Places for People Group Limited — case 202342290

Decision Case ID 202342290 Decision type Investigation Landlord Origin Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 21 April 2026 Background In December 2022 the resident reported that her son’s electric scooter had been stolen from a communal bike store. The landlord said it did not accept liability for the loss and would not pay compensation. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a theft from the communal bike store.

The landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a theft from the communal bike store There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Theft from bike store After the resident reported the theft, the landlord did not respond promptly to her concerns about the security of the communal bike store.

It failed to carry out agreed inspections within a reasonable timeframe. This delayed identification and repair of the broken lock and caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. Associated complaint The landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy, including delays in logging the complaint, recognising escalation, and completing promised actions. The landlord acknowledged these failings and offered £300 compensation, which we consider proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 19 May 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by landlord’s response to the security concerns following the theft. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 19 May 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord inspects the bike store lock, as the resident has reported that it is not working. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 14 December 2022 The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint following the theft of her son’s scooter from the communal bike store. She said the bike store door was meant to be locked and accessed by fob, but it could be opened by pushing the door.

She also said a waking watch had been in place until shortly before the theft. 20 December 2022 The resident chased a response from the landlord as she had expected a visit that week. The resident requested an investigation into who is responsible for the broken bike store access. 15 January 2023 The resident emailed the landlord to report that her son’s electric scooter had been stolen from the communal bike store. She said she became aware of the theft on 12 December 2022 and had reported the matter to the police.

She contacted the landlord again on 20 December 2022 after a visit she had expected did not take place. She later said a neighbourhood manager contacted her by telephone and told her he would not be attending the site and was unable to confirm when a visit would take place. The resident also raised concerns about the security of the bike store door and said it was intended to be locked and accessed by fob. She asked the landlord to investigate the matter and requested compensation for the scooter.

31 January 2023 The landlord sent a stage 1 response it said: the resident reported her son’s scooter missing on 13 December 2022 and believed the theft occurred after the waking watch left the site the waking watch team finished on site on 25 November 2022 and advised that its manager reported residents often did not fully close communal doors, which affected the use of the fob system it apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction with how she was spoken to by a member of staff and said it had passed this to a manager it would arrange a check of the bike store fobs on 3 February 2023 it declined the resident’s request for compensation, stating it did not insure items left in communal areas 16 February 2023 The resident told the landlord she had sent a response to the stage 1 that had not been acknowledged.

She said the bike store door was intended to close and lock automatically but it could be opened by pushing the door. She told the landlord she did not consider that it had carried out its own checks of the bike store door and she remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. 20 February 2023 The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident. 20 March 2023 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 March 2023. It said: a visit due to take place on 3 February 2023 did not occur because the staff member left at short notice and it did not reallocate the visit.

The landlord apologised for this another member of staff attended the site on 20 February 2023 and found the bike store lock was broken. It said a repair was raised following this inspection it acknowledged delays in complaint handling. It said it did not log the resident’s complaint request from 14 December 2022 until 15 January 2023 and that it did not identify her escalation request until 20 February 2023 it apologised and said this had been addressed with the complaints team it had spoken with the security provider, which confirmed keys were returned on 25 November 2022 and that an inspection was carried out at that time the broken lock was not reported until after the scooter had been reported missing and it therefore did not accept responsibility for the theft it advised the resident to make a claim through contents insurance, and it offered £300 compensation for complaint handling failures, delays, and the inconvenience caused Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said the landlord had told her that the waking watch team would have reported any issues with the bike store lock.

She said that while the waking watch was in place, the bike store door was often left open, and she believed this affected its security. The resident also raised concerns about the caretaker’s role. She said she believed the caretaker should have been checking the bike store door and reporting any issues with the lock. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position that she was responsible for reporting defects. She believed the theft would not have occurred if checks of the bike store door had been carried out.

The resident is seeking compensation for the loss of the scooter. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a theft from the communal bike store Finding Maladministration What we will not look at While we are an alternative to the courts, we cannot establish legal liability.

A court or insurance claim is better suited to these matters. We will consider whether the landlord handled the resident’s concerns fairly. The resident said she believed the caretaker should have been checking the bike store door and reporting any issues with the lock. There is no evidence that the resident raised any concerns about the caretaker’s actions or responsibilities as part of her complaint to the landlord. As the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider this issue through its complaints process, we are unable to assess this aspect of the resident’s concerns.

What we will look at The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 following the theft of her son’s electric scooter from the communal bike store. She said the door was intended to be locked and accessed by fob but could be pushed open. She also said a waking watch had been in place for several years and believed the landlord had not checked the bike store after the team left the site. The resident sought £800 compensation for the stolen scooter. She said the theft occurred because the bike store door did not lock properly.

The landlord declined liability. It said the repair issue had not been reported before the theft, residents are expected to insure their belongings, and there was no evidence its actions or inaction caused the loss. The landlord’s compensation policy allows payment for loss or damage to belongings where its action or inaction directly caused the loss. The policy also states residents are expected to have contents insurance and items stored in communal areas are not routinely covered unless landlord fault is established.

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must keep communal areas in reasonable repair. Residents are expected to report repair issues when they become aware of them. The repairs policy says issues affecting communal security should be addressed promptly once reported. The resident reported concerns about the bike store after the theft had already occurred. The evidence does not show the landlord was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of a repair issue with the bike store door or lock before the scooter was stolen.

We therefore cannot conclude the landlord caused or contributed to the theft. The resident said the waking watch team used the bike store area and kept the door open while on site. She said the landlord did not inspect the door or lock after the team left on 25 November 2022. The landlord said the waking watch contractor returned its keys and would have reported any repair issues before leaving. There is no evidence the landlord was required to carry out a separate inspection when the waking watch ended.

In the absence of reports at that time, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s assurances. Once the resident raised concerns about the security of the bike store on 14 December 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a prompt inspection. The evidence shows it did not do so. It did not confirm an inspection had taken place before issuing its stage 1 response on 31 January 2023, despite the resident chasing updates during December 2022 and January 2023.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would attend the site on 3 February 2023. This visit did not take place because the attending staff member left at short notice and the landlord did not reallocate the appointment. The landlord inspected the bike store door on 20 February 2023. An officer confirmed the lock was broken and the door could be pushed open. The landlord then raised a repair, which it completed on 11 March 2023. The landlord took around 3 months from the resident’s report to inspect and repair the bike store lock.

During this period, the resident raised repeated concerns about access and security and had to chase the landlord for updates. This delay did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy and likely caused frustration, inconvenience, and time and trouble. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that the planned visit did not take place and accepted that this was a service failure. However, it did not offer any redress. We find the landlord did not act reasonably when responding to reports of a security‑related repair.

There was an unreasonable delay between the resident’s initial report and the subsequent inspection. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award discretionary compensation for time, effort and inconvenience. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider an award to reflect the impact on the resident. While we have identified failures in how the landlord responded after the theft, the evidence does not show the landlord caused the scooter to be stolen.

The landlord was not on notice of a repair issue before the theft, and its decision not to compensate the resident for the loss was consistent with its compensation policy. Given the dispute about liability, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its liability insurer. Although the landlord discussed this internally, there is no evidence it made a referral or communicated a clear outcome. This lack of clarity contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction following the theft.

We consider £150 proportionate to recognise the impact of the landlord’s delayed inspection, failure to complete a planned visit, and poor communication. These failures caused frustration, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The resident has said problems with the bike store door continue. While events outside the period of this complaint fall beyond the scope of our investigation, we have recommended the landlord inspects the bike store to ensure it is secure. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process.

Under its policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. These timescales may be extended for complex cases, but the landlord must explain the reason for the delay and provide a clear revised date, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2023. However, this was preceded by delays in acknowledging the complaint and confirming the scope.

The resident later asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord did not recognise this request at the time and did not acknowledge the escalation until 20 February 2023. This contributed to further delay and uncertainty for the resident, who had already spent time chasing responses. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 March 2023. Once the escalation was acknowledged, the stage 2 response was provided within the 20‑working‑day timescale set out in its complaints policy.

The landlord accepted there were delays in its complaint handling and offered £300 compensation as well as an apology. We consider this amount to be proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for the service failures identified. Learning The case highlights the importance of responding promptly to reports about communal security and ensuring follow‑up actions are completed as agreed. Knowledge information management (record keeping) It is important to ensure complaints are logged accurately when first raised and that records clearly show inspections promised, completed actions, and outcomes.

Communication Overall communication was not effective, as delays, missed updates, and unclear responses contributed to the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord for progress.