Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Catalyst Housing Limited (202112779)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112779

Catalyst Housing Limited

21 March 2022


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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his roof.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property was newly built in 2014 and the defects liability period ended in 2016. The property currently benefits from National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover.
  2. During April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that there had been a leak from his roof since February 2021 which had caused damage to his property. He had raised a claim via the buildings insurance provider for the property and had been told to raise a claim with NHBC. He had since been told by NHBC that the excess he would need to pay towards the claim would be over £1000. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication regarding this matter and noted that he had been promised call-backs but had heard nothing since.
  3. The landlord responded at the time and confirmed that it had discussed the matter with the buildings insurance provider and NHBC. It confirmed that the resident, as the leaseholder of the property, would be responsible for contacting NHBC and paying any excess required for the repairs to be carried out. It further explained that if the works were due to poor workmanship by the building’s developer, then the resident would not be responsible for any costs and NHBC would reclaim costs of repairs from the developer.
  4. Following this, the resident asked the building insurance provider to review his claim and raised a separate complaint to the insurer regarding its handling of the inspection to his property. In August 2021, the insurer’s inspection report was sent to the landlord. The report detailed the repair issue and identified an incorrectly fitted vent tile which would have been installed when the roof was constructed.
  5. In response to the residents complaint, the landlord apologised for its initial lack of communication and any impact this had on the resident. It confirmed that it had reviewed the report provided by the buildings insurer and felt that the insurer’s position that the vent tile had been fitted incorrectly was not necessarily true or easy to prove. It believed the issue to be caused by wear and tear over time rather than an installation issue as there had been no earlier reports of issues with the roof, despite the property being built in 2014. It confirmed that the resident would need to raise a claim through NHBC and the landlord would not be responsible for carrying out the roof repair. It explained that it was only responsible for arranging repairs needed to the resident’s property during the defects liability period which ended in 2016. Following this, it would the resident’s responsibility to arrange any repair works in line with the lease.
  6. In addition, the landlord explained that it would not pay the excess required by NHBC as this would fall under the resident’s responsibility as the leaseholder of the property. It again noted that the resident may not have to pay an excess if the issue was found to be caused by poor workmanship by the original developer. The landlord added that it would not be in a position to carry out the repairs to the roof itself as this would invalidate the warranty with NHBC, meaning that the resident would not be able to raise a claim in future if needed.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he was dissatisfied that the landlord would not repair the roof leak into his property which had been ongoing since February 2021. In addition, he was dissatisfied that the landlord had advised him to contact NHBC regarding the repair and had refused to complete the work itself. He was also unhappy that the landlord would not cover the cost of the excess required by NHBC to proceed with the repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he has referenced his dissatisfaction with the buildings insurance provider in terms of its communication, and handling of the defect inspection. The insurer is not a social landlord and therefore it is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In accordance with paragraph 35 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider complaints about the actions of omissions of a member landlord. As such, this report will focus on the actions of the landlord and whether its response to the resident was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his roof.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that he is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition. New-build properties have what is called a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues; this period usually lasts for 12-24 months after the date the property was handed over to the landlord and the landlord would be responsible for raising repair issues with the original developer of the property during this period. In this case the defects period ended in 2016. Defects reported after the ‘defect period’ will usually be dealt with under the building’s warranty. In this case, the resident’s new-build property benefits from an NHBC warranty and any reports of a defect issue should be raised with NHBC as a claim. If it accepted the claim, NHBC would be responsible for arranging any repairs needed to correct the defect. NHBC may reclaim costs from the original developer of the property if the repair issue was found to be due to poor workmanship in the original construction of the building.
  2. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by confirming that, in line with the lease agreement, it would be the resident’s responsibility to arrange the repairs required and that it was not responsible for this. Regardless of whether the issue was caused by general wear and tear or an installation issue, following the defect period it would not be the landlord’s responsibility to arrange any required repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to raise a claim via NHBC as NHBC provides a warranty for defects and would be best placed to assess a claim for a defect and carry out repairs to this. The landlord was correct in saying that if it carried out any repairs itself, it would invalidate the warranty provided by NHBC meaning that the resident would not be able to raise future claims. The same would be the case if the resident arranged for the repairs to be carried out privately. Furthermore, the landlord would not be expected to pay for any excess required by NHBC as the resident is responsible for the repair issue in line with the lease agreement and there had been no earlier reports of the same issue within the defects period (2014-2016). For the reasons set out above, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take steps to carry out any works to the property.
  3. The resident said he experienced an initial lack of communication from the landlord. This has not been disputed by the landlord, however, this Service has not been provided with evidence of the resident’s communication with the landlord prior to April 2021. Whilst the landlord would be expected to respond to contact from the resident in a timely manner, the resident is unlikely to have been significantly impacted by the poor communication as he had been informed that he would need to raise a claim with NHBC by this stage. The lack of communication was unlikely to have affected the overall outcome for the resident. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its initial poor communication in its complaint responses. It is evident that it also took reasonable steps to improve its communication by providing a named point of contact for the resident in April 2021, confirming its position regarding the matter and offering additional advice to the resident regarding the roof issue. In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that the advice provided by the landlord was incorrect or there had been any service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his roof.