Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202322256)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322256

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

19 March 2025

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 the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the theft of the resident’s bicycle wheel from a communal storage unit.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies the property as a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is part of a purpose-built block, and residents have access to a communal bike store. The landlord holds the head lease and outsources property management services, including a concierge, to a third-party agent.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 May 2023. He reported that, between 2 and 9 May 2023, someone had taken the wheel from his bike in the storage unit and replaced it with one that was smaller, broken, and of an alternative brand. He provided a receipt for the cost of a replacement wheel and asked that the landlord or managing agent:
   1. reimburse him
   2. find the person responsible and evict them
   3. if unable to find the perpetrator, advise relevant staff members to resign
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It explained:
   1. its managing agent had changed the protocol for accessing the bike store and now kept a log of who it had given the key to
   2. as a gesture of goodwill, it would reimburse him for the cost of the wheel totalling £79, upon receipt of a crime reference number (CRN)
   3. it could only pursue tenancy action against the person responsible if they were convicted
5. In response, on 23 May 2023, the resident provided the landlord with the CRN and asked it to review CCTV footage over the period in question. The landlord said the cameras did not point directly at the bike store and it would only review CCTV footage from the surrounding area if the resident provided a more specific timeframe. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 May 2023. He felt it should review all available footage and identify and evict the perpetrator.
6. On 26 May 2023 the landlord agreed to review all available CCTV. It submitted relevant footage to the police on 16 June 2023.
7. Following a further request from the resident, the landlord escalated the complaint on 18 August 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 18 September 2023 in which it said it:
   1. had provided the police with CCTV footage but could not pursue possession proceedings without a conviction
   2. did not consider it reasonable to sack staff
   3. offered a total of £130 compensation, comprised of £79 for the bicycle wheel (which it rounded up to £80) and £50 compensation for the delay in its final response
   4. would consider any suggestions the resident had to increase security
8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaint and referred it to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Response to theft of bicycle wheel

9. The landlord has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy which outlines its definition of ASB and the steps it should take to address it. ASB is ‘conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress’ or that is ‘capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises’.
10. When a resident reports ASB the landlord should contact the resident within 1 day. It should record the ASB and conduct a risk assessment to monitor and direct its intervention.
11. The resident’s report constituted ASB according to the landlord’s definition but there is no evidence it formally recorded and opened an ASB case and it did not conduct a risk assessment throughout its handling of the issue. In omitting to do so the landlord did not act according to its policy.
12. However, the housing officer responded promptly to the resident’s report about his bike wheel by contacting him the following day. Under its ASB policy the landlord should advise residents to report incidents to the police where applicable. The housing officer directed the resident to the police which was appropriate given a potential crime had been committed.
13. They also liaised promptly with the property manager. They confirmed there was no camera footage of the bike store. They acknowledged they had previously provided the key to residents without logging who they had issued it to but confirmed they had now tightened the protocol by keeping a record. The landlord, and by extension its property manager, took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and improve security.
14. The landlord acted fairly in offering to reimburse the resident for the cost of the wheel. It said this did not amount to an admission of its liability for the theft, and noted residents left items in communal areas at their own risk. This is outlined in the lease and the landlord’s position was reasonable. However, it was responsible for general security and there had been shortcomings in its process for overseeing access to the bike store. The reimbursement acted as recognition of this, and of the detriment to the resident.
15. In its complaint responses the landlord addressed the resident’s request that it evict the perpetrator. It said this was dependent on the police convicting them. In its final response it further explained the court required strong evidence and it was not available in this case. The landlord’s policy says it should be realistic with residents about the outcomes it can achieve. It therefore acted reasonably and in line with its policy by being clear about the process and necessary threshold for it to repossess the property.
16. The resident asked the landlord to review the available CCTV footage. The landlord initially refused to do so without a more specific timeframe. It is not possible to assess whether this was reasonable without an understanding of the landlord’s resources and the amount of footage. Ultimately, the landlord agreed to review it all. It outlined the process by which the police could request the footage and provided it promptly on their request.
17. In July 2023 the police requested details of property management staff on duty during the period the wheel was stolen. The landlord engaged promptly with the police enquiry, responding the following day. In its final response it said it understood the evidence was not conclusive but it would follow up with the police to see if it was taking further action.
18. The landlord’s ASB policy requires that it support relevant external agencies. It was appropriate for the landlord to allow the police to take the lead in investigating whether a criminal offence had taken place and the landlord’s engagement with it demonstrated appropriate partnership working.
19. The landlord accepts the CCTV was of poor quality and the police were unable to identify a perpetrator, which caused understandable frustration to the resident. The ability of the police to secure a conviction depended on multiple factors and it is not for this Service to determine the impact of the quality of the CCTV. Nor are we aware of any specific duty on the landlord to provide CCTV coverage of the bike store. The landlord told this Service it is seeking quotes to upgrade the existing CCTV system and will consider this as part of the brief.
20. The resident was clear in his complaint that he felt relevant staff from the landlord and property management agent should resign if they were unable to identify and evict the perpetrator. This included the resident’s housing officer. There is no evidence the resident’s wheel was stolen due to failings on the part of specific staff. The landlord was under no obligation to dismiss or request resignations from its staff.
21. In summary, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB. While there were shortcomings in the landlord’s response, overall, it took reasonable measures in line with its policy. It acted fairly by offering reimbursement for the wheel and there is no evidence it was obliged to offer this. It engaged with the police and improved security around the bike store. It should remind relevant staff of the duties under its policy to record ASB and carry out risk assessments. This will help it to tailor support and monitor interventions and outcomes.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its standards for complaint handling. It should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This reflects the requirements of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
23. The landlord’s complaints policy during this period also stated it could deal with some complaints as ‘quick fixes’ with the resident’s agreement. This was where there was a low-level, single-issue which it could resolve to the resident’s satisfaction within 5 days, without the need for a formal response. The landlord has since updated the policy and no longer deals with complaints as quick fixes.
24. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. On 11 May 2025 it offered to reimburse the resident for the bike wheel if he retracted his complaint and accepted this as a quick fix. There is no evidence the resident responded and the landlord progressed the matter as a formal complaint.
25. The resident had raised other concerns and requests in his complaint, relating to identifying and evicting the perpetrator, and staff resignations. On this basis it did not strictly meet the criteria for a quick fix. The landlord proposed the reimbursement ‘if’ the resident withdrew his complaint, which implied it was conditional and the landlord could retract this if he wanted it to consider the complaint formally. This was not appropriate as it could have deterred the resident from progressing his complaint. However, it did not retract the offer of reimbursement, and as noted, it has now adapted its complaints policy to be compliant with the Code.
26. On 22 May 2023 the landlord provided its formal stage 1 response. This was after 8 working days, in line with its policy timescale. The policy states complaints will be handled by the local officer at stage 1 and the resident’s housing officer provided the response. However, it notes if the complaint is about the officer, it will be handled by their manager. While the resident’s complaint was not directly about the housing officer, he had specifically requested their resignation. In the circumstances, it would have been more appropriate for someone else to investigate and respond to the complaint, to demonstrate impartiality and accountability.
27. The resident escalated the complaint on 25 May 2023 but the landlord did not log this until 18 August 2023 after a further request from the resident. The resident’s escalation was based on the landlord’s initial refusal to review the surrounding CCTV footage. It had subsequently agreed to, and as a result it considered the resident’s request unnecessary. However, there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident or sought direction from him which was unreasonable.
28. The landlord also explained that staff changes impacted on its delay in responding. Overall, it was 80 working days from the resident escalating the complaint before it responded at stage 2. It acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was appropriate redress for the delay in line with its compensation policy.
29. Overall, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. However, there is no evidence the landlord’s failure to apply its policy caused detriment to the resident beyond the delay in responding to his complaint, for which it offered appropriate compensation. For this reason, we have found reasonable redressbut note that this finding is made based on the landlord paying its offer of compensation to the resident.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the theft of the resident’s bicycle wheel from a communal storage unit.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

32. The landlord should:
    1. It has not already done so, pay the resident the £130 compensation it previously offered.
    2. Remind relevant staff of the duties under its ASB policy to formally record ASB and carry out risk assessments.