Catalyst Housing Limited (202114569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114569

Catalyst Housing Limited

1 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about storage in the alleyway at the side of the property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2011. The tenancy agreement does not mention the alleyway at the side of the property; it does state the property had use of a garden which is private. It also says that the resident should keep common areas clean and free from obstacles, which may cause injury, nuisance or annoyance to others. The resident and two of her children have disabilities. The resident a blue badge holder; her eldest daughter has physical and learning disabilities.  
3. The landlord’s fire safety management policy statement (effective from February 2020) says it has a zero-tolerance approach to items in communal areas that block escape routes and/or are flammable.
4. The landlord’s communal areas fire safety policy (effective from September 2019) says that it has a responsibility to protect its residents and the emergency services by ensuring that routes to emergency exits and the exits themselves are kept clear at all times; this also extends to removing hazardous items that may cause or contribute to fires. It says the landlord reserves the right to remove any items that are stored in communal areas immediately or put a notice on them to say it is removing them. This policy also sets out that its neighbourhood experience managers will develop good local knowledge and act as its focus when working with residents, making sure that properties are regularly visited, communal areas inspected, coordinating activity between teams and organising appropriate enforcement action as necessary
5. 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.

Summary of events

6. On 23 November 2011 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it had decided to install the side gate (to the neighbouring property) after her viewing had taken place. It said it would not change the gate and, as both neighbouring properties had access to the back of the property, the shared access would remain.
7. On 6 April 2021, following a fire safety inspection on 26 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had found that the alleyway she shared with her neighbour was blocked with storage containers which blocked access for her and her neighbour to exit in case of emergency like a fire. It asked her to move these items into the back garden as soon as possible.
8. On 6 May 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that she understood she had sole use of the alleyway at the side of the property and would not have taken a property where the alleyway was shared due to the safeguarding of her children. She added it was where she stored her daughter’s mobility items.
9. On 20 May 2021 the landlord noted that the resident had agreed to remove the items in the alleyway by 21 May 2021.
10. On 24 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. It shared the letter from 2012 with the resident which it said confirmed the alleyway was shared. It said the resident should share with it any evidence supporting the fact that it had granted her sole access to the alleyway and, in the absence of such proof, further investigations into the right of use of the alleyway could not be carried out.
11. On 22 September 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the storage issues in the alleyway.
12. On 14 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure After speaking to the resident on 4 October 2021. The main points were:
    1. While it had previously informed the resident that she could store items in the alleyway, “this was incorrect information” given to her by the previous neighbourhood experience manager.
    2. It found that what the neighbourhood experience manager had told the resident was correct; his request that the resident removed items from the alleyway was made due to health and safety concerns and was also a fire risk.
    3. The tenancy agreement did not mention that the resident had use of the alleyway and there was no obligation on the landlord to guarantee her use of it.
13. The landlord apologised for the experience the resident had had and thanked her for her time and patience in dealing with this matter. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
14. There is no evidence to suggest when the resident escalated the complaint. However, on 21 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage two of its final complaints procedure. The main points were:
    1. It understood that information had been shared with the resident about the reasons she needed to remove her personal items from the alleyway verbally and by email. The resident had alleged the neighbourhood experience manager had lied about who had contacted him and made a complaint about the items in the alleyway. The landlord said it had not seen any copies of the emails the resident had referred to which meant it was difficult for it to investigate the information shared with her.
    2. It acknowledged the frustration around the sole use of the alleyway being taken away, due to design changes which highlighted possible risks. It added that, ultimately, storing items in the alleyway was a health and safety as well as a fire risk; when a risk was identified, it must act to remove this and keep everyone safe.
    3. It confirmed the tenancy agreement did not mention that she would be able to store items in the alley way.
    4. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the fact she could not store items in the alleyway and that a mistake had been made if, in the past, she had been told she could do so.
15. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
16. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that when she signed the tenancy agreement, she had had lengthy discussions with the housing estate manager about her daughter’s disability and access needs. She added how perfect the garden having a side access would be for storing her physio equipment and wheelchairs etc. She added that when she moved in, she had discovered that the neighbour’s fence panel had been removed and the access had been made shared.
17. The resident said that, had she known of this change, she would not have accepted the property. She added that it was then agreed with the landlord at that time that she could use this access to store her daughter’s disability items and she had done so since September 2011 until April 2021. She said that she believes the landlord’s recent decision – that she can no longer store items in the alleyway – to be unjust and wants the decision to be overturned.
18. The resident told the Ombudsman that equipment, which was stored in three storage boxes in the alleyway, was for her disabled daughter and included her wheelchair and various aids. She said there was no room inside the property and no room in the shed in the garden either. She added she was currently paying for storage.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about storage in the alleyway at the side of the property.

19. This report has not considered the landlord’s decision to install a gate to the neighbouring property which meant that the resident did not have sole access to the alleyway. The Ombudsman understands that this happened in 2011 after the resident had agreed to take the property, but before she moved in. The Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction means it would not be appropriate to investigate the events from 2011 as too much time has passed.
20. The tenancy agreement does not say that the resident has sole use of the alleyway. However, the landlord does not dispute that it gave the resident incorrect information by giving permission, verbally, for the resident to store items in the alleyway. The evidence suggests that this misinformation was given when the resident moved in in 2011.
21. The landlord’s consent to storing items in the alleyway in 2011 was not appropriate as it would have contravened the landlord’s fire safety policies in place at that time. It is not clear why this safety issue was not picked up for some ten years; however, the landlord’s recent decision that the resident should remove these items, for fire safety reasons, was appropriate.
22.  In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
23. It is evident that the misinformation given in 2011 has led to recent inconvenience, distress and frustration to the resident. Financial compensation of £250 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident that started in April 2021.
24. It is also evident that no longer being able to store equipment in the alleyway is causing inconvenience to the resident. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to meet with the resident to explore if a second shed could be installed in the garden for this equipment. If this is agreed upon with the resident, the landlord would be responsible to pay for both the shed and its installation.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate. While the first response on 24 May 2021 was slightly outside its aim of ten working days to respond, that delay is not serious to amount to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about storage in the alleyway at the side of the property.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

28. The landlord has acknowledged it gave incorrect information to the resident in 2011. However, while its decision that she should no longer store items in the alleyway was appropriate, it did not consider the impact on her or how it might take action to resolve this matter.
29. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate because it was largely in line with its complaint procedures. 

Orders

30. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £250 for the impact these failings have had.
    3. Meet with the resident on site to consider what it could do to help with the storage of the equipment that was kept in the alleyway.