Notting Hill Genesis (202420475)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420475

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

17 February 2026

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bike from the communal bike store.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. He has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since 2020.
On 12 December 2023, the resident informed the landlord that his bike had been stolen from the communal bike store. He said there was no visible damage to the external door, and he therefore believed either that it was left open by another resident, or that the perpetrator was in possession of a key-fob that enabled them to access the bike store.
On 29 March 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said that the bike theft in December 2023 was the “second occurrence” and he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the security of the communal bike store. As an outcome to his complaint, he asked the landlord to provide answers about its key-fob management system and to reimburse him for his stolen bike.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2024. It said:
1. It had reviewed the available information on its key-fob management system. This confirmed that the night the resident’s bike was stolen, the bike store had been accessed using a key-fob that had been created in July 2022. It was not registered to any persons, resident or contractor, and there was no evidence that it was created by one of its staff members. It therefore could not find any “mismanagement” in its handling of the key-fobs.
2. It had requested further information from the key-fob management company and would provide the resident with any updates when it received them.
3. It recommended the resident acquired his own contents insurance to cover the costs of any stolen personal possessions.
4. It apologised to the resident for its delays in responding to his emails and offered him £50 compensation.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 29 April 2024. He raised several concerns about the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked it to clarify aspects of its key-fob management process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 June 2024. It said:
1. It apologised to the resident for providing him with “contradictory” information previously. This was because most of its staff did not have access to the key-fob management system and were uncertain on where to obtain the answers to his questions. It had since sourced the appropriate information and provided the resident with updated answers.
2. It had determined that it was not using the key-fob management system consistently, and its record keeping generally lacked detail. Specifically, there was no record to confirm why the key-fob used to access the resident’s bike was created or why it was programmed with specific access rights.
3. As a result of the resident’s complaint, it had identified areas for improvement and committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of the fob-management system within 4-6 weeks.
4. It was reasonable for it to refuse to reimburse the resident the full value (£4,209.59) of his bike and bike accessories because:
  1. It did not have insurance to cover residents’ possessions because the lease agreement did not require it to do so.
  2. Although it had compensated other residents for the theft of their possessions in the past, it was not obligated to do so again.
5. Upon review, it had increased its offer of compensation to £500 (replacing the previous offer of £50). It calculated this as follows:
  1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience regarding the loss of the bike and in recognition that its fob management was a “significant contributing factor”.
  2. £250 for its poor communication. This included the “extensive” delays in responding to the resident’s emails and its failure to issue both complaint responses within its target timescales.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He referred his complaint to us in August 2024 and asked us to consider awarding an increased level of compensation to reflect the value of his bike.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As mentioned earlier, the evidence suggests that there had been bike thefts from the communal bike store in 2020. From the evidence available, it is not clear if this issue was dealt with as a formal complaint at the time. As such, our investigation will focus solely on the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bike from December 2023. This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally within 12 months of the matters arising). Additionally, we may not consider complaints which were brought to our attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Response to the theft of the resident’s bike

The landlord has a dedicated page on its website for guidance on home contents insurance. It states that leaseholders are responsible for sourcing their own contents insurance to ensure they are covered against things such as theft.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure states that:
1. Residents are advised to take out contents insurance to cover against accidental damage to their belongings or possessions.
2. The landlord will not pay compensation where there is damage that would ordinarily be covered by a resident’s own contents insurance. However, it can make a payment to a resident for direct loss where there is evidence that it is at fault.
3. Any direct loss payment is discretionary and dependent upon the circumstances of the case. If a payment is made, it should directly reflect the amount that the resident has lost.
4. A payment for direct loss may be made in addition to a payment for distress or inconvenience.
5. A liability claim is when a resident or third party suffers a financial loss and wishes to be compensated. In this instance, the claimant should be signposted to its insurance team. This is also documented within the landlord’s complaints policy.
Upon receipt of the resident’s report of the theft of his bike, the landlord appropriately responded to him the same day (12 December 2023) and said that it would review the CCTV footage from the bike store the following day. However, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on its findings, which was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 18 December 2023. The landlord responded to him the same day and apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. It advised that the CCTV showed that the resident’s bike (and the rack that it was attached to) had been stolen at approximately 3.30am on 5 December 2023, but the perpetrators’ faces were covered. It further stated that the key-fob used by the perpetrators was activated in 2022 but was not registered to any specific block or property, which would “make it difficult for [it] to continue to investigate”.
Between 18 December 2023 and 26 April 2024, we find the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bike to have been poor. This is because:
1. Its communication with him was lacking. Specifically, between 18 December 2023 and 19 March 2024, the resident and landlord exchanged several emails. This correspondence was mainly regarding the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s key-fob management system. The evidence shows that during this period, several of the landlord’s responses were unreasonably delayed and on occasions it failed to respond to the resident at all. This was unreasonable and caused the resident to feel ignored. Additionally, when it did respond, much of the information was contradictory and confusing. However, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 2 response and compensated him accordingly.
2. On 12 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it had disabled the key–fob that was used to access the bike store. While this was an appropriate action from the landlord, we find that it should have taken this step earlier, as it was approximately 2 months after it had identified the key-fob was unregistered. This meant that during this period, any possessions stored in the room were potentially at a greater risk of been stolen.
3. On 26 April 2024, the landlord contacted the key-fob management company to request further information on who had programmed the key-fob and advice on what it needed to do to prevent the issue from happening again. While this was a positive step, it was over 4 months after the resident had raised his concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this when it first identified the fob had been created on its system (in December 2023). Its failure to do so suggests that it did not take the resident’s concerns sufficiently seriously.
The landlord’s stage 1 response (on 26 April 2024) went some way towards attempting to provide the resident with some answers. However, its stance that there was no evidence of any mismanagement on its part was contradictory to its overall findings (that someone had access to a key-fob, but it could not provide any answers as to who created it or why). Additionally, its £50 offer of compensation was disproportionately low and at odds with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure, which stated it could offer up to £250 for a failure that had a high impact on a resident.
The evidence (emails from the resident to the landlord on 9 June 2024 and 14 June 2024) suggests that during a telephone call with the resident on 31 May 2024, the landlord “accepted fault for what happened and would be compensating [him]”. The landlord has not provided any documentary evidence of this call, which is a record keeping failure. However, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a true version of events, as we have seen no evidence that the landlord disputed the resident’s comments.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it was transparent about the gaps it had identified within its management of key-fobs and showed that it was aiming to learn from the resident’s complaint. It was also positive that it made specific and timebound commitments on how it was going to ensure that the same issues did not recur. Examples of this included:
1. Temporarily disabling all fobs which had been dormant for more than 12 months.
2. Checking access groups to ensure that residents could only access those areas relevant to their home.
3. Disabling any master key-fobs that did not have a designated owner.
4. Reviewing who had access to the key-fob system and ensuring the key-fobs could be enabled or disabled quickly if required.
The landlord acted in accordance with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure when it offered the resident £250 at stage 2 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused him (not including the £250 for poor communication and complaint handling). We find this a fair offer from the landlord. However, we find that it failed to fully put things right for the resident because:
1. We have seen no evidence that it asked the resident if he would like it to refer the matter to its liability insurers. This was not in accordance with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure.
2. Despite stating that it recognised its key-fob management was a “significant contributing factor”, it did not offer the resident a direct loss payment for his stolen bike. This was at odds with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure.
The landlord advised the resident on several occasions that he could make a claim for his stolen bike through his own contents insurance. This was fair advice and in accordance with its compensation and goodwill gesture procedure. However, given the landlord’s findings about its key-fob management, it should have also considered the other options listed above to put things right for the resident.
As such, we find it unfair that the resident remains out of pocket because someone had unauthorised access to a key-fob. There is strong evidence (mainly within the landlord’s correspondence with the resident) to suggest that this was directly related to the landlord’s poor oversight and management of the key-fob system. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bike from the communal bike store.
Our remedies guidance states that we can consider if there has been actual, evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of the maladministration identified. If so, we can then consider if the landlord should compensate the resident for all or part of this loss, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of that case. Factors we may take into account when deciding the overall amount include actions by the resident or landlord which either mitigated or contributed to actual financial loss or unfair impact. As the landlord has already acknowledged its responsibility in the theft of the resident’s bike, we have made an order to put things right for him.
As the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure states that compensation payments for distress and inconvenience can be made in addition to a direct loss payment, we have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident its previous offer of £250 compensation.
As mentioned earlier in the report, we note that the landlord’s stage 2 response also included an offer of £250 compensation for its communication and complaint handling. The resident did not raise the specific issue of the landlord’s complaint handling as part of his complaint. Nevertheless, we consider its offer proportionate to put things right, and had we assessed complaint handling separately, we would have made a finding of reasonable redress. The decision has therefore been made to address this aspect as part of the substantive issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bike from the communal bike store.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
2. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £250 it previously offered him for the distress and inconvenience it had caused him. This should be paid directly to him.
3. Provide the resident with details of its insurer to allow him to submit a claim for the stolen bike. Should the insurer refuse the claim due to the passage of time the landlord should then compensate the resident directly. This is subject to him providing details of costs. Any evidential requirements placed on the resident should not be unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord also pays the resident the £250 it previously offered him at stage 2 for its communication and complaint handling. Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in addition to the amount ordered above.