Catalyst Housing Limited (202101599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101599

Catalyst Housing Limited

29 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Cleaning services not received.
2. Repairs to the ventilation system.
3. ASB in the communal areas.
4. The complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat in a block. The tenancy commenced in August 1996. The resident has explained that at one stage, he has relied on carers for living support, however his vulnerabilities are not known.
The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property as well as installations. The landlord is responsible for taking reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other common parts in reasonable repair and for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises.
The ASB policy sets out a series of actions which the landlord will take as part of prevention, intervention and enforcement:
1. Early intervention where reports are made about a one-off breach of tenancy, such as writing to households and offering mediation.
2. Carry out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues, such as improved lighting.
3. Diverting young people from ASB by providing after school activities and youth engagement.
4. Facilitating reporting of ASB.
5. Contacting and risk assessing victims within one day and offering face to face meetings within 5 working days.
6. Reporting crimes or threats to the police.
7. Working with multi-agencies to address ASB.
8. Keep records to facilitate court action.
9. Cases will be closed when all appropriate action has been taken in line with action plans agreed with residents if there are no incidents within a 28 day period, the reporter fails to engage with the landlord during an investigation or the report is unreasonable. The landlord will write to the reporter within 7 days of deciding to close the case to update them.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint process with 10 working days for each step.

Summary of events

The resident said that he had raised concerns with the landlord and historically the landlord had agreed to arrange a repair of the ventilation, in 2020. Following on from this, the resident re-raised his concerns in April 2021.
In a letter dated 19 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
1. The repairs team would address the ventilation.
2. A member of staff gave their direct number to the resident to call in respect of the caretaking concerns.
3. There were numerous ways which the resident could raise a complaint. The landlord pointed to the direct contact details it had provided the resident with.
4. It provided the Ombudsman’s contact details.
On 20 April 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and stated his concerns:
1. He was paying £21 towards caretaking services but not receiving this. The care staff said that they were short-staffed and had been on leave.
2. There was an outstanding repair issue with the ventilation system. In August 2020, the landlord had indicated that a part was on order and the system would be fixed.
3. The bathroom ventilation was not working.
4. There was ASB in the communal stairs where residents who live in the block congregated, smoked cannabis and drank alcohol. The resident felt intimidated by the ASB.
5. The resident raised a stage one complaint but this was not responded to; he contacted the chief executive to ask for a stage two and an appointment was arranged for August 2020, but no work was carried out to the ventilation.
On 20 April 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to highlight the resident’s complaint to it. The resident had complained of the standard of caretaking in the block, the delay in the landlord’s response to reports about repairs to the ventilation, the landlord’s response to reports about ASB from neighbours (smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol in the communal stairwell, intimidating behaviour to other residents) and the complaint handling. The landlord logged the Ombudsman’s communication and arranged a telephone acknowledgement with the resident.
On 4 May 2021, the resident reported to the Ombudsman that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to him so far. He said that he had tried to raise complaints by telephone and was directed to emails, so he disputed that he could raise complaints in a number of ways as the landlord had suggested. He also said that the caretaker issues were present since 2019 and therefore he did not feel that the landlord’s response (to report issues to the caretaker) addressed his concerns.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 May 2021 and encouraged local resolution.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response. At this stage, the landlord had already informally responded to the resident’s complaint and now followed up with a further email. It did not clearly establish which part of the complaint process this matter was under nor did it clearly set out the escalation rights available to the resident. In its response, it said that:
1. It reported the communal ventilation to the repairs team.
2. It requested the number of cleaning visits required from the estates management team and said it would confirm once this had been provided. The operations manager had previously offered to discuss this with the resident.
3. It asked the neighbourhood experience manager and ASB team to confirm if they received reports of ASB in the resident’s block and any action taken. It told the resident to report any ASB to them.
On 6 May 2021, the landlord logged a job for the repairs team to attend to address reports about the ventilation.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord requested internally for a stage 1 complaint be logged. It noted that the resident reported loitering and nuisance but did not provide specific details. It stated that it had asked for improved patrols.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident.
1. It set out the details of the estate cleaning services (cleaning hours and nature of cleaning provided). This included a full clean on Mondays (5 hours), spot cleaning including lobby, lift and bin store on Wednesdays (3 hours), spot cleaning including lobby, lift and bin store on Fridays (2.5 hours).
2. The landlord also provided a response to the resident’s reports of ASB; it said that the neighbourhood manager confirmed that they received the resident’s reports about ‘loitering and nuisance’ but did not have enough detail for further investigation. It told the police’s safer neighbourhood team to improve patrols in the area, which they agreed to do.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and requested that the complaint be escalated. The resident said that the ventilation was broken, the landlord should do more to investigate drug use and its response so far avoided dealing with weeks when cleaning had been missed (24 May 2021).
On 10 June 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to enquire about the final response.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered to try to resolve his outstanding issues before escalating the matter to stage two.
On 13 June 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask it to escalate the resident’s complaint and to provide confirmation of the status with the resident within 5 working days.
On 17 June 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that he had received a letter explaining how the landlord intended to deal with his reports, but he remained dissatisfied; he explained that it was not clear what stage his complaint was at. He then received a block letter on 22 June 2021 about people congregating in the communal areas. He contacted the Ombudsman again on 15 July 2021 to report his concerns about the progress of the stage two complaint.
On 15 July 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked for its final response to be issued by 22 July 2022. The landlord requested an extension until 26 July 2021.
On 19 July 2021, the repair team attended the resident’s property and recorded that the communal extractor was ‘in good working order’ and ‘no further works required’.
On 4 August 2021, the resident reported to the Ombudsman that he received a response from the landlord, but he remained dissatisfied (27 July 2021).
The resident iterated his complaint concerns to the Ombudsman and explained that his personal carers had stopped attending the property as they were intimidated by the residents in the stairwell.
On 4 August 2021 following communication from the resident about the complaint and the continued lack of clarity over the landlord’s complaint process, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord.
The Ombudsman advised it of the kind of complaint response expected from it, such as including details about the stage and escalation rights of the residentas per the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord then provided an undated copy of a complaint response to the Ombudsman, which it clarified to be the final response originally issued on 27 July 2021. It had revised this on 9 August 2021 to include the referral rights and this was processed and printed to be posted to the resident on 10 August 2021. The landlord clarified this in an email to the Ombudsman following the Service’s queries about the final response date (31 August 2021).
In the final response it said:
1. It apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced in progressing the issues.
2. Regarding the ventilation system, on 5 May 2021 the complaint investigator told the resident that it had raised this with the repairs team. A job was raised on 6 May 2021 and a contractor attended on 19 July 2021 and the ventilation system was found to be ‘in good working order’. It apologised for the two months’ timescale to attend the job and offered a gesture of goodwill of £100 for the inconvenience.
3. Regarding the ASB, it said that the resident was made aware of the ASB procedure and directed on how to report ASB (5 May 2021). The landlord then wrote to the resident on 13 May 2021 to advise that it arranged increased patrols with the police safer neighbourhood team in the area and that it was still awaiting details of ASB allegations. It considered that it had followed the correct procedure and in a timely manner.
4. Regarding the estate cleaning services, it said that it offered to discuss this with the resident and it had also provided the resident with a breakdown of hours and kind of work carried out on the block as a weekly schedule on 13 May 2021.
On 23 August 2021 the resident confirmed the outstanding issues with the Ombudsman:
1. Although someone visited in respect of the ventilation, it remained in disrepair and was not working.
2. The landlord did not address the ASB reports.
3. The hallways were not being kept clean and there were empty pots and plants which were not removed, these were obstructing fire exits.
4. The resident sought for the ventilation to be sorted, for the smell of cannabis to be resolved, for the landlord to do something about the ASB and for the communal areas to be maintained.
In November 2021 the landlord noted the resident’s new reports of ASB and his concern that this was being directed towards him due to his sexuality. This has not been subject to the landlord’s complaint process so this element of the ASB reports and the landlord’s response are not within the scope of this complaint investigation.
The resident also clarified that the landlord had sent a block letter asking residents how they felt about his proposal that the landlord put up a sign, as an idea to address the ASB. He reported that the landlord has not addressed this since (July 2022). The resident iterated his concern about the landlord’s response to the ASB and that the police had told him that the landlord was responsible for managing the building.

Assessment and findings

The landlord and the resident have disputed the level of cleaning services provided to the block. The landlord evidenced the breakdown of the cleaning timetable following the resident’s reports about this and shared this with the resident. This included details of the cleans as well as the dates when these were generally scheduled to be carried out. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to provide this, the landlord has not investigated the resident’s reports that the cleaning services did not take place or that they were not provided.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to demonstrate a more thorough investigation and assessment of this, such as by engaging with the cleaning provider to understand if there had been any issues or whether they could evidence their visits on those occasions where the resident reported that there had been missed cleans. It did not do this. The resident also reported items (pot plants) that remained in situ; it would have been reasonable for the landlord to engage with the resident’s concerns further to manage his expectations and address his reports of items being left without authorisation in the communal areas. Accordingly, there was service failure by the landlord.
The landlord reasonably relied on the feedback of its operative which said that the ventilation was in good working order. This was reasonable. In light of the resident’s continued reports that the ventilation was not working, it would have been resolution focused for the landlord to consider the efficacy of the existing system, especially as the resident reported that this was interfering with his use of the bathroom. However, there was no evidence of disrepair, therefore, there was no service failure in its substantive response to the repair reports.
However, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord’s response times in arranging the job (from April 2021 – July 2021).
The landlord took reasonable steps of acknowledging this and offering £100 compensation for the inconvenience which the resident experienced due to the delay. This was reasonable as the landlord demonstrated its awareness of the need to put things right after it identified a failure in its service. There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports about the ventilation.
The landlord received repeated reports that there were other residents congregating in the communal stairwell, smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol. The resident explained that this intimidated him and also explained to the Ombudsman that it affected the ability of his carers to visit. The landlord said that it did not have enough information to investigate this further, but it had asked the police (safer neighbourhood team) to increase patrols.
The landlord did not evidence that it had carried out an appropriate risk assessment or face to face interview with the resident. It did not evidence that it recorded the resident’s reports of ASB or that it engaged with the resident to facilitate evidence gathering. The police (safer neighbourhood team) may patrol the area, however, it is not clear that the police would appropriately monitor the stairwell or be able to take tenancy action against resident perpetrators.
As such, it was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on police action alone when responding to reports of ASB. It would be reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s reports and to consider the steps that it can take, before closing an ASB case. Overall, the landlord did not evidence an appropriate response to the resident’s reports about the ASB and therefore there was maladministration.
In respect of the complaint handling, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns when it was raised in April 2021. However, it did not log the stage one complaint until 11 May 2021 and did not progress the complaint in accordance with its complaint policy timescales. The landlord is reminded that the complaint process is an opportunity to resolve the resident’s issues and that any delays in accepting a formal complaint may result in unnecessary delays for the resident.
At several stages, the landlord responded to the resident by updating him as to its actions, but it failed to confirm the relevant stage of the complaint process under which it was engaging or offer a complete response with details of his escalation rights if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord also went on to offer to resolve the outstanding issues before escalating the complaint to stage two after the resident and Ombudsman had communicated the resident’s continued dissatisfaction to it.
The landlord is reminded of the need to ensure that it appropriately logs and processes complaints in accordance with its complaint process and does not delay the resident by informally attempting to resolve the issues. By engaging informally with the issues instead of guiding them through the complaint process, the landlord risks non-compliance with complaint timescales and a lack of clarity over the expected process for the resident. The resident relied on the Ombudsman’s intervention and resources in trying to progress the complaint, which is not reasonable.
Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint and the Ombudsman’s communication to the landlord to request that it progress the complaint (10 June 2021) the landlord issued a final response several weeks later and outside of the appropriate timescales (27 July 2021 and revised on 10 August 2021). This was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the cleaning services not received.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of repairs to the ventilation system.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not evidence a thorough investigation into the resident’s reports about missed cleaning or caretaking in the communal areas.
The landlord did not evidence that it took reasonable steps to understand, record and respond to the resident’s reports about ASB by other residents in the communal areas. The landlord did not evidence its record keeping or evidence gathering, nor did it evidence its engagement with the resident about how to gather evidence, in response to the reports of ASB.
The landlord relied on the feedback from its repair team who said that the ventilation system was in good working order and offered reasonable redress for its delay in responding.
The landlord did not log and escalate the resident’s complaints reasonably and the resident experienced delays and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 comprised of:
1. £100 for the delay in its response to the repair report (if this has not already been paid)
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience for the response to the ASB reports.
3. £50 for the time and trouble in respect of its response to the caretaking reports.
4. £100 for the delays in the complaint handling.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an appropriate risk assessment and action plan in response to his reports of ASB.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to remind its complaint team of the importance of promptly logging complaints at stage one and then processing escalation requests according to the appropriate complaint timescales, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.