Catalyst Housing Limited (202010750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010750

Catalyst Housing Limited

22 November 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a gas safety check.
2. Missed appointment for a broken water tank pipe.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns that the property was excluded from insulation works.
4. Handling of the resident’s request for compensation of hotel costs from 2010.
5. Complaint handling.

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. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation of hotel costs from 2010. Paragraph 42 says:

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time-frame.

The evidence shows that the landlord issued a stage one response in relation to this issue on 26 February 2010 and some compensation was offered. However, the complaint was not escalated to stage two at that time. As the landlord’s formal complaint procedure was not completed, the Ombudsman will not consider this issue. This report has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the other issues, outlined above.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 1998. The property is a two-bedroomed terrace house.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair and proper working order, among other things, any installations it provided for sanitation, space and water heating and the supply of water. The resident is obliged to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs and inspections.
The landlord’s website explains that it is a legal requirement for a gas safety check to be carried out once a year on the gas appliances provided in a property, such as a boiler.
The landlord’s website explains that by law, it has to check the gas appliances in its rented homes each year to make sure they are safe; to help it to do that, residents must let the gas engineer in so they can carry out the check.
At the time of the events complained about the landlord had a two-stage complaints procedure. It said it aimed to resolve all complaints within ten working days. If it was unable to do so, it would progress the matter to stage one where it would give residents timescales of when they would receive a response. If the resident remained unhappy, the landlord could escalate the matter to stage two and it aimed to respond within ten working days. The procedure also says that the landlord will provide information to residents about how they can complain and their right to escalate their complaint to an appeal and or to the Housing Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may make discretionary payments to residents. This includes instances where a member of staff or contractor has failed to attend a pre-booked appointment without notification in advance and for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when a complaint has been made.

Summary of events

On 23 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it would carry out a gas safety check on 8 December 2020 between 8am and 1pm. A gas engineer did not attend the property on that day but attended a different property by mistake.
On 15 December 2020 a gas engineer attended the property. The gas safety check did not go ahead as the resident had not had notice of that appointment. On the same day, the landlord sent the resident a letter which explained that an annual gas safety check was a legal requirement and warned it would take legal action immediately to obtain an injunction if it could not gain access on 23 December 2020.
On 21 December 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the gas safety check. She said she had waited in all day on 8 December 2020 and the gas engineer did not attend. She said an engineer had come to the property on 15 December 2020, but she had not had notice of that appointment and he was not wearing a mask. She said she was not prepared to change her plans to accommodate an unscheduled visit and the gas engineer had left. The resident complained that the slip left on 15 December 2020 was misleading as the second visit had not been scheduled. She requested “a print out from the vehicle tracking data system of the vehicle” that attended the property on 8 December 2020 and a copy of the letter notifying her of the appointment on 15 December 2020.
The gas safety check was completed on 4 January 2021.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s request about the gas safety check at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. The gas engineer did not attend the property on 8 December 2020 as he had gone to the wrong address.
2. As there was no-one at this property, the gas engineer had left a card with a new appointment for 15 December 2020 at that address. The landlord apologised that the visit of 15 December 2020 – which the resident had been unaware of – was recorded as a further failed attempt.
3. It confirmed all its gas engineers carried PPE (personal protective equipment) on their vans and, had he gained entry, he would have returned to the van to put it on.
The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused; it added that the resident should contact it if she had any questions or wanted more information.
On 5 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord to provide the letters it had sent her arranging the gas safety appointments. She also asked, other than a face mask, what other equipment its letter of 7 January 2021 was referring to. She added that, when the gas engineer was at her door, he had all his equipment with him and he was not wearing a mask; she said it did not make sense for him to leave the mask in his vehicle.
On 8 March 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about a missed appointment to repair a broken pipe from the water tank; she said she had waited in all day on the date of the repair of 5 March 2021, but no-one had showed up. The resident also complained that the landlord had discriminated against her by not including her in insulation works that her neighbour had had done. She said she believed she was being discriminated against as she did not receive the same level of service as other residents.
In an undated letter (which the evidence suggests the resident received on 3 April 2021) the landlord responded to these complaints. It explained that it had found a computer error prevented a follow‑up appointment being booked for the water tank pipe repair. It said it had carried out an investigation of this error to ensure it did not happen again. In relation to the insulation works it said the resident should contact it about this.
On 5 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint about the missed appointment in relation to the broken water pipe; she added that the landlord had ignored her complaint about discrimination.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the missed gas safety appointments. She added it had ignored her letter of 5 March 2021.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint about the missed gas safety appointments. The main points were:
1. It apologised that it did not respond to the resident’s letter of 5 March 2021. It explained that this was due to a breakdown in its procedures. It said it would highlight this error in its complaints review and take steps to ensure that this did not happen again.
2. It had also provided the letters sent to her in relation to appointments for the gas safety check. It included two letters with this response dated 23 November and 15 December 2020.
3. It confirmed the gas engineer had attended the wrong address. It said it had seen the tracker which confirmed this but that it was unable to share that tracker information with the resident as it included details of other residents and it would therefore breach its confidential policy.
4. It explained the legal letter was a standard letter that was automatically generated and sent; however, it acknowledged that, as it had made the initial mistake, the letter should have been withdrawn. It apologised if the resident felt threatened by this letter and said it would do better next time.
5. It acknowledged the issue of PPE was a difficult one to determine as the gas engineer had confirmed he would have worn a mask once he was ready to go inside. It attached leaflets which gave details of the protection measures that all its gas engineers used.
6. The landlord apologised for the service it had provided and offered the resident the sum of £100 made up of £25 for the missed appointment of 8 December 2020 and a discretionary payment of £75.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint about discrimination in relation to the insulation programme and the broken water tank pipe. The main points were:
1. It partially upheld the complaint and agreed the resident did not receive an explanation as to why she did not receive a letter with regard to the insulation works.
2. It gave a reassurance that it did not discriminate against any internal or external customers. The landlord said it had investigated this and apologised if she felt discriminated against. Its investigation had found poor communication from the business area in relation to responding back to her insulation enquiries. It would write to her to confirm if the property was included in the free insulation programme.
3. It apologised that it had not given a detailed explanation in regards to what happened with the computer error relating to the water tank pipe repair. It gave an explanation (a job had been raised via its contact centre, but the job remained un-booked). It said it could not explain why that had happened and it had raised it with its IT team.
4. It asked her to contact the repairs team to rearrange the repair visit.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 3 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it was working with a named company to upgrade the insulation of its housing stock and by so doing improve the warmth and energy efficiency of home. It named the assessors involved and said that they would be in contact with the resident direct to carry out a cavity wall and/or loft insulation survey of the property on behalf of the landlord. It said it would be funding the works and tenants would not make any contribution to the cost of any installed insulation. It gave a telephone number if the resident wanted to book an appointment time with the company.
The repairs log evidences that on 22 June 2022 the resident reported the pipe attached to the tank in the loft has come off and broken access to the loft. It notes that the repair should be completed by 20 July 2022. The repairs log was shared with the Ombudsman later in June 2022 therefore it could not be confirmed that that repair had been completed.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she believed the landlord had not been truthful about the events that led to her complaints. She also said the landlord had failed to address and investigate the systematic discrimination she had raised in her formal complaint and failed to explain what the IT error was and how it is certain it will not happen again.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a gas safety check

In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that an error had been made whereby the gas engineer went to the wrong address. As a result, that wrong household was notified of a further visit, rather than the resident. The landlord also recognised that it should have withdrawn its letter to the resident warning of legal action as the events which had led to that letter were due to its own mistakes. The landlord did not give an explanation for why the gas engineer had gone to the wrong address, but this Service has not seen anything to suggest that it was anything other than a mistake by the gas engineer.
The landlord’s rationale for not providing the tracker details of the gas engineer’s vehicle to the resident was reasonable because, as the landlord explained, this would have meant disclosing details of other residents. This would have been a breach of confidentiality.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s concerns that the gas engineer was not wearing a mask when he arrived at the property on 15 December 2020 while acknowledging this was difficult to determine. It is not possible to ascertain with any certainty what would have happened if the resident had granted access to the gas operative on that day that is, would he have returned to his vehicle to get a mask as he says. The resident may remain dissatisfied with this response; however, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating this matter in a reasonable way by speaking to the gas engineer and responding to the issue raised.
The landlord acknowledged that its handling of the gas safety appointments in December 2020 was not appropriate. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It offered the resident compensation of £100 made up of £25 for a missed appointment and £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its errors. This Service considers that that amount was proportionate to the impact on the resident. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure. This includes cases where there have been errors in arranging gas safety appointments.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a broken water tank pipe

In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that a computer error prevented a follow-up appointment being booked and offered an explanation for that. There is no evidence of discrimination against the resident.
In this case, there was an impact on the resident – a missed appointment on 5 March 2020 and the time and trouble pursuing the matter with the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have picked up that its failings had had a negative impact on the resident. Financial redress is therefore appropriate here – £25 for the missed appointment and £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. An order has been made, below.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to re-book an appointment for the repair. While acknowledging this may have caused frustration to the resident as it was not her fault the original appointment did not take place, in this way it would ensure that an appointment was made without further delay for a convenient time and day.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the property was excluded from insulation works.

In its complaint handling, the landlord partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged that it had not initially given her an explanation as to why she had not received a letter about the insulation works. It explained this was due to poor communication from the relevant business area, rather than discrimination. This Service has seen nothing in the evidence provided to suggest the resident was discriminated against here.
Having acknowledged poor service, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have apologised and considered if further redress was appropriate depending on the impact on the resident.
It is evident that the resident has been caused time and trouble in pursuing this issue. Financial compensation is appropriate of £50 for the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing this issue.

Complaint handling

This report has considered two separate complaints from the resident in relation to the matters raised. The complaint handling was not appropriate because:
1. The second stage two response dated 2 June 2021 took twenty working days, which was outside the ten working day timescale.
2. Neither stage one responses explained how the resident could escalate the complaint to the next stage in line with its complaint procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of repairs to a broken water tank.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns that the property was excluded from insulation works.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of a gas safety check.

Reasons

While the time to respond was largely in line with its complaint procedure, the landlord failed to tell the resident how to escalate the complaint in the stage one responses.
The landlord failed to identify an impact on the resident for its poor service including a missed appointment for the water tank pipe repair. The landlord also identified poor service in relation to the complaint about the insulation works, but again failed to consider that impact on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to the complaint about the missed gas safety appointment and offered proportionate redress.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £150 made up of:
  1. £100 for the missed appointment and impact in relation to the broken pipe.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble in pursing the complaint about the insulation works.
3. Repair the broken water tank pipe (if this has not been completed previously).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident compensation previously offered of £100 for the missed gas safety appointments, if it has not done so already.