Peabody Trust (202123676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123676

Catalyst Housing Limited

14 February 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 concerns:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the loss of heating and hot water for a five-week period.
2. The associated complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of a one-bedroom flat since 26 January 2009.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for space heating, water heating and for the supply of gas and electricity, including gas pipes and central heating installations.
The landlord has a repairs policy that states that it will attend to emergency repairs within four hours, make safe within 24 hours and aim to finalise the repair within the routine repair targets.
It will aim to complete routine repairs within 10 working days and within one visit, but multiple visits may be required where multiple trades are needed, or the works are complex/specialist in nature.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure:
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 the decision within 10 working days from the date of the appeal. The procedure also states “For more complex cases the manager or above may require longer than 10 working days to conduct their investigation and provide a response. Should this situation arise, the manager or senior manager will notify the customer of the reason(s) for the extension, progress to date and when the customer can expect a full response. This notification can be in writing or by phone.”
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that: “If the claim does not fit in any of the categories, the investigating officer can recommend a discretionary payment taking into consideration:
1. Length of time it has taken us to resolve the problem,
2. Any difficulties a customer has had in pursuing their issue,
3. Disruption to the household,
4. Any additional costs incurred.

Summary of events

On 8 October 2021, the landlords engineer attended the property to check on the boiler following a report from the resident that the boiler was leaking, and he had no heating and hot water. The engineer advised he would order the replacement part required. The boiler was left working but the resident was advised not to use it unless “really necessary.” Fan heaters were left for the resident. Later that evening the boiler ceased working completely.
A follow up appointment was scheduled for 13 October 2021. However, the repair logs show that this appointment was cancelled. The reason for the cancellation is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service, although it is noted that the replacement part for the boiler was ordered on the same day. The evidence shows that the resident was informed that the appointment had been cancelled.
On 19 October 2021, a landlord engineer attended and fitted the new part but could not complete the repair as he then identified that a further replacement part was required. On 25 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the delays in the repairs over the phone.
A further attendance took place on 26 October 2021, during which an engineer advised that no new part was required as a valve was not set correctly. The records show that the heating was reported as working.
On 31October 2021, the resident submitted a further report of a faulty boiler with no heating and hot water. An Engineer attended that day and reported two further replacement parts were required. On 8 November, the parts were fitted, and the boiler was fixed.
On 9 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up his complaint as he had not had a response. He requested a call back. On 11 November 2021 he went online and registered a formal stage one complaint. In summary he said:
1. He wants, as a goodwill gesture, a contribution to his bills over the period for things like boiling the kettle, microwaving hot water bottles, additional toiletries required to wash, annual leave taken from work to wait for engineers.
2. The stress of it all had caused anxiety and impacted his mental health.
The complaint was acknowledged on 12 November 2021 by the landlord. It sent a further email to the resident on 24 November 2021 apologising for the delay stating that there had been changes in the organisation causing a backlog. It asked for a convenient time to call the resident the next day. It is unclear from the evidence whether a telephone call took place.
On 10 December, the resident sent an email to the landlord outlining what had happened during the five-week period, the number of visits and what each engineer had told him. He also said that he first made a complaint on 25 October over the phone and quoted the reference number he was provided. He stated that he then chased this up twice on 9 November 2021, and then again on 12 November when he was informed that it had been allocated and he should receive a response within 10 days.
The landlord issued a stage one response on the same day. It thanked the resident for his patience while it looked into the complaint. It offered £325 compensation. This was broken down as £275 towards rent and a goodwill gesture of £50. It advised if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could raise a stage two complaint.
On 11 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to refuse the offer, stating he had made two complaints which were ignored causing him to have to make additional lengthy phone calls and send emails which had taken up a considerable amount of time. He requested a payment of £1314.50, broken down as follows:
1. £250 to his mum for letting him sleep in her spare room and shower there when the gym was closed.
2. £450 for three days off work to wait for engineers.
3. £70 for his phone bill, five hours spent putting together emails, waiting on phone lines chasing repairs and complaints.
4. £11.50 for wipes to clean himself after work.
5. £28 for one month’s gym membership as this is where he showered most of the time.
6. £545 reimbursement of rent as he could not stay at the property at night as the blow heaters supplied affected his asthma.
7. £75 for additional electric used to boil kettles and run the fan heaters.
The resident added that the situation had impacted his mental health and wellbeing. He therefore wished for the landlord to provide an amount of compensation for goodwill. He also stated that the engineer had soaked the walls and carpets when bleeding the radiators, and he wished for these areas to be painted and cleaned.
On 17 December 2021 and 9 January 2022, the resident sent emails to chase up a response to the stage two complaint. On 10 January 2022, the landlord responded apologising that an email failed to send. It informed the resident that the stage two complaint had been allocated and it was sorry for the delay in responding.
The landlord subsequently issued the stage two response on 21 January 2022. It offered a total sum of £430 and said:
1. In its stage one response it offered £275 compensation which is 50% of the rent payable during the five-week period of no heating and hot water. An additional £50 was offered as a goodwill gesture.
2. It apologised and understood the frustration and that on review it would offer 60% of rent payable which amounted to £330 as recommended by its legal team. This was based on the extent of services not available in the home during the five weeks. It went on to state as there was no disruption to electricity, he was able to remain in the property with a reduced level of comfort.
3. In recognition of the delays in reinstating the heating and hot water it offered £100 as a goodwill gesture.
On 21 January 2022, the resident declined the landlords offer. Following further conversation, he informed the landlord that he would accept the offer if it agreed to pay for his carpets to be cleaned.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service, as he received no further response from the landlord.

Events after the final response

On 29 June 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the “disruption it caused in delaying its response”. To conclude the remaining matters, it re-considered the compensation amount and offered £880, broken down as:
1. £275 rent costs
2. £75 goodwill gesture
3. £330 to cover heating and hot water bills
4. £150 for inconvenience and distress caused.
5. £50 right to repair.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. Our approach to providing remedies to cases following investigation is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their additional costs, time off work or loss of wages whilst repairs are carried out.
Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlords’ actions were in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.
The resident has described the effect on his health caused by the length of time it took for the issues to be resolved. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Level of compensation for the loss of heating and hot water

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, the landlord should undertake repairs which it is responsible for within a reasonable amount of time. In addition, the landlord’s repair policy states emergency repairs are repairs that “require a rapid response to safeguard wellbeing, the integrity of the property and health & safety.” It also states that emergency repairs should be undertaken within 24 hours of being reported with an aim to finalise the repair within 10 working days if unable to within 24 hours.
The resident was without heating and hot water for a five-week period and therefore the landlord failed to carry out its obligations within the timescales detailed in its policy. The landlord did ultimately repair the boiler (and therefore fulfilled its repair obligation) however, it delayed in doing so.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in repairing the boiler. As detailed above, it offered the resident a total of £430 compensation, £330 in the form of a rent rebate and £100 as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a rent rebate and a goodwill gesture, so the offer was also in line with its policy.
Since this service has received this complaint, the landlord has appropriately re-considered the compensation amount and has offered the resident £880 which is broken down as £275 rent costs, £75 goodwill gesture, £330 heating & hot water bills, £150 inconvenience and distress and £50 right to repair.
The lack of amenities has been reduced to 50% of the rent which differs from the stage two response where the landlord stated that “it has consulted with its in-house legal team who have advised that 60% of rent would be advisable in this instance” (£330). The goodwill gesture was also reduced from the £100 offered in the stage two response to £75.
Whilst the landlord has now included additional costs in its latest compensation offer in line with its policy there is no explanation or evidence to support why these amounts are reduced. Given that the circumstances of the case did not change between the stage two response and the landlord’s revised compensation offer, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to continue to offer the sums as offered in its stage two complaint outcome. This has been considered in the offer of compensation award below.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for consideration of unreasonable costs, so the landlord has correctly considered the cost of heating and hot water bills. The landlord’s revised offer of £330 was an increase of £255 from the amount requested by the resident of £75, but the landlord has not provided any explanation of why this has been increased in its calculation.
The discretionary compensation amount, however, is inadequate to address the adverse effect of the failings. The landlord’s policy states it can consider, length of time to resolve the problem, difficulties experienced in pursuing the issue and disruption to the household. This situation went on for a five-week period and would have been extremely inconvenient, especially given the winter period this timeframe spanned.
In his correspondence to both the landlord and this Service, the resident advised that as he was unable to shower at home, he had to visit his mother’s house and also showered at the gym. He states that “he wasn’t comfortable sleeping there at night or staying there too long with the heaters on all the time as it dried the air a lot and affected his asthma.”
In addition to this, the resident had the added inconvenience and frustration of multiple attendances by operatives to try and address the issues. The distress caused to the resident has been considered in the compensation award below.
In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman own Remedies guidance which, although is not prescriptive, includes the following suggested ranges of compensation:
1. Awards of £50 to £250 – for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but where this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. For example, repeated failures to reply to letters or telephone calls.
2. Awards of £250 to £700 – where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. For example, failure to address repairs in accordance with its policy.
3. Awards of £700 and above – for instances of maladministration that have led to a several long-term impact on the resident. For example, a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.

Complaint handling

As detailed above there were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident first made a complaint in October 2021, but this was never acknowledged which led to him having to make further telephone calls and email a second stage one complaint submission in November 2021. It then took a further 21 working days for the stage one response and 27 working days for the stage two response to be issued.
Prior to issuing the stage one response, the landlord did explain that it was experiencing backlogs. However, the evidence that is available does not show whether the resident was then given timescales for the stage on response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an approximate timescale in the circumstances. That the landlord did not, was a failing in its complaint handling.
The resident had to then chase the stage two request several times over a three-week period before receiving an acknowledgement from the landlord that the complaint had been allocated. As detailed above, the landlord did apologise for the delay. However, the resident had been further inconvenienced as a result, and this was not sufficiently recognised by the landlord.
The landlord also failed to address in either response the resident’s complaint about the damage caused within the property. The resident had advised that rusty water had leaked onto his carpets and splashed up the walls, and that he wished for a contribution towards paint and a carpet clean. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where damage to property or possessions happens during works it will investigate and if upheld reimburse for the reasonable cost of the damage. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the residents’ comments, to investigate and reimburse for any damage if the complaint was upheld at the time. That the landlord did not was a further failing, and a missed opportunity to put things right.
In its revised offer dated 29 June 2022, 6 months after the damage was reported, the landlord did offer to investigate but requested photographs to show the damage. The resident responded that he was unable to provide this evidence as he had already remedied the damage.
The landlord’s complaint responses did recognise its failure for the time taken to fix the boiler and offered compensation. However, it failed to fully consider the overall impact on the resident. It did not offer to investigate the reported damage to the walls and carpets or provide the resident with information about how to make a claim. In addition, it did not acknowledge its failure in the handling of the complaint and that the resident had been caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience in pursuing the matter.
Overall, the landlord’s complaints handling was poor, and the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity meant that it missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship. To reflect this maladministration, an order of compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in the level of compensation offered by it for its handling of the loss of heating and hot water for a five-week period.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint

Reasons

While the landlord has acknowledged some failings and inconvenience caused to the resident for the heating and hot water issues, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the extent of the failings and the cumulative distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in this case.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service. Therefore, an order for remedy is made.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1405 which is comprised as follows:
  1. £880 which was offered on 29 June 2022 if not already paid.
  2. £200 for the adverse effect caused by the delay in completing the repair.
  3. £250 for failure to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint.
  4. £75 for failure to follow it compensation policy where damage to property or possessions is reported.
Once the above orders have been completed the landlord is to provide confirmation to this service.

Recommendations

Given the complaint handling failure in this case, the landlord should also take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its staff of their complaint handling responsibilities, what this service might expect to see, and the best practice approaches.