Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202209777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209777

Notting Hill Genesis

01 March 2023

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her bicycle being stolen from a communal bicycle shed.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder.
3. On 9 May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her bicycle had been stolen from the communal bike storage area. The resident requested to be provided with the CCTV for the communal bike shed. However, the landlord informed the resident that there was no CCTV available for the communal bike shed and encouraged her to contact her home contents insurance to make an insurance claim for her stolen bicycle. The landlord has stated that the bicycle was stolen in March 2022 but was not reported until May 2022. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the resident’s bicycle was stolen but it is acknowledged that the Police had requested CCTV for 3 March 2022 to 9 May 2022.
4. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord as she was “disappointed” by the lack of CCTV in the communal area. The resident felt that the bike storage area was supposed to be a place of “secure storage provided and maintained by the landlord”. The resident stated that after reviewing the landlord’s website and speaking to other residents, the secure door to the bike storage area was not secured or maintained during the time of the theft. As a resolution the resident requested for the landlord to compensate for the stolen bicycle at a cost of £370.
5. The landlord stated in its complaint response that following incidents across the estate in previous years, it was decided in April 2022 to upgrade the bike storage doors to have two magnetic locks and interior opening in an attempt to stop criminal activity, which it stated had been successful thus far. In regard to the resident’s concerns about the door being in a state of disrepair, it stated that the doors had been checked monthly during its estate inspections, and, on occasions, weekly, in which no reports of the doors being faulty had been received. It further acknowledged her dissatisfaction with the lack of CCTV and stated that due to delays in the electrical work required, it had not been able to fully install the CCTV until June 2022. The landlord stated that in line with its compensation policy it would not consider compensation for personal belongings, because ordinarily it would be covered by a resident’s home contents insurance as items left in communal areas are left at the resident’s own risk; therefore, it would not compensate for the costs of her bicycle. However, it offered £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 20 August 2022. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, as she believes that her bicycle was stolen due to the landlord not keeping the door to the bike storage area in a good state of repair. She also stated that the landlord added further magnets on the door since the theft of her bicycle which she believes suggests that the original security “was not good enough”. As a resolution, the resident would like to the landlord to reimburse her £370 for the cost of her bicycle.

Assessment and findings

Assessment.

7. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s position that any items left in communal areas would be at the resident’s risk and it would not accept any liability or make an offer of compensation. As a resolution the resident is seeking for the landlord to make an offer of compensation to cover the cost of the stolen bike. It is generally accepted that residents leave any personal belongings in communal areas at their own risk and, as such, the landlord would not have to accept liability for the bicycle or pay compensation. Therefore, its recommendation that she contact her home contents insurance was reasonable in the circumstances, as home contents insurance would cover any damage to personal belongings. It is unclear if signs are installed around the communal areas making resident’s aware of this; however, this Service has recommended that the landlord install signs in communal areas, if it has not already done so, to avoid any similar queries.
8. In relation to the resident’s concerns about CCTV, it had been established that it had yet to be installed in the communal bicycle storage due to electrical works needing to take place. As the CCTV was not installed in the communal area, the landlord did not have a repair obligation as it was not in need of repair, but instead required installation. Therefore, there was no failure by the landlord in this instance.
9. The resident also stated that she believed that her bicycle was stolen due to the bike storage area not being in a good state of repair. However, this Service has been provided with evidence which shows that there had been no reports of faulty locks on the bike storage doors, and during its monthly estate checks between February 2022 and June 2022, there had been no identified errors with the magnetic doors, meaning there was no errors in the locking system when the resident’s bike was stolen. It is acknowledged that the resident stated she had seen a notification on the landlord’s website that repairs were required to the magnetic doors; this has not been verified by this Service and has not been shown in the evidence provided. Therefore, there has been no evidence to suggest that the landlord failed in its repair obligations, as there had been no repairs reported nor identified.
10. In addition, the resident felt that the landlord adding additional magnets on the bike storage door suggested that the original security “was not good enough”. However, from the evidence provided, the landlord has been completing continued safety improvements on the estate following unrelated incidents occurring and due to resident feedback. There has been no evidence provided to suggest that the installation of further magnetic locks was required or completed in response to the resident’s bicycle theft and, therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the locking system in place at the time of the incident, was ineffective.

Determination

11. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of her bicycle being stolen from a communal bicycle shed.

Recommendations

12. It is recommended that the landlord install signs in communal areas which state that any personal belongings are left at the owner’s risk, to avoid any further confusion in the future.