Estuary Housing Association Limited (202201376)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201376

Estuary Housing Association Limited

1 November 2022

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the security of the communal bike store following the theft of two bikes.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is a housing association and is not the freeholder of the building. The freeholder employs a managing agent to act on its behalf.
  2. The resident initially reported that her son’s bike had been stolen from the communal bike store on 31 December 2021. An emergency repair was raised on the same day and the store was secured. The resident reported that a second bike store had been stolen from the bike store on 18 January 2022. A further appointment to secure the bike store was attended on 21 January 2022 where a new bolt and combination lock was installed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in January 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the poor security of the bike store. She said that the padlocks installed were easily forced off and she was unhappy that the lock had been replaced with the same type which she felt was the reason the second bike was stolen. She added that a combination lock had been installed but that she had not been given the code for this, meaning that she could not access the bike store. She wanted an integrated lock, similar to those on a nearby bike store, to be fitted to increase security. She also wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the two bikes which had been stolen which amounted to £1500 as a result of the poor security. The records show that a further repair appointment to replace the combination padlock was carried out on 16 February 2022 as it had been damaged
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that bikes were left in the bike store at the resident’s own risk and that it was not responsible for any loss or damage. It suggested that the resident contacted her home contents insurer as some policies covered bike theft. It explained that it had taken steps to secure the bike store after each reported theft within its emergency repair timescales. It acknowledged that following the initial visit on 31 December 2021 a like-for-like lock had been used to secure the bike shed. It acknowledged that this was inadequate but explained that the operative had noted that the lock suppliers were closed at the time and it had fitted what they had available to ensure the store was secure. Following the second theft, the landlord had attended and fitted a deadbolt and coded padlock. It acknowledged that the operative had not been instructed to provide the code for the combination lock to residents which was not the level of service it expected. It added that it had attended again on 16 February 2022 to carry out further repairs and renew the combination lock which had been damaged. It noted that the code had again not been circulated to resident. The landlord apologised for this.
  5. The landlord later confirmed that it had ordered a digi-lock to further upgrade the security of the bike store but that it would need to seek the approval of the managing agent for the building before installing it. It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor communication. It confirmed it had also reminded contractors of the importance of communicating with residents and would provide refresher training to prevent similar errors in the future.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in April 2022 as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had advised her to claim via her home contents insurance regarding the stolen bikes and did not feel this was appropriate. She wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the stolen bikes by the landlord as a result of the poor security system in place.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the security of the communal bike store following the theft of two bikes. 

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the resident agreed not to store non-motorized bicycles in any other area than the cycle store designated by the landlord for cycle storage and that the landlord would not be responsible for damage, loss of accident to any such bicycles.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that it was responsible for the bike store at the property but that it would require consent from the managing agent of the building to complete any major upgrades. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs would be completed within 20 working days. It also states that the resident is responsible for ensuring they have sufficient insurance cover for their contents / personal belongings.
  3. The resident believes that the landlord is liable for the theft of the two bikes due to improper security on the bike store. It should be noted that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what security measures would be appropriate or determine liability as this would be a legal dispute, better suited to a court to decide. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  4. In this case, it is not disputed that the theft of two bikes was likely to be distressing for the resident, particularly as the bikes belonged to her son. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the distress caused and confirming that it was not liable for the loss of the two bikes. This was reasonable in line with the lease agreement as detailed above.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contacted her home contents insurance provider to make a claim. Whilst it is noted that the resident has advised that her home contents insurance would not cover the loss, the landlord’s advice was considered reasonable as it suggested that some providers may cover the loss of bikes. It is the resident’s responsibility to ensure she had sufficient insurance for belongings such as bikes in case of theft or damage and the landlord is not responsible for covering these costs on the basis that they would not be covered by the resident’s home insurance.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by securing the bike store after each theft. It is noted that a like-for-like replacement padlock was used following the first theft on 31 December 2021. The operative had advised that it was not possible to install a stronger lock at this stage due to suppliers being closed as it was a bank holiday. This was outside of the landlord’s control and it took reasonable steps to ensure that the bike store was left secure, in line with its obligations. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a follow-on repair to replace the lock with a stronger padlock once suppliers were open after the bank holiday. However, there is no guarantee that this would have prevented potential perpetrators from accessing the bike store following the initial theft and the bike store was otherwise left secure, which was reasonable under the circumstances.
  7. Following the resident’s reports of a second theft on 18 January 2022, the landlord took reasonable steps to upgrade the security of the bike store with a bolt and combination lock, although it is noted that the resident was not provided with the code at the time, or following a further appointment to replace the combination lock with had been damaged on 16 February 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging its failure to provide the resident with the combination code within its complaint response and offering £50 compensation in view of this error. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation in recognition of its failure to provide the combination code for the new bike store lock on two occasions is considered proportionate in the circumstances.
  8. The resident had also raised concern that the landlord had not liaised with the Police regarding its request for CCTV footage following the provision of crime reference numbers on each occasion. The evidence shows that the Police had contacted the landlord in January 2022 regarding the bike thefts and asked for CCTV footage of the area. The landlord acted appropriately by responding at the time and confirming that it did not have CCTV and providing the details of the managing company for the building, which may have had footage. Ultimately the landlord is not obliged to have CCTV cameras installed but it was reasonable for it to provide the managing agent’s details in case it could be of assistance.
  9. The landlord confirmed, within its stage two complaint response, that it had ordered a digi-lock which would offer increased security to the bike store. It acted appropriately and managed the expectations by explaining that it would need to seek consent from the managing agent prior to carrying out the work. It should be noted that the landlord was not strictly obliged to carry out improvements to the security of the bike store, however, it was reasonable for it to do so given the resident’s concerns about repeated thefts. The evidence shows that the installation of the digi-lock was attempted on 21 April 2022 but that it would not work with the type of door in place. The operative suggested that a different type of lock was used. Following this, the landlord requested a quote from its contractor, however, the evidence shows that the work had not progressed as of 17 August 2022, four months later.
  10. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that any complaint actions were seen through to completion. Whilst the landlord was not strictly obliged to improve the security of the bike store, it set expectations that it would do so. Therefore, the landlord should have provided the resident with an update regarding this following the complaint and explained why it had not yet been possible for it to fit a more secure lock. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who was awaiting a resolution to her concerns. The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to progress works to install additional security measures as agreed or communicate its limitations to the resident. This brings the overall offer to compensation to £100 (taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £50). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website)which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate in cases of service failure by the landlord which caused inconvenience and/or distress to the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a full response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 27 January 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 17 February 2022 which was ten working days outside of its target timescale for acknowledging complaints. The landlord then issued its stage one complaint response on 8 March 2022, which was outside of its ten working day timescale. Following the resident’s escalation request on 11 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 30 March 2022, within a reasonable timeframe in line with its policies
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by identifying the delay in acknowledging the complaint on 17 February 2021, apologising to the resident and providing a £10 voucher in a timely manner in recognition of the inconvenience caused. It also acknowledged that there had been a delay in issuing its stage one complaint response on 3 March 2022 and offered a second £10 voucher in recognition of the inconvenience as well as a new complaint response timeframe which was appropriate in order to manage her expectations. The landlord’s offer of £20 in shopping vouchers is considered proportionate in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in issuing its stage one complaint response by 18 working days and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, here was service failure by the landlord in respect of response to the resident’s concerns regarding the security of the communal bike store following the theft of two bikes. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. 

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to progress works to install additional security measures as agreed or communicate its limitations to the resident. This is in addition to its previous offer of £50 for its poor communication, which should also be paid if it has not already done so.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident within four weeks and confirms its current position regarding its intention to install additional security measures at the bike store.