Summary: The Council was at fault for not considering whether it had a duty to protect Ms X’s personal possessions. This caused Ms X uncertainty about whether the Council would have taken steps to protect her possessions before some of them were destroyed. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment for the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to offer her support to store her belongings when she became homeless.
2. Ms X says as a result of the council’s actions her belongings were destroyed by her housing provider.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of a person’s property, or to mitigate damage, when it has reason to believe:
• there is danger the applicant’s personal property will be lost or damaged;
• the danger arises because the applicant is unable to protect it or deal with it; and
• no other suitable arrangements have been made. (Housing Act 1996, Section 211(1))
9. This duty applies when the authority is, or has been, subject to one of the following duties:
• The interim duty to accommodate the applicant
• The section 189B relief duty
• The section 195(2) prevention duty
• The main housing duty (Housing Act 1996, Section 211(2))

What happened

10. Ms X approached the Council in January 2025 for homelessness assistance after her housing provider gave her notice to leave her property. At this time Ms X was getting assistance from a support organisation and they asked the Council for assistance with storing Ms X’s belongings.
11. The Council told Ms X it believed she had the funds to store her belongings after considering a financial budget she completed. The Council also said it believed she had help to contact providers to ask for storage. Ms X’s caseworker at the Council also told her storage was discretionary.
12. In mid-January 2025, Ms X moved into interim accommodation. In late February 2025, Ms X moved into different interim accommodation.
13. On 11 March 2025, the housing provider obtained a bailiffs warrant of eviction and told Ms X she had 28 days to collect her belongings from the property. In mid-March 2025, the Council decided it owed Ms X the main housing duty.
14. In early April 2025, a mental health worker helping Ms X emailed the Council to ask it to help with storage as Ms X did not have funds to pay. The Council responded and asked Ms X to send it some bank statements so it could consider whether she could afford storage. Ms X responded and told the Council she did not have bank statements.
15. In May 2025, Ms X accepted a property through the Council’s housing register. In late May 2025, Ms X complained to the Council as some of her belongings had been destroyed. Ms X complained the Council did not help her with storage.
16. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in early June 2025. The Council said it told Ms X she needed to provide bank statements so it could assess her ability to afford storage but she did not provide these. The Council said it would not pay to replace any items destroyed by the housing provider.
17. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint further in mid-June 2025. Ms X said the Council incorrectly decided it did not have a duty to help her with the storage of her belongings. Ms X said the Council’s failure to support with storage is the reason some of her belongings were destroyed.
18. The Council provided its final response to Ms X’s complaint in early July 2025. The Council said in January 2025 it had no reason to believe there was a danger of loss or damage to Ms X’s possessions. The Council said Ms X completed an income and expenditure form and this showed she had funds to pay for storage. The Council said her housing provider enforced the bailiffs warrant on 11 March 2025 and gave Ms X 28 days to collect her belongings. The Council said it did not know about this at the time and received no requests for storage.
19. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

20. In January 2025, Ms X asked the Council for assistance with storing her possessions. At this time the Council considered whether it had a duty to help Ms X with her possessions. The Council decided it did not have a duty. This was because it was satisfied she had support with help arranging storage and had the financial means to pay for storage. I do not consider the Council at fault for how it came to this decision.
21. There was some fault with how the Council communicated this to Ms X and that it told her storage was discretionary. The duty to secure someone’s possessions is not discretionary if the Council has reason to believe the criteria set out in paragraph 8 above is met. While I consider the Council could have better communicated its decision and reasons for deciding it did not have a duty to protect Ms X possessions, I do not consider this caused her injustice.
22. In April 2025, a mental health worker helping Ms X asked the Council about storage of her possessions. At this point the Council asked Ms X to provide bank statements so it could assess the affordability of her storage costs. Ms X told the Council she was unable to do this. Shortly after the housing provider destroyed Ms X possessions. The Council should have decided whether at this stage it had a duty to protect Ms X’s personal possessions and failure to do so was fault. Even if Ms X may have been able to pay towards storage costs, she may not have been able to move the possessions before the eviction was enforced. There is no evidence the Council considered this.
23. While I cannot say what decision the Council would have made had it properly considered whether it had a duty to protect Ms X’s possessions, the failure to properly look at this will have caused some uncertainty to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

24. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings. 
• Pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council’s failure to consider whether it had a duty to protect her possessions in April 2025.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman