Catalyst Housing Limited (202002366)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202002366
Catalyst Housing Limited
23 February 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
1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
a) The resident’s reports of repairs required to his toilet.
b) The resident’s subsequent complaint.
Background and summary of events
2. On 11 March 2019 the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s toilet. The note for the repair states: “backing up, tenant has to plunge toilet to clear waste away. has been ongoing since original call out last year.” There were reports of drainage issues with the toilet in 2017, but this Service has not had sight of reports of any drainage issues in 2018. The landlord has also said that there were no reports during this time.
3. On 2 April 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property. They found that the toilet was backed up and plunged it “to clear”. They tested the drainage by flushing with toilet paper and tested the “stack” by running the bath. Everything was “clear” and the contractors confirmed their recommendations would follow.
4. On 4 April 2019 the landlord raised a repair to remove the resident’s existing toilet, “manually clear the cast iron ‘float’ line”, and install a new toilet.
5. In June 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended to replace the resident’s toilet. However, the resident understood at that time that his whole bathroom was to be refurbished or replaced. Because of that, he told the contractors not to proceed, and to allow the refurbishment to replace the toilet.
6. The resident has explained that, after waiting several months for the bathroom refurbishment, he discovered from the landlord that he had been misinformed, and the refurbishment was not scheduled for several more years.
7. There is no evidence of further correspondence from either the resident or landlord on the matter until 24 March 2020, when the resident complained to the landlord. He explained that he had health issues, and the ongoing problems with the toilet was having a negative impact on him. The resident has explained to this Service that the toilet problems were still happening between the time he discovered the refurbishment would not be done and when he complained. However, he had not specifically reported them to the landlord due to the increasing stressfulness of the issue, and the impact the overall situation and circumstances was having on his mental and physical wellbeing. When he raised the matter again in March 2020 it was largely due to having to stay at home during the initial COVID-19 period, and experiencing the consequences of the toilet problem without being able to get away from it.
8. The resident reported that there were ongoing smells from the toilet, he had had to pay for pest control for flies, and he was constantly buying cleaning materials because of the issues with the toilet backing up. He asked for compensation for the money he spent for pest control to attend, on cleaning products, and for some of the rent he had paid. He said he believed this would be fair because of the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused.
9. On 24 March 2020 the landlord raised a repair to investigate the problems reported with the toilet.
10. The landlord sent its stage one response on 9 April 2020. It explained that the landlord had previously attended to address problems with the toilet, and that it had been replaced in 2019. It acknowledged the reports of ongoing problems in the resident’s recent complaint. It said it had attended on the same day, undertaken a camera survey of the toilet pipes, and identified a problem with “encrustation around the top of the old soil pipe”. Its operative had “reattached a new collar’’ and managed to clear the toilet. It advised that the coronavirus restrictions limited the further work it could carry out and, once the restrictions were lifted, it would contact the resident to complete the repairs.
11. On 1 May 2020 the landlord raised a repair to replace the toilet.
12. On 14 May 2020, the landlord received a letter from the resident asking to escalate his complaint. He said that the toilet was not replaced in 2019, the issue had been ongoing for three years, and he had had four visits about it. He gave details about the specific problems he was experiencing, and their consequences, e.g. the smell could sometimes become unbearable. He said that the first two visits had not resolved the matter, and that that the third visit was from a manager who promised him that a new bathroom would be fitted (which later turned out to be incorrect). He acknowledged that the cause of the problem was identified in March 2020, and that repairs had been organised to be completed after lockdown.
13. The resident said that he had read the landlord’s compensation policy and believed he should reimbursed 25% of his rent for the period (which he said was two years and four months) that the blockage was not resolved, as he was unable to use his bathroom properly.
14. On 20 May 2020, the landlord sent the resident its stage two response. It confirmed that a request was made for a new toilet to be installed in 2019. It acknowledged that the replacement had not happened, and that the explanation in its first complaint response was incorrect. It said that an inspection was carried out in June 2019, and it was decided that the bathroom would not be replaced until 2027, but the toilet would be replaced in the meantime (the landlord did not state when this would be completed). It offered the resident £75.00 compensation for the delayed repair and the inconvenience caused to the resident. Finally, the landlord reiterated that, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the additional work could not be scheduled for completion straight away and the resident would have to wait until restrictions were lifted. It invited the resident to make contact again if he had any further questions.
15. On 28 May 2020, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He said that he had been living in a property that “constantly smells” of sewage, and that he had been “inconvenienced for over 30 months”. He was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and that the issues with his toilet were ongoing. The resident requested 25% of his rent, which he believed was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. There was no response from the landlord.
16. Following contact from this Service the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2020. It said that:
a) The resident changed appointments raised 11 March 2019 several times and its operatives gained entry on 7 April 2019. They recommended repairs to the cast iron stack and replacement of the toilet.
b) After ordering the parts needed, the landlord attended on 5 June 2019, but the resident told its contractors that he believed he was getting a new bathroom, so the work was not carried out. The contractors reported that the toilet was running clear at that time. The landlord then liaised with its planned works department, who explained that the bathroom was not due for replacement until 2027. Its file notes of 2 July 2019 stated that works were on hold for the new toilet as the resident still thought he was getting a new bathroom.
c) No further issues were reported until 24 March 2020, when the toilet was blocked again. The landlord attended on 26 March 2020 and identified the cause of the problem, using cameras. Works could not be raised immediately, due to restrictions then being put into place due to the coronavirus.
d) A repair was raised after lockdown on 1 May 2020 to replace the stack and toilet pan. This was carried out on 1 July 2020 when the landlord’s contractor resumed operations.
17. The landlord explained that the new toilet would have been replaced in June 2019, but the resident said he was having a new bathroom so works were stopped, and then restrictions due to the coronavirus were put in place. The landlord reiterated its offer of £75 which was “because in [its] response of 9 April 2020 [it] made a typing error saying that a new toilet was installed in 2019 when it was actually installed when the property was void in 2017.” It apologised for the delays in resolving matters and confirmed that the resident could approach this Service if he remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint.
Assessment and findings
Repairs
18. The landlord is obligated, in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement, to maintain and repair installations for gas, electricity and water; services and fixtures and fittings. Any repairs required should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
19. In his correspondence with the landlord and in his complaints the resident referred to the following repairs:
a) One in late 2017.
b) A “second” appointment.
c) A “third appointment” in which he says he was told that his bathroom, including his toilet, would be replaced.
20. The resident has not provided specific dates for what he refers to as the second’ and third appointments. However, the landlord’s repair records show a repair raised in March 2019 (the second appointment), and an appointment in April 2019, after which a job to replace the toilet was raised (the third appointment).
21. The landlord has said that it attempted to replace the resident’s toilet in June 2019, but did not proceed as the resident believed his whole bathroom was due to be replaced. The landlord then found that the bathroom was not due to be replaced for several years.
22. The resident has told this Service that some months after the third appointment he asked for an update on the new bathroom, and was told it would not be replaced for several years. The resident has said that his toilet got worse, but there is no evidence in the landlord’s records after June 2019, or elsewhere, showing that he reported this to the landlord until his complaint in March 2020. Nor is there evidence that he followed up with the landlord the matter of the toilet replacement, once he knew the bathroom refurbishment would not be happening. The reasons the resident has given for not following the issue up with the landlord are wholly understandable in the circumstances. However the lack of reports undoubtedly added to the time the resident had to wait to resolve the problem.
23. The landlord was aware that the resident had been experiencing recurring issues with the toilet and that it needed replacing. After it established (which appears to have been mid-2019) that the resident’s bathroom would not be getting renewed, it should have proceeded to arrange to renew the toilet, as it had originally intended. As matters stand, the evidence shows that the landlord was aware that the toilet had not been replaced because the resident incorrectly believed the whole bathroom would be refurbished or replaced. There is no evidence showing that the landlord took steps to correct the resident’s misunderstanding and proceed with the necessary repairs/replacement for the toilet. The landlord did not take any further action raised his complaint. If the resident had followed the matter up sooner it also might have been resolved faster, but that does not detract from the landlord’s overall service failure to act when it became aware of the situation with the bathroom replacement plans.
Complaint handling
24. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, dated 4 August 2020, it offered the resident £75 for ‘delays’ and later said this was for the error in its stage one complaint, in which it said the toilet was replaced in 2019. Its response did not acknowledge that it should have acted sooner (after it realised the bathroom refurbishment would not happen), and that it only acted when the resident complained. Those omissions mean that the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the level of service failure and impact on the resident.
25. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, complaints will usually be investigated by the manager responsible for the service that is being complained about. Appeals will usually be considered by a member of the leadership team or executive team who has not been involved in the complaint.
26. All three of the landlord’s complaint responses, were issued by the same customer relations officer. There is no indication of the involvement of or escalation to a repairs manager, or a member of the leadership team, as the landlord’s complaints policy calls for. This is not only service failure to follow the complaints policy, but should also not happen because it removes oversight and escalation from the complaints process. Had the complaints policy been followed, the service failures identified in this investigation may have been identified and resolved locally by the landlord, without the need for this Service’s involvement.
27. Moreover, the landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will respond to appeals within 20 working days. There was a significant delay between the resident escalating his complaint at the end of May, and the landlord’s final response in August, after this Service’s intervention.
28. Finally, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for a rent refund and reimbursement of the pest costs. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it may make discretionary compensation payments to residents when they have been unable to use a room or rooms in their house for a period of more than 48 hours due to planned or major works, or outstanding repairs that make a room uninhabitable. Generally, a rent refund would only be applicable if an entire room is uninhabitable and would not apply in this case. However, the landlord still should have responded to the resident’s request, even if it could not fulfill it.
Determination (decision)
29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to his toilet.
30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Reasons
31. The landlord failed to replace the resident’s toilet in 2019, despite it already identifying that this was required and that the resident’s whole bathroom would not be replaced. Following the resident’s further reports, the landlord identified and resolved the issue, but it failed to provide redress for its service failure in 2019 during its complaints process.
32. There were multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It failed to: respond within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, arrange for a different person to respond at the appeal stage, and respond to the resident’s request for a refund of rent and pest costs.
Orders
33. In light of the findings of the investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident
a) £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure in its handling of the repairs required to the toilet.
b) £250 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident in progressing the complaint.
34. These payments are in addition to the £75 offered by the landlord during the complaint process, which should also be paid now if it has not already been.
35. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.