| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Tenancy management |
| Determination: | Maladministration |
| Tenure: | Ex-occupier |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Ms E became a tenant of the landlord in March 2003 after a stock transfer from the local authority. In December 2003 she was served a Notice to Quit and evicted. She believed that the eviction was unfair and complained that the landlord had removed and destroyed her personal belongings.
After the stock transfer the landlord tried to visit Ms E several times to ask her to complete her new tenancy agreement, each time failing to gain entry to the property.
Two of the landlord’s housing officers later met Mr M, Ms E’s partner, outside the property in November 2003. He explained that Ms E had been away from the property for "a few months" as she was experiencing "personal problems". The officers told Mr M that she needed to contact them as soon as possible and that if she did not, then it would conclude that she was not living there and put its "suspected abandoned dwellings" procedure into effect. The procedure required the landlord to visit a property within 24 hours. Officers had to make a visual inspection and, having checked its internal records for any indication of why a property may appear abandoned, serve a Notice to Quit. Officers were also encouraged to check with neighbours when they had last seen the tenant.
The initial "suspected abandoned dwellings report" of November 2003 stated that the property looks empty. "Tried 3 times to do sign up…meet her partner who advised living in Hull for past 6 months? Due to being burgled". The report goes on to say it could not get any information from the utility companies because of data-protection rules and that three neighbours in different properties had stated that they had not seen Ms E for a long time. The landlord served a Notice to Quit on Ms E at her address on the same day.
The landlord’s procedure required it to send a copy of the notice to any forwarding address it might have for Ms E. Although the landlord initially said it had no contact details for Ms E, it did have a mobile phone number for her and for Mr M, but it made no attempt to ring either number.
We also considered Ms E’s actions, as she had a duty to contact the landlord and keep it informed of where she was living. Had she done so, this would have enabled the landlord to send her a copy of the notice and the letter explaining why it was being served.
Ms E did not contact the landlord directly or indirectly via Mr M by the deadline on the notice. The landlord was then legally entitled to enter the property, regardless of whether Ms E was aware that the notice had been served. Once the deadline passed, its staff entered the property and listed and photographed the items Ms E had left, including furniture and kitchen equipment.
In December 2003 the landlord raised an order to remove Ms E’s belongings and the removal started on 5 January 2004. The procedure required the landlord to give the tenant "a reasonable opportunity" to remove her possessions.
Mr M’s son said he had rung the landlord on 5 January to ask for the removal firm’s number and there was conflicting evidence of the landlord’s attempts to provide this. One file note said that no number was available to contact Ms E and another said that the contractor’s number was provided on 6 January. In the meantime, the removal of the goods continued.
Determination
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 allows a landlord to sell goods left in a property if reasonable efforts to trace the tenant or owner of the goods fail. The Act further states that if the tenant is traced, the landlord must serve notice stating its intention to dispose of the items, how to arrange collection, and that disposal of the items cannot begin until the notice has expired.
There was no evidence that the landlord tried to get Ms E’s contact details from Mr M at the meeting in November 2003 or by contacting him on his mobile. Equally, there was no evidence that the landlord informed Mr M that it intended to dispose of Ms E’s belongings. Therefore, the landlord failed to make reasonable efforts to trace Ms E and ensure she was aware that it intended to dispose of her belongings as required by the 1977 Act.
We found maladministration; although the landlord followed the correct legal procedure to regain possession of the property, it failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure she was aware that it intended to dispose of her belongings as required by law. We ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £1000 for the loss of goods and distress and inconvenience resulting from its disposal of her belongings, and a further £100 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.