The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today. 

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202113001)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113001

Orbit Housing Association Limited

1 February 2022


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 landlords handling of reports that the resident’s bicycles were stolen, specifically that:
    1. The landlord has not provided adequate security for the property and is therefore liable for the resident’s loss.
    2. The landlord delayed in providing information to the police, and therefore hindered the ability of the police to investigate the theft.

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 explains that their bicycles were stolen from the communal bike store at their property. They complained that the landlord did not provide adequate security to prevent the theft from occurring.
  2. They also complained that it did not respond in a reasonable time to enquiries made by the Police. As a result of this, CCTV footage was deleted before it could be provided to the Police, hindering their investigation of the crime reported by the resident.
  3. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 18 August 2021. It accepted that it had not responded to the Police in a timely manner and offered compensation to the resident. It did not accept that it was liable for the theft of the resident’s bicycles.
  4. The resident referred their complaint to this Service, explaining that they believed the landlord had not provided adequate security at the building and had not helped the Police investigate the theft. They explained that they believe the landlord should compensate them for their loss.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 of the Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion”

(i) “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure:”

(r) “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide:”

  1. This Service understands that the resident is upset that their bicycles were stolen and that experiencing theft can be very distressing. However, we have to assess whether or not we are the right organisation to investigate the resident’s complaint, and whether we can provide the outcome they are seeking.
  2. This complaint turns on two issues.
    1. Whether the landlord is liable for the theft of the resident’s bicycles – the resident arguing that security measures provided at the property were inadequate and therefore allowed the theft to occur; and
    2. Whether the landlord’s response to Police enquiries hindered the investigation of the crime, and therefore the potential recovery of the resident’s possessions, or provision of any other form of compensation arising from this line of investigation.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot make an assessment about whether or not the security provided at the property could, or should, have prevented the theft from occurring. Nor can we determine that the landlord is responsible for the resident’s loss, determining liability for loss is a matter for the Courts to consider.
  4. In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has accepted that it delayed in responding to the Police to the extent that, when it did so, the information the Police had requested was no longer available. This Service accepts that this must be very frustrating for the resident. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine that, had this information been provided sooner, the outcome of any investigation by the Police would have resulted in a positive result for the resident. Nor can we determine that the landlord’s failure to provide information in a timely manner therefore gives rise to its liability for the resident’s loss because, as set out above, determining liability is a matter for the Courts.
  5. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, they may wish to seek their own independent legal advice.