Peabody Trust (202121899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121899

Catalyst Housing Limited

31 October 2023

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 handling of reports of outstanding repairs and its communication.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
3. The landlord’s knowledge and information management has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, which began on 19 July 2021. The landlord is aware that the resident’s son has autism, and an alert is set up on its inhouse customer record management (CRM) system. The resident was moved to this property after a fire safety program identified extensive works were required in her previous home.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord reported to its repairs department that a number of issues had been identified within the property and that the resident could not move into the property until the following repairs were completed:
1. The property was dirty.
2. Bags of rubbish had been left in the garden.
3. The toilet base was rusty.
4. And a carpet fitter had noted that some floorboards were wet.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 28 July 2021 which determined that the floorboards were dry, the items in the garden had been cleared, the toilet was not rusty, and therefore no further work needed to be carried out. It was confirmed that there was no reason why the resident could not move into the property but the landlord noted that the locks to the windows could be changed as there were no keys.
On 17 August 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the way in which her home move had been conducted and that she felt unsupported by the landlord. On 19 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint further and confirmed that she would receive a response within 10 working days. The resident raised a number of concerns, which included:
1. The property had not been properly prepared for her to move in.
2. She was without heating and hot water for 4 days when she did move in.
3. There was an unreasonable delay between her viewing the property in June 2021 and her moving into the property in August 2021.
During August and September 2021, internal departments were in discussions with each other to resolve the issues that the resident had raised as part of her formal complaint and had also arranged for a shed to be demolished.
On 30 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for someone to contact her urgently as she and her children had been locked in her bedroom. On the same day, the landlord emailed its contractor to raise an urgent order for a repair to the internal door handles.
On 12 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the process. The resident explained that she was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to her outstanding repairs, which was affecting her son who is autistic.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response where it apologised for the delay, and also offered the resident compensation. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of this response and this Service has seen no evidence concerning the amount of compensation offered. The resident said to the landlord that she would accept the compensation, as long as it was paid within 3 days and the repairs were completed within 7 days. The landlord informed the resident that it was unable to promise that the outstanding repairs would be completed within 7 days.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord raised a further 3repairs regarding issues with the internal door handles, a loose pull cord in the bathroom and a loose front door latch and side gate lock.
On 29 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her dissatisfaction about its handling of her repairs, that there was no light in the toilet, and that the door handles were not fully working.
On 30 December 2021, the resident also contacted the Ombudsman regarding her outstanding complaint and said that her repairs had not been completed. On 2 January 2022, following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 18 January 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 January 2022 and apologised for the delay, detailing that it was a very busy time.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response where it explained that:
1. The investigation focused on four outstanding repairs:
  1. Pull cord for the light in the bathroom.
  2. Internal door handles that required replacing.
  3. A locksmith for the front door.
  4. An out of hours toilet and wash basin repair.
2. It identified that there had been a number of service failures, insufficient communication and a delay in responding to the complaint and offered a further £750 compensation.
3. It also confirmed that it had updated its internal CRM system to reflect the residents son’s disability.
On 13 May 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response as many repairs, which were reported in August 2021, were still outstanding.
On 13 October 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for an update, it confirmed that there were 3 outstanding repairs, which included loose internal door handles and ceiling staining in the hallway and bathroom following a leak.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord is obligated to keep in repair and working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity. It is also obligated to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, window frames, door and window furniture.
The landlord’s repair policy, from its website dated July 2023, shows that the landlord classifies repairs as either:
1. Next available: A non urgent repair required to rectify a fault and will be scheduled with the next available resource and will be completed within 28 calendar days.
2. Emergency: Repairs that need a rapid response and will be attended and completed within 4 hours (It may be a temporary repair in certain circumstances). If there is a high risk or vulnerability, in particular care homes and supported living, repairs will be attended to within 2 hours.
3. Recall: Works that have failed to pass a quality inspection or where the resident has confirmed the works have not been completed, the contractor must return to correct the defect with 5 calendar days.
The landlords complaint policy, dated October 2022, shows that it operates a two stage complaint process. New complaints are logged at stage 1 of the complaint process and a response will be provided within 10 working days. All requests for stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of receiving a stage 1 response and a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days of the request being received.
The landlords compensation policy, from its website dated April 2023, says that compensation and other remedies are considered when a customer has experienced a delay or if it has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines. Its compensation guidelines are as follows:
1. Minor disruption: £1 – £200
2. Moderate disruption: £201 – £400
3. Extensive disruption: £401 – £600

Scope of investigation

After reviewing the information brought to the attention of both the landlord and the Ombudsman, there has not been a clear complaint path which have been through both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the repairs which were outstanding at the time of the resident’s contact with this Service in December 2021.

The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs and its communication.

When the resident contacted the Ombudsman in December 2021, the resident said that all repairs remained outstanding. Following this Service’s intervention on 2 January 2021, where the landlord was asked to address the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs, the landlord’s stage 2 response in February 2022 focused on the following 3 repairs, which accordingly to its repair records were outstanding:
1. Pull cord for the light in the bathroom.
2. Internal door handles that required replacing.
3. A locksmith for the front door.
4. An out of hours toilet and wash basin repair.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there were service failures regarding the way in which the above repairs were handled, due to its contractors not contacting the resident to make appointments. In an effort to put things right the landlord offered a further £600 compensation.
Based on the information provided it is difficult to gain a full understanding as to why the failures occurred. For example, there are multiple records which show that the landlord was trying to address the issue with the internal door handles, but there is no clear audit trail to show what happened following an entry on its CRM system. This suggests that its contractor may use a different system to log its contact and schedule jobs.
In line with the landlord’s repair policy, these repairs should have been completed within 28 calendar days. However, based on the information provided by the landlord, it took the landlord 65 days to fix the pullcord within the bathroom, and to date the internal door handles and remedial works from the leak remain outstanding. The landlord has not provided any information to explain why the repairs remain outstanding, nor what steps it has taken to try and complete the repairs in a reasonable timescale.
The longest outstanding repair is the internal door handles, which the resident informed the landlord of in September 2021, she also informed the landlord that it was having an effect on her son. The repair has remained outstanding for over 2 years, which is an inappropriate amount of time for the resident to wait and has caused the resident unnecessary and extensive distress and inconvenience. This amounts to maladministration and will attract an increased amount of compensation.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section 6of the Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, as the issues remain outstanding, the amount of compensation does not reflect its full failings and therefore was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also considers the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to take reasonable steps to complete the repairs and effectively communicate to the resident, this includes the failure to do what it said it would do in February 2022. The landlord’s compensation policy states that payments of between £401 and £600 should be made when there has been extensive disruption, and the landlord’s offer of £600 was in line with this. However this amount does not fully acknowledges the distress and inconvenience, associated with the delay, especially considering the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son, that the resident has experienced.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident, payments of over £1000 are recommended. The landlord knew that the resident had been chasing the outstanding repairs and acknowledged that the contractor had not been communicating effectively, so it could have taken proactive steps to ensure the repairs were completed following its final response. As it failed to do this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation. This includes the £600 offered as part of the stage 2 response.
Following on from this, in line with part 6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code concerning putting things right, it is clear that the landlord has not taken steps to follow through with ensuring the repairs were completed within a timely manner. This further suggests that the landlord has also not taken any steps to implement practices which monitor any outstanding repairs that have not been completed within its published timescales, and a recommendation has been made in relation to this.
In summary, a finding of maladministration has been made as the landlord failed to complete the resident’s repairs within a reasonable timeframe, and to date repairs are still outstanding. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns, her son’s needs and the length of time the issue had remained unresolved.
The landlord has also been ordered below to contact the resident to arrange for it to carry out and keep a detailed record of a survey of all of the issues that she reports are still outstanding at her property, and of its position and any repairs or remedial works for each issue

The landlord’s complaint handling.

A formal stage 1 complaint was made to the landlord 17 August 2021, which the landlord followed up on 19 August 2021 and told the resident that she would receive a response within 10 working days.
While it is clear from the information provided that the landlord was taking steps to resolve the resident’s complaint, with multiple email communication taking place between internal departments, the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord on multiple occasions between August 2021 and November 2021, where she expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of communication.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of an email, dated 11 November 2021, which apologises for the delay and says that a stage 1 response is attached. However, the landlord has not been able to provide a copy of this response, which suggests an issue with record keeping.
The stage 1 response was sent significantly outside of its 10 working day timeframe published within its complaint policy, and there is no indication to show that the landlord had kept the resident up to date with regards to her complaint and the investigation.
As the resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said that she would accept the compensation, on the basis the repairs were completed within 7 days, it is reasonable to assume that the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s response to her initial complaint.
On 29 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. She said that no one had turned up for an appointment on 13 December 2021, that repairs to her door handles and issues with lights in her bathroom had not been completed and explained her son’s medical issues. On 30 December 2021 the resident also contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with progressing her complaint.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 January 2022 and asked it to provide the resident with a response by 18 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and apologised for its delay, which it cited was due to it being a ‘very busy time’.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that all stage 2 escalation requests should be received within 10 working days of it its stage 1 response. As this complaint contained new issues and was received outside of the 10 working day timeframe, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its process. However, the landlord chose to treat the escalation as an extension of the original complaint and provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 24 February 2022.
As there was no clear complaint path, the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen records that show that it contacted the resident to clarify the exact issues that the resident remained dissatisfied with. However, the landlord continued with its investigation and the final response stated that it had investigated her complaint as per her stage 2 escalation dated 12 January 2022.
The information provided by the landlord does not contain this stage 2 escalation, or details of any phone calls which relate to this, which again suggests an issue with record keeping, but the details in the response do mirror that of the resident’s email dated 29 December 2021, so it is assumed that this is what the landlord was referring to.
During January 2021, the landlord’s records indicate that it was working with the resident to address a number of new repairs, but as it failed to provide a formal complaint response within the Ombudsman’s timeframe, the resident emailed the landlord on 28 January 2022 expressing her dissatisfaction with its service, which the landlord again failed to acknowledge.
As the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its stage 1 response, it is unclear as to whether the compensation the resident accepted was due to delays with the stage 1 response, or service failure relating to the substantive issues. In the stage 2 response in recognition of the delay in providing the final response, it offered the resident £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in its final response the landlord was applying the dispute resolution principles by trying to put things right for the resident. However it is for this Service to determine whether this amount was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
As above, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate whether it offered the resident compensation for the delay in providing a stage 1 response, so this Service will assume that it did not. It took the landlord a total of 86 working days to provide the resident with a stage 1 response, and 57 working days to provide a final response. Whilst it apologised to the resident for its delay, it is the Ombudsman’s view that it did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience that this caused.
The resident expressed on many occasions her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of communication, and the effect it was having on her mental health, as well as her son’s autism. Furthermore, the resident had already been through a turbulent time, with having to move from her previous home through no fault of her own. The landlord’s delay and failure to provide her with a response in line with its own policies, amounts to maladministration and will attract a level of compensation.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that where a service failure has occurred, which has taken an extended time to complete actions, and/or there has been a failure to communicate and follow procedures, a payment of between £401 and £600 is due. Therefore, the decision to award £150 was not in line with this.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance states that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident a payment in the range of £100 to £600 is recommended. In recognition of the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a complaint response in line with its policies and procedures, which caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500. This includes the £150 offered within its final response.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

As outlined above, it is very concerning that despite the resident informing the landlord of her son’s autism throughout her case, which it acknowledged in its final response, that it did not update its internal customer record management system until February 2022. Furthermore, it has been unable to provide this Service with a copy of its stage 1 response or a copy of the stage 2 escalation dated 12 January 2022, which it referred to in its final response.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment…[and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety…[Vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and conducting appropriate staff training. However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord has provided a number of records but has not been able to provide full details of why the repairs have taken so long to complete, or what happened when the repair was attended to., It is therefore unable to evidence what steps it has taken when dealing with the resident’s repairs, nor is it able to evidence its final position. This results in maladministration and the landlord has also been recommended below to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs and its communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s knowledge and information management .

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1500 within 4weeks of the date of this report, which includes the £750 offered as part of the stage 2 response, this is made up of:
1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident regarding the length of time it has taken for the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.
2. £500 for the failures associated with the complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to attend the resident’s property and complete the following outstanding repairs, within 4weeks of the date of this report:
1. Internal door handles
2. Any remedial works associated with the leak.
It is ordered that the landlord contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to arrange for it to carry out and keep a detailed record of a survey of all of the issues that she reports are still outstanding at her property, and of its position and any repairs or remedial works for each issue.
The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
3. Review the way in which it monitors outstanding repairs which have not been completed within its documented timescales, including any follow on works.
4. Consider sharing the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.