Catalyst Housing Limited (202014330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014330

Catalyst Housing Limited

28 July 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for air conditioning during major works.
2. The complaint handling delay.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner leaseholder. The landlord planned major works for September 2019 to replace existing cladding and brickwork. The duration of work was two years.
The landlord met with residents on 11 July 2019 to give an overview of the works programme. It said that individual letters would be sent to residents affected by works in the first phase, followed by home visits. The landlord wrote to the resident (undated email) per his request to provide details in writing.
1. It explained that as part of the works it required limited restrictions on opening and closing windows; it would use a material to ensure privacy and that the windows needed to be closed while the work was carried out. It said it would discuss this with residents on an individual basis in the home visit and where they were in the programme of work.
2. It said that it would review options for air conditioning units and temporary heaters and make seasonal adjustments depending on where residents were in the programme of work.
3. It said that it would assess electricity costs before works started and collect meter readings to quantify additional costs in order to assess the use of ventilation equipment.
The landlord offered a goodwill payment to all residents who remained at the property during the works to recognise the inconvenience from the works. This was a fixed amount of £3500 for inconvenience.
The resident explained that windows and balcony doors were then closed for two summers. The resident stated that the landlord did not respond to his communication to it about air conditioning, and he eventually purchased two units out of his own pocket.
On 10 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. Residents requested air conditioning units and the landlord said it would provide this according to weather conditions. It promised other residents as well as himself that it would provide the air conditioning prior to the start of major works.
2. The resident requested a unit ‘in the beginning of April’ and was ultimately told that the goodwill payment covered the inconvenience, and it would not provide this.
3. The landlord said that it could not assess heat levels due to the pandemic and the resident asked for the issue to be resolved another way; the landlord then asked him for a link to the unit he wanted and said it would look into this.
4. The landlord then said it could not provide this due to not being able to assess the heat levels. The resident said that the landlord was already instructed of this during a previous resident meeting.
5. The resident raised the inconsistency of the landlord’s responses to it. He referred to promises made by the landlord during the consultation meetings, in person and in writing before the works. He provided photographs detailing this.
6. The resident provided screenshots detailing discussions with the landlord following the initial meetings that took place at the start of the works:
  1. If access to windows were restricted and impacted ventilation, then the landlord would provide equipment to cool properties while works were taking place.
  2. If ventilation equipment was provided, the landlord would provide extra funding to assist with the use of ventilation equipment (ie help with bill payments).
On 3 July 2020 the landlord emailed the resident the stage one response:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It looked into the circumstances around the promise for air conditioning units or heaters in the event of adverse temperatures.
3. Although it said in meetings that it would provide this, this did not form part of the offer for residents to stay at the property (during the major works).
4. The goodwill payment of £3500 was made as part of the offer to stay in the property and to cover the inconvenience of the major works programme, so the landlord considered this issue in the compensation provided instead of providing units itself.
5. The written confirmation said that this issue would be reviewed, not that it would be done. It could not cover the cost of heaters or air conditioning for every household due to resources. It would consider exceptions in more extreme circumstances on a case by case basis.
On 26 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and escalated a separate complaint about repairs.
In February and March 2021 the resident escalated his concerns about the air conditioning dispute to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman subsequently contacted the landlord on 14 May 2021 to encourage it to progress the resident’s concern through its complaint process.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint with the Ombudsman and on 19 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint with the resident and said that it would issue a response within 10 working days.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord tried to call the resident, and subsequently the resident called back and left a message. He explained that he did not get a call back or complaint response, nor had the matter progressed (14 June 2021).
The landlord then issued a stage two response (17 June 2021) in which it said:
1. Promises were made by staff during resident meetings to ‘look into providing air conditioning units for the summer months’.
2. It would not be possible to know which properties would need or want this and it could not assess heat levels due to pandemic restrictions on home visits and distancing guidelines.
3. It had offered £3500 goodwill payment in recognition of inconvenience.
4. It would also not pass on the cost of electricity consumption for any air conditioning units to residents of the estate and would cover these costs.
On 25 June 2021 the resident disputed the landlord’s resolution. He told the Ombudsman that landlord’s payment of goodwill was for the inconvenience of the major works while residents remained in the property, and that there had been separate communication and confirmation from the landlord that air conditioning and costs would be compensated for separately.
The landlord did not dispute that it had told residents that it would fund/provide air conditioning; it acknowledged that it promised this during a meeting before the major works. However, it stated various reasons why it would not be able to provide this: this did not form part of an agreement for residents to stay in the property, it had already issued the disturbance payments which covered the cost of air conditioning, there was no budget for this (especially if every resident was to be provided with one) and the decision had been made by the head of services not to proceed with the proposals that it had originally offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord and resident have not disputed that the landlord communicated the promise to provide air conditioning and/or fund the costs associated with ventilation during the major works which took place over two years. The landlord has disputed that this promise formed part of the offer and arrangements for residents to stay in the property and considered that the payment made as part of the disturbance payment for inconvenience sufficiently covered any inconvenience.
The landlord does not have an obligation to provide the air conditioning units however it did not reasonably manage the resident’s expectations. It proposed to take actions which it later declined to. It denied that it promised to do this, and then on another occasion it acknowledged that it had but it set out that it could not follow through for varied reasons. Overall, the landlord has not been fair or clear in its communication and management of the resident’s request for air conditioning.
It would have been reasonable to consult with the resident once it changed its position and offer an apology and explanation at the time, as well as redress for the added inconvenience of changing its position. It did not do this; it pointed to the goodwill payment as sufficient redress for the circumstances. This was unreasonable; the goodwill payment was provided with a clear brief and it did not cover the additional inconvenience caused by the developing position which the landlord exercised. The resident has experienced time and trouble in chasing this payment from the landlord.
In respect of the complaint handling, the resident’s complaint was escalated via the Ombudsman on 14 May 2021 and there was a delay in the stage one response as well as the stage two response. The landlord did not process the resident’s complaint within the appropriate timescales. The landlord is reminded of the importance of providing quick access to dispute resolution through engagement in the complaint process and to escalate resident dissatisfaction appropriately and in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for air conditioning.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the delay in the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord inconsistently communicated its position regarding the air conditioning and did not manage resident expectations reasonably. The resident experienced time and trouble in chasing the desired outcome from the landlord, after the landlord changed its position following the start of the major works.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £250 comprised of:
1. £150 for the inconvenience caused by its communication failures.
2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling delay.