Notting Hill Genesis (202347833)

Background

1. The landlord upgraded the letterboxes for all flats due to security concerns and following police advice. The resident said the landlord accessed his letterbox without notice or consent. He reported that money, which he said he kept safely secured inside his letterbox, went missing during the work. He complained because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Letterbox upgrade.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s letterbox upgrade.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s letterbox upgrade

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s letterbox upgrade was poor. It apologised and offered compensation as a goodwill gesture, but it was not proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. We have not investigated whether a theft occurred as this is a criminal matter for the police. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and whether it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.
7. In July 2023 the landlord instructed its contractor to fit letterbox restrictors to reduce the size of the openings. It said this was to make it harder to remove items without a key and it made the decision following theft reports and police recommendations. It shared details of the contractor and the proposed work with the resident through its July 2023 newsletter. In its August 2023 newsletter, it confirmed the contractor was ready to carry out the work and that it would share resident’s contact details with the contractor.
8. Between October and November 2023, the landlord chased the contractor for updates. The landlord told us the contractor confirmed on 5 December 2023 it had received the parts and planned to complete the work during week commencing 11 December 2023. The landlord did not provide evidence of this communication or of any updates to the resident at that time.
9. On 13 December 2023 the landlord shared installation dates with the resident, which it said it received from its contractor that day. It said his flat was scheduled for work on 14 December 2023 and told him to leave his letterbox open on the day of installation. Later that day, the contractor told the landlord it completed the work to the resident’s letterbox.  The landlord queried this and the contractor told it the next morning it had been able to gain entry to the letterbox without the resident’s access or damaging the lock.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2023 and said the work to his letterbox was completed a day earlier than scheduled. He said it did not inform him of the change and asked how his letterbox was accessed. It referred him to an update it sent that morning, which crossed with his contact, and said the work completed earlier due to faster progress. He asked it again how the contractor obtained access. The landlord confirmed the contractor used a master key. The resident was unhappy and said an item was missing from his letterbox. He asked why it did not seek his permission or notify him of the change in date.
11. In further contact in January 2024, the resident told the landlord the missing item was money. He said the landlord should have given 24 hours notice and obtained his permission. He asked whether CCTV footage or body‑worn camera recordings were available. The landlord said its contractor contacted residents about the work and explained it only learned on 14 December 2023 that the contractor had a master key. It said it would review CCTV and later confirmed no body‑worn camera footage was available. The resident remained dissatisfied, reported the matter to the police and complained to the landlord.
12. Overall, the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s concerns was poor. It passed responsibility for communication to its contractor and did not maintain effective oversight of the works. In its stage 1 response, it accepted it should have been more closely involved in the process. After the resident’s theft report, it got the crime reference so it could liaise with the police and its insurer. However, it did not liaise with the police or update the resident about whether he could claim from its insurance or if he would to claim off his own. It also delayed responding about CCTV, which it acknowledged in its stage 1 response.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was not reasonably foreseeable that money would be in the letterbox. It told him using a master key was the most reasonable and effective approach. The landlord told us there was no specific notice period or policy for access. In its complaint response it said it retained a right of access with advance notice but accepted it did not give notice in this case.
14. In view of the landlord’s poor communication and handling of the work, we found service failure. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised and offered £50 for failing to notify the resident about access via a master key, the change in work date and his subsequent loss. Its offer is not proportionate to the failings we identified. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience its poor communication and handling of the work caused the resident.

15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with the Code.
17. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales.
18. In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

19. The landlord should learn from this case and ensure it takes a proactive approach for estate repairs. It should ensure it is more closely involved in the process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should ensure it keeps a record of all its communication with residents and contractors to demonstrate how it managed expectations, including records of the communications sent to residents by its contractors.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It should not rely on its contractor to update residents about planned work and should adopt a customer focused approach. It should consider how it communicates with contractors to ensure it is aware, in advance, of its planned attendance and monitor the progress of the work.