Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to protect her property when she applied for help as a homeless person resulting in her losing many of her possessions. The Council says it replaced essential items and offered £200 for the rest. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault and recommends an increased remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Miss X complains that due to poor advice given by the Council, she lost her personal belongings when she left her home. Miss X says the Council failed to protect and store her property or pay enough to cover replacing the lost items.
2. Miss X says this has prevented her from equipping her new home and the welfare payment the Council made did not cover her loss. Miss X wants the Council to compensate for her loss and the time taken to deal with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Miss X and read the information presented with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Miss X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The law, guidance, and policy

6. Where a council has reason to believe there is a danger of loss of, or damage to an applicant’s personal property because the applicant cannot protect it or make other arrangements the Council must take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of or damage to it (this may include removing and storing property). (Housing Act 1996, section 211).
7. The duty to protect or store property only applies where the Council owes the applicant a housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. If the Council does not owe this duty it has discretionary powers to store and protect the applicant’s personal property.
8. The Homelessness Code of Guidance issued in February 2018 says a council must take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the property or mitigate damage to it. This applies regardless of whether the Council is still subject to a housing duty.
9. The Council does not have staff guidance on, or a procedure to comply with this duty. Staff guidance is in preparation.
10. The Council funds the Liverpool Citizens Support Scheme through which it offers grants for furniture and goods for those in need. The Council applies a maximum limit on the value of its awards. The Council makes a Home Needs Award through the LCS Scheme to provide furniture and white goods as part of a contract with a local supplier. White goods have a twelve-month guarantee but may be budget quality.

What happened

11. In July 2019 Miss X moved out of her home with her children in extreme circumstances with only the personal belongings she could fit into a car.
12. In an email a Council officer suggests she told Miss X the Council’s Housing Options Service would arrange for the removal and storage of her property.
13. In the Council’s case notes it says when Miss X and her family moved to a refuge in August 2019, Miss X asked the Council to arrange the removal and storage of her property. The case notes do not record what response the Council’s officer gave to Miss X. The Council has evidence suggesting it may have told Miss X to contact the Liverpool Citizens Support Scheme (LCS Scheme) to arrange the removal and storage of her property. However, the Council accepts it does not have strong evidence it correctly advised Miss X.
14. By 8 August 2019, the Council says it had correctly advised Miss X to contact the LCS Scheme. On 9 August 2019, the Council responded to Miss X’s application by telling her to provide three quotes from removal firms. However, by 10 August 2020 Miss X’s former landlord had cleared her property from her former home.
15. Miss X emailed the Council in November 2019 listing the lost items. As well as household items Miss X said she had left some clothes at the property because of the limited space in the car used to leave.
16. After moving to a new home, Miss X successfully applied in December 2019 to the LCS Scheme for an award to pay for replacement furniture for her new home. The LCS Scheme awarded Miss X £1,677 to pay for replacement items. The Council says using this award it replaced eighteen items (including beds, a fridge, and washing machine). The replaced items are not ‘like for like’ quality.
17. Miss X asked for a review of the award believing she needed further items (including kitchen equipment such as a kettle and microwave). Miss X had received the maximum award and so the Council refused her review application.
18. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council upheld her complaint. The Council accepts the record keeping of the conversations and advice given to Miss X are poor and may therefore be subject to important omissions.
19. At stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure the Council offered Miss X £200 toward the costs of the remaining items she wanted to replace.
20. In response to the complaint, the Council also agreed to prepare a new policy on how to protect applicant’s property to show compliance with its statutory duties. The Council intended to produce a new policy in April 2019. The COVID 19 pandemic meant the Council had to give priority to work dealing with the impact of that and so it has postponed completion of the new policy until October 2020.
21. Following the Ombudsman’s ‘Home Truth’s Report’ issued in July 2020, the Council has issued a briefing note to staff on record keeping. The note identifies this as a service improvement staff need to make. The Council intends including further training on record keeping.
22. In response to my enquiries the Council says it cannot decide the value of the items Miss X lost without a detailed inventory although Miss X has provided a list. It believes the items already bought to a value of £1,677 and the extra award of £200 “…is a fair and proportionate amount to remedy…” the complaint.
23. The Council says the items bought through the LCS Scheme replaced essential items. The Council says the LCS Scheme does not provide other goods that are not essential such as lamps, coffee tables etc. This Miss X says means there is a shortfall between what the Council will offer to help her refurnish her house and replacing the goods she lost because the Council did not arrange storage.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice

24. My role is to decide whether the Council acted with fault and if it did whether that fault caused an injustice. If the Council caused an injustice, I must consider what it did to put it right and whether its actions and the payment offered represents a suitable remedy for Miss X.
25. The Council had a statutory duty under Section 211 of the Housing Act 1996 to protect Miss X’s property. The duty covers loss of ‘any’ personal property which means all personal property in the home Ms X left. Not just essential items.
26. The Council should have considered immediately Miss X contacted the Council whether her goods needed removal and storage. The Council caused confusion by suggesting it would arrange removal and then referring Miss X to the LCS Scheme to deal with it herself. Both the lack of proper consideration of the duty and referring Miss X to the LCS Scheme is not enough to fulfil the Council’s duty. I therefore find the Council acted with fault.
27. Ten days passed before Miss X received instructions to apply to the LCS Scheme. The Council expected her to gather three quotes from removal firms to remove and store the goods. This increased delay put the property in greater danger of removal and destruction and was lost.
28. The lack of a specific procedure to protect homeless applicants’ property resulted in confusion and delay. I find the lack of a procedure a fault. The Council needs to have a clear procedure for identifying what property a homeless person may have and whether it needs protecting by removal and storage. That is a specific homelessness duty. The homelessness team should therefore oversee it. The Council must avoid confusing it with the help the LCS Scheme offers to people in need. I find that but for this confusion Miss X may not have lost her property.
29. Miss X cannot provide receipts and model numbers for everything that she lost. It is impossible to say now what condition and value those goods had when lost. In accepting the replacement goods to the maximum award offered by the LCS Scheme Miss X accepted some goods of lesser quality and not like for like replacements. The Council says Miss X received the maximum award suggesting it has done enough. The Council says it did not replace all items because the LCS Scheme only covers essential items. The Council’s duty is to store and protect all the applicant’s belongings, not only essential items. The Council has confused offering Miss X what the Council assesses she needs with offering her a replacement of goods the Council should have protected through storage. The Council has missed the point. I therefore recommend a payment in recognition of that confusion and as a contribution to the cost of replacement.
30. The Council offered £200 for the items Miss X listed as not replaced by the LCS Scheme award. I do not consider that enough to meet the costs of all those items. I have therefore recommended an increase in what the Council offered. In doing so I have considered that some items may not have been in good condition or recently bought.
31. I welcome and applaud the Council’s current work on preparing guidance for staff on the duty to protect homeless applicants’ property.

Recommended and agreed action

32. To address the injustice arising from the fault I propose identifying in this decision, I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X
• Pay Miss X £4,000 as a contribution to the costs of replacing the items LCS Scheme did not replace and in recognition the goods replaced are not like for like;
• Pays Miss X £500 in recognition of the avoidable inconvenience and distress caused.

And within two months of my final decision the Council will:

• Complete and adopt guidance for staff on the duty to protect and store all a homeless applicant’s property. Plus adopting a procedure to ensure staff consider the duty without delay and act to ensure removal and protection of the property.

Back to top

Final decision

In completing my investigation, I find the Council acted with fault and the injustice arising is addressed through the remedy set out in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman