Stonewater Limited (202216988)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216988

Stonewater Limited

21 February 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 disposal of the resident’s possessions.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property.
  2. On 26 April 2022, the resident provided the landlord with notice to end his tenancy. The landlord confirmed this in writing the same day, stating that four weeks’ notice was required under the tenancy agreement. The landlord said the tenancy end date would be 29 May 2022.
  3. The landlord and resident exchanged emails between 26 April 2022 and 28 April 2022, during which the resident confirmed he would move out of the property by 10 May 2022. The resident gave the landlord permission to enter the property after 10 May 2022 to complete the void work. On 29 April 2022, the landlord asked the resident to email it with confirmation once he had left the property.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 May 2022, stating he would leave the property by 13 May 2022, and that he would email to confirm once he had left. On 17 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident, attaching a written statement for the tenant to sign and return. The statement was to confirm that he had left the property, that he had left the keys in the key safe, and that he gave permission for the landlord to enter before the tenancy end date. The resident did not return this statement, but instead emailed the landlord on the same date to say he was unable to make the exit interview scheduled for 18 May 2022. The resident stated he had been hospitalised after taking an overdose, and that his workmates were going to help him to finish moving home on 21 May 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on the same day, acknowledging cancellation of the exit interview.
  5. Without the resident’s knowledge, the landlord’s contractor called the landlord on 16 May 2022 to state the resident had not left his keys in the key safe, and asked he landlord for permission to force entry. The landlord granted the contractor this permission, which the contractor used to gain entry, change the lock, and complete clearance works on 17 May 2022.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2022, stating:
    1. The property had been emptied, with the carpet ripped up.
    2. His custom-made shelves had been torn off the walls.
    3. All of his possessions, including credit cards, furniture, expensive toys and personal documents, were missing.
    4. He was extremely unhappy, particularly given he had told the landlord of his recent suicide attempt, and he wanted the landlord to contact him as soon as possible.
  7. The landlord called the resident on 20 May 2022 to discuss the issue. It also emailed its contractor on this date to ask it to return all available items to the property and to hold off any further void work until 30 May 2022. The contractor returned some items to the resident, but many remained missing.
  8. The landlord’s internal emails and notes show it spoke to the resident on 24 May 2022 and agreed to provide him with £1,000 compensation as an upfront payment before it made its formal resolution offer. The landlord’s financial evidence shows it paid this on 25 May 2022. The landlord also scheduled a call with the resident on 31 May 2022 so that it could compile a full list of the missing items to determine what further compensation it needed to provide.
  9. Further internal emails from 24 May 2022 show the landlord was querying the missing items with its contractor, asking why some items had been recovered and others not. The contractor told the landlord that they removed a van load of items on 17 May 2022 and took these to a partially filled skip in Coventry at another property, which had since been taken to landfill. The contractor said a separate skip arrived on 19 May 2022 for the remaining items, which were able to be recovered.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 31 May 2022 as agreed, and the parties exchanged further emails up to 9 June 2022. Through these communications, the landlord compiled a list of the resident’s missing items, which totalled a monetary value of approximately £9,000.
  11. An internal email from the landlord dated 8 June 2022 shows it had been dealing with the matter outside its complaints procedure up to that point, but on this date it had decided to raise a complaint for the resident because of the monetary value involved. The landlord sent the resident a letter acknowledging his complaint on 9 June 2022.
  12. The landlord sent its stage one response on 14 June 2022, in which it said:
    1. It made an error in dealing with the initial request to end the tenancy, and that it had not followed its procedures correctly.
    2. It should have contacted the resident on 16 May 2022 to make sure he had moved out before giving permission for the contractor to enter.
    3. Its contractor had not followed its procedure correctly upon entering the property and noticing the contents inside.
    4. When the resident had emailed the landlord on 17 May 2022 confirming he would be leaving the property on 21 May 2022, it had failed to recognise it had already granted entry to the contractor, or take action to remedy this.
    5. It had given training to its staff and contractors who had made errors in relation to the matter to prevent this happening again.
  13. To resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s stage one offer proposed the following:
    1. A rent credit of £246.62, so the resident would not be charged for the period 16 May 2022 to 29 May 2022.
    2. £9,000 for the cost of the items lost.
    3. £1,500 compensation to address the impact caused to the resident, as well as the loss of sentimental items which had no monetary value (the landlord had already provided £1,000 of this on 25 May 2022).
  14. The resident sent the landlord emails on 15 June 2022 and 16 June 2022, in which he said he was unhappy with the proposed payment of £1,500 and he wanted the landlord to reconsider this, but he would accept £9,000 to cover the items lost. The resident asked the landlord if it could send the £9,000 payment by 17 June 2022. The landlord’s financial evidence shows it sent the payment on 17 June 2022 as requested.
  15. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2022 asking how much compensation he would accept in resolution to the dispute. The resident responded by email on the same date, stating he had received legal advice that compensation in the region of £10,000 (in addition to the £9,000 payment for the replacement of goods) would be appropriate. The resident told the landlord that many of the items lost, including photographs of his family and drawings from his grandchildren, had significant sentimental value. The resident also told the landlord that the matter had put strain on his mental health and that he wanted a quick resolution so he could move on from the matter. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 7 July 2022, in which it said it would issue its stage 2 response by 21 July 2022.
  16. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 July 2022, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s unhappiness with the proposed payment of £1,500, but said it believed the offer met what was expected under Housing Ombudsman Service guidelines.
    2. Reiterated it was very sorry for the experience, and that it had given staff training to prevent the same thing happening again.
    3. Gave the resident the option to accept its offer of resolution, or approach this Service for an independent review.
  17. The resident approached this Service with his complaint on 2 November 2022, telling us he did not feel the compensation offered by the landlord covered the distress he had faced from having his personal items discarded. The resident is seeking an increased compensatory offer from the landlord to reflect his distress, time and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Disposal of resident’s possessions

  1. The correspondence between the landlord and resident shows that the landlord specifically asked the resident on 29 April 2022 and 17 May 2022 to email it to confirm once he had left the property and deposited the keys in the key safe. When this did not happen, the landlord should have contacted the resident to clarify the situation, but it failed to do this and instead proceeded with the clearance works without receiving confirmation.
  2. Similarly, the landlord should have contacted the resident before authorising its contractor to force entry. The landlord’s failures to contact the resident were missed opportunities for it to ascertain that the resident had not moved out, and this was a significant failing.
  3. Given the resident had said he had been hospitalised with an overdose, the landlord should have treated this email with seriousness and urgency to ensure it did not place any unwarranted stress or inconvenience on the resident. Instead, the landlord did not take on board what the resident had said about his move out date being pushed back to 21 May 2022, nor did it take any appropriate action. This failure is even more significant given the landlord did not recognise that its contractors had emailed it about the same property the previous day. Had the landlord responded to these emails appropriately, this would have prevented the incident.
  4. There is specific legislation relating to the storage and disposal of goods: The Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977. The landlord’s ‘Torts Procedure for Voids Contractors’ is informed by this legislation. The legislation imposes a duty on the landlord towards the owner of the goods to ensure it disposes of any goods in accordance with the law. Under the landlord’s policy, when its contractor entered and discovered the goods inside the property, the following procedure should have been followed:
    1. Works should not have commenced and the contractor should have contacted a member of the landlord’s lettings team immediately.
    2. The landlord’s lettings team should have attempted to contact the tenant while the contractor was still on site to obtain the resident’s confirmation that they had vacated. The landlord should also have sought clarification from the resident about their intentions for any goods in the property.
    3. Had the landlord been unable to reach the resident, the contractor should have taken photographs of each room and storage area of the property, showing the extent of the items left behind. The contractor should have also taken a full inventory of all items that appeared to be of any value (including items over the value of £10, as well as photographs and personal documents, such as passports and birth certificates). The contractor would have needed to email this inventory to the landlord within 24 hours under the policy.
    4. Upon receiving the inventory from the contractors, the landlord would have needed to decide if it had to issue a tort notice. If it did, it would have needed to issue this within 72 hours and place it on the front door of the property. This would have allowed the resident a further 7 calendar days to contact the landlord to discuss arrangements for their belongings before any works recommenced.
  5. It is evident that the landlord’s contractor did not follow any aspect of the landlord’s procedure in respect of the clearance work. Given the amount and value of the goods inside the property, it should have been clear to the contractor that it was inappropriate to commence clearance works without further checks with the resident and landlord. As the contractor was working as an agent of the landlord, the landlord is responsible for the mistakes made by its contractor.
  6. “Quiet enjoyment” is a legal term that means tenants have the right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. It is a covenant enshrined in common law. Even where not explicitly stated, the right to quiet enjoyment of the property is implied in every tenancy agreement. It means the tenant has a right to the undisturbed use and peaceful enjoyment of their home.
  7. The facts of the case mean that the landlord unlawfully evicted the resident from the property. While the evidence suggests the landlord did this out of error rather than intention, the effect on the resident was the same. 
  8. The Housing Ombudsman does not award damages in the same way that a court might – for instance, a court may decide to award exemplary (punitive) damages, but the Ombudsman’s remedies are not intended to be punitive. However, the Ombudsman does make orders to put right the mistakes of a landlord, which includes compensation for identifiable loss; and compensation for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble a landlord’s actions or inactions have caused a resident.
  9. This investigation finds no basis for amending the compensation the landlord paid for the monetary value of the missing goods (£9,000) because this was agreed by the resident and the landlord through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure; and the Ombudsman has not been provided with any additional evidence that would suggest this amount was incorrect. However, the Ombudsman considers there will have been significant inconvenience placed on the resident in having to replace his possessions, which was not considered in the sum of £9,000.
  10. In addition to purchasing new furniture and personal possessions, the resident needed to replace sensitive personal documents such as his bank cards, driving licence and birth certificates for him and his daughter. It is likely that the resident had to spend a significant amount of time contacting different agencies to replace these documents, and there is no evidence the landlord assisted with these matters. It is likely this caused the resident significant distress and worry, particularly considering his difficulties with his mental health. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s proposed payment of £1,500 to be too low to address the resident’s significant time, distress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident also lost a lot of personal items of a sentimental value built up over the years. While a monetary value cannot be placed on these items, it is recognised that their loss would have caused the resident particular and perhaps unquantifiable distress. The landlord should therefore have considered an award of compensation in recognition of this particular distress.

Complaint Handling

  1. Section 1.2 of part B of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 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”. With this definition, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a complaint immediately upon receiving the resident’s email dated 19 May 2022. However, the landlord’s internal notes show it initially decided to deal with the matter outside its complaints procedure until 8 June 2022, when it decided to raise a formal complaint because of the level of compensation required.  The failure to raise a complaint on 19 May 2022 created an unnecessary delay of 3 weeks, with the landlord sending a written acknowledgement of the complaint on 9 June 2022.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 July 2022, in response to its stage 2 response, requesting a review from the landlord’s optional customer complaints panel. The landlord responded to the resident on 4 August 2022, stating it was not running the panel. The landlord instead invited the resident to approach the Ombudsman with the matter. It is not clear from the landlord’s response whether it had permanently stopped using this panel or if the panel was merely not running at the time the resident requested a review. In either case, it was a failing by the landlord to have included a provision for the panel in its complaints procedure if it was unable to provide this option when the resident requested it.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it believed its offer of £1,500 was in line with what the Housing Ombudsman would consider appropriate. It is not clear how the landlord came to this reasoning. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance published on our website states compensation over £1,000 is appropriate in cases of severe maladministration. However, the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, as well as section 5.7 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, states landlords should give consideration to the specific circumstances of the case, including but not limited to:
    1. The severity of any service failure or omission.
    2. The cumulative impact on the resident.
    3. A resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord took the resident’s specific circumstances and vulnerabilities into account when making its offer. Considering the resident had just returned home following a suicide attempt when he discovered his goods were missing, it is reasonable to conclude that all the distress, worry and inconvenience of this matter would have had a particularly profound effect on this resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s possessions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is hereby ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord pays the resident £2,750 for the distress, time and inconvenience experienced. This is in addition to the offers of £1,500 impact payment, £9,000 for cost of items lost and £246.62 rent credit the landlord previously offered.
  2. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff.
  3. It is ordered that, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord undertakes a senior management review of the case and identifies any lessons to prevent similar service failures reoccurring, including how its Torts Procedure works and any staff training requirements. The landlord should provide a copy of its review to this Service.