Catalyst Housing Limited (202001591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001591

Catalyst Housing Limited

22 December 2020

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

The tenant has complained that:
1. The landlord has not resolved the reported damp and mould problem in the property (particularly the bedroom, living room and kitchen)
2. The landlord has not installed the correct adaptation (a ramp to the front door) for the tenant’s disabilities
3. The landlord took too long to respond to reports of a mice infestation that had damaged white goods
4. The landlord took too long to complete bathroom repairs (to the tiling and shower)
5. The tenant’s daughter fell through the bedroom floor due to the condition of the property
6. The landlord has not resolved a fault where the hot water stops when an outdoor pipe freezes during cold weather
7. The landlord has not resolved the tenant’s reports of temperature issues throughout the house
8. The landlord has refused to carry out gardening works despite offering to do so when the property was offered to the tenant

Assessment

Damp and mould

The tenant has reported an ongoing damp problem in the property. They reported the overwhelming smell of damp, particularly in the living room which they avoided using as a result. They reported the damp was not visible and so believed it was a structural issue for the landlord to resolve.
They also reported black mould in the bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom that was not resolved by wiping.
The landlord’s responses to the complaint explained:
1. (Final – May 2020) That a mould wash and stain block had been completed in October 2019 throughout the house. And that a further mould wash was completed in the bathroom in January 2020. It also noted that keeping the property clean (including cleaning mould) and ventilated was the tenant’s responsibility as the damp and mould ‘might be the result of the property not being aired and/or having too many belongings.’
2. (Stage 1 – December 2019) There is not an explicit stage 1 response. However the December 2019 email from the Executive Complaint team responded to various issues, and included an offer of a further mould inspection in January 2020. This resulted in the bathroom mould wash noted in the final response. It also noted a repair had been booked for the kitchen extractor.
The landlord’s repair records show visits int 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 relating to damp and mould. The entries refer to inspecting and washing/stain blocking mould.
There is no reference in any of the landlord’s repair records or formal complaint responses to a surveyor or damp specialist survey. The final response makes the suggestion that the damp and mould ‘might’ be the result of ventilation and belongings (ie condensation as opposed to penetrating damp or a leak). However the repair records and formal responses do not provide any evidence that this suggestion has been drawn from.
The landlord has responded to the tenant’s reports of damp and mould. However this response has been limited (focusing on the mould and washing), and has lacked the evidenced based approach that is expected of a fair service.
The landlord should have appropriate, expert conclusions that explicitly state that the issue is the result of condensation if it is going to refer to the tenant’s need to ventilate and reduce belongings. Given the length of time over which the tenant has reported the issue, and the landlord has responded with washes and/or stain blocks, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would complete a more in depth assessment of any possible cause. This would allow it to then either arrange any required repairs, or to provide a more robust response about the tenant’s obligations to the tenant.
There is an email from the local council’s Regulatory Services to the tenant in November 2018. This email explains the landlord cannot order the landlord to complete works for damp as no damp was found in the living room walls. However the inspector also agreed that the property smelt of damp and mould.
Therefore there is a lack of evidence to support either parties’ position. Given the length of time, and given the lack of a survey that explicitly states the issue is caused by condensation and lifestyle, the landlord’s response’s have been inadequate. However there is also insufficient evidence to say that the landlord is required to complete damp works, given the council’s conclusions.
Given the length of time the issue has persisted, and the severity of mould noted by contractors, the landlord does have an obligation in the interest of effective dispute resolution to produce and evidenced explanation for the mould, therefore the lack of this is a failure in the repairs service.
More recent correspondence from September 2020 discusses more recent visits by the landlord’s staff and contractors with more information about the amount of belongings in the property. Therefore the landlord may have investigated further, since the final response to the complaint. However this type of information was required at the time of the final response.

Adaptation (ramp)

The tenant has complained that the landlord has not installed a ramp to the front door. As a result the two steps currently in place cause them pain due to their disability.
The ramp was not included in the tenant’s November 2019 or May 2020 complaints. The issue has been raised after the 29 May 2020 final response.
Therefore this issue is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Our role is to assess how a landlord has responded to a complaint about its service, and we can only do so when the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint itself first. This is as set out in paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme.
When responding to the Housing Ombudsman Service’s request for information, the landlord ha stated it has not received a request for a ramp. It has explained if it receives the required information from an Occupational Therapist recommending a ramp it will then assess the request through its normal process.

Mice

The tenant has stated that the actual mice issue has been resolved. The focus of their complaint (as explained in May 2020) was on the damage to the tumble dryer and dishwasher. They have requested that the landlord arrange either a repair or replacement of these white goods, as they believe they were damaged by the mice.
There is no evidence on file from either party from an expert stating why the appliances have been damaged. The tenant has stated in their complaint that it is their ‘belief’ the wires were damaged by the mice. However no supporting evidence for this belief has been provided.
The landlord has explained that as there is no supporting evidence it cannot pay for either a repair or replacement. It also explained that even if there were damage, tenants are advised to arrange their own contents insurance to protect against any damage.
This was a reasonable response by the landlord. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles ask that landlords provide a fair service. This includes taking an evidence based approach. As there is no specific or expert evidence that the appliances were damaged by the mice, it would be inappropriate for the landlord to pay for the repair or replacement.
Furthermore the landlord was correct to highlight the advice that all tenants are expected to arrange their own contents insurance. Landlords are not responsible for all costs incurred by tenants in their home. Repairs or other issues (such as pests) might result in damage to a tenants belongings. However so long as the landlord responds as required by the occupancy agreement and relevant policies and procedures, then it will not be expected to automatically pay for any resulting damages.

Bathroom

The tenant complained in May 2020 about the time taken to install adaptations to their bathroom – an electric shower with slide bar, as well as replacing the extractor fan. They accepted the situation due to Covid had likely contributed to the delay, but complained they had not received any updates.
The contractor’s visit to inspect mould in September 2019 had noted that as well as the mould, the bathroom likely required further repairs or renewing.
The repair logs show the work for new tiling and shower were first raised in December 2019 and completed in September 2020.
The landlord’s May 2019 final response simply stated that an inspection had taken place, but that only emergency works were taking place due to the covid restrictions. It reassured the tenant the job was on the landlord’s system and so it would contact them when it was able to attend.
This final response failed to explained why the work had not been completed in December 2019-March 2020, ie the period after the job appears on the repair log and before the Covid 19 restrictions. Furthermore it failed to address the complaint about why the tenant had not received any updates.
There may have been appropriate reasons for the time period, or for the lack of updates, however for any effective dispute resolution the landlord just respond to the issues raised. Therefore there was a failure in the landlord’s response to this issue.
The works were then booked and completed after the restrictions relating to Covid were changed. The tenant has reported that there were some issues with the tiling (September 2020). However these issues have occurred after the final response for this case. Therefore they would first need to be addressed by the repair service, and if the tenant is not happy with that response they would need to make a new formal complaint.

Holes in the bedroom floor

This issue was not raised in the formal complaints that have led to this case.
Most significantly, in June 2020 the tenant reported their daughter fell through the bedroom floor and had to attend hospital.
The final response to this complaint was in May 2020. Therefore the complaint about the fall through the bedroom floor, including whether the floor had been appropriately repaired previously, has not been investigated by the landlord. As above with the ramp, this issue is therefore outside the jurisdiction of this case under paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme.
If the tenant remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the incident (whether in terms of the repairs before or after the fall, or the landlord’s response to the impact on them and their daughter) then they would need to raise this as a formal complaint with the landlord for it to try and resolve directly.

Hot water

The tenant complained in November 2019 that the hot water ran partly through an outside pipe. As a result when the pipe froze in cold weather they had no hot water.
The landlord arranged for a repair on 16 December 2019. The issue was not then re-raised in the tenant’s escalated complaint in May 2020. As such it was not investigated as part of the final response.
The landlord apologised that the December 2019 response was not as quick as promised. The repair issue itself was a general report (ie that the hot water could stop working due to cold weather) as opposed to a report where the hot water had actually stopped. Therefore while there was a delay, the landlord’s apology, together with the actual repair and the fact that the hot water had not been reported as not working, was a reasonable response. Furthermore as the matter was not re-raised in the escalated response it was reasonable for the landlord to not address it any further and to consider the matter resolved.
If the repair issue has returned since the May 2020 final response the tenant would first need to raise this through the landlord’s repair service. If they are dissatisfied with its response it would then need to be addressed through a new formal complaint so that the landlord ha the opportunity to investigate further.

Temperature in the house

The tenant has reported that regardless of their use of windows or heating, the downstairs of the property is consistently too cold, and the upstairs consistently too warm.
The landlord has explained this was first raised in the May 2020 escalated complaint. As such there were no repair responses or similar to investigate. The final response in May 2020 openly explained how the landlord was not sure hot to respond given the general nature of the problem. It did however advise the tenant to try the radiators and report any that did not work to its repair service.
The repair log includes a job from September 2019, completed in December 2019, to check all the radiators as the tenant had reported them not working. At this time there was correspondence about damp and mould, but no specific correspondence about the temperature in the property.
Therefore by the time of the final response there had not be an ongoing issue for the landlord to investigate its response.
The temperature difference reported by the tenant is significant. Landlords are required to respond to appropriate repair requests. An issue with the floor, windows, heating or structure would come within the landlord’s repairing obligations. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the issue reported by the tenant. The advice offered in the final response was relevant, but concerns about repair issues should be investigated by the landlord in accordance with its repair procedure. Furthermore, not only would an investigation help address the substantive issue, it would also help limit the chance for an ongoing complaint by providing specific, expert evidence on which the landlord could base its decision to complete (or not complete) any works.

Gardening

The tenant has complained that the landlord offered to help with the gardening at the property when it offered the property to them. They have explained they are unable to maintain the garden due to her and her daughter’s disabilities.
During the formal complaint procedure the landlord has consistently explained that garden maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant. It has highlighted clause 17 of the tenant agreement in the formal responses. This corresponds with the signed copy of the signed tenancy agreement provided for the case file.

“17. To maintain the garden, if any, in tidy condition and free from rubbish”

Neither party has provided any evidence, such as emails, from the time the tenancy agreement was signed to show that an agreement was in place for the landlord to carry out gardening.
The landlord has explained that the garden maintenance in October 2019 was a goodwill gesture.
The landlord has highlighted the correct parts of the tenancy agreement that the tenant agreed to sign when accepting the property. If for any reason the property is unsuitable the tenant would need to apply for a transfer on medical grounds, so that their requirements and priority can be properly assessed and prioritised alongside other applicants. Equally if there is a specific issue with the property the local Occupation Therapist service may be able to recommend works that are required for the tenant’s health.
However there is no obligation for the landlord to offer services beyond those it would provide morally under the signed tenancy agreement.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:
1. The complaint about the adaptation (ramp) is outside the jurisdiction of this case
2. The complaint about the condition of the bedroom floor (and the daughter’s resulting fall) is outside the jurisdiction of this case
I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould
2. There was no maladministration in the response to the claim for the cost of damaged appliances following a reported mice infestation
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’ response to the reports about the exterior hot water pipe
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the bathroom works
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports about the temperature differences in the property
6. There was no maladministration in response to the complaint about the request for gardening

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above I have ordered that within 4 weeks the landlord must:
1. Pay £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the tenant having to repeatedly chase the landlord about damp and mould, while the landlord failed to arrange a definitive assessment of the cause
2. Pay £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the lack of updates about the bathroom adaptations
3. Pay £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to arrange a repair inspection following the reports of significant temperature differences
I would also like to recommend that the landlord consider:
1. Contacting the tenant to check whether the hot water pipe reported as repaired in December 2019 has caused any issues to the supply since that date
2. Contacting the resident to check whether they believe there to be any outstanding remedial works following the bathroom works
3. Contacting the resident to check whether the temperature difference continues in the property
4. Investigating the reported fall through the bedroom floor, both from the point of view of ensuring the property is safe and correctly repaired; and also from the point of view of assessing any previous repairs and the impact the incident has had on the family