Catalyst Housing Limited (202009351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009351

Catalyst Housing Limited

28 June 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s report of a water leak in the property.
2. handling of the associated complaint.
3. response to the resident’s concerns about rubbish left outside his property.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding rubbish left outside the resident’s property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. This is because this complaint has not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman can only consider complaints which the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to itself in the first instance.
Should the resident wish for the above mentioned matters to be investigated as well then a new complaint needs to be logged with the landlord and if its response proves unsatisfactory this may be brought to the attention of this Service after the landlord’s Complaints Process is exhausted.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.
Both the resident and his representative contacted/liaised with the landlord and this Service, in respect of this complaint. For clarity purposes, this report will refer to both the resident and his representative as “the resident”.
The resident has both physical and mental health conditions, of which the landlord is aware.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 May 2020 to lodge a formal complaint about the following issues:
1. The landlord’s handling of his report of a water leak, coming from the flat upstairs, that occurred on 10 May 2020.
2. The level of service offered, and protocols set in place by the landlord, when dealing with “vulnerable tenants” which he said impacted his health negatively. This was supported by a letter, issued on 27 May 2020, by the resident’s medical consultant.
In respect of the leak that occurred on 10 May 2020, the resident said the following:
1. On the above date he “noticed water coming through [the] ceiling in [the] bathroom and kitchen” and then “heard water running…and discovered a constant stream pouring through the ceiling in [the] storage cupboard between [the] kitchen and bathroom”.
2. The resident then attempted to contact his upstairs neighbour, as the leak appeared to originate from the flat above; however, he could not make contact with them.
3. In consequence, the resident contacted the landlord at 11:30pm for an emergency plumber; however, it “refused to send out a plumber” and advised him to try and make contact with his upstairs neighbour.
4. The resident said that he tried to contain the leak and prevent further damage by placing and emptying water buckets throughout the night.
5. He then proceeded to contact the landlord again the next day and a plumber attended the property at approximately 2:00pm, which the resident advised was 13 hours from his initial report and carried out the necessary remedial works, which stopped the leak.
The landlord sent acknowledgement emails to the resident on 15, 18, and 19 May 2020 with regards to the complaint.
The resident pursued the landlord via email on 6 July 2020, as he was yet to receive a response to his complaint, and then via letter on 15 July and 18 August 2020.
The landlord and resident corresponded via email on multiple occasions between 9 September and 12 October 2020 about the following:
1. To schedule an inspection of the resident’s property, to determine whether there were any repair issues that stemmed from the leak.
2. While the exact date of this inspection was not confirmed, the landlord stated that it closed his complaint because it could not gain access to the property to arrange an inspection. Additionally, the landlord noted that it was agreed during a telephone call that the resident would inform it when he could provide access to the property for it to carry out the inspection.
3. Confirmation that the resident’s complaint concerned two key points, which were the landlord’s response time to the resident’s report of a leak and the landlord’s “lack of disability awareness and training”.
4. The landlord queried what would be the resident’s desired outcome to the complaint raised.
On 16 October 2020, the landlord issued its complaint response, comprised of the following:
1. Confirmation that its staff received Safeguarding and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training on a regular basis.
2. An acknowledgement that the resident’s report of the leak, and the associated complaint, were not handled in an acceptable manner.
3. Asking the resident to confirm what his desired outcome would be.
The resident replied to the above on 2 November 2020, asking the following:
1. For the landlord to provide further training to its staff regarding soft skills and how to deal with vulnerable residents.
2. For the landlord to employ more “resident liaison officers” and “to promise…to change” the way it treats residents.
3. The landlord to pay him compensation of £1500.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 18 March 2021, following an information request from this Service, and apologised for the delays caused to the resident. Additionally, the landlord advised that it investigated the case and found that both the “incident itself” and the associated complaint were handled improperly and offered compensation of £500 in view of this.
On 24 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to deny its offer of compensation and raise further concerns, regarding rubbish found on the premises of the property. The landlord then replied on 26 March 2021 and advised it could not offer more compensation.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible “to keep in repair and working order any installations provided”, including “basins, sinks, baths, showers, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes”.

The responsive repairs policy

As per the landlord’s policy, “responsive repairs are those which cannot be planned or included within a repair programme” such as “minor or routine repairs or those relating to emergencies”.
In its responsive repairs policy, the landlord categorises appointments and response times based on the nature of the works required. The responsive repairs policy, provided by the landlord to this Service, states that the landlord would attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.

The landlord’s complaints policy

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it “aim[s] to resolve all complaints within ten working days” at both stages of its process.

The landlord’s response time to the resident’s report of a leak

The resident has stated that he considers that the issue regarding his property has exacerbated his medical conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reported leak and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This is a legal process and it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to give legal advice, therefore we cannot comment on this point further.
The resident contacted the landlord to report the leak on 10 May 2020, at 11:30pm. The landlord’s advice to the resident, to make contact with his upstairs neighbour was reasonable in the circumstances as the neighbour may have been able to resolve the leak quickly. However, the landlord should have arranged for a plumber to attend the property once it was aware that the resident could not contact the neighbour. The landlord’s failure to arrange this at the time was both unreasonable and not compliant with the terms of its tenancy agreement. As per the tenancy agreement, the repair was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. In respect of the above, it is noted that the resident advised that the landlord refused to book an appointment, which was not confirmed by the landlord’s records. However it is clear that the landlord did not arrange the appointment as the resident had to contact it again to do so the following day.
This led to a plumber attending the property and completing the remedial works, which stopped the leak, on that day at approximately 2:00pm. In respect of this, it is noted that the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, states that the landlord is to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours; meaning that in this instance the landlord adhered to the response timeframes dictated by its responsive repairs policy. However, the resident mentioned the landlord should have attended the property within four hours, which the landlord acknowledged and agreed to despite the response times stated in its responsive repairs policy.
Following the complaint raised by the resident, the landlord offered to arrange an inspection of the property, to check if any associated repairs were needed but could not do so due to a lack of access to the property. In line with the terms of the tenancy agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility to provide access the landlord and/or its contractors with access to the property, provided reasonable notice is given, except in the case of an emergency where it may not be possible to give notice.
The landlord offered compensation of £500 for the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the leak and associated complaint, which was reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on our website which sets out our service’s general approach to compensation. An award of £500 would be considered appropriate in cases where significant service failure or maladministration is identified, but with no permanent impact on the resident. In this instance, this amount was reasonable because the landlord also offered to carry out any associated repairs, if the resident allowed it to inspect the property and identify whether any works were required.
Additionally, it is acknowledged that the resident advised of the impact this situation had on his health; however, as detailed above, this would not be something that this Service could make a determination on.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident and that the amount of £500 does not match his request for £1500. However, this Service would like to emphasise that the amount of £500 is solely for the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s response time to the reported leak and its handling of the associated complaint. As explained above, the other issues the resident has raised in relation to his property have not been considered as part of the current investigation but may be investigated separately if the resident wishes to raise these issues as a further complaint to the landlord.
To conclude, it is clear that the landlord could have handled the resident’s report of a leak in a more timely and efficient manner; however, it offered sufficient redress by offering to inspect the property for associated repairs and offering appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident wrote to the landlord and asked for a formal complaint to be logged on 14 May 2020, which the landlord acknowledged in writing on 15, 18 and 19 May 2020. As detailed at paragraph 19, the landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to resolve complaints within ten working days; however, in this instance the landlord did not issue a formal response, to the resident’s complaint, until 16 October 2020. Taking into account the response timeframes set in the landlord’s complaints policy, along with the fact that it took over five months to issue a formal response, and the resident’s multiple contacts to it during that period, it is clear that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
However, it is noted that the landlord subsequently addressed all the points raised by the resident in his initial complaint and offered the amount of £500, to compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of the leak and the associated complaint Taking into account the delays in resolving the leak and errors in complaint handling, as detailed above, this was a reasonable offer and in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily, in respect of both its handling of the reported leak and associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its delay, offered to inspect the property to identify if any associated repairs were needed, and offered sufficient compensation to resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not deal with the resident’s complaint as it should have and offered reasonable compensation in view of this.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the compensation of £500 to the resident if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.