One Housing Group Limited (202231151)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231151

One Housing Group Limited

30 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the resident’s reports of:
1. A request for a refund for stolen parcels.
2. The level of security provided by the landlord’s concierge office.
3. The landlord’s communication regarding its concierge office closures.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident has fixed term tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 2- bedroom fourth floor flat. The tenancy started in April 2012. The resident lives with her husband and teenage son.
The resident’s building has a concierge office which is adjacent to the post room. When residents’ parcels arrive its concierge office process them and residents receive a parcel slip. The parcel slips advises residents to collect their parcel.

Summary of events

The landlord contacted all of its residents via email on 13 December 2022 to advise of its closures over the Christmas and New Year period. The landlord attached a poster detailing its closures. This showed the concierge service was closed between 24 December 2022 and 28 December 2022 and 31 December 2022 and 2 January 2023. The landlord provided confirmation that the email was sent to the resident at 11.08am on 13 December 2022.
On 2 January 2023, its parcel storage room was broken into. The landlord advised this Service that several residents had parcels stolen. It said that the parcel storage room was fitted with a steel door, an entry fob entry system and a secure lock. Also, that it was covered by CCTV.
On 3 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that she had several items stolen from its parcel room. The resident asked the landlord for confirmation of what the process was for recovering or compensating for the stolen items. The resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number. The same day, the resident received an out of office for the landlord’s contact. The email said that the officer was on annual leave until 9 January 2023 and the officer would email back on their return.
The landlord reported the theft of residents’ parcels to the police on 3 January 2023. The police issued a crime reference number. The police investigation was unable to identify the perpetrators so did not pursue the investigation further.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 January 2023 regarding her stolen parcels. The resident acknowledged that the email contact for the landlord was out of office until 9 January 2023 and requested an update. The resident reported that her parcel stolen amounted to over £200. Additionally, that the situation was stressful.
The same day the landlord called the resident and said it was unable to reimburse residents for personal items including parcels. The landlord confirmed it had referred the missing parcels to the police following a break in.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. The landlord apologised that she was affected by the break in and thefts from its parcel store. The landlord confirmed:
1. It was unable to reimburse residents following the theft.
2. It had reported the break in to its parcel office to the police.
3. The resident could seek legal advice and raise a legal liability claim against it. It provided its legal liability team’s email address.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 January 2023 and raised a formal complaint. The resident said:
1. The landlord did not respond to her emails regarding the theft of her parcels.
2. The landlord did not previously advise residents that it was not safe for parcels to be stored in its parcel room. Also, that any parcels were left at the risk to residents.
3. The landlord did not contact residents to advise them that its concierge service would be closed. The resident said it did not write or email residents to confirm it was closing over Christmas and New Year. The resident said she had to hear it from its concierge staff.
4. Its concierge staff had little details on the theft.
5. She requested a full refund of the stolen items and attached an invoice as evidence.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord called and emailed the resident to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint. The landlord advised it would provide its response within 10 working days.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint. The resident was not available.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2023. The landlord said:
1. It emailed all residents on 13 December 2022 to confirm its Christmas, New Year, and bank holiday closures.
2. It advised residents affected by the theft on 19 January 2023 to confirm that if any loss had been suffered then residents were entitled to seek legal advice. If this was the case, residents should notify its insurance team. The landlord provided its insurance teams information.
3. If any claims were made, it would clarify its future position. The landlord said it was planning an upcoming concierge consultation and any results would clarify its service moving forward.
4. It apologised for any delay in explaining its position in terms of residents being able to pursue a liability claim for loss following the thefts.
5. It accepted its communication with residents affected by the theft could have been better. It confirmed it is working through its parcel inventory list to determine which households had parcels in the store at the time of the break in. The landlord said its concierge supervisor was the first point of contact for all those affected.
6. It reviewed its communication with residents after the incident and it resolved to provide more timely, clear information about liability of parcels. Also, whilst it did not have the ability to determine any outcome of any potential insurance claim it hopes its position on parcels is clearer.
7. It partially upheld the complaint regarding its initial communication with the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 February 2023 to request it progress the complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
1. She feels that the landlord disregarded her complaint and wasted her time.
2. She disagrees that residents had been told about the concierge office closures.
3. The landlord accepted the parcels for residents therefore, it took responsibility for them.
4. The landlord had a duty towards its resident to ensure it had a safe space for parcels. The resident said if its parcel store is not secure it should have made residents aware of this prior to the burglary.
5. The landlord failed to communicate with residents following the theft.
6. The resident requested compensation from the landlord to cover the cost of her parcel.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her request to progress the complaint to stage 2. The landlord said it aimed to provide its response within 20 working days.
On 20 and 23 February 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint. The resident was not available.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2023. The resident advised that she was unable to take calls in the week as she works full time. The resident said the dragging out of the process and the service she was receiving was adding to her frustration.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. It confirmed it contacted all of its residents via email on 13 December 2022 and confirmed its bank holiday closures. The landlord provided a copy of a poster attached to the emails.
2. It advised that at the time of the theft the parcel store was secured with steel doors, a secure lock and fob access. Additionally, 2 CCTV cameras faced the parcel room. The landlord said the parcel store door despite being secured appropriately, was subjected to extensive damage from the perpetrator when gaining unauthorised access to the store. It confirmed that its liability for residents’ personal items under any circumstance is outlined in the terms of the tenancy agreement.
3. It did not uphold the complaint, as all residents were told 2 weeks prior to the concierge closures. Also, it is not liable for personal belongings as outlined in tenancy agreements. Further, the parcel store was secure but was subject to determined actions of a criminal. Finally, it remained open to the affected residents to seek legal representation to pursue a claim for stolen items.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability and insurance claims. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the legal liability aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court.
Taking this into account, this investigation will focus on whether the landlord handled the resident’s complaint matters fairly.

A request for a refund for stolen parcels

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord does not insure its resident’s belongings. Section 9 of the tenancy agreement states that tenants need to take out their own insurance to cover their belongings against risks such as theft, fire, and flood. As the landlord will not take responsibility for damage to the tenant’s belongings under any circumstances.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of whether it has a detailed process as it has only advised that it provides residents with a parcel collection slip. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it has a risk assessment in place for taking in parcels. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have a process and a risk assessment in place to cover when parcels go missing, stolen or damaged. This ensures that residents are aware of what action, if any the landlord will take.
It is evident from the landlord’s records that a break in took place from its parcel store on 2 January 2023. Due to concierge service closures, it contacted the police to report the break in on 3 January 2023 when the office reopened. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in contacting the police as a burglary is a criminal matter.
In this case, this Service would have expected the landlord to contact all affected residents when it became aware of the burglary. There is no evidence that the landlord did contact residents as its earliest opportunity. This is not reasonable as it would have been aware that some residents may have been distressed and inconvenienced.
The resident reported to the landlord that a parcel containing various items she had ordered was stolen. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 to request for it to confirm its process in helping her recover or to be compensated for the stolen items. Due to its member of staff being on annual leave until 9 January 2023 it did not respond to her initial email.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 January 2023 and confirmed that it was unable to reimburse the resident for personal items. Also, it had reported the theft to the police as it was a criminal matter.
Ten days later the landlord emailed the resident and provided its legal liability claim email should the resident want to seek legal action. Whilst there was not a significant delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s email dated 3 January 2023, the landlord would have been aware that the situation could have caused uncertainty. Also, distress to impacted residents. A more timely response could have helped residents feel that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
The evidence shows that the landlord provided further information within its complaint responses. This included that the landlord confirmed that once a parcel is received residents with a parcel will receive a parcel collection slip. The parcel collection slip advises residents to collect their parcel. This is in addition to parcel delivery notifications received from the supplier. Further to this, the landlord provided evidence to this Service of a poster outside the parcel room stating, ‘residents must collect parcels ASAP, and all parcels left at own risk’. Whilst this is not unreasonable, if the landlord offers to store parcels it cannot expect residents to always pick up parcels immediately. Further to this, disclaimer notices do not always absolve responsibility should something go wrong. Therefore, it is important that the landlord provides appropriate advice regarding its responsibilities in addition to any signage.
Whilst this Service cannot comment on legal liability in this case, it is our role to assess if the landlord was reasonable in its approach to the matter. As the arrangement for taking in parcels was permanent and ongoing, the landlord should have had processes in place to ensure all resident’s understood the landlord’s role and responsibility in storing and receiving resident’s parcels. While residents were informed, they had a parcel waiting to be collected, as there was no policy it was unclear what would happen if something went wrong.
Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to refund the parcel. The landlord did not contact affected residents at its earliest opportunity. Also, there is no evidence that the landlord has a policy or risk assessment in place to cover its parcel room. In addition, there is no evidence that it was communicated clearly to residents that it was not the landlord’s responsibility for parcels left in its office.

The level of security provided by the landlord’s concierge office.

The resident in her contact with the landlord was concerned that the parcel room was not secure. As such, this formed part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord as she felt that parcels were at risk when left.
The records provided to this Service shows the measures that landlord had taken to ensure the parcel room was secure. This included that the parcel room had a steel door and a secure lock with only fob access. Further to this, 2 CCTV cameras faced the door. It is this Services view that the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the parcel room was secure.
Whilst we understand that the resident remains concerned about the level of security, the landlord has tried to take reasonable steps for security. This Service recognises that while security measures can be taken, it is not always possible to prevent all criminal activity. In this case, the burglary was committed as louvre panels within the door structure had been prised open allowing the break in.
While it is unfortunate and distressing this crime took place, the landlord had taken what it believed to be reasonable measures to secure the room. This Service finds no failing in the landlord’s action in respect of this, as it was unable to foresee that this method of break in would compromise the security of the room. Additionally, it could not foresee that a break in would take place while the concierge service were closed.
Overall, there is no evidence of maladministration with the landlord’s security of the parcel room. The landlord took appropriate steps to reassure the resident that the postal room was secure for parcels. This was reasonable and customer focused. Additionally, the landlord has taken additional steps to secure the door to mitigate any further reoccurrence.

The landlord’s communication regarding its concierge office closures

The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord emailed all of its residents on 13 December 2022. The emailed contained a poster which detailed its concierge closures covering Christmas and New Year bank holidays. The evidence shows that this was sent to the resident.
This Service recognises that the resident did not receive the email and that this has remained a concern. In response to this, the landlord failed to investigate why the resident had not received the email. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have been proactive in establishing whether there was a fault with its email system or if they had the correct email for the resident.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord was proactive in communicating its concierge office closures apart from the one email. The landlord lacked oversight and could have taken steps such as putting posters up in the building and doing a letter drop. This would have been best practice and reasonable action given the impact the closures may have had.
Based on the evidence provided to this Service there was a service failure in the landlord’s communication of the concierge office closures. This is due to the fact that the landlord only provided one email notice to its residents of its closures during Christmas and New Year periods.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund for stolen parcel.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the resident’s reports of the level of security provided by the landlord’s concierge office.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure on the landlord’s communication regarding its concierge office closures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation comprised of
  1. £50 to cover any distress caused regarding the landlord’s handling of stolen parcels.
  2. £50 to reflect its failings in the landlord’s communication regarding its concierge office closures.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord introduces a policy for its procedure of dealing with parcels and what risks are involved. Also, to be clear on its stance on its legal liability of parcels in its possession. This should be communicated to all of its residents.