Peabody Trust (202006194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006194

Catalyst Housing Limited

19 July 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:

1. Their reports of an unsecure satellite dish in 2015, reports of damage to the conservatory roof related to this in 2016, and a subsequent claim for compensation.
2. A leak from the conservatory roof in August 2021, the handling of the complaint about this matter, the handling of a claim for compensation, and response to ongoing issues with the conservatory roof in 2022.
3. A leak from the conservatory roof in August 2020.
4. The complaint about the leak from the conservatory roof in August 2020, and request for compensation.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

3. 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.
4. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
5. Paragraph 39 (d) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
6. Reports of an unsecure satellite dish in 2015, reports of damage to the conservatory roof related to this in 2016, and a subsequent claim for compensation (complaint 1(a)).
7. The resident has described an issue they reported to the landlord in 2015 regarding a satellite dish that was loose and hanging over the roof of the conservatory at the property. They explain that this had a negative impact on their use of the property due to worries about it falling, and state that they raised these concerns numerous times with the landlord, but it was not until 18 months later that the landlord removed the satellite dish. In the process of removing it, operatives dislodged masonry which fell and smashed through the conservatory roof.  The resident reports that it took the landlord 18 months to repair this, which resulted in poor living conditions, limited use of the property, and extensive damage to belongings and decorations when it rained. The resident reports that they asked the landlord for compensation for this as well as many other costs incurred, but were ignored.
8. Information provided to this Service shows that in December 2018 the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,369.98 in compensation, which included damage to items such as at tumble dryer, vacuum cleaner, and sandwich maker. In an email dated 11 December 2018 the landlord stated, ‘It’s important to note that if you accept an offer of compensation as full and final settlement, you will not have the option to escalate the complaint. If you refuse the compensation offer then you will be able to contact the Housing Ombudsman and escalate.’ It is considered that this is the point at which the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident declined the compensation offered and said that they would be taking the case to the Ombudsman.
9. The resident made initial contact with this Service in January 2019. The resident has advised that she subsequently sent information about the complaint directly to a member of staff. She says that when she called back a few months later, she was told that any information sent could not be accessed as the staff member had left.
10. The Ombudsman’s records show that a case was created in January 2019 for the resident, and closed the same day. There is no record of any further contact, including any subsequent phone call. The resident has been unable to provide copies of any emails sent as she no longer has access to the relevant email account.
11. While it is understood that the resident may have sent information directly to a staff member, there is no evidence that the resident pursued the matter having been made aware that the staff member had left this Service.
12. The resident next made contact with this Service in September 2020 regarding a leak that had occurred from the conservatory roof in August 2020, and damage this had caused to their belongings. The landlord had provided a final response via its complaint process on this matter in September 2020.
13. This Service wrote to the resident the following month explaining that they would be able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman after 17 November 2020, asked that they contact us after this date, and respond to a number of questions about the complaint.
14. The resident next contacted the Ombudsman in July 2021. The Ombudsman asked for confirmation of the issues the resident wished to raise and the outcomes that they sought. In an email dated 4 October 2021 the resident set out complaints dating back to 2015, including a further leak that occurred in 2021, and explained that they were seeking a significant increase in compensation, for example for issues such as being unable to use the kitchen for a period in 2016, not being able to access the rear garden for a period in 2015/2106, and compensation for damage to personal belongings from February 2016 to present date.
15. After carefully considering all of the evidence, and in accordance with paragraph 39 (d) of the Scheme, the complaint about an unsecure satellite dish in 2015, reports of damage to the conservatory roof at the property in 2016, and a claim for compensation in relation to these matters, falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is because there is no evidence that the complaint was duly made, or pursued with the Ombudsman, between January 2019 and October 2021.
16. While it is acknowledged that the resident may have attempted to refer their complaint in January 2019, the resident has also said that they were subsequently made aware that any information which had been sent could not be accessed. The resident did not pursue this matter further, i.e. by sending in complaint correspondence and her reasons for referral to the Ombudsman. Further, had the information sent in January 2019 been accessible, the resident would still have been required to formally refer the complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2021 onwards as that is the date when the complaint could have been duly made.
17. While the Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint, enquiries have been made with the landlord about its handling of the matter in 2018. The landlord has advised that it no longer makes “full and final” offers of compensation to residents, recognising that residents can still escalate their complaints when compensation offers are made. The landlord has also said that it will honour the offer of compensation made in December 2018. If the resident wishes to accept this offer, they should contact the landlord directly.
18. Leak from the conservatory roof in August 2021, and the subsequent complaint handling and claim for compensation, and ongoing issues with the conservatory roof in 2022 (complaint 1(b))
19. The complaint about a leak from the conservatory roof in August 2021 and associated issues, and the ongoing issues with the conservatory roof in 2022 fall outside of this Service’s jurisdiction in line with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme. This is because these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in April 2022. In the course of the Ombudsman’s enquiries, it has been established that the landlord has not yet responded to this complaint. The Ombudsman will be contacting the landlord about this complaint under a separate case reference number to address this.
20. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the complaints about a leak from the conservatory roof in August 2020 (complaint 1(c)), and the subsequent complaint handling and handling of the claim for compensation (complaint 1(d)), which completed the landlord’s complaint process on 29 September 2020, and was referred to the Ombudsman within 12 months.

Background

21. The landlord’s repair policy in place at the time set out that for emergency works (classified as repairs required to avoid danger to personal safety or serious damage to the building, such as gas leaks, burst pipes, and flooding) it would attend within 24 hours. For routine works (classified as repairs which were not urgent, but it would not be reasonable to wait for a planned programme of work, for example minor joinery repairs, faulty sanitary ware and plumbing, and general non-urgent repairs) it would offer flexible appointments for residents’ convenience.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure states that if a customer experiences service failure as a result of its action or inaction it may offer compensation. It would not pay compensation where the issue had been caused by conditions out of its control, e.g. severe weather, or for items which are/would be covered by home contents insurance.
23. The procedure states, ‘Customers are responsible for insuring their possessions. Where we, or our contractors, are not responsible for the loss of or damage to their property they should be directed to their own insurance company to make a claim. We are not responsible for customers deciding not to insure their property and will not pay compensation for those who haven’t.’
24. If the landlord was responsible for damaging belongings, for example by failing to meet repair obligations, it would reimburse the reasonable cost of the damage (the reasonable cost of goods at the time of loss, not a full replacement). If compensation was due to a service failure by a contractor the investigating officer would liaise between the customer and the contractor to make a decision on the case.
25. If the claim did not fit in any of the categories stated, the investigating officer could recommend a discretionary payment taking into consideration the length of time it taken to resolve the problem, any difficulties a customer had in pursuing their issue, disruption to the household, and any additional costs incurred.
26. The investigating officer should assess if there was sufficient evidence supporting the claim and request any relevant receipts or photographs, and arrange a home visit where necessary to carry out a visual inspection of the claim. They should also assess whether the landlord had met published targets, followed policies and procedures, and addressed the matter with any third party e.g. contractors.
27. The compensation policy makes reference to the landlord having liability insurance.
28. The landlord had a two-stage complaints procedure in place at the time of the issues complained about:

1. At Stage one (Complaint Review), ‘The Customer Resolution Expert has 10 working days to investigate and respond to the customer directly from the date the complaint was logged.’
2. At Stage two (Appeal), “The customer will be informed of our decision within 10 working days from the date of the appeal. Later responses can be considered where it is reasonable a request could not be made within 10 working days’.

Summary of events

29. On 1 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord making a formal complaint about a leaking conservatory roof. They explained that they reported the issue to the landlord on 17 August 2020 and a roofing contractor attended the same day but was unable to carry out any repair, ‘because he said that he would not be permitted to go onto the roof as it had been raining.’ The resident said that neither did the operative offer anything to help contain the leak, and the operative stated that they would return within the week, but this did not happen.
30. The resident said that they contacted the landlord to chase up on 25 August 2020, explaining that further damage had occurred to the kitchen appliances and equipment. The landlord reported that the contractor had intended to return but as it had not stopped raining, they had been unable to. The resident wrote, ‘I am unsure where [the contractor] is located but it simply isn’t true that the weather has not stopped raining since the operative first attended…’ The landlord had said that the contractor would contact the resident the following day, but this did not happen.
31. The resident referred to the historic issues with the conservatory roof and said, ‘I am absolutely furious that my family and I are having to go through this nightmare once again, this time around, due to initial repairs carried out unsatisfactory…I would also like you to spare a thought that EVERY TIME it rains, the rain water enters into my kitchen, damaging my items.’ The resident requested compensation for all damaged items and poor service, and that the conservatory be refitted. The resident listed the damaged items including a freezer, fridge, and coffee maker.
32. The contractor attempted to attend on 3 September 2020 without an appointment, but no one was home, and it therefore contacted the resident to arrange an appointment.
33. The landlord’s internal records show the landlord making enquiries as to why it took the contractor until 3 September 2020 to re-attend, but there is no indication that it was able to determine the reasons for this. The records refer to the leak being reported as an emergency on 17 August 2020 and someone attending that same day.
34. The repair was completed on 14 September 2020, with the landlord noting that the leak had been caused by missing lead, poorly sealed glazing units, ‘and a few other bits.’
35. On 29 September 2020 the landlord responded to the formal complaint, noting that the repair had been completed but that there had been delays and failures in communication in resolving the leak. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £200 by way of apology for this. It then stated, ‘I appreciate you have also requested to be compensated for items that were damaged due to the leak, however unfortunately, this is not something we will be compensating for. We encourage all our customers to purchase home contents insurance to cover their personal belongings as Catalyst are not responsible for your personal items.’ The landlord confirmed that this was its final response.

 

 

Assessment and findings

36. 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: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right, and; learn from outcomes.
37. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’

Repair

38. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested records from the landlord pertaining to the leak 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 been unable to provide these, explaining that due to a change in system, these cannot be accessed.
39. The lack of any repair records is concerning, and a failure on the part of the landlord. A change in system and subsequent inability to access records is something which may reasonably be foreseen. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations.
40. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to all its residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
41. As well of this lack of records, the landlord has been unable to provide copies of the policies in place at the time, explaining that these are ‘written over’ when a new version is produced. While the Ombudsman has been able to source the contemporaneous policies from its case library, that the landlord cannot provide these is not reasonable. A landlord should ensure that it has copies of previous versions of its policies held on file, so it (and the Ombudsman) can assess its actions against these when necessary.
42. From the little information that is available, it can be seen that it took three weeks from the initial report for the leak to be resolved, despite it being raised as an ‘emergency’ which should have been addressed within 24 hours as per the landlord’s repair policy.
43. While the contractor did attend the same day as the initial report, it did not make the repair, and the resident says that neither did it carry out any other works to ‘make safe’ or attempt to contain the leak in the meantime, and did not return until the resident chased up, later citing the weather for this.  The landlord has not disputed this account and accepts that there were delays, but there is no evidence that it satisfied itself of the reasons for the delays, and it did not provide any detail or explanation for these.
44. The landlord did not comment on the resident’s report that the contractor took no action to prevent damage to their property/belongings or ensure the area was safe. Neither is there any indication that it looked into the report that the leak was caused by missing lead and poorly sealed glazing units, which may indicate previous inadequate works/repairs. It did not consider the resident’s contention that the delay in the repair being completed contributed to damaged belongings.
45. The landlord did offer a discretionary payment of £200, in line with its compensation policy, in recognition of the delay. Offering financial redress can at least in part resolve a complaint, and but given that the landlord did not fully explain what service failures it accepted and considered, the amount appears to be somewhat arbitrary.
46. In light of the failings detailed above, this compensation does not go far enough to ‘put right’ the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident has experienced. Neither did the landlord ‘learn from outcomes’ by determining the causes of the failings and addressing these.
47. In addition, the lack of any records has meant it is not possible for the landlord or the Ombudsman to now provide the resident with a full response to this complaint, or an explanation for the action/inaction on the repair. This has added to the resident’s frustration.

Complaint Handling

48. The resident’s formal complaint provided the landlord with an opportunity to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. Landlords’ complaints handling procedures should demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the resident’s position if something has gone wrong. This entails identifying what went wrong and why, acknowledging any landlord responsibility and the outcome sought by the complainant and taking appropriate steps to remedy any service failure. As described above there is no indication that the landlord did so in this case.
49. Further, the landlord declined to consider compensation for damaged belongings in its response to the complaint, referring the resident to their own home insurance. The Ombudsman’s own ‘Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues’ (which is available to landlords on the Housing Ombudsman website), sets out that before advising the resident to claim for any damage on their contents insurance, it is reasonable for the landlord to initially consider whether its actions may have contributed to the damage (outside of any strict liability claim). The landlord did not do this in this case.
50. If the landlord accepted that it had been at fault, and it had contributed to the delays in resolving the leak, it may not be reasonable to ask the resident to make a claim via their own contents insurance (particularly as this might affect a future premium and may require payment of an excess). In these circumstances, the landlord should have either put right/compensated any damage caused by the leak and/or facilitated a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings.
51. If the landlord disputed that it was at fault (and given that in this case the resident has stated that they had no contents insurance), it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have facilitated a claim via its insurers, who could then establish negligence or liability to pay.
52. The landlord’s own compensation policy sets out that it should refer residents to their home insurance where it or its contractors are not responsible for the loss of or damage to property. There is no indication that any assessment was made as to whether the landlord/its contractors were at fault for the damage or contributed to this, or that it attended to view the damaged claimed, despite the landlord acknowledging that there had been ‘delays and failures in communication in resolving this leak.’
53. It was also the case that the landlord was informed by the contractors that the leak was caused by missing lead, poorly sealed glazing units, ‘and a few other bits’, which may indicate that the previous repair carried out to the conservatory roof was inadequate and should have given further reason for the landlord to consider its whether it was at fault.
54. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether these matters may have contributed to the damage claimed, rather than simply directing the resident to make a claim on their own home insurance. The landlord did not follow fair processes or its own compensation policy here.
55. Further, the landlord provided no rationale for its decision. Given it did offer compensation for damage in a similar situation in 2018, it is unclear why it then decided it would not do so in 2020, despite acknowledging in the complaint response that it had offered compensation for belongings previously. The landlord acted outside of its own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance, offering no explanation for its actions.
56. The landlord did not provide a complaint response until four weeks after the resident made the formal complaint, which is someway outside of its ten working day timescale as set out in its complaint policy. Further, only one response was provided, with the resident being directed to contact the Ombudsman in the 29 September 2020 letter. This is not in keeping with the two-stage complaint process as set out in the complaint policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This meant that the resident did not have the opportunity to appeal the decision, and the landlord missed the opportunity to look again at its handling of the matter.

Conclusion

57. In light of the above, this investigation finds that the landlord did not take sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident, or ‘learn from outcomes’. The resident has experienced significant cumulative adverse effect due to the distress and inconvenience of the delayed repair, lack of investigation into and explanation for this, poor record keeping, a delayed complaint response which failed to identify relevant failings, and the failure of the landlord to take reasonable action in relation to the concerns about damaged belongings. This has also resulted in additional time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing the matter.
58. The landlord’s record keeping is of significant concern as it has advised that records were lost due to a planned change. It is therefore considered that this could have been prevented. This failing has impeded the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s investigation, and it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s investigation of other complaints may have been impacted by the system change and its overwriting of a policy document. Appropriate orders are made below.
59. The resident has explained to this Service that as an outcome they are seeking financial compensation for damage to their personal belongings, as well as the upset and inconvenience the leak caused. While the Ombudsman can consider ordering a landlord to pay compensation as reimbursement of actual costs, in this case that would require an assessment of liability and an evaluation of the value of the belongings, which is something that an insurer is best placed to provide. Therefore, no order is made for compensation for damaged belongings, but instead for the claim to be considered and/or facilitated by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

60. In accordance with Section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from the conservatory roof in August 2020.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint and claim for compensation.
3. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

61. There was a three-week delay in repairing the leak to the conservatory roof, which the landlord has accepted to an extent, but has not reasonably investigated or explained. The lack of any records has meant it is not possible to fully establish what happened here.
62. In its delayed response to the complaint, the landlord did not fairly address the resident’s request for compensation or follow its compensation policy. Neither did it follow its complaint policy, only providing a single response.

Orders

63. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £700 as follows:

1. £450 as a remedy to the frustration caused by the delayed repair, lack of investigation into and explanation for this, and the lack of records impacting the ability to provide an appropriate response to this matter.
2. £250 for the time and trouble and frustration caused by the failings in complaint handling and handling of the compensation claim.
3. If the £200 previously offered has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total.

64. Also within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a staff training exercise for all relevant staff, to ensure that when responding to claims for damage, the landlord considers whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage rather than refer straight to an insurer.
65. The training should include reference to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance, found on this Service’s website: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Guidance-on-Insurance.pdf
66. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this training having taken place.
67. Also within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a staff training exercise for all relevant staff, to ensure that complaints are considered at both stages of the complaint process, as per the landlord’s own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
68. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this training having taken place.
69. Within six weeks of the date if this report, the landlord must:

1. Carry out a review of the circumstances of the case and the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings, to consider whether its/its contractor’s actions may have contributed to the damage.

2. If it finds that it or the contractor was at fault, the landlord should put right any damage caused by the leak via a compensation payment, and/or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings.
3. If the landlord disputes that it was at fault, or lacks records to establish what happened in its handling of the matter, it should facilitate a claim via its own insurance policy.

Recommendations

70. When offering redress such as compensation, the landlord should ensure that it sets out the detail of the failings identified so that there is a clear rationale for redress offered.