Catalyst Housing Limited (202000443)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000443

Catalyst Housing Limited

7 January 2021


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 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 refers to:
  • The Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s reports of a leak from her roof.
  • The Landlord’s communication with the Resident regarding these matters.
  • The Resident’s concerns regarding further damage to her property as a result of the leak.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Historic Issues 

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”;
  2. It is noted that the Resident first reported a leak from the roof of her property in January 2016, although the evidence suggests this was not pursued as a formal complaint with the Landlord until December 2019 when the leak became apparent again. This Service is unable to consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the Landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from December 2019 onward as this was when the Resident reported that the leak had reoccurred.

 

Concerns regarding non-members

 

  1. Paragraph 35 of the Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme”.

 

  1. It is noted that the National House Building Council (NHBC) arranged for contractors to attend the property and detailed the works which needed to be carried out. The NHBC is not a social landlord and therefore it is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Any further complaint about the delay in carrying out work to the roof or further work needed to ‘make good’ would need to be taken up with NHBC separately. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the process or outcome of such a complaint as it is outside our remit to consider complaints about organisations which are not members of our Scheme.

Background

  1. The Resident is a shared owner of the property; the Landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The property is a ‘new build’, two-bedroom house and a leak from the roof had been reported to the Landlord in 2016 within the defect period which usually lasts for 12 months after the property is handed over to the Landlord. 
  3. The complaint has been raised by the Resident and, at times, by her husband. For clarity, this report will refer to both the Resident and her husband as ‘the Resident’.

Summary of events

  1. On 19 December 2019 the Resident called to report that a leak on her bathroom ceiling, which was previously reported on 4 January 2016, had reoccurred.

 

  1. On 10 January 2020 the Landlord confirmed via internal emails that its contractors had attended the property and stated that the leak was not obvious; it advised that the tiles on the roof would need inspecting as a tile vent may be misaligned and it would need to forward the Resident’s case to the original builders of the property.

 

  1.  The Landlord’s internal emails show that on 28 January 2020 it concluded that the plastic decorative chimney on the roof had an installation issue that was causing the roof to let in water when it rained. The Resident’s chimney had been inserted through the felt membrane in the loft space creating a break in the seal of the structure of the building. To rectify this issue, the tiles around the chimney would need to be removed, and a new layer of felt would need to be placed beneath. The chimney would then need to be refitted and sealed, then tiles and lead flashing needed to be refitted. The Landlord stated that a neighbour had approached its contractors whilst they were on site to report a similar issue with their roof. The Landlord considered the roof issues to be building defects and stated that this may be an issue with the chimney specification of the new build properties.

 

  1. On 2 March 2020 the Resident raised a complaint to the Landlord in relation to the ongoing repair work needed in her property. She said there had been damage to her property four years ago and no repairs had taken place since, as it had stated that it could not find any issue at the time. She stated that the same problem was still apparent, and that water was coming into her bathroom through the chimney and loft. She had spoken to the Landlord who had promised to call her back, but she had not received a response. The Landlord had stated that it would be attending the property to complete the works, but no one had contacted her since to arrange these.  She stated that her bathroom was full of water and damaged. She wanted the works to be completed and assurance that if the same issue happened in future, she would not be held responsible.

 

  1. On 16 March 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident in response to her complaint. It apologised for the length of time the Resident had been waiting for the leak in her home to be resolved. It stated that the case had been referred to the National House Building Council (NHBC), who provide insurance and warranties on new build properties. It stated that NHBC had contacted its contractors on 3 March 2020 and advised them of the works which needed to be completed to rectify the issue. It said it had been pushing NHBC for updates and that the Resident would need to contact NHBC directly to ensure that an appointment was made quickly. It acknowledged that it could not change what had happened but offered an award of compensation of £150; £50 as ‘right to repair’ for the length of time the Resident had been waiting and £100 as a gesture of goodwill to acknowledge the delays in its communication and the stress and inconvenience this may have caused. It stated that it would be working to ensure that all necessary works were carried out to resolve the leak in her property. It stated that she could get in contact should she have any further questions.

 

  1. The Resident emailed the Landlord on 16 March 2020 and stated that the offer of £150 was not sufficient as the issue had been reported four years ago and she was still chasing the matter, which she felt was unacceptable. She requested that the damage to the loft and ceiling be recorded once an engineer had attended, since she was certain that the damage would be extreme after four years. She stated that this should be a priority and that she did not have time to chase the Landlord. She requested the Landlord chase NHBC on her behalf and review its gesture of goodwill.

 

  1. The Landlord responded to the Resident on 19 March 2020 and stated that since the complaint had not been raised within six months of the problem arising, it would not be able to address what had happened previously; its response took into consideration the last three months. It noted that since 2016 no further repairs had been raised in relation to the leak from the roof. Any necessary repair work would be carried out to any affected areas following the leak. It stated that it acknowledged the inconvenience of the repairs needed and raised its offer of compensation to £200; £150 as the Landlord’s maximum goodwill gesture, and £50 in line with its Right to Repair Policy in relation to the length of time the Resident had been waiting for the leak to be rectified. It asked the Resident to confirm if she would be accepting this offer in order to process the payment.

 

  1. On 31 March 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord stating that she felt that the goodwill gesture was minimal considering that the repair had taken four years; she said that this had been reported in line with the Landlord’s guidelines and was not her fault. She went on to say that the right to repair compensation should match the goodwill offer and that £500 would be satisfactory, along with the repair issues being rectified.

 

  1. The Landlord responded to the Resident on 22 April 2020 and stated that it appreciated that the repair issue had impacted her, and her family’s lives; it stated that it would increase its goodwill gesture by £100. Its total compensation offer would be £300. It confirmed that this was its final response to the Resident’s complaint.

 

  1. The Resident emailed the Landlord on 24 April 2020 and confirmed that she would accept the offer of £300 at this stage but would seek further information on the damage when the repairs were started. She requested that the Landlord provide updates as to when the repairs would proceed and acknowledged that this may not take place until after the Government restrictions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic had been lifted.

 

  1. The Landlord has stated that the repair works to the roof were completed in October 2020. Although other work was still needed to make ‘good’ as of 7 December 2020. The Landlord confirmed that it had been in touch with the contractors who acknowledged that the further repair work needed to be booked, although due to the restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19, this would not be addressed until the Government restrictions were relaxed.

 

Assessment and findings

The Landlord’s handling of the leak from the Resident’s roof.

  1. As stated above, this Service will not address the events that took place prior to the Resident’s report of a leak into her bathroom in December 2019. We cannot address any actions that had been taken previously, although we can address how the Landlord responded to the Resident’s concern and whether this was reasonable and in line with its policies.
  2. The Lease states that the Landlord would be responsible for any repair issues related to the structure of the Resident’s house, including any repairs to the roof or guttering.  New properties have what is called a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues; this period usually lasts for 12 months after the date the property was handed over to the Landlord. Defects reported after the Defect Period will usually be dealt with under the warranty. In this case, the Resident’s new-build property benefits from the 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.
  3. There has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s report of a leak from December 2019. In accordance with the Lease and the Landlord’s Repair Policy, the Landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the structure of the property. It was therefore necessary for the Landlord to investigate the Resident’s reports of faults with her roof and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. The evidence shows that the Landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and acted in a timely manner to define the underlying issue following the report of a leak from the Resident’s roof in December 2019.

 

  1.  The Landlord arranged for its contractors to attend the property, when the leak was not apparent it organised a survey of the roof to take place. The Landlord concluded that the leak was caused by a defect in the structure of the property. The Landlord then took appropriate action to raise a claim with NHBC, as this issue would have been subject to the warranty on the new build property. It was reasonable for the Landlord to pass the Resident’s case to the NHBC for works to be completed because, if the Landlord took action itself on the matter, it may void any warranty on the property. There are no set timescales in the Landlord’s Repair Policy, although the Landlord addressed the initial report within 14 days which this Service finds reasonable. This is because although the work was necessary, it was not an emergency as it did not pose an immediate and significant risk to safety. Therefore, this would be classed as a routine repair. Generally routine repairs should be completed within 28 days in line with industry best practice The Landlord should consider adding detailed timeframes to its Repairs Policy to manage its residents’ expectations of how long a repair is likely to take.
  2. The Resident had expressed dissatisfaction about the length of time it had taken for the work to be completed. Whilst this Service cannot address the details of the historic issues, after raising a claim with NHBC, any further delays to the repair work were outside of the Landlord’s control and it was NHBC’s responsibility to arrange contractors to attend the property. The evidence shows that the Landlord took steps to chase this matter with NHBC to ensure the claim was attended to. Furthermore, there have been additional delays over the course of 2020 due to the national lockdown and tier restrictions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Any further delays attributed to Covid-19 also fell outside of the Landlord or the builder’s control. It is noted that there had been some delays which can be attributed to the contractors, but again, these contractors were not appointed by the Landlord and therefore delays caused by the contractors were outside the Landlord’s control.
  3. It is noted that the Landlord has acknowledged the delay and inconvenience its initial failure to address the leak may have caused the Resident in its complaint responses and awarded £300 compensation in recognition of this matter. The Landlord has stated that there were no further reports of a leak between January 2016 and December 2019 and the complaint was not actively pursued until a further leak in December 2019. In view of this, £300 compensation is proportionate to address the reason for the Resident’s initial complaint raised on 2 March 2020.  Following this, the Landlord has acted reasonably, and in a timely manner with regards to the repairs.

The Landlord’s communication with the Resident regarding these matters

  1. Whilst these delays were outside of the Landlord’s control, the Landlord’s responsibility regarding this repair issue did not end when it had referred the case to the NHBC and builders of the property. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord, as the freeholder of the property, to act proactively as the structural integrity of the property was its responsibility and the underlying defect issue had been reported at a number of its properties. The Landlord’s website states that “the contractor who built your home will contact you to arrange a time to visit your home and sort out the problem. Some defects may not be put right straightaway, but we’ll tell you if there is going to be a delay and why”.
  2. The evidence shows that the Landlord raised a claim with NHBC and took steps to progress the works needed by chasing NHBC for a response. Following the acceptance of the claim. The Landlord advised the Resident to contact NHBC to ensure an appointment was made. There is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord kept the Resident informed of any delays or the reason why; for example, it should have explained that it was waiting for a claim to be accepted or, following the accepted claim, that it would be NHBC’s role to organise the work. The Landlord could have provided greater clarity to the Resident at this stage in order to outline who now had ownership over the Resident’s repairs. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Landlord adequately kept the Resident informed of when the works may take place, and it was not until the Resident chased the matter with the Landlord following reports that the roofers had stated they were not sure where the leak was coming from and following a cancelled appointment in October 2020, that it had made contact with the contractors in relation to the repair.
  3. The Landlord has not effectively communicated with the Resident during this time and has not taken proactive steps to communicate the delays or explain the reasons why. This Service acknowledges that the actions of the third-party contractors appointed by NHBC were not under the Landlord’s control, although as the freeholder of the property, the Landlord was expected to contact NHBC and provide regular updates to the Resident as to any delays and the current progress of the repairs, which it has not done. The lack of clear communication was likely to cause the Resident inconvenience and uncertainty in relation to when the work would be completed, and it is noted that the Resident spent time chasing this information from the Landlord. In view of this, the Landlord should make an award of compensation.

 

The Resident’s concerns regarding further damage to her property.

  1. This Service acknowledges that the Resident is concerned about the damage that may have been caused whilst the repairs had not been completed to prevent the leak in her property. It is also noted that the Resident is likely to have experienced some uncertainty as no evidence has been provided of the damage which may have occurred within the loft. The resident has advised she is unable to access the loft and therefore cannot check the damage herself. 
  2. The Landlord has stated that the Resident would be expected to contact the builders to arrange any work to ‘make good’ the repair following the leak. This was reasonable as the claim had been accepted by NHBC as a defect issue, any further work required to ‘make good’ may also be the responsibility of the original builders. There is no evidence to suggest that any additional damage is the responsibility of the Landlord; responsibility would therefore fall to NHBC. It may have been helpful for the Landlord to document any additional damage during its visits to the property to inspect the roof; this may have decreased the Resident’s uncertainty around any potential damage caused by the leak, but as the underlying issue was thought to be a defect, the Landlord was not strictly obliged to do so.
  3. The Landlord has taken steps to chase this matter on the Resident’s behalf and contacted the builders who had explained that further repair work needed to be booked, although no further work would take place until the Government restrictions had lifted. At this stage, any further repair works which may be needed are largely outside of the Landlord’s control. There has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of this matter. If the Resident has further concerns in relation to the builders’ or NHBC’s handling of her case, she could take this matter up with either party.

 

Determination (decision)

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s report of a leak from her roof.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its communication with the Resident.
  3.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of the Resident’s concerns regarding further damage to her property as a result of the leak.

Reasons

  1. The Landlord has acted in line with its obligations in relation to determining the cause of the Resident’s leak following her repair report in December 2019. It concluded that this was a defect issue and raised a claim under the warranty of the new build property in a timely manner. It has also taken ownership for the inconvenience caused to the Resident by its failure to investigate the initial leak in 2016 and refer it to the builder at the time and offered £300 compensation which this Service finds proportionate.
  2. The Landlord has failed to communicate clearly with the Resident in relation to the repair work and any delays. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to keep the Resident informed of any delays and provide updates in relation to the progress of the repair works despite passing this case on to NHBC. In view of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused, the Landlord should offer an award of compensation, as set out above.
  3. No evidence has been provided which details any further work is needed to ‘make good’ following the leak. As the claim had been accepted by NHBC and there is no evidence to suggest that this would be the Landlord’s responsibility, it was reasonable for the Landlord to ask the Resident to contact the builders to arrange this work if needed. It is noted that there may be further delays as a result of the current Covid-19 pandemic, but this is outside of the Landlord’s control.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions be taken within the next four weeks:
    1. The Landlord is to pay the Resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its communication during this period.

Recommendations

  1. The Landlord should consider adding detailed timeframes to its Repairs Policy to manage its residents’ expectations of how long repair work is likely to take.