Notting Hill Genesis (202106348)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106348

Notting Hill Genesis

13 October 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an alleged theft of their bikes from a garage.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Following a fire at the resident’s home, the resident was moved to alternative accommodation. The landlord placed some of the resident’s items into storage, including bicycles into a garage. The resident reported a fault with the garage lock which was attended in her absence by the landlord’s contractors.
  2. The resident states that, on 12 March 2021, their neighbour informed them that the landlord’s contractors broke the lock to the garage and left it open. When they attended on 14 March 2021, they discovered that their bicycles had been stolen.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 March 2021, alleging that the landlord’s contractors either stole the bicycles or were liable for their theft. The resident explained this was particularly distressing as one of the stolen bikes belonged to her partner who had recently passed away. She asked that the landlord return her bikes immediately. The resident confirmed she had reported the matter to the police.
  4. The landlord issued a stage one response on 1 April 2021. The landlord confirmed it had discussed the matter with the contractors involved, and that they had denied taking any of the resident’s property. The contractors advised they would cooperate with any police investigation. The landlord had explored referring the matter to their insurers, however, were advised that the theft of pedal cycles is excluded under the landlord’s property cover and so could not offer further assistance.
  5. Following the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated, the landlord issued a final response on 3 June 2021. The landlord explained that it had discussed the matter with its contractors who denied taking any items from the garage and did not believe they were responsible for any theft. As a gesture of goodwill, and in recognition of the challenges the resident and her family have faced, the landlord offered the resident £100.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord on 9 June 2021 and advised she did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and that she believes the landlord should take responsibility for its contractors, who she states are responsible for the theft of her bikes.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 9 June 2021. The resident stated they believe the landlord’s contractors were responsible for the theft, and that it should compensate the resident £2000 (the value of the stolen bikes). The resident advised the contractors broke the lock where her bikes were being stored and left the door to the garage open. She states the contractors stole her bikes.
  8. The resident provided this Service with a copy of the final response on 14 July 2021.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39r of the Scheme states that…

‘’The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.’’

  1. It is accepted that the landlord sent the contractors to carry out works to the garage where the resident was storing her bikes. The resident confirmed that the complaint concerns their belief that the landlord’s contractor either stole her bikes or left the garage unsecure and so facilitated the theft. Therefore, the resident believes that the landlord is liable for the theft of the bikes. The landlord has disputed liability for this.
  2. Determining liability for damage or loss of property is a matter for the Courts and to consider. Similarly, theft is a matter for the police to consider. The Ombudsman cannot issue a binding decision determining liability and cannot determine that a crime has been committed.
  3. As the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide, namely, to determine whether the landlord is liable for the theft of the bikes, the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate further.
  4. The Ombudsman is aware that this is likely to be a disappointing outcome for the resident. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, they may wish to seek their own independent legal advice.