Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Settle Group (202211439)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211439

Settle Group

15 June 2023


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 response to reports about the actions of its contractor when carrying out clearance works at the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the landlord’s assured tenant of a 2nd-floor 1-bed flat, following continuance of what was initially an introductory tenancy with the landlord’s predecessor entity in September 2006.
  2. The resident has a well-documented history of significant mental and physical health-related vulnerability, and agreed with the landlord that she had been unable to maintain the flat properly. This resulted in a build-up of waste, rubbish and clutter so severe that it deprived the resident of effective use of her living room and kitchen. It was agreed that the landlord’s contractor would carry out a clearance.
  3. On 21 April 2022, the contractor carried out the clearance, continuing when the resident said she had to leave the flat for a short time. In her absence, they cleared the bedroom as well as the intended rooms.  On her return, the resident said they had removed all her clothes and other items to a value she has variously reported between £1400 and £5000, and that they continued to remove items, refusing to stop or to return them, when she says she asked them to do so.
  4. The resident formalised a complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2022, also having made a criminal complaint to the police. On 3 May 2022 the landlord responded, apologising for incorrect removal of items and service “not as it should be”, confirming an offer of £250 compensation for distress and promising ongoing liaison with the contractor regarding any further compensation. The landlord’s contractor then offered a further £500 without any admission of liability, which the resident accepted. However, the resident expressed a desire to escalate her complaint and on 29 June 2022, the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response, summarising the compensation already agreed and repeating its apology, but declining to take the matter further, and saying that if the resident did wish it to do so, this would be between her and the contractor.
  5. The resident has confirmed that she does not regard the landlord’s final response as an adequate response in the circumstances, and has therefore escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has failed to provide either the full tenancy agreement including terms and conditions, or its complaints policy, both expressly requested by the Ombudsman. Instead it has provided only its compensation policy and procedure, and the front pages of the tenancy agreement showing basic information and referring to terms and conditions stated to be, but not, attached. Nor is this Service provided with any vulnerable residents policy, so no assessment of the landlord’s performance against any relevant tenancy terms, or any such policy, has been possible.
  2. However, it is clear that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability before any of the events relevant to this complaint. The landlord has shown clear concern and empathy, and evidence of significant efforts to secure appropriate multi-agency support for the resident both before, during and after the events in this complaint.
  3. It was pursuant to this concern, and noting the resident’s loss of amenity due to the conditions in her flat, that the landlord agreed with the resident to arrange clearance of parts of the flat by the landlord’s contractor. There is also evidence that the conditions in which the resident was living, created a real fire hazard to the block in which the flat was situated.
  4. The landlord cannot therefore be criticised for making the arrangement. It is also to the landlord’s credit that it had done so at least once before, and this time went to great lengths to secure funding to avoid rebilling the resident for the whole cost of doing so.
  5. Although the resident had agreed the clearance appointment with the contractor, she contacted them shortly before they attended, asking if they could come later, so that she could collect essential medication. The contractor was unable to accommodate this request. This Service is provided with no information or evidence from which to assess whether this was reasonable, and can only say that it was unfortunate given the resident’s known vulnerability.
  6. In view of the resident’s multiple physical and mental health-related vulnerabilities, it is also notable that the landlord itself was not present at the resident’s flat during the contractor’s visit. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any attempt to arrange attendance by any member of the landlord’s staff. Nor is there evidence of any discussion or consideration of whether this might have been appropriate.
  7. Three of the contractor’s operatives arrived at the appointed time on 21 April 2022. The resident let them in and nevertheless decided to leave the flat for a time while they worked, confirming that they should continue in her absence, and returning before they finished. The resident says that on her return, she made clear that she had never agreed for her bedroom to be cleared, was distressed that it had been, and asked the contractors to stop and return items from their van. She says they refused, and this Service has seen no response from the contractor on this specific point.
  8. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman, shows that the landlord and resident agree that only the living room and kitchen were meant to be cleared. The landlord says that their instruction to the contractor reflected this, but the purchase orders shown to this service, do not. There is no other evidence that this was made clear to the contractor.  As a result, it is not disputed that the contractor did in fact clear the resident’s bedroom as well in her absence. The landlord’s correspondence with the contractor after the resident complained, does not at any time suggest it was surprised or unhappy that the contractor had done this. 
  9. The resident called the contractor’s manager after the operatives left. There is no evidence of the contractor’s account of this call, but the resident says the manager told her it was her own fault for leaving the operatives unattended. The resident reports that the contractor’s operatives remained on site for 45 minutes after her return, but does not say why, in the circumstances, she delayed that call until after they left. The resident also called the landlord the same day, making the same complaint.
  10. The landlord’s notes of the resident’s complaint, recorded that the resident now said that she believed the arrangement had been for a “deep clean” only, rather than for anything to be removed. It is to the landlord’s credit that it clearly recorded this even more concerning allegation, but unfortunate that there is no evidence of a written agreement between landlord and resident in advance, that might have avoided any uncertainty.
  11. The landlord’s communication with the contractor at this point shows discussion of a £500 goodwill offer contemplated by the contractor itself, while firmly denying any liability, and all the resident’s allegations.
  12. Eight days after the incident, the resident reported the matter to the police. Though describing it as “burglary” in her police statement, she confirmed she had voluntarily invited the contractors into her flat, and did now expressly say that she had agreed “to have items removed”. The police later confirmed they were not investigating further, and considered the matter a purely civil dispute.
  13. The landlord’s staff record the resident as appearing genuinely distressed during contacts over this period, saying that due to removal of clothes and other essentials, she was having to choose between food and clothes. She has consistently reported panic attacks and feelings of extreme distress. There is evidence that she approached the mental health support team, to whom she was already known, for support at this time. It is again to the landlord’s credit that it made renewed efforts in the immediate aftermath of the incident, to assist the resident in securing that team’s and other appropriate support, described as “increasingly urgent”.
  14. This was followed up by the landlord’s attendance on 5 May at a muti-agency safeguarding meeting also attended by the resident herself, and others including the mental health team and social services, the record of which shows the landlord’s advocacy on behalf of the resident’s need for greater support.
  15. The resident’s reports of the value of items lost, have varied at different times from £1,400 to £5,000. For example, her itemised list to the landlord on 27 April 2022 totals £1,400 – plus some minor items not valued – while her police statement two days earlier had suggested a value of around £3,000.
  16. The contractor insisted that there were no items of value whatsoever. In its 29 April 2022 email to the landlord, it described the items removed as only

‘… food wrappers, putrefying meals & soiled clothing buried under the rubbish which was approximately a foot deep.’

  1. In the same email to the landlord, the contractor says that:

‘clothing (from the bedroom was)… disposed of under the direction of [the resident] upon her return as [we] set aside any [w]e thought needed to be disposed of and actually asked [the resident].’

  1. The landlord’s first complaint response confirmed its own offer of £250 in recognition of ‘distress and inconvenience’, accepting that:

‘…the service you received… during the clearance of your home was not as it should be… items of clothing were incorrectly removed and disposed of…’

The landlord added that it would ‘continue to work with the police in order to resolve the matter’ with its contractor. 

  1. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer on the basis that she wished to continue pursuing the contractor. On 17 May 2022, the contractor confirmed its own £500 goodwill offer while repeating directly to the resident, its strong denial of her allegations. It repeated to the resident, its 29 April description to the landlord, of the items actually removed, and saying it had photographic evidence to corroborate this. No such photos have been provided to this Service, and it is not clear whether they were shown to the resident. 
  2. On 18 May 2022 the landlord confirmed to the contractor that the resident accepted its £500 offer – expressed as ‘in full and final settlement’ without admission. On 19 May the contractor confirmed payment.
  3. On 15 June 2022, the landlord exchanged emails with social services stressing the need for ongoing and more effective support, saying that it had arranged a deep clean as a follow-up to the clearance, but that without appropriate multi-agency support, the resident’s flat would inevitably deteriorate back to its previous condition. The landlord also confirmed to social services that it had served a Notice Seeking Possession in connection of the fire hazard and other health and safety issues arising. However, and again to its credit, the landlord was clear that it did so as a precaution, its intention remaining to treat the matter as an issue for support rather than enforcement if at all possible.
  4. On the same day the landlord issued its stage 2 and final complaint response. This reiterated its original position, standing by its £250 payment, and noting its contractor’s separate £500 payment, but stressing that both were goodwill payments for distress and inconvenience, and not for the value of goods claimed lost, which were disputed. In this response, the landlord told the tenant it was “not directly responsible” for its contractor’s actions, and could not assist her in any further claim against the them. This, the landlord said, was a private matter she would have to pursue directly against them.
  5. This approach, which the landlord appears to have followed throughout, is inconsistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, clause 1.2 of which includes a complaint against others acting on the landlord’s behalf, in its definition of a complaint against the landlord.
  6. In summary, then, the landlord is to be commended for rightly treating the issue as one of vulnerable resident support, rather than pure tenancy enforcement. The landlord also deserves real credit for its consistently compassionate and proactive efforts both to provide that support, and secure assistance in doing so from other appropriate agencies.  However, the landlord appears to have given its contractor an unclear, incomplete or incorrect instruction, and failed to attend the resident’s flat while the instruction was carried out.  As a result, while the resident is unable to evidence the loss claimed, the landlord accepts, as a minimum, that poor service was given and that some items were removed and disposed of which should not have been.
  7. In recognition of that acceptance by the landlord, the resident has received a total of £750 in compensation, and the landlord has shown evidence of renewed efforts to ensure sufficient ongoing to support to do all it can to avoid a similar situation arising for the resident again. In all the circumstances of the case, the sum received by the resident is considered a reasonable remedy for the service failures identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has given the resident reasonable redress in all the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. review its complaints policy and procedure to ensure compliance with the principle that landlords should take direct responsibility for the actions of contractors working on their behalf;
    2. develop a policy and procedure for supporting vulnerable residents in such situations, as well as avoiding and managing disputes of this nature; and
    3. continue its efforts to support the resident to avoid recurrence of the situation that led to her complaint, through a written plan of monitoring and support, agreed so far as possible with other relevant agencies as well as the resident.
  2. The landlord is reminded of its duty under paragraph 10 of the Scheme, to provide (in full), copies of any documents, policies or procedures the Ombudsman requests, and considers relevant to its investigation.