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

Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202016492)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016492

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

8 March 2022


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 response to the resident’s concerns regarding storage of his bicycles in communal areas of his building.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a building of similar properties. For clarity, the communal area referenced in this report refers to a communal hallway within the building.
  2. As part of his complaint, the resident has said he had an agreement with former housing officers that he could store his bicycles in the communal area. This has not been confirmed nor denied by the landlord. However, This appears to have been an informal arrangement and there was no formal agreement for the bikes to be stored in a communal area.
  3. On 6 August 2019, the landlord informed the resident that the storage of bicycles in the communal area was a fire risk and a risk to health and safety. The landlord, therefore, decided to enforce that no personal items could be stored in communal areas. Therefore, any prior consent to store such items had been rescinded. The landlord stated that the resident had an obligation in the tenancy agreement not to store personal items in communal areas. The landlord gave the resident seven days to remove the bicycles from the communal area.
  4. On 7 August 2019, the resident made a formal complaint about the lack of bicycle storage for residents. The resident explained he was unhappy that a previous agreement, to allow him to store bicycles in the communal area, had been rescinded. The resident said the tenancy agreement states that ‘personal items cannot be stored in communal areas’ but over the past twenty years, a mutual agreement had been in place, that the resident can store his bicycles in a small communal area at the end of a hallway; this agreement was in place because his property was not big enough to store these. The resident said that he uses his bicycles as a part of his healthy living lifestyle and as a way to reduce his carbon footprint. As a resolution to his complaint the resident would like to continue to store his bicycles in the communal area or for an area to be a designated bicycle storage area, separate from the communal hallway. The resident requested that he continue to store his bicycles in the communal area, whilst the complaint was ongoing.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 August 2019. The resident responded to this acknowledgement, on the same day, reiterating his request to store his bicycles in the communal area whilst this complaint was being investigated.
  6. A stage one complaint response was provided to the resident on 12 August 2019. The landlord said it appreciated that the resident had been allowed to store his bicycles previously in the communal area, but it had recently began operating robustly in regard to its policies and tenancy agreements when it came to items being stored in communal areas. The landlord explained that it had assessed the health and safety risk and the fire risk of the bicycles being stored in the communal area, and believed the risk to be ongoing. Therefore, the bicycles could not remain in the communal area. It stated it had started a consultation with residents to investigate if secure bicycle storage could be developed for the building and apologised that this was not an immediate resolution to the resident’s concerns.
  7. The resident responded on 16 August 2019 and said that he was happy with the solutions put forward in the landlord’s stage one complaint response and hoped that these ideas would materialise as a resolution. The resident said that storing the bicycles in his property posed a health and safety risk, due to the property not being big enough to store these. The resident said that when discussing the issue with the fire service, he was advised that storing bicycles in the communal area was not a fire risk, and therefore he could not understand why it could not be designated for bicycle storage. The resident stated that other blocks of flats owned by the landlord had recently been designed to have bicycle storage next to entrances and he believed that this could be done in his building. The resident noted that the landlord was concerned it would encourage the storage of other items in the communal area; however, this had not happened beforehand and, if anything, it discouraged other items being left due to the bicycles being there.
  8. On 31 August 2019, the landlord said it would visit the building and look into options to create bike storage. The available evidence suggests there was no further communication about this matter until October 2020.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2020. The resident expressed concerns that there was still no bicycle storage in the building and that the situation remained unsatisfactory. The resident said that since last contacting the landlord, employees responsible for fire safety, confirmed that storing bicycles in the area was not a fire risk, and, therefore, there was no reason to prevent the bicycles being kept in this location. The resident said that due to Covid-19, the Government was encouraging the use of bicycles as a safe mode of transport. The resident highlighted his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s policy regarding items in communal areas. He also stated that the area in question was not a hallway, did not impede any exit and, therefore, there was no reason as to why these areas could not be designated as an area for bicycles as had been the case for many years.
  10. On 12 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident and apologised for the delay in response. It stated that its position and policies had not changed in regard to the bicycle storage, but it said it had raised for a fire-safety manager to review if the resident’s request could be possible and would inform the resident accordingly. The resident responded on the same day stating that many other blocks have internal storage areas for bicycles and therefore he would like appropriate arrangements in his building to support those who want to pursue the health and environmental benefits of using bicycles.
  11. The landlord informed the resident on 2 November 2020, that it had completed a fire-safety assessment. The landlord’s opinion remained that it could not provide bicycle storage in the hallway for the resident. The landlord stated it understood the view of the resident – that the area is not a key escape route in the event of a fire– but had decided the best way to manage communal areas, and enable safer routes, was to adopt a zero-tolerance approach. The landlord apologised that no alternatives could be found, but that it welcomed any further suggestions from the resident. This Service is unaware of the result of the fire-safety inspection.
  12. The resident responded to the landlord on 4 November 2020. The resident understood the landlord’s reasoning to adopt a zero-approach policy, but that this did not take the needs of residents into account. The resident was unhappy that this decision was against government advice, which encouraged the use of bicycles for exercise and to limit the use of public transport during the Covid19 pandemic. The resident was unhappy that, the landlord was not prepared to bring about a change in managing communal areas. The resident stated that an appropriate solution would be to designate the area as bicycle storage, with a suitable notice informing of this.
  13. The landlord responded on 19 November 2020 stating that it understood the frustration of the resident, but at that point was unable to change its decision on the bicycle storage.
  14. On 23 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again requesting for a review before approaching his MP. He stated that there was no health and safety risk of having bicycle storage in the area, and a notice stating that the location is for bicycle storage would be sufficient. The resident stated the landlord’s position was at odds with the fact that the local council had just received funding to support cycling and walking initiatives.
  15. On 25 November 2020, the landlord escalated this complaint to stage two of its internal process.
  16. On 3 December 2020, the landlord issued the stage two complaint response. The landlord stated that the safety of residents, especially around fire, was extremely important and therefore that was why it adopted a zero-tolerance approach to items stored in communal areas. The landlord stated that, adopting a zero-tolerance approach allowed it to manage any risks in a consistent way and the decision regarding the storage of the bicycles, would not be reversed. In response to the resident’s meeting with the local fire service, the landlord informed the resident that it worked with a range of fire services in different areas, who all had different views, so in turn, it followed its own procedures in addressing these risks. The landlord informed the resident that it would continue to seek a resolution and would soon be looking at consulting with residents in January 2021. about external bicycle storage for the building. The landlord upheld the decision that the bicycles could not be stored in the communal area.
  17. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 5 July 2021. The resident stated that the landlord had undertaken a consultation of the residents in regard to the bicycle storage; however, it was declined as the location would mean that parking would be lost in the communal parking area, which was fully utilised. The resident stated he was frustrated by the application of the policy as a zero-tolerance approach. The resident ultimately was unhappy with the landlord not installing a bicycle storage area when local fire services stated that it would not be a fire risk for bicycle storage to be in the communal area.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that no personal items can be stored in communal areas. Therefore, the landlord has an obligation to make sure that all communal areas are clear of such items. The landlord also has the right to revoke any prior informal consent given to residents to store bicycles in communal areas at any time.
  2. The landlord is expected to maintain the structure of the building, including communal areas but it does not have any obligation to make improvements, such as the creation of bicycle storage facilities, although it acknowledged that this would be beneficial to residents wishing to use bicycles.
  3. The landlord completed appropriate checks with the relevant departments in an attempt to find a solution for the resident. The landlord consulted with fire-safety officers to investigate whether the bicycles could remain stored in the communal area. The landlord stated that it had decided to adopt a zero-tolerance approach, out of concern that other residents would begin to store items in the areas which would therefore lead to a fire safety hazard. It is reasonable for the landlord to adopt a zero-tolerance approach, as it avoids confusion over what items are and are not permitted and ensures that any infringements to people’s safety or exit routes can be dealt with in a consistent manner. The landlord acted reasonably by exploring if any options were available such as using part of the carpark for bicycle storage and consulted with experts on the matter. It is expected that, the landlord should rely upon the expert opinion, of fire-safety managers in the building and take their opinions into account.
  4. The resident stated that he had met with local fire services to discuss this issue, and that it was said, the bicycles did not pose a fire risk and the fire service would be happy for them to remain there. Whilst the fire service does possess expertise in this matter, it is solely up to the judgement of the landlord to state whether it believes the bicycles pose a fire risk. Whilst it is encouraged that the landlord takes the opinion of the fire service into account, it can impose its own extra restrictions, as it sees fit. The landlord has explained that fire services in different areas have different opinions on the issue of bicycle storage in communal areas and it was reasonable for the landlord to follow a consistent approach for all the areas it has properties in rather than following the varying advice of the fire service for each area. Therefore, the landlord has a right to decide that the bicycles could be a fire risk and to determine that they should not be stored in communal areas on this basis.
  5. The resident said that other properties owned by the landlord were having bicycle storage added to their buildings or were being built with such storage in place. The landlord is not obliged to provide bicycle storage in the resident’s building because such storage has provided in other buildings. The Ombudsman does not have information concerning the reasons why bike storage facilities have been added to other buildings, but there may be various factors affecting this such as residents’ consent for changes to be made and the layout of the building. There is also a difference between including facilities in new buildings and converting areas of existing buildings for bike storage. As above, the addition of bike storage would be seen as an improvement, to which the landlord is not obliged to carry out.
  6. The resident stated that the landlord’s policy regarding communal areas goes against the encouragements of the Government for more people to use bicycles in order to reduce carbon footprints. Whilst it is recognised, that the resident is trying to use his bicycle for good use and in a proactive way, it is not the landlord’s obligation to provide any bicycle shelters to the resident because of these policies. The Government encouragement of bicycle usage is only guidance and therefore there is no legal obligation for the landlord to provide bicycle storage in response to this guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding storage of his bicycles in the communal area of the building.

Reasons

  1. The landlord sought alternative resolutions for the resident but could not find any suitable alternatives. The landlord acted as expected in line with safety regulations in regard to rejecting the bicycle storage in communal areas, which was deemed to be a fire risk.