Catalyst Housing Limited (202115702)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115702

Catalyst Housing Limited

25 May 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 handling of repairs to the exterior of the property including to the windows, paintwork, front door and bin storage.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord erected scaffolding in February 2021 in order to carry out a window replacement and cyclical work to the exterior of the building. It installed the windows in June 2021, and the scaffolding remained in place.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in July 2021. She was dissatisfied the scaffolding had not been taken down, and she was also unhappy about the delay in the landlord installing the windows. She said a wall needed plastering, and that debris and dust from the scaffolding had prohibited the use of her garden. She said she had repeatedly asked for window restrictor bolts and keys for front room windows which were not delivered until 26 June 2021. She was also unhappy about delays to the fitting of a new front door which was agreed in January 2021 but had not yet been fitted. She said the new windows were smaller than the previous ones meaning she had to purchase new blinds as the previous ones no longer fitted. The resident also made a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord for her personal information which it held in its records.
  4. The front door was fitted a short time later and the landlord removed the scaffolding from the building and completed the remaining repairs in August 2021.
  5. In the landlord’s final complaint response issued in August 2021, it explained that the delay installing the windows was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and its inability to source materials in view of this. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience and delay. It said it would remove the scaffolding, clear any debris, begin decorative work, and plaster the wall. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had compensated the resident separately for damage to her personal possessions which occurred during the repairs.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2021 to report that the front of the property needed to be repainted due to damp. She said the bin doors had not been repaired and the plastering and redecoration of her living room also remained outstanding. She also reported that the wrong bay windows had been ordered.
  7. The landlord’s records confirm that these repairs were completed in October 2021 with the exception of the exterior painting and bin store doors. It is not clear from the information provided to the Ombudsman whether this work has now been completed.
  8. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said she had been unable to use the garden for several months due to the repairs and she had to purchase new blinds due to the change in the size of the windows. She said the landlord had dismissed her emails and had delayed responding to her SAR.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she has explained that the landlord dismissed her emails and delayed responding to her SAR. In accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaints-handling body. The resident’s concerns about her SAR request would be better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”). The ICO is able to investigate complaints about breaches of the Data Protection Act, including the handling of SAR requests. It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the ICO for further information on taking this element of the complaint further.
  2. The resident advised the landlord in September 2021 that the front of her property needed to be repainted due to damp, and that it had ordered the incorrect bay windows. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme these issues will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because they occurred after the landlord completed its complaints procedure. The landlord needs an opportunity to investigate matters itself before the Ombudsman becomes involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can raise her concerns with the landlord as a new complaint. The resident may be able to refer her new complaint to this Service if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it can offer compensation when a resident has received poor service, not received a service, or received a service that has been unreasonably delayed.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within an average of ten working days. It will keep residents informed throughout the repair process.
  3. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint response that the delay in replacing the windows was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It said it had been unable to source the necessary materials for the windows. It is understandable that the landlord’s repairs service would have been impacted by the pandemic. If the window manufacturer was unable to provide the required materials, this would have been outside the landlord’s control. Nonetheless, the landlord should have kept the resident updated on when it expected to complete the work as it knew it would exceed its target timeframe of ten working days for non-emergency repairs. It was unreasonable not to manage her expectations and it was against its repairs policy which states it will keep residents informed regarding repairs.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to clearly communicate the delays with the resident or manage her expectations. It apologised, and explained that as a result of her complaint, it would ensure that in the future it would advise residents of any changes to proposed works. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failings and set out how it would ensure it did not make the same mistakes in the future. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In this case it is evident that the landlord acted fairly by recognising its mistakes, it attempted to put things right by offering compensation. It also confirmed that it would complete the outstanding work.
  5. In the resident’s formal complaint, she said various works needed completing (plastering, removal of the scaffolding, and external decoration). The landlord reassured her that it would complete the outstanding work. It said it would remove the scaffolding (on 12 August 2021), clear any debris, and begin decorative works. Its records show it completed plastering work; however, it remains unclear whether it replaced the bin store doors, or completed the external painting. Its records show that as of 11 October 2021 it was appointing a new contractor to replace the bin store doors, but there is no evidence to show whether this work was completed.
  6. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that it would complete all works, there were still noticeable delays. It removed the scaffolding in August 2021, and work still remained incomplete two months later. This was unreasonable especially in consideration of the delays already experienced by the resident. This has been considered when assessing compensation.
  7. As part of her complaint the resident said contractors (working on behalf of the landlord) had damaged her possessions. The landlord explained that its contractors had already reimbursed the resident for the damage. It is the Ombudsman’s approach that when a landlord has made an error which affected the resident, where possible, it should put things right by returning the resident to the position they would have been in if the error had not occurred. The landlord has acted in line with this approach by reimbursing the resident for the cost of her damaged items. Therefore, the landlord has acted reasonably to resolve this issue and it does not need to do anything further in this regard.
  8. The resident also raised her concerns that she had to repeatedly ask for window restrictor bolts and keys for her front room windows. The landlord said its contractor would discuss the matter with her. Then, in its stage two complaint response it said the resident had been supplied with the keys. However, it failed to fully address her concerns as it did not acknowledge that the resident had chased it for the keys for an extended period of time. This has been considered when looking at the landlord’s overall offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  9. The resident said the new windows were different sizes and that this meant she would need to purchase new blinds. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this aspect in either its stage one or stage two complaint response, as it should have. The landlord should have at least explained to the resident why the windows were different sizes and apologised for the inconvenience caused. In some cases, there may be legitimate reasons why the window size needed to be changed and in this situation the landlord would not be expected to pay for the resident’s new blinds. This is because residents are responsible for fitting window coverings in their property and the landlord would not be considered at fault for the windows being a different size. However, in this situation, the landlord would be expected to explain the reasons for the size difference and there is no evidence that it did so. It was therefore unreasonable for it not to address this point, and an example of poor complaint handling. The landlord should respond to this point now and if it cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the difference in size, it should reimburse the resident for the cost of purchasing new blinds.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and delay. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  11. Ultimately, although the landlord apologised, and offered some compensation for is failings, the amount was disproportionate to the actual level of inconvenience caused. This is because the landlord failed to respond to multiple aspects of her original complaint, and there were further delays completing work following the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord will therefore be ordered to pay the resident, a further £100 compensation for the shortcomings identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the exterior of the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in this report.
  2. This is in addition to the £100 previously offered by the landlord.
  3. The landlord should complete the repairs to the bin store and exterior decoration, unless these have already been completed.
  4. The landlord should explain to the resident why the new windows were a different size to the previous ones. If the landlord is unable to explain this, it should reimburse the resident for the cost of replacing the blinds for the smaller windows, subject to the resident providing receipts to confirm these costs.
  5. These actions should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report.