Peabody Trust (202120260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120260

Catalyst Housing Limited

19 April 2023

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 about:
   1. damage to carpet at the property.
   2. its complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat.
3. The Ombudsman understands that, in early 2020, a boiler leak occurred at the property that led to the resident’s carpet becoming damaged.
4. On 31 August 2022, the resident complained about the damage, which the landlord responded to in its formal complaints procedure on 22 September and 19 October 2022. The landlord reviewed its repairs records, set out its position that it was not responsible or liable for damage caused by the leak, and referred to the resident’s responsibility to have home contents insurance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

5. The Ombudsman’s remit for complaints is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in our opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
6. In January 2022, the resident brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about the delay in the boiler replacement. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure, but the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this complaint received a final response and therefore exhausted the complaints procedure. As such, this investigation focuses on the resident’s formal complaint in August 2022 which received a final response in October 2022.

The landlord’s response to the resident about damage to carpet at the property

7. As previously explained, the Ombudsman’s remit for complaints is set out in its Scheme, and Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in our opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.”
8. This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for the damage to the resident’s possessions, but we can assess whether the landlord has responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
9. The landlord’s complaint responses detailed historic repairs reports for the boiler and set out its position that there was no service failing for these. The Ombudsman recognises that the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted, and the landlord’s response demonstrates it considered relevant reports around the time of the leak to the extent it was able, given the complaint related to events two years prior. It has not been disputed that the landlord did not fail to attend any reports for the boiler, and having reviewed available evidence its conclusion that there was no service failing for the boiler was reasonable.
10. The landlord’s complaint responses set out its position that it is not responsible for the contents of the property, including carpets. The landlord’s responses provided information to the resident about her responsibility for her contents, which it is not evident she was provided earlier. However, the landlord confirmed it had reminded staff to provide timely information, and the information reflects information in the landlord’s policies. The landlord does not compensate for items that would be covered by home contents insurance, and residents are responsible for insuring their own possessions. The landlord will compensate for damage caused during contractor works or if it fails to meet its repairs obligations, neither of which are evident here given the damage was caused by a leak and the landlord attended to reports for the boiler. The landlord’s position in respect to compensating for the damaged carpet was therefore also reasonable.
11. In summary, the assessment of historic matters may be affected if a complaint is not brought to the landlord and Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe, and it is not in our expertise to definitively determine whether the landlord is liable for the damage to the carpet. On the available evidence, the landlord provided a reasonable position on whether there had been any service failing, or if it was liable for the damage. It acted in accordance with its policies when informing the resident that she was responsible for her home contents. It identified appropriate learning to ensure it provided relevant information to residents at the earliest opportunity. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in respect to the landlord’s response to the resident about damage to carpet at the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident about its complaint handling

12. The landlord’s final complaint response offered £50 compensation for response delays it also apologised for. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and the landlord’s complaint policy, says it should respond at stage one in ten working days. The landlord’s stage one response on 22 September 2022, after the resident’s stated complaint on 31 August 2022, was provided in around sixteen working days. The Code and the landlord’s complaint policy says that it should respond at stage two in 20 working days. The landlord’s stage two response on 19 October 2022 was within 20 working days of its previous response. The landlord’s final response was unclear about which stage it was acknowledging delays for, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the apology and compensation offer overall provides reasonable redress for the stage one delay.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about damage to carpet at the property
14. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

15. The landlord to take steps to pay the resident the £50 for its complaint handling, if this has not already been paid.
16. The landlord to take steps to ensure that:
    1. it responds at each stage of its complaints procedure in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code and its complaint policies.
    2. it appropriately acknowledges and remedies where it does not do so.
17. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of its intentions for the above recommendations within four weeks of this decision.