The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Catalyst Housing Limited (202006521)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006521

Catalyst Housing Limited

28 May 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 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:
    1. Level of increase in the resident’s service charges.
    2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about missed garden maintenance appointments.
    3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s query about fire equipment service charges.

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.

Level of increase in the resident’s service charges

  1. The resident’s complaint concerns the information she was provided about the service charges, and the landlord’s response to the queries she raised about them. In parts of her complaint the resident sought a refund of some of her service charges, and queried charge increases. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges, or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. This is in line with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, which states the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Because of that, this investigation centers on the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries, rather than the appropriateness of the charges.
  2. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her home is in a block, which contains other similar properties. As part of her rent, the resident pays a service charge towards the maintenance of the communal grounds and other communal services.
  2. The resident has informed this Service on 30 September 2020 that, following an increase in her service charges, she contacted the landlord to enquire about missed gardening service appointments, and the charges she paid for fire safety, specifically fire alarms.
  3. Between 9 and 10 April 2020 the landlord informed the resident by email that it completed gardening for her block for one hour every fortnight. It said that there were no missed scheduled services in the past year, but the gardening may have been completed on alternative days due to training or meetings. It was investigating the resident’s query regarding the fire safety charges.
  4. The resident disputed the information provided, and said that gardeners had not attended every fortnight, or on alternative dates. She said she had raised this issue previously, and that an employee of the landlord’s had advised her to report any missed visits directly to him.
  5. On 16 April 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had missed four appointments for gardening in the past year, but it could not confirm if these were then completed on alternative days. It offered to refund all residents of the block for the charges for four visits, calculated at £27.93 per home. It asked the resident if she accepted this solution, and if she felt that one hour of gardening per fortnight was adequate to maintain the garden.
  6. The resident replied on 1 June 2020. She said that the gardening service was inconsistent throughout 2019, with grounds maintenance only carried out once between October and December 2019, once in January 2020, and no grounds maintenance carried out in February 2020. She also pursued a response regarding her enquiry about the fire alarm charges.
  7. Between 16 and 22 July 2020 the resident and landlord corresponded by email. The landlord confirmed that it was making enquiries about the fire safety service charges. It also explained that, even though the grass was not cut during the winter, it carried out litter picking and leaf sweeping when necessary. The landlord queried whether it was possible that these tasks went unnoticed by the resident, as they were silent compared to grass cutting. It also increased its compensation offer to £48 but maintained that it only missed four gardening appointments. The resident disputed this and said that the grounds had been “covered in leaves and litter” on occasions, and so the landlord advised the resident how she could raise a formal complaint.
  8. The resident reiterated her complaint on one of the landlord’s complaints forms on 27 July 2020.
  9. The landlord’s internal emails, dated 29 July 2020, refer to its officers checking its records and confirming that from January 2020 there were no missed ground maintenance visits.
  10. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 7 August 2020. It reiterated that its gardeners normally made up for missed visits later in the week but, on the instances mentioned, it was unable to confirm when an appointment was rearranged. It said that the gardener’s records showed that all other appointments took place either on their intended days or later, if they were missed. It reiterated its offer to reimburse the resident £48.
  11. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 August 2020. On 12 August 2020 she said that this was because she was not receiving the gardening service that she was charged for and asked what dates the landlord was reimbursing her for. Further, she said that she was being charged for a fire/smoke alarm, but the smoke alarm in her property was connected to her electricity supply.
  12. The landlord sent its final response to the resident’s complaint on 15 September 2020. It apologised that the resident had not felt the impact of the work carried out during maintenance service appointments, which it explained were usually carried out every second Thursday. The landlord reiterated that it had checked its records, which showed that all appointments were attended, but not necessarily on the original intended dates, and this included the dates it offered compensation for. It confirmed these dates were: 5 and 12 September and 5 March 2020, when gardeners attended meetings; and 31 November 2019, when the gardeners attended an all-day project elsewhere. It reiterated its offer to compensate the resident for these four appointments, plus another two as a gesture of good will, totalling £48.
  13. The landlord explained that the fire alarm charges were for fire safety and maintenance of fire equipment in the communal areas of the block, including emergency lighting and alarms. It said that at least four fire safety/emergency lighting tests were carried out every year for the block.
  14. Finally, the landlord informed the resident of how she could escalate her complaint to this Service, if she remained unhappy with its final response.
  15. The landlord informed this Service on 19 February 2021 that its “records for grounds maintenance don’t go back further than January 2020.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about missed garden maintenance appointments.

  1. The landlord’s website explains that it will make sure all properties with grounds maintenance, or a cleaning service, are maintained to a good standard.
  2. Where a resident has raised concerns regarding the service provided, good practice is for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations, investigate, address the resident’s concerns, and provide accurate information. Where a resident has raised questions regarding service charges, the landlord should provide the required information.
  3. The resident has complained that the ground maintenance service was inconsistent throughout 2019 and earlier, however, there is no evidence of raising a formal complaint until April 2020. Due to the time that had passed, and the subsequent availability of the landlord’s records, this assessment focuses on the grounds maintenance in the months leading up to the resident raising her concerns in April 2020.
  4. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided the resident with information on when she could expect the gardeners to attend, and what would usually happen if they missed an appointment. The resident acknowledged that she had been advised of who to contact if scheduled ground maintenance was not carried out. Therefore, the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s queries.
  5. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about missed ground maintenance by checking its records and liaising with the staff involved. It explained to the resident that it identified four occasions in the year prior where the ground maintenance was not carried out on the allocated days, and therefore offered to compensate all residents for these visits, plus an extra two for the resident as a goodwill gesture, despite it not identifying any further missed visits.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord sought input from the resident about the garden service, and whether the time allowed was sufficient. Therefore, the landlord’s actions taken to address the resident’s concerns were reasonable given the circumstances and showed that the landlord was open to the possibility of amending the service if necessary.
  7. However, while the landlord has provided for this investigation emails referring to its officers checking its grounds maintenance records, it has not provided the records themselves (of the ones it has available in 2020). Given that the resident’s concerns centred on whether the visits were occurring as scheduled, it was important for the landlord to support the explanations it gave to her with the relevant evidence. In a complaint such as this, the relevant records should be easily available. The omission indicates potential shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping, and was a service failure.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s query about fire equipment service charges.

  1. The resident queried the service charges she was paying for fire alarm equipment. In response, the landlord explained that the charge is for communal fire safety equipment, which all residents contribute towards the maintenance of. This was a reasonable response, as it clarified how the charges were used, and how they related to the resident’s own home. As explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this report, if the resident wishes to dispute these charges, the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) considers complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about missed garden maintenance appointments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding fire equipment service charges.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the resident’s complaint regarding missed garden maintenance appointments. It has also provided the resident with information to answer her queries regarding fire equipment service charges. However, the landlord failed to provide the relevant evidence supporting its investigation and explanations.

Orders

  1. In light of the service failure found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and frustration this matter will likely have caused.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to provide to the resident the relevant grounds maintenance records (anonymised if necessary) confirming its attendance at the scheduled or replacement visits in 2020, up until the date of its final complaint response in September 2020.
  3. Both of these orders must be complied with within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must update this Service when the actions are complete.