Catalyst Housing Limited (201914673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914673

Catalyst Housing Limited

26 July 2021

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 complaint about:
1. Fly tipping;
2. Dog hairs in the communal areas;
3. Noise nuisance from communal doors and front doors;
4. Its pet policy;
5. A designated point of contact.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

Between late 2019 and early February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to raise concerns in relation to fly tipping, noise nuisance from doors and dog hairs in the communal areas.
The Ombudsman can see that during this period the landlord was in contact with the resident. From the available correspondence the Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s position was that it would contact other residents regarding noise nuisance and it would ask the dog owner to undertake cleaning of the communal areas to ensure there were no dog hairs. The Ombudsman has not identified a specific response in relation to fly tipping.
On 15 February 2020 the resident raised an “official complaint” with the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The Area Housing Manager (AHM) had not responded to his concerns regarding fly tipping.
2. The landlord had not dealt with an “ongoing problem with dog hairs in the communal areas” or “constant door banging everyday”.
3. The above issues were impacting on his mental health.
4. He was unhappy that the AHM was his designated point of contact and therefore he “demanded” a new point of contact.
On 17 February 2020 the AHM responded to the resident’s complaint on behalf of the landlord. The landlord did not set out if its response was given under its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. There was “no fly-tipping in [the] bin area”.
2. The “approved dog owner” lived on the ground floor and had agreed to vacuum the floor in addition to the weekly cleaning by the caretaker. The landlord noted that the AHM and Housing Manger (HM) had visited the building block regularly and had not noticed a problem in relation to dog hair. The landlord also noted that it had not received complaints from other residents in relation to the issue.
3. It would be happy to refer the resident to its Tenancy Support Officer (TSO) in relation to his mental health.
4. The AHM would remain his point of contact “until further notice”.
On the same day the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had suggested that he was lying in relation to fly tipping. The resident reiterated that other residents had witnessed fly tipping also. The resident noted that while fly tipping was “quite rare” it did not mean that it did not happen.
2. The AHM should be replaced as his designated point of contact. The resident requested confirmation by 4pm of his new point of contact. The resident noted that if the landlord “really cared about [his] mental health” it would allocate a new point of contact.
3. Dog hairs were present in the communal areas. The resident noted that while it was “not everyday [it did] happen”.
4. Door slamming was an everyday occurrence. The resident noted that the property’s bedroom was directly above the block’s “two front doors”.
On 21 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it was “considering placing [him] on [its] register of persistent complainants”. The landlord explained it was considering this action as the resident had sent “at least 18 emails in the last four to six week period about the same things – fly tipping, dog hairs, banging doors and not wanting to communicate with [the AHM]” to various members of staff. The landlord stated that the resident’s contact was “placing unreasonable demands on its staff”. Within its correspondence the landlord also noted:
1. It had provided a designated point of contact at a management level to support the resident and to ensure that responses to his concerns were consistent. The landlord explained that it had agreed on a manager as they had autonomy to make decisions and it hoped that this would give the resident some assurance that his concerns would be dealt with promptly and effectively.
2. It was aware that the resident no longer wanted to communicate with the AHM and therefore its Customer Service team would respond to any concerns he may have.
On 25 February 2020 the resident raised an “official complaint” with the landlord. The resident set out that his complaint was about:
1. Fly tipping:
  1. Despite reporting fly tipping to the landlord it had ignored his reports and failed to address his concerns regarding surcharges to remove the rubbish. The resident noted that fly tipping was “an occasional problem”.
  2. The landlord had said that no other residents had reported fly tipping as an issue, when he was aware that this was not the case.
2. Designated point of contact:
  1. The AHM had been allocated as his designated point of contact for all issues, without his “consent or approval” or an explanation.
  1. Despite requesting that this arrangement end the landlord has ignored his request.
3. Dog hair:
  1. The landlord had failed to address dog hair in the communal areas. The resident noted that this was “an occasional problem”.
4. Doors banging:
  1. Despite reporting noise nuisance from the communal front doors the landlord had failed to address the issue.
  1. The resident of property X slammed their front door which was “unacceptable”.
  2. The landlord had removed the “do not bang door” sign.
  3. The noise nuisance was impacting on his mental health.
5. Mental health:
  1. Rather than addressing issues (a) through (d), which were impacting on his mental health, the landlord had “suggested [he] get help”. The resident stated that the landlord “could respond better by dealing with the issues raised”.
6. Pet policy:
  1. He believed that it was cruel that the landlord permitted keeping cats and dogs in flats. The resident suggested that the landlord should only grant permission for a cat or dog in a flat when the property was on the ground floor, with a garden and separate entrance.
  1. The landlord should revoke permission for the resident of property X to keep a dog as the property did not meet his suggested criteria.
7. Complaint handling:
  1. He had recently raised a formal complaint concerning some of the same issues which was responded to by the AHM rather than the complaints team. The resident said that this was unsatisfactory.
On 10 March 2020 the resident contacted this Service as the landlord had “not responded to [his] complaint within the specified period”.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident’s complaint dated 25 February 2020 concerned issues which it had previously responded to and it had “nothing further to add”.
2. It wrote to the resident on 21 February 2020 regarding its intention to treat him as a persistent complainant. The landlord confirmed that as the resident had “continued to send emails about the same matters” it would treat the resident as a persistent complainant. The landlord confirmed that it would review the classification on a quarterly basis.
3. Any new complaints made by the resident’s complaints would be responded to by the Head of Housing (HH).
On 14 March 2020 the resident provided an addendum to his referral to this Service. The resident noted that the landlord’s decision to consider him a persistent complainant was unfair as it had “failed to answer [his] concerns satisfactorily or at all” and it was clear that it would not do so.
On 14 March 2020 this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint by 3 April 2020, if it had not already done so.
On 20 April 2020 the landlord wrote to this Service to provide an update. In summary the landlord said:
1. It informed the resident that it was considering putting him on the persistent and vexatious list as he kept raising the same issues, which had been dealt with multiple times.
2. It had offered weekly well-being calls to the resident however he had declined.
3. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal bins and dog hairs it confirmed that it would write to residents about the bins and would ensure the cleaning contractor removed any dog hair from the communal areas. The landlord said that the resident was “happy with this”.
On 5 May 2020 the resident wrote to this Service confirming that the landlord had not responded to his complaint or his “new ones” by 3 April 2020. The resident confirmed that his complaint was about:
1. The AHM responded to his complaint dated 15 February 2020, rather than the landlord’s complaints team.
2. The landlord had failed to address his concerns relating to fly tipping.
3. The landlord had not explained why the AHM was appointed his designated point of contact. The resident noted that this action was taken “without consent or approval”.
4. The landlord had not addressed dog hairs in the communal areas. The resident noted that the dog owner should be required to vacuum the communal area daily.
5. The landlord had not responded to his concerns regarding its pet policy. The resident noted that the dog owner used the communal outside space as “a play area” for their dog, the dog was not kept on a lead and the dog fouled in the area. The resident added that when he attempted to raise his concerns with the dog owner they accused him of “being a drunk”.
On 6 May 2020 this Service wrote to the landlord confirming that the resident had been in touch regarding his complaint dated 25 February 2020 advising that he had not received a response under its complaint procedure. This Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident.
In response to this Service’s contact, and on 6 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident asking if “there were any new issues [he wished it] to look into”.
On 14 May 2020 the landlord wrote to this Service setting out that the resident had not responded to its contact on 6 May 2020.
On 17 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the front doors. The resident explained that the landlord had replaced the front doors to all properties in the block in early 2020 however the new doors did not shut easily and made a loud noise when closing. The resident stated that the door replacement programme was a “botched job” and therefore the landlord should investigate as it was “totally unacceptable to put up with loud doors”. Within his correspondence the resident noted that the properties’ sound insulation was poor.
On 18 May 2020 the landlord responded confirming that it would ask its assets management team to consider his comments regarding the doors. The landlord added that the sound insulation between the properties would have met the building regulation requirements at the time they were built so there was “nothing [it could] do about this”.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord and resident exchanged correspondence. In summary:
1. The resident reiterated that he was concerned regarding the landlord’s response to noisy front doors and dog hairs. The resident added that the cleaners were cleaning up dog hair when they attended weekly however there was still a problem.
2. The landlord reiterated that it would look into his concerns regarding noisy front doors. In respect of dog hairs the landlord confirmed that it would inspect the block when Covid-19 restrictions permitted, adding that the cleaning contractors were undertaking regular cleaning in the communal areas.
On 25 and 29 May 2020 the resident wrote to this Service regarding his complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to address his concerns under its complaint procedure.
On 2 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reiterating noise nuisance from the new front doors which had been installed to the properties within the block and to request that the landlord inspect.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. Its letter dated 13 March 2020 explained:
  1. Why the resident was given a designated point of contact.
  2. Why the resident was placed on the persistent complainant register.
  3. That it would only respond to new information.
2. In light of its letter dated 13 March 2020 it would not be providing a response to the following matters which the resident “persistently raised”:
  1. Communal door.
  1. Dog hairs.
3. It would review the front doors when inspections resumed following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions.
4. It had decided to keep the resident on its list of persistent complainers for another three months. The landlord noted that in the past week it had received “over seven emails” from the resident about the “same issues”.
On 5 June 2020 the resident contacted this Service providing a copy of the landlord’s letter dated 4 June 2020. The resident stated that the landlord had made it clear that it would not respond to his complaint.
On 10 June 2020 this Service contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. This Service noted the landlord’s letter dated 4 June 2020 and requested confirmation that it had formally dealt with the issues subject of the complaint under its complaint procedure.
On 17 June 2020 the resident wrote to this Service confirming that he wished to close his complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. In regard to fly tipping this was “eventually resolved with the help of a local councillor”.
2. In regard to the landlord’s pet policy he understood that it was not illegal to keep dogs in flats “however inappropriate” it was.
3. In regard to dog hairs in communal areas and fouling he would keep the situation under review and report to the local authority’s environmental health team if necessary.
On 6 July 2020 the resident wrote to this Service confirming that he would like to “re-open” his complaint with the landlord. The resident explained that he would like to re-open his complaint as “the fly-tipping issue [was] occasional and dog hairs one [was] persistent”.
On 18 July 2020 the resident wrote to this Service confirming that the landlord had refused to investigate his complaint about “fly tipping, dog hairs, noise from doors/ neighbours”.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord wrote to this Service confirming that it had investigated the resident’s complaint and all concerns raised “through [its] complaint process”. The landlord confirmed that there were “no open complaints” for the resident.
On 22 August 2020 the landlord wrote to this Service to confirm its position in relation to the resident’s complaint and concerns which he had raised. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident had not raised a formal complaint about its decision to place him on its persistent complainant register. The landlord confirmed that there was therefore no formal complaint open on this matter.
2. It had dealt with the resident’s concerns in relation to dog hairs and the communal entrance door. The landlord noted that the resident had requested that the complaint about these issues was closed on 17 June 2020.
3. In relation to fly tipping it had collected the “rubbish in question”. The landlord confirmed that fly tipping was “not recorded as a complaint”. The landlord noted that the resident had recently provided information regarding a resident leaving rubbish which it was dealing with.
4. It was not dealing with any current complaints from the resident.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord confirmed that it would continue with the arrangement that the dog owner must clean dog hair for the communal areas and it was going to install a lock on the bin room door.

Assessment and findings

In July 2020 the Ombudsman published its Complaint Handling Code (the Code) setting out good practice on how a landlord should respond to a complaint effectively and fairly. The Code confirms that an effective complaint handling procedure is accessible, timely, responsive, fair and should seek early resolution and deliver improvement to the services a landlord provides.
While the Code was published after the resident referred his complaint to this Service in March 2020, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the general principles of the Code should already have underpinned the landlord’s own complaint handling policy and procedure.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the complaint policy (the policy) which the landlord operated when the complaint was live. The policy sets out that the landlord:
1. Operated a two-stage complaint process, with stage one responses provided in 10 working days, and stage two responses provided in 20 working days.
2. Wanted to hear from its customers when they feel dissatisfied with their home or a service provided by it so that it can put things right and learn from mistakes.
3. Defined a complaint as a “dissatisfaction with the service provided where a response is expected” including “where a complainant believes that enquiries have not been dealt with promptly and in full”.
The evidence shows that on 15 and 25 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to make an official complaint about the service he had received from it. Despite the resident’s request the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord engaged its complaint procedure and provided the resident with a formal response to the issues which he raised.
The landlord explained that it did not respond to the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure because:
1. It had previously responded to and addressed the concerns which the resident had raised.
2. The resident’s conduct in relation to the matters was persistent and vexatious, as he was repeatedly raising the same issues.
While the Ombudsman notes the landlord’s explanation for not responding to the complaint under its complaint procedure, and the Ombudsman has seen evidence of some of the informal responses to the resident’s concerns, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was inappropriate that the landlord did not engage its complaint procedure to provide a formal response to the resident to address his concerns. The landlord should have used its complaint procedure to consider if it had dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately, and if not taken action to put things right. In not responding to the complaint the Ombudsman considers that the resident was adversely affected by the inaction of the landlord, including lost opportunity, raised expectations, distress and inconvenience. In addition the landlord’s failure to provide a response under its complaint procedure delayed the resident’s right to refer the complaint to this Service for adjudication. Further the Ombudsman considers that it caused the resident to continue to repeatedly raise the same issues as he felt that he had no resolution to his concerns.
As part of his complaint the resident told the landlord that he had mental health issues. While the landlord did offer the resident support, a referral to a TSO, which was reasonable, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord failure to formally respond to his complaint will have caused further destress and inconvenience to him. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took into account all the circumstances of the case in determining not to provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that “if a complainant has made persistent and/ or unfounded complaints… [it] reserves the right not to not investigate their complaint”.
While the Ombudsman can see that the resident was raising the same issues between late 2019 and early 2020 the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident requested to make a formal complaint until February 2020. The Ombudsman does not therefore consider that the resident’s request for a formal complaint response to the concerns which he had raised, and which he had only received informal responses to, was persistent or vexatious as his complaint in February was the first time he was seeking a formal response from it. The Ombudsman considers that consideration of the resident’s complaint under the landlord’s complaint procedure was the landlord’s opportunity to bring the matter to a close and clearly advise on its position on each of the issues he had raised.
Following a review of the evidence the Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s position on each of the issues of the complaint is:
1. Fly tipping:
  1. No issue with fly tipping within the block, however it was going to install a lock to the bin room store so that only residents had access to the area.
2. Dog hairs in the communal areas:
  1. The issue had been addressed by requesting that the dog owner clean the communal areas which the dog used.
  2. No dog hairs witnessed during inspections of the block.
3. Noise nuisance:
  1. The doors would be inspected following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions.
4. Pet policy:
  1. Not clear to the Ombudsman.
5. Designated point of contact:
  1. It had allocated the resident a designated point of contact to ensure that the responses to his concerns were consistent and to provide him with assurance that his concerns would dealt with promptly and effectively.
The landlord’s failure to provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure has also limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate all aspects of the complaint. In responding to the complaint the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide adequate reason and explanation to support the decisions it made in relation to the matters subject of the complaint. Without knowledge of the landlord’s decisions the Ombudsman is unable to assess the quality of its decision making based upon the known circumstances at the time, and therefore whether its actions and its final position on each issue was reasonable or not. This is unsatisfactory.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not engage its complaint procedure and therefore provide the resident with a formal response. This is unsatisfactory.
The landlord should have used its complaint procedure to consider if it had dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately and, if not, taken action to put things right. In not responding to the complaint using its formal complaints procedure, the resident was adversely affected by the inaction of the landlord, including lost opportunity, raised expectations, distress, inconvenience and delay in access to this Service.
While the resident was raising the same issues between late 2019 and early 2020, it was not until February 2020 that the resident requested that the landlord consider his concerns formally under its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman does not therefore consider that the resident’s request for a formal complaint response to the concerns which he had raised, and which he had only received informal responses to up until that time, was persistent or vexatious. The landlord should have used the complaint procedure to bring the resident’s concerns to a close and clearly advise on its position on each matter.
The landlord’s failure to provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate all aspects of the complaint. This is because the landlord failed to explain how it responded to the issues subject of the complaint and therefore the Ombudsman cannot fully assess whether its chosen course of action and its final position on each issues was reasonable in the circumstances or not.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation in respect of its complaint handling.
The landlord should write to the resident providing an update on each of the issues subject of his complaint as set out in paragraph 1 of this report. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service.
The landlord should comply with the orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that all complaints are dealt with in accordance with best practice.