It noted that it had already apologised for the oversight and had committed to learning lessons.

 Assessment and findings

The obligations and responsibilities of the landlord and resident

  1. Ensuring that tenants live in good quality, safe homes is a fundamental responsibility of all social housing landlords. The main piece of legislation governing fire safety in buildings in England is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. However, a raft of legislation has since followed, placing additional obligations on landlords related to fire safety.
  2. Failure by a landlord to discharge its responsibilities and obligations properly can put lives at risk. It can also lead to sanctions such as: prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007; prosecution by the Fire and Rescue Service under the Fire Safety Order; and via a regulatory notice from the Regulator of Social Housing.
  3. In this case, it is understood that the landlord owned and managed the first-floor car park area, which was considered to be a common part of the building. The building also contained 2 or more domestic premises. Accordingly, the landlord had a legal duty to ensure that a fire risk assessment was carried out, and that action was taken to identify, to manage, and so far as was reasonably practical, to mitigate any risks associated with fire in that common area.
  4. The landlord had a fire safety policy and a communal areas policy, which set out the landlord’s approach to fire safety and storage of personal belongings in communal areas. The communal areas policy stated that the landlord operated a zero-tolerance approach to resident’s leaving personal belongings in communal areas, as they present a fire hazard and can cause an obstruction in the event of a fire. While its fire safety policy also stated it operated a zero-tolerance approach, it further clarified that “where there is no on-site presence, the storage of items in communal areas is not allowed without our express prior permission”.
  5. The law governing removal and disposal of personal belongings is the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.The landlord’s communal areas policy stated that the landlord will remove and dispose of any items left in a communal area immediately. Following removal, the landlord will display a tort notice in the communal area, informing the resident what has happened. The landlord will dispose of any items removed, as it does not have storage.
  6. The landlord’s fire safety policy stated that it will take action to remove any items that are left without permission. Remedial items identified during a fire risk assessment will be categorised dependent on their nature. For risks categorised as ‘M1’, the expected remediation target is 1 month. M1 tasks relate to “important management issues that need to be prioritised in order to preserve fire safety standards within a building”.
  7. In accordance with the shared ownership lease, the resident was under a contractual obligation not to leave any obstructions in the common parts of the building and not to interfere with the free movement of authorised persons over the same. He was also required to observe and perform any reasonable regulations imposed by the landlord from time to time for the more efficient running of the building or any part of the building. He was not to use his parking bay for any purpose other than parking a car or motorcycle.
  8. It is understood that the landlord had a service level agreement, which set out its expected response times to resident enquiries. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it would “expect the relevant teams to get in contact with residents within the service level agreement of our policies (5 working days)”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed personal items belonging to the resident without his knowledge or consent

  1. The landlord opened a new “case” on 9 March 2023, after the resident expressed concern that the landlord had unexpectedly removed personal items belonging to him and had damaged his bicycle. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not contact the resident for 14 days, which exceeded its expected response timescales under its service level agreement.
  2. The landlord accepted that while there would be times when staff were unavailable, it was important that it had clear procedures in place to ensure that residents were kept informed and any communication delays were kept to a minimum. It is encouraging that the landlord recognised that its delay in responding to the resident was likely to have caused frustration, stress, and inconvenience. As a remedy the landlord apologised and offered compensation, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord stuck removal warning notices to items incorrectly stored in the car park on 14 July 2022. The warning notice asked residents to remove their belongings by Wednesday 20 July 2022. Thereafter, the landlord would remove any items stored in communal parts of the building without warning. The Ombudsman has reviewed provided photographs taken by the landlord on this date. However, none of the items stickered matched the description of the resident’s belongings. This was also noted by the landlord in its stage 2 response. This indicates that the resident’s belongings were not present on 14 July 2022 and were not issued with a warning notice.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence seen if the landlord returned on 20 July 2022, to check that residents had removed their belongings. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it would have been reasonable to have expected it to have taken timely action following issue of the warning notices, which had not happened in this case. The landlord showed that it was taking learnings, by making a commitment to remove items more frequently in the future.
  5. To comply with its legal obligations, the landlord’s contractor carried out a fire risk assessment of the car park on 26 August 2022. The fire risk assessment report was not issued to the landlord until 13 September 2022, which was 18 calendar days later. The Ombudsman does not have sight of the service level agreement between the landlord and its contractor. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s contractor did not release the fire risk assessment to the landlord with the urgency it deserved. This is of concern as the recommendations made were time sensitive.
  6. It has not been possible to determine from the fire risk assessment, whether the resident’s belongings and bicycle were present at the time of the fire assessor’s inspection. However, the fire risk assessor identified accumulations of personal items or waste materials in escape routes and stored in the car park. The assessor commented that the items should be cleared as soon as possible. The recommendation was assigned a M1 priority, meaning that the action should be carried out within 1 month. Of particular concern are the comments noting that this issue had been previously identified in September 2021, but had not yet been addressed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate and raises concern over the adequacy of the landlord’s oversight processes in relation to fire safety compliance.
  7. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the landlord attempted to arrange a clearance sooner, it has to be assumed that no attempt was made to arrange a clearance between 20 July 2022 and 8 February 2023. While a clearance date was set for 7 March 2023, this was nearly 6 months after the fire risk assessment had been issued. Again, this is inappropriate and adds further concern about the adequacy of the landlord’s oversight processes in regard to fire safety compliance.
  8. Despite the landlord’s communal areas policy stating that a tort notice will be displayed in the communal area following removal of items, there is no evidence that it displayed a tort notice in the car park following the clearance. However, the landlord had stated there was a tort notice displayed on the communal notice board in the main building. The Ombudsman has seen a photograph of this tort notice, which was dated 4 March 2021. This appears to be a permanent tort notice, which states that any items left in any communal parts of the building will be removed and disposed of without further notice. The landlord has accepted that the resident would not have been aware of this notice since he did not have access to the main building.
  9. It is noted that the landlord committed to installing an additional notice board in the car park area, to overcome this problem in the future. However, since the purpose of a tort notice is to give notice to the owner of objects abandoned on the landlord’s property, the Ombudsman questions the fairness of the landlord’s blanket approach. The Ombudsman also suggests that it may also be difficult for the landlord to argue that items chained to or are stacked behind an allocated parking bay are truly abandoned.
  10. The Ombudsman accepts that there will be times when belongings will need to be removed immediately due to their risk, for example if items are blocking fire exit doors or they are highly combustible in nature. However, the Ombudsman would question whether it is reasonable for the landlord to immediately dispose of all items, and in particular those where an item could have some monetary or sentimental value. The landlord should consider carrying out a review of its approach to the removal and disposal of personal belongings left in communal areas. It should satisfy itself that its approach is fair and legally sound.
  11. Ultimately, regardless of whether or not the items stored behind the crash barrier were of a combustible nature, the resident was under a contractual obligation not to obstruct any common part of the building and was not to interfere with the free movement of authorised persons over the same. The location of the items placed between the crash barrier and the wall in particular, could have restricted the landlord and its agents from accessing the area, as may have been necessary.
  12. The resident was also contractually required to “observe and perform any reasonable regulations imposed by the landlord” from time to time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this included compliance with the landlord’s policies on fire safety and communal areas. The Ombudsman can understand the landlord adopting a zero-tolerance approach in regard items stored in communal parts of the building. This approach is often easier for residents to understand, for staff to enforce, and enables the landlord to manage and mitigate risks associated with fire.
  13. While both policies make reference to this zero-tolerance approach, its fire safety policy adds that items cannot be left in communal areas “without its expressed permission”. This implies that there may be occasions when permission may be granted, however, no such provision is contained in its communal areas policy. The landlord should address the disparity between the 2 policies to avoid unnecessary confusion for residents and staff, as may have arisen in this case.
  14. The resident has stated that he had verbal permission from a previous caretaker, to store his bicycle within the boundary of his parking bay. While the caretaker may have given the resident verbal permission, the Ombudsman suggests that it would be unusual for a caretaker to have authority to make such decisions. In any event, this was not permitted under the terms of the resident’s lease and there is no evidence that a deed of variation was entered into. The resident also claims that the landlord’s fire officer told him that there was no problem with him chaining his bicycle to the crash barrier. This is denied by the landlord. Nonetheless, the resident’s interaction with the landlord’s fire officer left him confused and demonstrates the importance of timely, accurate, and consistent messaging by frontline staff.
  15. The Ombudsman has considered the residents claim, that he had stored his bicycle in the car parking bay for 20 years without challenge. While this is of concern, it is also reasonable to assume that the resident’s bicycle was not usually in the car park during the landlord’s typical working hours, as it was routinely used for commuting purposes.
  16. The Ombudsman accepts the timing of the resident’s belongings being removed on 7 March 2023, coincided with the landlord’s communal area clearance. However, none of the items described by the resident were visible in any of the photographs taken by the landlord prior to and following its clearance. The landlord’s CCTV does not cover this area and there were no witnesses to support the resident’s view that the landlord’s contractor removed the items. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine based on fact from the evidence seen, that the items described by the resident were removed by the landlord or its contractor.
  17. The Ombudsman has also been unable to determine based on fact from the evidence seen that the resident’s bicycle was removed by the landlord or its contractor on 29 March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord instructed its contractor to return and remove the bicycle. During its investigation, its contractor confirmed that it had not removed the bicycle. The landlord’s CCTV did not cover the area where the bicycle was chained up.
  18. In summary, the landlord’s communications were inadequate and it did not provide a timely response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s claim that it had unlawfully removed the resident’s belongings. Its response was drawn from the outcomes of those investigations.
  19. The Ombudsman was unable to find evidence to support a view, on the basis of fact, that the landlord removed and disposed of any of the resident’s belongings from the car park. The landlord identified several areas where its handling of the substantive matter could have been better. It committed to bringing improvements it itself had identified into its operations. During the investigation, the Ombudsman identified several additional points of learning for the landlord’s consideration. These learnings are reflected in the recommendations made later in this report.
  20. In consideration of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed personal items belonging to the resident without his knowledge or consent, there was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to his bicycle

  1. The resident asked the landlord on 7 March 2023, why it had attempted to remove his bicycle. On 9 March 2023, the resident accused the landlord of damaging his bicycle beyond repair. The resident sent photographs of the damage to the landlord on 14 March 2023. He claimed that the bicycle had been in perfect condition prior to the landlord’s clearance date. The resident later expressed his dismay in finding his bicycle had been removed entirely.
  2. It is not in dispute that there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial enquiries about damage to his bicycle. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding and offered compensation which was reasonable.
  3. Upon investigation, the landlord’s contractor denied damaging the bicycle. No images were captured on the CCTV and no witnesses to the incident were identified. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident saw a direct link between his bicycle being damaged and the landlord’s actions on 7 March 2023, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to determine based on fact, whether the landlord or its contractor damaged his bicycle.
  4. In summary, the landlord’s communications were inadequate and it did not provide a timely response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s claim that its contractor had damaged his bicycle. Its response was drawn from the outcomes of those investigations. The Ombudsman was unable to find evidence to support a view, on the basis of fact, that the landlord’s contactor had damaged the resident’s bicycle.
  5. In regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to his bicycle, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. The policy states that the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It aims to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord may issue a follow-on response instead of logging a new complaint or escalating a complaint to stage 2, where there would be little merit in starting the process over. When the landlord decides to issue a follow-on response, log a new complaint, or escalate to stage 2, it will make contact with the resident to confirm its decision, understanding of the complaint, and the desired resolution. This will form the basis of its complaint investigation.
  2. The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord states that this is distinct from a service request, which is “a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right”.
  3. The resident initially wrote to the landlord concerning the substantive matters of complaint on 7 March 2023. It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the landlord was treating the resident’s initial communication as a service request or a complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the matter should have been logged as a complaint as it was clear that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not given him prior notice of its intention to remove his personal belongings from the car park.
  4. When the landlord did not respond expediently, the resident raised a further stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s second complaint within 5 working days and it provided a full response within 10 working days, in accordance with its complaint policy. Although the resident wanted an expedited complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within expected timescales.
  5. In regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about his bicycle, the Ombudsman makes several observations. The day before the landlord issued its stage 1 response, the resident said that the landlord had cut off his bike lock and had removed his bicycle without any warning. The resident expressly asked the landlord to add this to his complaint. In line with its own complaint policy, it should have contacted the resident explaining how it would address the resident’s new complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident. This is inappropriate.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that where residents raise additional complaints during the landlord’s investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response where they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not yet been issued. However, where this would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint. In view of the timing of the resident’s communication, logging a new complaint would have been a reasonable approach.
  7. Despite the resident clearly stating several times that his bicycle had been fully removed without warning, the landlord said its complaint handlers had not realised the bicycle had been removed until after it issued its stage 2 response. This would have left the resident uncertain as to how his complaint was being resolved. It was also likely to have restricted the resident’s ability to progress the potential theft of the bicycle with the police and his insurance company in a timely manner. But it is encouraging that the landlord accepted there had been a failing in its complaint handling, apologised, and appropriately directed the resident to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  8. Separately, it agreed to arrange a review of its complaint handling by senior management and issue a follow-on stage 2 response. This was in keeping with its complaint policy and showed that it was open to learning from complaints. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident was not unduly disadvantaged by the landlord’s decision to investigate the matter past issue of its stage 2 response, as the resident had already escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman. But the landlord should have considered making an additional award of compensation to reflect the failure it itself had identified in its complaint handling.
  9. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed personal items belonging to the resident without his knowledge or consent.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to his bicycle

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £50 directly to the resident, in recognition of the resident’s distress, time and trouble, caused by failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with this order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £107 compensation it previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid this, in recognition of the failings it itself had identified.
  2. The landlord should investigate whether the delay between its contractor inspecting the car park and issuing the fire risk assessment was unique to this case. In the event that a wider issue is identified, it should consider the implications of this and act accordingly.
  3. In view of the observations made in this case, the landlord should reflect on its existing oversight processes in relation to fire safety compliance. Thereafter, it should act accordingly.
  4. The landlord should consider carrying out a review of its approach to the removal and disposal of personal belongings left in communal areas. In doing so it should satisfy itself that its approach is fair and legally sound.
  5. To remove unnecessary confusion for residents and staff, the landlord should address the disparity identified in this report between its fire safety and communal area policies.
  6. To ensure that residents are always given timely, accurate, and consistent information, the landlord should ensure that its frontline staff are aware of its fire safety and communal areas policies. Where training gaps are identified, the landlord should provide refresher training.
  7. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with its intentions in regard to these recommendations within 4 weeks from the date of this report.