Summary: Mr F complained the Council disposed of his personal belongings from his emergency accommodation before the agreed collection date. The Ombudsman has identified fault with the actions of the Council and believes this has caused an injustice to the complainant. As such, we have recommended a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr F, was evicted from his temporary accommodation provided by the Council. He complains the Council disposed of his personal belongings before the agreed collection date.
2. In addition, Mr F says the Council disposing of his belongings led to financial loss, but also the loss of sentimental items. He also said that this matter affected his health. As a desired outcome, Mr F wants a reasonable financial payment from the Council for his belongings.

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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have reviewed Mr F’s complaint to the Ombudsman and Council, including his supporting documents. I have also had regard to the response of the Council. Both Mr F and the Council received an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision before I reached a final view.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. The Council had provided temporary accommodation for Mr F. In August 2019, the Council issued Mr F a letter telling him that he was required to leave his temporary accommodation and remove all of his personal belongings. The Council agreed with Mr F’s support worker that he could collect his belongings by a named date. However, the Council disposed of Mr F’s belongings before this agreed date.
6. In January 2020, the Council accepted that it had disposed of Mr F’s belongings before the agreed collection date and that this should not have happened. Further, the Council said it did not conduct an inventory of what was in Mr F’s room at the time and so cannot comment on what was disposed of. The Council has apologised to Mr F and offered to pay him £500 in recognition of his lost belongings.
7. In October 2020, Mr F brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he felt the offer by the Council fell short of reimbursing him for the loss. During the course of my investigation, I spoke with Mr F who told me he placed at least a £1,000 value on his lost belongings. He has since provided an updated estimation of between £1,500 and £1,800. In addition, Mr F said the impact of losing his belongings was made worse by his physical disability as this caused additional hardship. This is because Mr F claims he had to search bins in the area in an attempt to recover his belongings which was difficult. However, the Council has raised the point that Mr F only ever complained to it about losing four specific items. It says Mr F’s updated list is therefore inconsistent with his previous statements. In response, Mr F told me it was difficult for him at the time to determine what was missing, that the Council never asked him to particularise what was lost and he meant only at the time to provide an overview of his long belongings.

My findings

8. The Council made an agreement with Mr F’s support worker that personal belongings of Mr F could be collected by a specified date. In my view, this created a legitimate expectation that Mr F’s belongings would be kept safe and would not be disposed of before the date agreed. However, Mr F’s belongings were disposed of in a way which was inconsistent with the expectation created by the Council and it has accepted this should not have happened. I do therefore find fault with the actions taken by the Council.
9. In my view, the fault identified has caused Mr F financial loss and distress which I regard as justifiably felt due to him losing belongings of both monetary and sentimental value. Mr F has supplied a list of his lost belongings and though I take the point by the Council that this differs from his previous statement, I believe Mr F’s reasons for this inconsistency are both plausible and reasonable. Further, without any inventory check conducted by the Council, I am led to believe, on the balance of probabilities, that the list provided is accurate. With respect to the value of the items, I have fully considered Mr F’s list of belongings. I consider Mr F’s initial figure of £1,000 is an accurate reflection of the items lost.
10. In addition, Mr F has provided evidence of his physical impairment and has described how this made worse the circumstances of losing his belongings. On balance, it is my view this aggravated the distress Mr F felt as a result of the Council’s accepted fault. Though the Council has offered £500 to Mr F, it is my view this is not a sufficient remedy which puts him back into the position he would have been but for the fault.

Back to top

Recommended actions

11. In reaching a view on a remedy, I have had regard to the list of items supplied by Mr F he claims are lost. I have also had regard to the distress Mr F justifiability felt because losing his belongings and how this was made worse by his physical impairment for which he has provided evidence. To remedy the injustice identified above, I recommend the Council take the following actions:

• within one month of the date of a final decision, the Council should pay Mr F a total of £1,000 in respect of his lost belongings of both monetary and sentimental value.
• Further, I recommend the Council pay Mr P a further £300 for his distress, time and trouble as a result of following his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Council was at fault in the way it disposed of Mr F’s belongings after he left his temporary accommodation. I have recommended the Council take specific actions to remedy the identified injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman