London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202013618)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013618

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 August 2021

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 landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns that it removed her bikes from the bike shed without her consent or notice.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an occupant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The tenant of the property, the resident’s husband, has provided his consent for the resident to make the complaint on their behalf.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose-built building.

Summary of events

On 7 July 2020 the resident registered a formal complaint with the landlord about the “removal of bikes”. In summary the resident said:
1. Since she had lived in the property she had always stored her two bikes in the building’s bike shed. The resident noted that the bikes were locked and she used them for commuting to work.
2. More recently she had also stored two additional bikes in the bike shed, which she had purchased as gifts. The resident noted that these bikes were also locked.
3. Between late 2018 and autumn 2019 her “personal circumstances changed” meaning she was not in the area as much and therefore she was not using her bikes as frequently. The resident confirmed that during this period all bikes were stored in the bike shed.
4. She was “shocked to discover” in autumn 2019 that all of her bikes had been removed by the landlord “without notice”.
5. On 21 October 2019 she contacted the landlord regarding the removal of her bikes and it explained that they had been removed as they were considered a “potential fire hazard”. The resident set out that the landlord confirmed that there was a chance that the bikes could be returned and it would therefore investigate the possibility. The resident confirmed that, despite the landlord’s commitment to investigate return of the bikes, it had not done so.
6. There was no need to remove her bikes from the bike shed as it was not overcrowded as there were “16 empty bike racks available to other residents”.
On 14 July 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not say whether its response was given under its complaint procedure. The landlord said the property manager had followed correct procedure for the removal of the bikes in 2018 as it had issued a Tort notice and sent a general email regarding removal of abandoned bikes. The landlord noted that the email would have been sent to the resident’s husband’s email as this was the address on its database.
On the same day and following the landlord’s correspondence the resident called the landlord. The landlord’s record of the call documented:
1. The resident stated no general email was issued regarding the removal of abandoned bikes from the bike shed. In response the landlord reiterated that the email was sent to her husband.
2. The resident stated that she would like her bikes returned. In response the landlord confirmed that the bikes were only stored for a period of three months and because she did not pursue the matter until 2019 it was too late to recover the bikes.
On 22 July 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident regarding the removal of the bikes. The landlord reiterated that proper procedure had been followed to remove the bikes, and therefore it would not compensate the resident for her bikes.
On 27 July 2020 the resident requested to escalate her complaint as she was not happy with the landlord’s response. In summary the resident said:
1. She did not believe that the landlord had taken her complaint seriously.
2. The bikes which she had stored in the bike shed were removed “by cutting off the chained locks without [her] knowledge or permission”.
3. The property manager had been “unhelpful” when she first reported that her bikes had been removed.
4. Prior to the removal of property from the building the landlord should have posted written communication to each household to “avoid confusion”.
5. She had not received any letter prior to the removal of her bikes that there was “any problem relating to the storage of bikes within the [bike shed]” or that they were a potential fire hazard.
6. There was no need to remove her bikes as the bike shed was not overcrowded.
7. Since she had raised her concerns, “no effort” had been made to return her bikes or to award compensation.
On 21 August 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint.
On 28 August 2020 the resident resent her escalation request to the landlord.
On 13 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request. The landlord did not confirm if its response was given formally under its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that its previous responses, in writing and on the phone, had not addressed the resident’s concerns.
2. The property manager had confirmed that a general email was sent to all residents where a valid email address was held in relation to removal of abandoned bikes from the bike shed. The landlord confirmed that the email asked residents to contact it if they had bikes in the bike shed which they wished to keep. The landlord set out that this action was taken as the property manager noted that there were “quite a few bikes that looked as though they were not being used” which would constitute abandoned bikes. The landlord confirmed that the property manager’s email was not available as it was issued “two years ago”.
3. When the removal occurred in 2018 the property manager would have “Tort noticed the individuals bikes themselves and displayed a tort on the notice board” according to its policy.
4. No compensation would be awarded as it had followed correct procedure in relation to the removal of the resident’s bikes from the bike shed.
On 18 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that she was not satisfied with the outcome of her complaint, following its correspondence dated 13 September 2020. The resident noted that she had “never received any letter or email about the notice placed on [her] bikes”.
On 16 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to repeat that she was not happy with its response to her complaint and she wanted it reviewed by a senior member of staff.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request confirming that it had been passed to its complaints team.
On 11 December 2020 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint, at stage two of its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. In order to investigate the complaint it had reviewed its “zero tolerance communal area policy” and liaised with the property manager.
2. The property manager followed correct procedure for the removal of items from the building’s communal areas.
3. The complaint was logged “two years after the event” making the retrieval of the paperwork a challenge.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
As the resident was not happy with the landlord’s response to her complaint she referred it to this Service for consideration. Within her referral the resident stated:
1. The landlord had been unable to provide “any evidence of what its policies and procedures [were] with regards to the removal of bikes from the purpose-built bike housing unit for the safe keeping of residents’ bikes”. The resident noted that the landlord had placed a “general notice” on the “notice board” regarding items kept in communal areas which it stated was sufficient to cover its actions in relation to the removal of her bikes, however she disagreed.
2. The landlord’s conduct throughout her enquiry had been “unprofessional” and “shocking”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed her bikes from the bike shed without her consent or notice.

The Ombudsman recognises that it is important that a landlord keeps the communal and common areas of its residential buildings free of belongings, abandoned items and potential obstructions, and it should ensure that it actively does this as part of its day-to-day housing management function. In this case, the items in question were bikes which were stored in an area specifically designated for bike storage. While the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that abandoned bikes were not left in the bike shed, it is understandable that the resident did not consider it fair that they had been disposed of, given that they were being stored in the designated area.
From the available evidence the Ombudsman has not been able to determine the exact date on which the bikes were removed from the bike shed, however the Ombudsman understands that it was sometime in the second half of 2018.
The evidence shows that the resident first raised concerns with the landlord regarding the removal of her bikes in October 2019, when she said she became aware of the matter. This was approximately one year after the items were removed. The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that the landlord confirmed that it would take steps at that time to see if the bikes could be retrieved. As the Ombudsman has not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence from that time, from either party, the Ombudsman is unable to draw any conclusions on whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry at that time was reasonable or not.
The resident raised her complaint about the removal of the bikes in July 2020. This was approximately 21 months after they were removed, and nine months after she first raised concerns about their removal with the landlord.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that a landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still live, and while the evidence is readily available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which sets out that the Ombudsman expects a resident to make a complaint within a reasonable period of time which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
As the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint dated July 2020 about the removal of the bikes, despite more than six months having elapsed since the removal took place, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord’s response to the complaint was reasonable or not. In considering this, the Ombudsman has also taken into account the significant delay between the event and the resident raising concerns about it.
In responding to the complaint the landlord explained that it no longer had records demonstrating that it followed appropriate procedure, and communicated with residents, in relation to the removal of abandoned bikes from the bike shed.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is unsatisfactory that the landlord held no records relating to the removal of the bikes in July 2020, the date of the resident’s complaint. In line with the landlord’s retention policy the Ombudsman considers that records should have been available to support that proper procedure was followed to remove the resident’s bikes from the bike shed and taking into account that two years had not lapsed since the bikes were removed. This is because the landlord’s retention policy and schedule:
1. Recommends that emails are kept archived for six years. In this case it stated that an email was sent to the resident’s husband regarding the bike removal but has been unable to evidence this.
2. Confirms that it will consider “limitations” in determining retention periods for documents and the Ombudsman notes, that under the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period for claims relating to a Tort is six years. However the landlord has not been able to evidence that it followed the proper procedure in this case.
The landlord’s procedure for the Removal of Goods in Communal Areas sets out that photographs should be taken of the item(s) to be removed, including with Tort notices attached, and records kept documenting the disposal or sale of the item(s). In the Ombudsman’s opinion this further supports that the landlord should have kept records relating to the removal of the bikes.
In the absence of records relating to the removal of bikes the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable, and that it followed proper procedure in removing her bikes.
The Ombudsman notes the general notice provided by the resident with her referral to this Service. Within the notice, dated 21 August 2018, the landlord set out:
1. “There [were] some issues that [had] been brought to [its] attention that [were] causing problems within [the] building”.
2. “Items stored in communal areas – storage of items in communal areas [was] treated as a breach of tenancy and leasehold agreements. [It had] introduced a zero tolerance policy on items in these areas, therefore all times must be removed. These item(s) [were] a health and safety hazard, restricting/ blocking access for other residents, and not authorised. If items [were] found to be stored in these areas [it would] remove and dispose of the item(s). This [was] in compliance with section 12 of the Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977”.
The general notice demonstrates that the landlord was aware of the process for the removal of goods from a communal area, as the Torts Act is the Act which sets out the process which a landlord must following order to remove items which have been left abandoned on its land. However, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not demonstrate that the landlord followed proper procedure in respect of the removal of the resident’s bikes from the bike shed. This is because the notice does not specifically refer to the removal of abandoned bikes.
Had the landlord have been able to demonstrate that the correct procedure had been followed in respect of the removal of the bikes, the Ombudsman cannot definitively conclude that there would have been a different outcome for the resident i.e. that her bikes would not have been removed. This is because the Ombudsman cannot definitively conclude that the resident would have responded to the notice at the time it was issued, and to prevent the bikes from being removed. The Ombudsman has taken this point into consideration in the order of compensation that has been made in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory.
Firstly, the landlord did not confirm whether its response to the resident’s complaint dated 7 July 2020 on 14 July 2020, and its response to the resident’s escalation dated 27 July 2020 on 13 September 2020, were formal responses given under its complaint procedure. As the resident had clearly expressed that her correspondence dated 7 July 2020 was a formal complaint, the landlord should have engaged its complaint procedure.
Secondly, the resident was required to chase the landlord for a response to her escalation request dated 27 July 2020. The landlord’s response was provided approximately six weeks after she made her request which was a protracted period of time.
Thirdly, despite the resident requesting a final response in September and October 2020 the landlord did not do so until December 2020. This was a protracted period of time.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint would therefore have resulted in time and trouble, and inconvenience and distress to the resident. The purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest time, in order to address a complainant’s concerns, which the landlord did not do in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord removed her bikes from the bike shed without her consent or notice.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it removed her bikes from the bike shed without her consent or notice

The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it followed proper procedure, the issuing of a Tort notice, in relation to the removal of the resident’s bikes. The landlord has not been able to provide appropriate records to evidence the steps that it took to follow the correct process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory as it did not engage its complaint procedure on receipt of the resident’s formal complaint in July 2020 and it also delayed responding to her escalation request and request for a final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £250 in respect of the disposal of the resident’s bikes.
2. £100 in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its retention policy and schedule to ensure that steps are taken to retrain records relating to the disposal of goods, including to demonstrate that proper process has been followed.
The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its members of staff who deal with complaints so that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.