The brother of a 29-year-old man found dead in temporary council accommodation says he has been left bereft after his sibling’s belongings were disposed of by council contractors.
Simon Byrne had made an appointment with Brighton and Hove officials to collect the possessions of his brother Chris, who had died from a drug overdose. However, when he arrived, he discovered Chris’s lodgings had already been cleared. “I was pointed to a small suitcase in the caretaker’s [building],” he said. “The rest of his things, including his bracelets and other tangible memories, had been thrown into a skip with no opportunity for me as his only surviving family member to go through them.”
The case has exposed a gap in protections for families of deceased council tenants, with regulators and government departments unclear who holds councils to account when a tenant dies intestate. Different authorities have different policies, with some accepting proof of identity from next of kin in order to allow access to a property while others insist on grants of probate – a lengthy legal process which can take months. In some cases, relatives’ ashes have been destroyed by local authority operatives when a tenancy ended.
Last month the Guardian reported on a family who lost cherished heirlooms when a council discarded the contents of a flat after its tenant went missing, presumed dead. East Riding council had refused to allow next of kin access to the property and disposed of 75-year-old Robert Bracegirdle’s belongings before a coroner had declared the pensioner dead. The family had been unable to apply for probate without a death certificate. The council admitted that it should have dealt with the case more empathetically, and said it had since changed its processes.
In Cambridge, the daughters of a council tenant who died intestate were also barred from entering his flat by the local authority, despite having a key and submitting proof of identity. Ailsa Mackenzie and her sister were told that their father’s possessions would be stored in a garage or disposed of if probate was not granted before the tenancy was repossessed. Probate applications are taking up to 16 weeks to process, but the family of Glen Hutchinson were told that his home would be cleared after a month.
Cambridge council said it was required by law to insist on a grant of probate if a tenant had not registered next of kin, and agreed not to clear the flat until probate was granted after the Guardian intervened.
Relatives should not be required to have probate to enter a property, according to Ian Bond, of the Law Society’s wills and equity committee. “Most local authorities allow those entitled to claim probate access without the official grant to deal with the clearance and to locate important papers,” he said.
Councils are regulated by the local government and social care ombudsman (LGSCO) and complaints concerning council housing are adjudicated by the housing ombudsman. However, an investigation by the Guardian found confusion over which body had remit over the mishandling of deceased tenants’ belongings.
The LGSCO admitted there was an “accountability and resolution gap” for issues which fell between the jurisdiction of both ombudsman services.
“These situations are an example of where complex jurisdictional arrangements let people down, and so we are keen to see our powers to investigate local government services simplified and the gaps closed,” said the LGSCO’s chief executive, Nigel Ellis.
The housing ombudsman, Richard Blakeway, agreed that there was concern about some councils’ treatment of families when a tenancy ended.
“Whilst we have not investigated cases involving probate, we have seen cases where landlords have been heavy-handed in ending tenancies,” he said. “This has included confiscating or destroying residents’ personal belongings, with a few stark examples where the ashes of relatives have been disposed of. Landlords’ communication during this has often lacked empathy, with residents being given inaccurate information about accessing the property or clearing it before the time offered for collecting personal possessions.”
There was also confusion among government departments, with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government each claiming the other was responsible for guiding councils on their obligations when bereaved families needed access to a council property.
The housing and local government select committee said it was unacceptable for families to be threatened with the destruction of a loved ones’ personal effects, but it had not investigated the issue.
Chris Byrne’s possessions were destroyed in error by a contractor who no longer worked for the council, according to Brighton and Hove.
“During the process of cleaning the property and making it suitable for the next of kin to visit, some items were unfortunately disposed of by our cleaning contractor,” said Gill Williams, the council cabinet member for housing and new homes. “We do understand how important someone’s belongings are to their friends and family and apologise for any additional distress and upset this caused in relation to this very sad loss.”
Simon Byrne said that rifling through a skip in the hope of finding remnants of his brother’s life had been humiliating. “Councils will store belongings for those waiting to move into accommodation – people who are alive,” he said. “Tenants who die are treated as if they never existed.”
