Catalyst Housing Limited (202113998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113998

Catalyst Housing Limited

9 November 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
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Complaints handling.
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of an end of terrace semi-detached four bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it aims to deliver routine repairs within an average of ten working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature. Where this is the case, the landlord will inform customers of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that if a resident experiences service failure as a result of its action or inaction it may offer compensation where it considers it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances. The policy also says that the landlord will not pay compensation for items which are covered by home contents insurance.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. The response time at both stages is 10 working days.
The resident says that she first reported mould in the property to the landlord in November 2019 and that the landlord informed her that it thought the problem was due to the flooring. In August 2020 the resident installed new underlay and flooring in the property and on 23 November 2020 contacted the landlord to report mould growth through the property and pools of water on the floor. The landlord did not respond to the resident.
The resident contacted the local authority environmental health team on 22 December 2020 concerning the mould at the property. On 23 December 2020 the local authority sent an email to the landlord saying that:
1. The resident had contacted it about mould growth at the property
2. The resident had reported that although works were carried out earlier in the year the mechanical ventilation in the bathroom was poor and had stopped working.
3. From the photographs and information provided the local authority said that the following actions should be taken (and it might be necessary for further works to be arranged based on a survey):
  1. Ventilation: repair or replace the extractor fan in the bathroom. The system was to be coupled to the light switch and incorporate a 15 minute over-run period or an appropriately set humidity start.
  2. Heating: employ a heating engineer to check the radiators in the property and carry out any necessary works to ensure that the heating was capable of maintaining an indoor temperature of 21ºC, was available at all times, and under the control of the occupier and that the home was warm enough for the resident.
  3. Removal of mould: the areas affected by mould, including walls, ceiling and windows needed to be thoroughly cleaned with an approved anti –fungicidal chemical. The cleaned areas then needed be redecorated with a mould resistant paint although this might require the whole room to be re-decorated and timber skirting boards and timber window frames rubbed down and re-painted. The mouldy silicone seal from the joint between the bath/ shower and the ceramic wall tiling needed to be cut off and replaced with a waterproof silicone sealant applied to the shower/ bath surround. On completion the landlord needed to ensure that the joint was watertight. The ceramic wall tiles in the first bathroom needed regrouting and the tiled wall surfaces thoroughly cleaned.
4. An inspection would be carried out in due course, but it expected that any works would have been arranged before then and it asked to be kept updated on the works.
The landlord replied to the local authority on 23 December 2020 saying that:
1. It had visited the property that day.
2. It had chased the repair to the fan in the bathroom.
3. It had asked about getting a new fan put in the outside wall but wasn’t sure this was possible due to it being in the bathroom.
4. It had arranged to have all the mould treated and then stain blocked.
5. It was going to look at the roof insulation where there was mould along the ceiling.
6. It had asked for a specialist company to look at the floor in the lounge at the property where the resident said there was water.
7. The tiles in the bathroom would be cleaned and new grouting installed.
On 4 January 2021 the United Kingdom entered the third national Covid 19 pandemic lockdown. On 7 January 2021 the landlord put the following update on its website, “Repairs and the majority of our essential services such as planned works will continue.”
On 5 January 2021 the local authority sent the landlord an email saying that the resident had informed it that works to address the mould were being booked in, but it was unclear if this included works to the ventilation in the bathroom. It asked the landlord to confirm the works to be carried out following its survey and the timescale for the works
The landlord replied to the local authority on 6 January 2021 saying that it was hoping to repair the fan that day and it had asked for a quote for fitting a humidity controlled fan in the outside wall to provide better air circulation in the bathroom.
On 15 January 2021 the local authority sent an email to the landlord saying that the resident had informed it that the landlord had cancelled the works at the property and the mould was getting worse. The resident was happy for the works to be carried out at the property.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord sent an email to its contractor asking that the works to the property be reinstated.
On 20 January 2021 the local authority sent another email to the landlord chasing it for an update on the works. The landlord updated the local authority saying that it had arranged to carry out the works on 3 February 2021 as the resident was self isolating until 29 January 2021 and that that the contractor responsible for the specialist bathroom fan was not carrying out works in properties during the Covid 19 lockdown.
The local authority sent an email to the landlord on 28 January 2021 saying that it had concerns that the fan not being replaced would mean that the mould would return very quickly and another treatment would be needed to ensure the mould was managed and didn’t cause long term health consequences for the resident.
On 17 February 2021 the local authority sent another email to the landlord saying that the resident had informed it that, having gone into the loft space at the property she had the following concerns:
1. There were a couple of holes in the roof.
2. The insulation was extremely damp and condensation was building up along the piping for the bathroom fan.
3. The insulation didn’t seem to cover the outside wall space.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord sent an email to its contractor asking that when it attended the property to carry out the mould treatment later that week it also had a look in the roof space and reported back as to the findings. The landlord also said “I believe on my first email re this property I did ask for the roof insulation to be looked at.”
On 18 February 2021 the contractor sent the landlord an email setting out the works it had carried out at the property on 17 February 2021 and those still needed as follows:
1. It had cleaned and treated mould on and around every window and front and rear doors.
2. It had cleaned, treated and stain blocked mould in corners of both rear bedrooms and bigger front bedroom.
3. It had cleaned mould off the tiles in the bathroom.
4. It had cleaned and treated mould on the gable end wall in the living room. This had been quite wet with no visible reason why.
5. A ridge tile on the roof looked like it might be loose and it had booked in for this to be looked at and to inspect roof tile capping on gable end.
6. The loft insulation was good and all in place correctly. There were no signs of damp, leaks or any other course of or reasons for mould in the loft.
7. The following work was still needed :
  1. Replace extractor fan adding an additional vent above bath using ‘ y ‘ join to vent pipe.
  2. Treat, stain block then paint with mould resistant paint.
  3. Second clean of tile and grout possible regrout.
  4. water/ damp seal external gable end wall.
On 23 February 2021 the local authority sent an email to the landlord saying that the resident was having to move the sofa in the living room once a week to mop up water on the floor.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord informed the local authority that it would ask a damp specialist to inspect the property.
On 8 March 2021 the damp specialist inspected the property and made the following recommendations:
1. The bathroom extractor fans and the kitchen extractor fan needed to be upgraded.
2. A positive input ventilation system need to be installed in the loft.
3. The walls need to be treated with an anti-condensation coating and a mould treatment.
On 19 March 2021 the resident sent a letter to the landlord complaining about its response to her reports of damp and mould at the property and asking for compensation for the damage to her belongings from the damp and mould.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 April 2021 and said it would provide a response by 16 April 2021.
The landlord sent the resident its stage one response to her complaint on 16 April 2021. In its response the landlord:
1. Apologised that the resident had had to keep chasing it to find out what works would be carried out to the property.
2. Confirmed that it was in the process of carrying out all of the works recommended by the damp specialist.
3. Said that it had also installed cross roof ventilation tiles which should help alleviate any condensation build up.
4. Said that it had requested a quote to install a positive air ventilation unit in the centre of the property. Its repairs team would contact her shortly to let her know if this would be installed.
5. Explained that the damp specialist hadn’t provided recommendations on how to prevent the pooling of water on the floor. It was currently trialling works in another property experiencing the same issue and installing bitumen type material to the floor. It wouldn’t know if the works had resolved the issue until there was cold and wet weather. If it worked, it would carry out the same works in the resident’s property.
6. Said that it didn’t pay compensation for residents’ personal items as these should be covered under residents’ contents insurance.
7. Offered to pay her £150 as a good will gesture to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused to her, taking into account that she had had to keep contacting it.
8. Said that it appreciated her feedback on the service she had received. It would use it to make sure all staff members responded to emails and calls in a timely manner and if they had no update to provide her, to respond and reassure her that they were looking into things.
9. Said that its repairs surveyor would be calling her the following week to make sure she was happy with the works completed so far.
On 11 May 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that:
1. She was declining the £150 goodwill payment.
2. After much chasing and continuing to try and get work booked in, the suggested work still hadn’t been arranged.
3. Her health had declined drastically since moving into the property.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord asked the resident if she wished to escalate the complaint and on 17 May 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord confirming that she did. The resident resent her email to the landlord on 24 May 2021 sayings he hadn’t received a response. The landlord replied on 26 May 2021 saying that it had no record of receiving her email on 17 May 2021.
On 24 May 2021 the local authority sent an email to the landlord saying that it had spoken to the resident who had said that whilst some works had been carried out including a mould wash, nothing has been done to address the pooling of water in the living room. The resident also said that she struggled to adequately heat the living room due to the size and location of the radiators, and this might be exacerbating the condensation and associated mould growth.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord sent an email to the contractor asking why the grouting work hadn’t been carried out as requested. It also said that it wanted the following work orders reraised as they appeared to have been missed: the fan in the downstairs bathroom needed the timer adjusting so that it stayed on longer once the light was switched off; the fan in the kitchen to be replaced with a new fan and the contractor needed to check that the vents had been fitted in the roof space to give some cross ventilation.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord sent a further email to its contractor about the grouting saying “I have asked for these works to be done back at Christmas time and I am still asking for these to be done. Please can you arrange for this to be completed.”
On 11 June 2021 the contractor sent an email to the landlord apologising that its operative had closed the job concerning the grouting by mistake instead of advising that additional works were required.
On 17 June 2021 the landlord sent an internal email saying that:
1. The fans in the bathroom, kitchen and downstairs had been upgraded and were up and running. There should not be a need to put the other extractor fan unit in the centre of the property as long as these were running as they should do.
2. The water in the floor of the lounge would have to be monitored next winter as it was currently fine.
3. The heat loss survey had been carried out that week and it was awaiting the report.
4. If the heating needed to be upgraded then it would look at it. A heating upgrade might also help with the flooring as if the room was warmer then the floor would not get so cold.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. In its response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there had been a service failure concerning how long the resident had been waiting for the works to be completed.
2. Said that it understood how much the issue had affected the resident and her wellbeing over the past few months.
3. Apologised that it had not been able to resolve the issue quickly.
4. Said that it was now working hard to complete the works at the property.
5. Said that it understood that it had upgraded the fans in the bathrooms and kitchen.
6. Said that it would update the resident following the results of the heat loss survey.
7. Repeated that it did not compensate for residents’ personal belongings.
8. Said that as a gesture of good will it was increasing its offer to £250 to recognise the disruption the resident had faced.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 22 June 2021 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
Between June 2021 and January 2022 the landlord carried out further works to the property, including:
1. On 29 July 2021 the landlord received a quote for removing the existing kitchen extractor fan, altering the ducting and covering the existing hole with a wooden plate. On 30 July 2021 the landlord sent an internal email asking for the work to be carried out. On 11 and 19 August 2021, following contact from the resident the landlord sent internal emails chasing the work which was carried out on 3 September 2021.
2. On 19 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to its contractor saying that the resident had informed it that the new kitchen fan humidity control wasn’t working and the cover kept coming off. On 23 November 2021 the contractor confirmed to the landlord that the work to the kitchen extractor fan was complete.
3. Following the results of the heat loss survey the landlord replaced the radiators in the kitchen and the living room in September 2021.
4. In January 2022 the landlord installed a new boiler.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident saying:
1. It acknowledged that the repairs and the making good had taken a very long time to complete, there had been a number of service failures and the overall standard of customer service and customer care was below that which it would generally like to offer.
2. It offered its unreserved apologies.
3. Said that, following discussions with the resident it had agreed the following:
  1. Compensation £4500 to cover service failures and discretionary compensation for damage to property and belongings.
  2. The resident had accepted this payment on the condition that the aids and adaptation application for the downstairs bathroom was processed. The landlord confirmed that the application had been processed and approval had been granted. This work would be carried out by the local authority and would be part funded by the landlord.
4. It had reviewed its processes and policies in order to put in place a service that provided a higher standard of customer service and care. It confirmed that it was already looking at ways that the service could be improved and it was certain that experiences such as the resident’s would will not be allowed to happen in the future. Whilst this wouldn’t “happen overnight”, it was making progress.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

It is noted that the landlord’s contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord at all times in its dealings with the resident.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was inappropriate and amounted to maladministration as:
1. The resident reported the mould growth and pools of water at the property to the landlord on 23 November 2020. Despite the landlord’s responsive repairs policy saying that it aims to deliver routine repairs within an average of ten working days the resident did not receive any contact from the landlord until 23 December 2020, 22 working days later, and only after the landlord had been contacted by the local authority.
2. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that where repairs will take longer than 10 working days to repair the landlord will inform customers of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process. However, the resident and the local authority on her behalf had to continually chase the landlord for updates and confirmation of when work would be carried out.
3. In January 2021, despite the landlord saying on its website that repairs would continue during the third national Covid 19 lockdown, and despite the resident saying it wanted the works carried out, the landlord cancelled works to address the mould at the property.
4. Despite telling the local authority on 23 December 2020 that it was going to look at the roof insulation where there was mould along the ceiling, it did not do so when it attend the property on 2 February 2021. The landlord only inspected the roof insulation when chased to do by the local authority on 17 February 2021, after the resident had raised concerns that it hadn’t been looked at.
5. The local authority asked the landlord on 23 December 2020 to employ a heating engineer to check the radiators at the property. However the landlord did not arrange for the radiators to be checked until June 2021.
6. The landlord informed the local authority on 23 December 2020 that the tiles would be cleaned and regrouted. However, the job was closed by the landlord’s contractor in error and the grouting work was not carried out until June 2021, at least 115 working days later.
7. On 27 May 2021 the landlord had to reraise various works orders with the contractor relating to works that had not been carried out despite the landlord telling the local authority in January 2021 that they would be.
8. The damp specialist recommended in its report dated 8 March 2021 that the extractor fan in the kitchen be updated and the landlord reraised a job for it to be replaced on 27 May 2021. However, the fan was not replaced until 3 September 2021, 124 working days after the damp specialist had informed the landlord that it needed to be upgraded.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord during its consideration of the complaint within its internal complaints procedure (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that:
1. There had been a service failure concerning how long the resident had been waiting for the works to be completed.
2. It understood how much the issue had affected the resident and her wellbeing.
The landlord also acted fairly by apologising that it had not been able to resolve the issue quickly.
However the landlord’s offer of a goodwill payment of £250 was not proportionate to the impact of its failings on the resident as:
1. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of mould caused the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting the local authority’s environmental health team.
2. The landlord’s failures in communication and in updating the resident caused her to incur further time and trouble in having to repeatedly contact the landlord or the local authority.
3. The landlord’s significant delays in carrying out the works required to the property caused the resident to incur distress and inconvenience over a period of nine months as she had to continue to live in a property which had not had works completed which had been recommended in order to eliminate the damp and mould.
4. The landlord’s poor communication about when works would be carried out added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
It is noted that 14 months after the landlord’s final response to the complaint it revisited the question of compensation increased the level of compensation offered from £250 to £4500. Whilst this is welcome it is evidence of the landlord’s failings in adequately assessing the level of redress required and this is addressed further below.
The landlord said in its stage one response to the complaint that that it appreciated the resident’s feedback on the service she had received and It would use it to make sure all staff members responded to emails and calls in a timely manner. However, the landlord has not provided details of any specific changes it will be making in its policies or procedures to ensure that similar failings do not happen again.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 42 to 44 the compensation paid to the resident by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact of its failings on the resident and the landlord failed to learn from the outcome of the complaint. Therefore the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints handling was inappropriate and amounts to maladministration as:
1. The landlord failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so 14 months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
2. The resident complained on 19 March 2021 and the landlord responded on 16 April 2021, 18 working days later and 8 days after the 10 working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
3. The landlord say that it received the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 24 May 2021 and it responded on 22 June 2021, 20 working days later and 10 working days outside the 10 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy.

The landlord’s record keeping

As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested records from the landlord such as repair logs, records of dates the property was attended, an explanation of works completed at each visit, and so on. The landlord has not provided these.
Whilst the landlord has provided copies of email exchanges with its contractors, the lack of any repair records is concerning, and a failure on the part of the landlord. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Its complaints handling.
3. Its record keeping.

Reasons

There were significant delays in carrying out works to the property and the landlord failed to keep the resident updated. The landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord did not adequately consider the level of compensation and there were delays in the landlord’s complaints handling.
The landlord did not keep adequate repair records.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and to provide this Service with a summary of the review setting out what went wrong and the steps it will be taking to ensure that the failures are not repeated. The management review should include:
1. A review of its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in responding to reports of damp and mould reported by residents do not occur in the future.
2. A review of its record keeping practices to ensure that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that it has met its repairing obligations.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £300 compensation for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident the £4500 previously offered if it has not already done so.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.