One Housing Group Limited (202424359)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424359

One Housing Group Limited

26 September 2025

 

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 queries about changes to an internal bicycle store.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom second-floor flat. She has lived in the property since 2020. There is a commercial building adjoining the block.
  2. On 14 September 2023 the resident complained. She said the landlord had changed the size of the bicycle storage room and she could no longer store her motorcycle and bicycle safely. The resident confirmed she had taken photographs of the room as she did not agree with the landlord’s position that it did not alter the room. She also confirmed that she was unable to access an adjoining fob-controlled room and wanted access restored.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response complaint dated 27 September 2023 referred to discussions with the resident on 20 and 22 September 2023. We have not seen a record of these conversations. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, stating:
    1. There was no evidence of firestopping or structural changes to the room since 2022.
    2. The fob-accessed room belonged to the commercial unit next door and residents could not have access.
    3. Residents should not store motorcycles within the room due to fire safety concerns. And it would remove any vehicles stored incorrectly.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 May 2024. She said that as the room was smaller, she wanted a reduction in service charge. She also asked for clarity on whether she could store her motorcycle in the store.
  5. The landlord responded on 4 July 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and did not reduce the service charge. It said that the separating wall between the store and the cleaner’s space did not impact bicycle storage as it installed wall racks on another wall. This maintained a clear passage into the room. It confirmed again that residents must store motorcycles outside.
  6. On 17 August 2024 the resident asked if the same rule applied to prams and electric scooters. She said the landlord had told her previously that she could store a pram, but there was no longer any space. On 23 August 2024 the landlord said that the room was only for bicycles and residents could not store prams or motorised vehicles for fire safety reasons.
  7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s position and brought the complaint to us on 22 October 2024. She would like to continue using the storeroom for her motorcycle and pram.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We acknowledge that the resident had several complaints open with the landlord during the period investigated. She told us that she felt that the landlord managed all her complaints poorly and when she asked for updates she felt ignored. We are investigating the other complaints separately and so this report will focus on the handling of this complaint in isolation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about changes to an internal bicycle store

  1. The tenancy agreement states:
    1. Residents must not store petrol, liquid petroleum gas or similar combustible fuels on the premises, communal areas, or the estate. The only exception to this rule is for domestic appliances.
    2. They may keep fuel within a motor vehicle provided the vehicle is on a drive, hardstanding or in an outbuilding.
    3. Residents may not store vehicles in buildings not designed for that purpose. This includes motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, and mobility scooters.
  2. The landlord’s position that residents could not store motorcycles in the room was appropriate and in line with the tenancy terms. However, it could have communicated its decision more clearly. The resident asked the landlord to clarify why a motorcycle was a fire risk. It did not provide a response to this query. It should have explained its reasons and given her the appropriate fire safety guidance in a readable format.
  3. Following the complaint, the landlord told the resident that it had received complaints about residents storing motorcycles in the bicycle store. She believed this was a result of the landlord making the room smaller. We have not seen evidence of the date or frequency of these complaints.
  4. According to the original building plan from 2017, the original room design included wall racks for bicycles. This would leave floor space clear and minimise risk of injury or obstruction. The adjacent cleaning room is present on the same plan.
  5. We cannot definitively say that the developer built the property to this specification as we have not seen internal photographs from before the complaint. However, it is reasonable to assume that it was. Particularly as the landlord has openly provided the specification to the resident and this Service.
  6. There is no evidence of any structural changes to the storeroom. There is also no evidence that the landlord intended for residents to use the room for anything other than bicycle storage. While some residents were not using it as intended, the landlord’s decision not to amend service charges was reasonable as its purpose had not changed from the original plans.
  7. It is not clear whether there is adequate signage to explain what items residents may store within the room. To ensure correct use of communal spaces, the landlord should communicate its expectations clearly to all residents. We will make a recommendation for the landlord to provide clear guidance to residents on using communal storage space.
  8. The landlord could have reminded the resident of her tenancy obligations and signposted her to her tenancy agreement. This would have demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to communicate effectively with the resident and guide her with regards to her rights and responsibilities.
  9. The resident told the landlord that she was concerned about motorcycle thefts in the area, and her job was reliant on her motorcycle. She said that with previous thefts, the landlord had failed to provide support or guidance. While the landlord could have advised her how to report a theft, ultimately theft is a police matter and not the responsibility of the landlord.
  10. For the reasons above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about changes to the bicycle store.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and response on time. This was consistent with the Code. At stage 2 it acknowledged the complaint 11 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord sent the final response 21 working days after acknowledging the escalation request.
  3. Although it did not acknowledge the escalation within its set timescale, it was a short delay. Based on the evidence we have seen, this delay did not impact the overall handling of the complaint or lead to additional detriment for the resident. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by telephone to gather more information during its investigation.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that if it does not receive an escalation request within 30 days of a stage 1 response it reserves the right to close the complaint. The resident requested escalation 165 working days after the stage 1 response. It is positive that the landlord continued the complaint rather than opening a new one given the time that had passed.
  5. While the landlord did follow its policies, its communication could have been clearer. There was evidence that the resident wanted a more in-depth explanation on why she could not use the storeroom for her vehicle, and the landlord did not provide this.
  6. The addition of building plans to the stage 1 complaint response was positive as it showed transparency. However, they were complicated and may not have provided any clarity to the resident without full interpretation.
  7. The landlord missed an opportunity to highlight the tenancy terms relating to vehicle storage and communal room use. It could also have explained why incorrect use of the room by residents might present a fire hazard. If it had explained this clearly at stage 1, the resident may not have felt that her complaint was unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about changes to an internal bicycle store.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that all residents are aware of what can be stored in the bicycle storage room. It should also clarify whether there are any other communal storage spaces for items such as prams and scooters. This can be communicated either by reminders sent directly to residents or by adding clear signage within the building.