Catalyst Housing Limited (202121479)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121479

Catalyst Housing Limited

5 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 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding noise nuisance and trip hazards from its lack of repairs and maintenance to communal guttering.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a flat in a communal building. She has advised that she has a medical condition that was exacerbated by an injury caused by fallen moss from the building’s communal guttering.
3. The resident reported that she initially contacted the landlord on 14, 20 and 21 February 2021, regarding a noise nuisance from the building’s communal guttering, and that she requested that the guttering be checked by it for this, for which it requested a video from her on 25 February 2021. She recorded that she replied to it by explaining that she could not provide this without windy weather to record the noise, and that she then chased it to repair the guttering on 5 May 2021.
4. Although the resident noted that she was informed when she chased a communal guttering repair again on 10 March 2021 that the landlord had raised a job with its contractor for this, no actual work commenced on investigating the noise nuisance in detail or resolving the problem. She instead reported that the contractor told her on 25 March 2021 that they would have to look at this and get back to her, with a detailed investigation requiring scaffolding that she chased on 9 May 2021. The resident recorded that she was then told by the landlord on 13 May 2021 that no obvious issue had been found with the guttering, so that the scaffolding would have to be put up to investigate this, for which it agreed to contact her as soon as a report was compiled but did not do so.
5. The resident formally complained to the landlord at stage one of its complaints procedure on 24 August 2021, after slipping and injuring herself on moss that she described as having fallen from the overflowing unmaintained communal guttering, which she noted had caused the ground to become slippery.
6. The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 3 September 2021 and advised the resident that someone would be in touch with her about this by 16 September 2021. It recorded that it then liaised with its contractor on 8 September 2021 and raised a repair order about this on 9 September 2021, having previously been made aware of moss in the communal guttering by them.
7. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2021. Upon investigation, it had liaised with its repairs team, and it had established in relation to the maintenance of the communal guttering that “an error was made on our end.” The landlord therefore apologised and offered £200 compensation to the resident for the time that it had taken to address the issues, and because she was “injured as a result” of the outstanding repair. It added that it had provided training to its relevant staff and departments to prevent this from happening again.
8. The resident then contacted the landlord on 18 September 2021 in reply to the stage one response, stating that she was not happy with its reply or the compensation offer, and that the problems with the overgrowing moss and slippery floor were still outstanding, escalating her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
9. The landlord sent a final stage complaint response to the resident on 15 October 2021, stating that:
   1. The case had been escalated as she had felt that “the amount of compensation offered does not reflect the inconvenience that has been caused”. The landlord had therefore reviewed its complaints and compensation policies, and had decided to offer a “good will gesture of £300” to the resident as an apology, although it did not specify how it came to that figure, or why it felt that that was reasonable.
   2. The noise nuisance issue raised in March 2021 was passed to the contractor, whose operative had attended and noted that there was nothing obvious that was seen to be making a noise at the time. With regard to the overgrowing moss in the guttering causing a trip hazard, an order to complete the outstanding works to this had been raised and was due to be completed by 19 October 2021, but that no previous requests had been received to remove this from either of the building’s entrances.
   3. It was also recommending that it internally review the information that it shared with residents for its repairs to communal areas, and it gave her details as to how to progress a personal injury claim with it.
10. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 22 October 2021, stating that moss and debris were “still causing [a] trip hazard” at the building. No evidence of an acknowledgement to this was provided by it, however, or evidence of what was done in response, although she noted this was removed by it after 15 weeks on 7 December 2021.
11. The resident then contacted this Service on 20 December 2021, stating that she was unhappy with how her complaint had been handled by the landlord, and that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered by it. She added that it had not given any indication as to whether the repair work for the vibrations and noise from the communal guttering had been started and/or completed, which was keeping her awake and affecting her mental health while her injury had affected her physical health. The resident therefore requested an update on and the completion of the repair from the landlord, and that it implement a risk management strategy, having missed overhanging plants on its many routine building inspections and being lacking in proactive maintenance without the need for continual reports from residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s lack of communal guttering repairs and maintenance has impacted her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these in the way that a personal injury claim to the courts or an insurer might. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and to the level of compensation awarded to her by the landlord for this.

Agreements, policies and procedures

13. Under the resident’s lease agreement:
    1. 5(3)(a) sets out the landlord’s obligations to maintain and repair all parts of the building’s main structure that are not the responsibility of the resident including:
    2. 5(3)(b) the building’s “pipes sewers drains…”
    3. 5(3)(c) “common parts”
       1. Section 1(2)(b) describes “common parts” as including “…any garden access areas steps pedestrian ways footpaths roadways or accessways…”
    4. 5(4) obliges the landlord to make sure that the common parts of the building are kept adequately cleaned.
14. The landlord’s routine repair and service standard page on its website states that:
    1. “We will generally respond to the following faults or repairs within 20 working days, although we may set aside certain work that we will do in the future as part of our planned work. What is covered?…Gutters”.
15. The landlord’s customer handbook states:
    1. “It depends how urgent the problem is. If it is an emergency, we will make your home safe within 24 hours. We will deal with other urgent repairs within a week.”
16. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
    1. “4.4. Resolving complaints is really important to us, which is why we have a dedicated team. We prefer talking through a complaint over the phone to create a human connection. We will contact the customer within two working days to:
       1. Acknowledge the complaint
       2. Identify the reason/reasons for the complaint in detail
       3. Identify the series of events that led to the complaint (including dates and details of previous correspondence where available)
       4. Understand customer’s expectations regarding what a resolution would be
       5. Investigate the complaint promptly and fairly, resolving problems at the earliest opportunity
       6. Highlight what steps need to be taken to resolve complaint
       7. Apologise when we get things wrong …
    2. 4.5. We always aim to resolve to all complaints within 10 working days.
    3. 5.2.4. Once the review is complete, the Manager will call or write to the customer explaining the decision made. The customer is informed of our decision within 10 working days of the appeal date. The outcome will always be confirmed in writing.”
17. The landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to award its residents goodwill gesture payments to recognise that they have received poor service, a lack of service or unreasonable delays from it. Although claims under its liability insurance will be dealt with by its insurers outside of its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding noise nuisance and trip hazards from its lack of repairs and maintenance to communal guttering

18. The resident’s lease agreement obliges the landlord to repair, maintain and clean areas such as the guttering and any common parts of the building. However, even though it recorded in September 2021 that it previously knew from its contractor that it was likely that there was a build-up of moss and/or debris in the guttering, it did not take reasonable steps to fix this issue. This lack of action resulted in the overgrowing of moss in the guttering, which then fell to the floor, causing the resident to report that the floor had become slippery and a trip hazard as a result. Therefore, the landlord failed in its obligation under the lease to maintain and clean the building’s communal guttering.
19. There was also another apparent failure by the landlord to comply with the resident’s lease agreement with regard to the maintenance and cleaning of the building’s floor, as a common part, in front of the main doorway of the communal entrance. This is because, although its final stage complaint response noted in October 2021 that it had not previously been asked to remove overgrowing moss from either of the building’s entrances, she explained that its many routine inspections had missed this and that it lacked proactive maintenance that did not need reports from residents. The resident therefore reported that the landlord’s failure to keep that communal area clean was followed both by her accident on 24 August 2021 and its subsequent delay in cleaning this until 7 December 2021, after it had agreed to do so by 19 October 2021.
20. The landlord ought to have carried out its obligations under the resident’s lease agreement, and have maintained both clean guttering and clean common parts of the communal areas at the building, in order to avoid any health and safety risks to residents from these. This is further supported by its website’s routine repair and service standard page, which also confirms that it cleans and maintains communal areas, including guttering.
21. It is concerning that the landlord only took action to do so once it was notified of the resident’s injury in August 2021. There was no evidence to suggest that it was in the process of furthering the job to clean and maintain the building’s communal areas and guttering raised prior to this by its contractor. The landlord acted unreasonably by not investigating this any further, prior to being notified of the resident’s injury. Furthermore, due to potential health and safety risk posed to other residents, it ought to have taken swift action to resolve the issue and classified the matter as urgent. Therefore, the landlord acted unreasonably by not acting swiftly regarding the health and safety issues within an appropriate timeframe.
22. With regard to cleaning the moss and/or debris from the building’s communal guttering, an appropriate timeframe for the landlord to have completed this would have been between 24 hours and one week, depending on whether its inspections had classified the cleaning as an emergency or as urgent. This is because its customer handbook states that it has timeframes of 24 hours for emergency repairs, and of within one week for urgent repairs.
23. It is therefore unreasonable for a resolution by the landlord to the condition of the building’s communal guttering and fallen moss and/or debris to have taken up to 74 working days to complete, from the resident’s accident in August 2021 until she reported that it had completed its cleaning for this in December 2021. This is considering that she reported to it that the incident was responsible her being injured, and that this was still a health and safety hazard to other residents.
24. With regard to the resident’s reports to the landlord of noise nuisance from the building’s communal guttering from February 2021 onwards, an appropriate timeframe for it to have responded to these would have been within the 20-working–day timescale on its website’s routine repair and service standard page. Alternatively, if this had not been possible, it ought to have explained any delay to this and provided an estimated time for completion to her. Instead, 60 working days after the resident first reported the noise nuisance to the landlord on 14 February 2021, it told her on 13 May 2021 that no obvious issue had been found with the guttering, so that the scaffolding would have to be put up to investigate this, for which it agreed to contact her again with the outcome but did not do so.
25. It is additionally concerning that the landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge that it had failed to take any further action to try and resolve the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the building’s communal guttering after May 2021. Moreover, while it sought to prevent a recurrence of the lack of cleaning and maintenance to the guttering by confirming in its complaint responses that it would provide training to its relevant staff and departments to do so, and that it would review the information that it shared with residents for repairs to communal areas, it did not seek to resolve the outstanding noise nuisance.
26. In its final stage complaint response, the landlord did offer the resident £300 as a goodwill gesture as an apology. Although it did not confirm what this was for specifically, or how it had followed its compensation policy, as it did not explain how this compensation was calculated. However, in offering her £300 without acknowledging all of its above delays in respect of the cleaning and maintaining the building’s communal guttering, or its failure to resolve the noise nuisance that she reported from this, its actions were not proportionate to put things right fully.
27. This is because the landlord did not appropriately consider the full effect of the time taken, the fact that the condition of the building’s communal guttering was an urgent health and safety concern, and overall distress caused to the resident. It ought to have fully considered the above and explained, with evidence, how it came to the level of compensation that it did, especially as this information was subsequently requested by but not provided to this Service.
28. This Service’s remedies guidance allows us to take into account factors including but not limited to the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience. Therefore, we have made the below order to increase the £300 goodwill gesture offered by the landlord to the resident by a further £100 compensation, as a more proportionate response, taking into account all of the above. This is in line with the remedies guidance’s suggestion that we may award such compensation for cases where the Ombudsman has found failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to address repairs. This is in addition to an order for the landlord to further investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, if it has not done so already, and a recommendation for it to review its processes for ensuring proactive communal repairs, maintenance, cleaning and risk management.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping

29. The resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord on 24 August 2021 was responded to by it on 13 September 2021, which was three working days beyond the ten-working-day timescale stated in its complaints policy. This was not an unreasonable delay, however, given that it acknowledged the complaint on 3 September 2021, when it told her that it would respond to this by 16 September 2021, and it did so within that timeframe.
30. As per the complaints policy, the landlord also had an obligation to respond to the resident’s final stage complaint within ten working days. She raised a final stage complaint on 18 September 2021, and it responded to this on 15 October 2021. This was nine working days later than its complaints policy’s timescale. Therefore, the landlord failed to comply with the policy in a way that was unreasonable, as it should either have followed its policy’s response timeframe, or informed the resident of any mitigating circumstances that would delay the decision and its new timescale for responding to her.
31. Moreover, it is of particular concern that, when this Service requested the landlord’s records and inspection reports for its communal guttering repairs and maintenance at the building in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and trip hazards from this, it was unable to provide us with these. This investigation therefore instead had to rely on the correspondence that it provided to us for this, which is referred to above, together with her chronology of events for her case only, which was inappropriate and a failing on its part to keep full and accurate records for the case to ensure that this was suitably monitored.
32. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £100 additional compensation in recognition of its above complaint handling and record keeping failings in the resident’s case, and any unnecessary further time and trouble that this caused her. It has also been recommended below to review its processes to ensure timely complaint responses, and for full and accurate record keeping for communal repairs, maintenance and cleaning.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports regarding noise nuisance and trip hazards from its lack of repairs and maintenance to communal guttering.
34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint and record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

35. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay £500 total compensation to the resident within four weeks, which is broken down into:
       1. The £300 that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
       2. £100 additional compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that she experienced from its further delay in resolving her reports of trip hazards, and its failure to resolve her reports of noise nuisance.
       3. £100 additional compensation in recognition of any unnecessary time and trouble that she incurred from its complaint handling delays and poor record keeping.
    2. Further investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the building’s communal guttering with scaffolding, if it has not done so already, and update her on the progress of its investigation within six weeks.
36. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its processes for ensuring proactive communal repairs, maintenance, cleaning and risk management to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the resident’s case.
    2. Review its processes for ensuring timely complaint responses, and for full and accurate record keeping for communal repairs, maintenance and cleaning, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the resident’s case.
37. The landlord shall contact this Service within four and six weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.