Catalyst Housing Limited (202007873)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007873

Catalyst Housing Limited

1 February 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. An offer to carpet the floor when she viewed the property.
2. A rent refund.
3. A reported data protection breach.
4. The complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about a reported data protection breach. The Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The resident complained that when she contacted the landlord and spoke with a member of staff, the member of staff raised their voice and the resident was brought to tears. The member of staff reportedly stated that there was someone else in the room and they did not witness shouting (towards the resident).
The resident then complained to the landlord that the member of staff, who was working from home, had breached her GDPR by identifying the resident in front of someone else. The landlord said that it investigated the issues and it did not have evidence that the member of staff communicated the resident’s personal information.
The Housing Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about breaches of GDPR/data breaches. Under the Scheme, this kind of complaint usually falls under the jurisdiction of another regulator or complaint handling body (the Information Commissioner’s Office). The resident may enquire with the ICO regarding this matter.

Background and summary of events

The resident is presently a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy commenced in June 2020. The property is a three-bedroom property. The property was a new build home, and the landlord did not carry void or inspection reports.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process, with the second and final stage being an appeal stage. It aims to resolve complaints within 10 working days at each stage of the process.

Summary of events

The resident was shortlisted for the property with the landlord under a choice based letting scheme in February 2020.
There was also a second property which the resident was or would have been shortlisted for, but the landlord said that a resident could not be shortlisted for a property if they were already under offer elsewhere. The resident considered that she should have been able to view the second property (which had since been allocated to someone else).
In respect of the current property, there was an arrangement for the viewing and for the tenancy to be signed (March 2020). This was cancelled due to lockdown.
In May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on when she could move in, as her former landlord had her take back her 4 weeks notice so she would have to give another 4 weeks notice when she was given a date to move into the new property. The resident explained that she was concerned about paying rent for two homes, as she could not afford this. The resident asked the landlord if she could sign the tenancy agreement for the new property virtually, such as online, or have the keys sent out by recorded delivery.
The landlord responded and explained that it could not give a moving in date and could not provide a virtual sign up. It suggested that the resident could re-submit the notice to her landlord. It explained that it could not arrange for the resident to sign a tenancy agreement until the Government lifted the lockdown (6 May 2020).
On 13 May 2020 the resident submitted a further query regarding the lockdown measures and the sign-up process. On 18 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident back and said that it was going to start allocations from 1 June 2020. It said it was finalising the process for viewings and sign ups.
The resident’s tenancy then commenced in June 2020.
On 5 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to state her complaint.
1. She explained that she was shortlisted for two properties in February 2020 and that she viewed one property and wanted to view another; however, she was told that she could not and that the second property had since been allocated to other people.
2. A member of staff told her that the property which she had signed for would be carpeted on the stairs and landing and that it would be installed in a week, after the resident’s first viewing. Then, she was told that this was an error.
3. The resident said she could not afford to carpet a three-floor townhouse and the staff said they would ask their manager if the landlord could cover the cost (they had declined to cover the cost).
4. The resident said that she contacted a manager twice and said that it was unfair that the second property had gone to another resident (who was of a lower priority band) and that she could not afford the carpeting in her current property.
5. The resident said that she explained that her sons had special needs and that she could not afford carpeting. The member of staff “raised her voice” and was “very stern” and said that there were no options for her or her family. The member of staff denied shouting, but the resident said that she came off the telephone crying and it brought back memories of verbal abuse.
6. The resident’s desired outcome was to be offered a property like the second property which she was shortlisted for, to have carpet laid with the cost covered by the landlord and to have the property be cleaned as the dust would affect her child’s asthma.
7. The resident also said that she had not been given a sign–up date at the time, even though she was shortlisted in February, and she was not able to give notice in her current property. She was concerned about paying for rent in two properties, so she wanted support with this.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and gave the resident a timescale for the response (18 June 2020).
On 19 June 2020 the resident and landlord discussed the case. On the same day the landlord provided its stage one response.
1. It apologised for the confusion caused about the carpet.
2. It said that it does not provide carpets in rented homes and cannot approve installation of new carpets during viewings.
3. It said that the resident did not require permission to install carpeting but would be responsible for adjusting doors after carpet had been laid.
4. It explained the next steps (independent review) if the resident remained dissatisfied.
5. It agreed to reimburse the resident (£486.84) as she paid an extra 4 weeks rent in her previous home due to the delay in being signed up.
The resident requested a review (June 2020).
1. She explained that she was told that the carpet on the stairs would be laid following her viewing, and she had a teenage and adult witness to this. When she spoke with staff, they told her that they got the properties mixed up, not that they had never said it.
2. She explained that she has been left out of pocket and the carpet and laminate on the stairs and landing had cost her £626.
3. The resident also said that the complaint about the member of staff had not been investigated fully; she was told that there was no recording, and she was shouted at in front of someone else.
4. The resident “lost out on a suitable property” as the choice based letting process was not followed.
5. She provided her bank details for the reimbursement of rent (£486.84).
The resident and landlord exchanged further correspondence in July 2020.
1. The resident reported that she had not heard from a senior manager about the review. She was unaware that payment agreed at stage one would be suspended until the review and she requested an update on the complaint (8 July 2020).
2. The landlord said that it would normally hold payment until the review had been completed and that it would confirm who the manager (who was carrying out the review) with the resident shortly (8 July 2020).
3. The landlord told the resident that it appointed a senior manager to review the case (16 July 2020).
4. The landlord then asked the resident if she was interested in working with the landlord’s ‘communities’ and financial inclusion team to support her in applying for a grant. It said that there were criteria which needed to be met (22 July 2020).
5. The resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the review. She had expected this to be given in 10 days, but it had “been weeks”. She said that the aftercare following the viewing had been “poor” and the landlord had not sent the correct people to fix the boiler which had broken three times (3 August 2020).
6. The landlord then asked the resident if she received one of its emails and the resident confirmed that the last one which she received was from 16 July 2020 stating that a manager was appointed. The resident iterated her complaint points, such as:
  1. A member of staff speaking rudely to her and claiming that someone was in the room while she was working at home who did not witness shouting (which the resident then raised as a data breach).
  2. The landlord left the resident in financial hardship and having to borrow money and to use foodbanks when it did not pay out the month rent to cover her being under two tenancies at once (after it had agreed to do this).
  3. She was told that the landlord would put carpet down and then told that they mixed up the property with another one, then she was told that the landlord never said this about the carpets.
  4. The resident asked for the landlord’s complaint policy and timescales (4 August 2020).
On 17 August 2020 the resident contacted her MP and said:
1. She moved to the property in June 2020. The property was offered through the choice based letting scheme in March, but due to the pandemic the resident was unable to move. She was shortlisted for two properties and did not have the chance to view both. She said that the landlord “took the choice away from me and force me to take the property near my mother in law the family (I’m) fleeing domestic violence from”.
2. During the viewing, she was told that the carpet would go down in the stairs the following week. When she got the property, there was no carpet and was told that it was a mistake, and the staff were confused with the other property that she was shortlisted for.
3. The property was a town house and it would cost too much for her to carpet. She said that she is a single mother of two.
4. When she tried to discuss this with the landlord, the member of staff said that there was a shortage of housing and the resident should take it and be grateful, or not be housed.
5. The resident explained that she was brought to tears and that she was a key worker and paid her taxes all her life, yet this was how she was treated. When the resident said that she did not like the tone of the member of staff, the member of staff said that she was not shouting and that someone else was in the room as a witness.
6. The landlord started the tenancy “with no warning” and left the resident to “pay rent in two homes”. The resident said that she had to borrow money and use the food bank which she had “never been reduced to before”.
7. She complained to the landlord in June and asked for financial assistance with the carpet and rent and for the member of staff’s behaviour to be addressed.
8. She had a response on 18 June 2020 offering rent assistance for the notice period and was told that the landlord could not comment on the staff conduct as the member of staff was working from home.
9. The resident said that though the process was 10 days, she had no outcome, she called and emailed a few times and the landlord withheld the money offered for the rent because she escalated her concerns.
10. The resident felt discriminated against and her boiler had not worked since she moved in despite numerous calls and emails to the repairs team.
On 18 August 2020 the MP forwarded the resident’s communication to the landlord and asked it to respond to the points.
On 24 August 2020 the landlord responded to the MP and said:
1. The resident had not been discriminated against following her decision to complain. It encouraged that the resident contact the landlord if she felt discriminated against.
2. The resident was shortlisted for the property and would have been shortlisted for a second property but was not, as she was already under offer for the first property. It acknowledged that the resident would have liked to view the second property, but it could not do this (due to the housing option service system).
3. The landlord disputed that it promised to install carpet during the viewing.
4. The staff were “made aware that the works at the property were fully completed, as such there were no question about any further works”.
5. The resident “was made aware during the sign up that the tenancy would commence the same day” and she “signed the tenancy agreement with the understanding that she would be liable for rent from this date onwards”.
6. In respect of the repair report, it said that it had not received this and asked for its contractor to contact the resident to check if there are issues with the boiler.
7. It confirmed that the complaint policy stated that it would respond within 10 working days.
On 26 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the issue. She explained that she was waiting on a response to her report of the data protection breach, a deadlock letter and payment to be transferred to her. The resident said that she was told multiple times that the landlord would get back to her.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident (“re: independent review”). It confirmed that this was the final response. It said:
1. There was a lack of evidence to suggest that a member of staff offered flooring to the resident when she viewed and accepted the new property and neither party had evidence to confirm that this happened.
2. It noted that the resident was struggling financially and offered to refer the resident to its in house ‘communities’ group to see if it could assist the resident with support as part of a ‘wellbeing’ project which it had. It explained that the idea was for the resident to work with a benefit advisor to see if his benefits could be maximised and to see if there was any grant that could assist with his flooring or any goods. It understood that the resident declined this.
3. It offered £25 for the way that the independent review was handled.
In the resident’s web complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident iterated her complaint points which were that:
1. She was told there would be carpet in the property at the viewing and this was the main decision for her acceptance of the property. She was told that this was not said.
2. The resident said that a manager she then spoke to about this shouted at her. She was spoken to with “no respect” and “discriminated” against. This affected her mental health, self-esteem, and confidence.
3. The landlord offered the £486.84 to help her pay rent on her old property but she said that she never received the money. The resident was left to pay two sets of bills for one month.
4. She was told different names of the people carrying out the independent review and they had not spoken to her.
5. The resident said that she wanted the landlord to pay for £486.84 rent and £400 for the carpet. The resident had said that she was not given enough notice about the start of the new tenancy and was still in her old tenancy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that it offered to carpet the floor when she viewed the property.

There was an outstanding dispute about whether the landlord agreed to carpet the property (which has since been carpeted by the resident). The resident sought compensation for this.
The Ombudsman cannot determine either way what was agreed at the original viewing. It would expect the landlord to investigate this and if it had found that its staff communicated an offer to carpet the property, then it would be expected to address this, although it would not be obliged to carry out the carpeting if it considered that this was an error and not in line with its policies.
The evidence shows that that the landlord did consider the resident’s claims in respect of the properties and in respect of the resident’s property, it established that it would not carpet it. Although the resident has been clear in her communication about her understanding during the viewing process, there is no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its decision not to install carpeting. On this point, there was no maladministration.
The resident’s concern about the landlord’s handling of her housing options (and not being able to view the second property) has not been fully investigated by the landlord. This Ombudsman would not consider complaints about the allocation of housing under the choice based letting scheme and would direct the resident to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent refund.

The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident (described in this report as a ‘rent refund’) for £486.84 at stage one as she had to withdraw her 4 weeks notice at the previous property and then view and accept the new property at short notice. This was resolution focused and reasonable and took into account the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord then withheld its agreed payment and explained that this was standard due to the case being reviewed. However, it subsequently failed to review this point and did not mention it further in its final response. There is no evidence that it has paid the resident the agreed remedy. This was unreasonable.
It is noted that the resident had not disputed this element of the complaint. On the contrary, this was the only part of the complaint which was resolved at stage one. It would have been resolution focused for the landlord to pay the agreed redress and close this element of the dispute in order to narrow the scope of the ongoing complaint. The resident then explained that she experienced financial hardship due to covering this cost in other ways (borrowing money and relying on foodbanks) and it became a new point which she escalated as the landlord’s decision not to follow through with the payment (July 2020).

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale; its stage one response was issued one day over the agreed timescale. However, there was a discussion on the day it and the landlord issued the response shortly after, so the detriment of this initial delay was minimal.
The landlord then failed to provide a response at stage two within a reasonable timescale. The resident communicated her escalation and outstanding concerns in July 2020. Although the landlord exchanged emails with her, the resident’s responses during that period highlighted the lack of a formal complaint response and her concerns about the complaint handling. The landlord did not issue a complaint response.
After the resident’s MP intervened in August 2020, the landlord still failed to provide a final response. It eventually issued a final response on 27 October 2020 after the resident chased it the day before. The landlord’s final response was issued four months after the escalation request which was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy.
There was an additional service failure in the scope of the complaint response. This did not address the resident’s complaint about the housing allocation/viewing of the second property, nor did not address the resident’s staff complaint. This was unreasonable.
It would have been appropriate if the landlord had investigated the entirety of the resident’s complaint points under its internal complaint process and responded to the resident at the time.
The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timescale or evidence that it investigated all of the resident’s concerns fully. The landlord acknowledged its failure in the handling of the stage two investigation, however, this was brief and it has not been evidenced that it assessed its complaint handling in its entirety. Nor did the landlord go on to offer a reasonable offer of redress (£25). On this point, there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s offer to carpet the floor when she viewed the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its rent refund.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the resident’s claims about the advice she was given regarding the carpets. It did not decide to carpet the property and it had discretion to make this decision.
The landlord agreed to offer the rent payment under the stage one response and did not follow through with this, despite the resident also agreeing to this resolution and not escalating this point of her complaint. The landlord then failed to address or mention it again in its final response, despite stating that it had initially withheld the payment due to the complaint being escalated to the review.
The landlord then failed to address all of the resident’s complaint points and there was an unreasonable delay its complaint handling. It did not offer reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the originally agreed sum of £486.84 for the rent refund.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble which she experienced.
3. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
4. Remind its complaint team about the complaint timescales in its complaint policy.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to update the resident on its financial assistance programme option once more and clarify what this is so that she can make an informed decision about it.