Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201806741)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 201806741
Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited
18 January 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 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 has complained about:
- the landlord’s handling of repair works to the wet room.
- the landlord’s response to her reports of bad smells in the property.
- the landlord’s handling of her complaint about these matters.
- the level of compensation the landlord offered in respect of these matters.
Background and summary of events
3. On 27 April 2018 the landlord raised a repair to remedy a leak from the shower drainage of shower pump. Its repairs records indicate that in response it rewired the pump on 25 May 2018 but on the same day the resident reported that water was still flooding out and that the shower and flue were noisy. The landlord ordered an emergency repair for a plumber to check the drain. On 1 and 8 June 2018 the resident further reported blocked drainage in the wet room. The resident also made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of issues in her wet room which it received and acknowledged on 29 May 2018.
4. The landlord inspected the resident’s property of 3 July 2018. On 12 July 2018 the landlord agreed with the resident that it would seek to resolve the issue reported by changing the incline of the wet room floor to increase the drainage speed. It noted that the pump had been tested and functioning on 3 July 2018.
5. The correspondence provided to this Service indicates that from around June 2018 the resident reported a smell in her bedroom to the landlord, which she believed emanated from the roof above her property. The landlord carried out inspections and arranged for pest controllers to visit, although it is not clear when pest controller attended. In August 2018, the resident asked the local authority Environmental Health department to investigate. It did not attend the resident’s property until January 2019.
6. A planned visit for 7 August 2018 in respect of the proposed works to the wet room floor was missed as the contractor advised the resident that its operative was ill but did not advise her that it would send another operative instead. On 17 August 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the meeting of 7 August 2018 did not take place and confirming that her complaint would consequently be escalated to Stage 2. On 31 August 2018 the landlord spoke to the resident advising that it was looking to rebook the appointment to resolve her complaint. The landlord’s repair records indicate that works to the wet room floor were completed on 10 October 2018, although the works consisted of changing the shower and reconnecting the pump, not flooring works.
7. The resident contacted this Service about her case, and after this Service made contact with the landlord, on 3 September 2018 it raised a Stage one complaint to investigate the “toxic” smell reported. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that at the time it thought the smell issue was related to the wet room drainage issue.
8. In response to letters sent by the resident to the Chief Executive, on 1 November 2018 the landlord sent separate emails to the resident advising that it would be escalating the complaint about the smell to Stage 2 as she had expressed dissatisfaction with the time taken to resolve the complaint, and advising that her complaint about the wet room would be escalated to Stage 3. However, the landlord subsequently agreed with the resident to merge the complaints into a single stage 3 complaint as it considered the issues related and that they needed a single point of contact.
9. On 12 December 2018 wrote to the resident in relation to her Stage Three complaints about the odour in her bedroom and the problems reported with the shower. It noted that following an inspection 4 December 2018, it had identified a number of actions in order to resolve the complaint. It stated that it would arrange for Environmental Health to carry out a survey in order to investigate the odour and help identify what it could do to combat the problem. With regard to the bathroom, the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom tiles from beneath the flower dado so that they were all the same shade of grey. The landlord further stated that “we are unable to lower the drain due to the structure underneath the sub floor. In light of this we will raise the bathroom floor in order to prevent the collecting of water in the corners of the shower area. Given that this will create a slight elevation in the floor between the hallway and the bathroom, we will include a threshold strip between the two levels of floor in order that there is smooth and accessible passage between the two spaces.”
10. On 18 December 2018 the landlord wrote to Environmental Health asking it to investigate the smell in the resident’s bedroom.
11. On 27 December 2018, the landlord recalled the contractor who carried the works in the wet room and also ordered additional tiling works.
12. On 11 January 2019 the landlord provided an update on the complaint. It advised that it was seeking a response from Environmental Health in respect of the odour in the bedroom which the resident first reported in summer 2018. The landlord noted that its Housing and Property teams had both visited the resident and been unable to detect the source of the odour, whilst its pest control team had also be unable to find the cause. It hoped Environmental Health would carry out a survey and be able to identify the source of the problem so that it could find a solution.
13. The landlord thereafter made several emails and calls to Environmental Health asking it to inspect. On 16 January 2019 Environmental Health advised that it had inspected the resident’s property and noticed a smell in the rear bedroom which it believed was more indicative of a leaking roof rather than a drainage issue. Environmental Health noted that the smell was worse when it rained and that there had been mould on the ceiling, possibly from a leak. On 22 January 2019, after confirming the cost it would have to pay, the landlord asked the managing agent to carry out on investigation of the roof to see if there was a leak.
14. On 18 January 2019 the landlord measured the resident’s wet room. It is not disputed that it discussed the schedule of works to be completed. Between 23 and 29 January 2019 the landlord carried out works to re-lay the wet room floor, relay the shower tray and renew tiling. In an exchange of correspondence that followed, the landlord stated that it had offered a decant but the resident refused this and stated that she would visit a friend if she needed to use the toilet but this was disputed by the resident. On 29 January 2019 the landlord advised the resident that the works were complete and apologised for the smell of the glue used which should have been odourless. It also advised that it was in the process of arranging an inspection of the roof to investigate the smell that she had reported.
15. On 29 January 2019 the resident reported a leak through the shower gate. The landlord arranged for a contractor to check the gate on the following day.
16. On 7 February 2019, there was a missed appointment with a roofer sent by the managing agent to investigate where the bedroom smell was coming from. On 12 February 2019 the roofer attended and provided the management agent with a report. On 25 February 2019, the managing agent advised the landlord that a few issues had been identified. Specifically, the box guttering needed to be cleaned and a tv aerial had been drilled through the roof. However, before any works could be completed, it needed to carry out a test of the “man safe equipment” to ensure that it was safe for contractors to work on the roof.
17. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the resident chased up the progress on her complaints. On 19 March 2019 the landlord advised the resident that it was awaiting a report from the managing agent so that works to the roof could be booked. On reviewing the cases on 3 April 2019 the landlord noted that it was awaiting dates for the roof works from the managing agent. It further noted that the shower door was installed correctly and that it allowed water to escape at the bottom because it was wet room and designed for that purpose. On 5 April 2019 the landlord advised the resident that until the safety issues were resolved, it would not be possible for the contractor to carry out roof works. However, the managing agent would be producing a report on 8 April 2019 after which time the scheduling of the works should be clearer. The landlord advised that in the event of further delays it would request that the guttering was accessed by alternative means.
18. On 25 April 2019 the management agent advised that there would be a delay in the works as the roof was unsafe to work on and the man safe system needed to be replaced. The managing agent advised that it had received a quote and was waiting on a second quote before presenting them for approval by its directors.
19. On 31 May 2019, the landlord updated the resident stating that the roof works had been delayed as it was unsafe for contractors to work on, and that it was in touch the managing agent to find an alternative solution. On 3 June 2019 the resident wrote and called to pursue her complaint and stated that the smell had contaminated her clothes, mattress and walls.
20. On 4 June 2019, the management agent carried out works to clear the gutters at the block. The managing agent also provided photographs of the works completed stating that it had cleared a lot of grime. The landlord advised the resident of the works who advised that she could still smell the smell in the bedroom. On making further enquiries the managing agent on 24 June 2019 advised the landlord that its roofers had advised there was no indication of anything wrong.
21. On 17 June 2019, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and confirmed a smell in the bedroom. It agreed to clean the resident’s mattress as she was shortly going into hospital for an operation and she wanted the assurance of recuperating in a clean and relaxed environment. On 18 June 2019 the landlord asked the local authority Environmental Health service to visit the resident’s property to investigate the smell. Throughout July and August 2019 the landlord chased up the request with Environmental Health but did not receive a response.
22. On 27 June 2019, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and decided to install a vent in the bedroom to increase the ventilation.
23. On 1 August 2018, the resident advised the smell had gone away due to sun drying water on the roof but she was concerned about the smell returning if it rained. Internal emails sent in August 2018 confirm that the landlord decided to jointly inspect whether the works were carried out to the correct standard and to also inspect the roof to ascertain whether there was a wider issue. It was agreed for the installation of an air brick for ventilation in the bedroom with the use of a cherry picker.
24. The landlord arranged for a company to clean the resident’s mattress on 1 September 2019. The resident subsequently complained that the mattress had been stained by the clean. After visiting on 2 September 2019 to confirm this, the landlord approached the company asking it to take responsibility and purchase a new one.
25. A letter on 4 September 2019 to the resident confirmed the action the landlord was taking, specifically that it would be inspecting the roof works on 11 September 2019 and was seeking to carry out a joint inspection with EH. On 11 September 2019, the landlord carried out a joint inspection with the managing agent, to ascertain if there was any damage causing the smell reported. However, it could not find any openings, damages to the roof or any blockage to the outlet of gutter or downpipe. Internally, it saw no sign of condensation or found no smell to indicated dampness to ceiling or walls.
26. On 16 September 2019 the landlord installed the air-brick in the resident’s bedroom although there was a missed appointment on 21 August 2019.
27. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the resident raised a further report of a leak under the floor in the wet room in a conversation on 16 September 2019 and that it arranged an appointment to inspect on 24 September 2019. The landlord’s repair records that it subsequently raised an order to repair an area of “polysafe flooring around upstand and patch repair the perimeter” which was completed on 12 October 2019.
28. On 28 October 2019 the landlord carried out a joint inspection with Environmental Health and did not identify a smell. The resident suggested that she could smell brick dust arising from the installation of the vent. The landlord subsequently confirmed that the rim around the hole was sealed on both sides. The resident also reported again water flowing out from under the shower door. Following the visit, Environmental Health advised the landlord that it did not witness a smell and although it had previously witnessed the smell, it considered that the repair works undertaken had resolved the issue.
29. After a report on 4 November 2019 by the resident of mould growth in the shower area, on 11 November 2019 the landlord inspected and identified that the possible cause was damage to the abutment between the flooring and tiles, and the following day it carried out remedial sealant works and antimould treatment.
30. On 11 December 2019 the landlord updated the resident advising that as the smell issue was difficult to resolve, it proposed to monitor it over a four week period. It asked the resident to make a diary of incidents over this period. The landlord also stated it would replace the mattress, either purchase one itself or providing the resident with the funds to buy a new mattress herself.
31. The resident made further reports of the smell, stating it occurred either late in the day or when it had rained. On 20 January 2020 the landlord visited the resident to investigate the smell reported. It checked for damp and mould and found none. It concluded that the “slight” smell was from lack of use of the bedroom. An internal email sent on 29 January 2020 noted that the landlord had agreed to carry out works to allow the resident to open and shut the vent / airbrick as she saw fit and had advised her to maintain slight heat in the room and to regularly open the door to avoid the smell reported.
32. The landlord commissioned an air quality report from a private specialist company. It attended the resident’s property on 4 February 2020 and provided a report to the landlord on 12 February 2020.
33. On 2 April 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 3 response to the complaint. The landlord noted that works to the wet room were initially completed on 10 October 2018, but there were then further issues with drainage and fungus growth, meaning that final works were completed until 12 November 2019. The landlord accepted that there was an excessive delay and advised it had formed a new property team who would be responsible for managing contractors and follow on repairs.
34. With regards to the resident not using her bedroom because of a smell, the landlord stated that staff and contractors had carried out several visits but never identified a smell. However, as repairs officer had noted that there was a minor smell in the bedroom, typical of a room that was not used or ventilated, it had installed an airbrick. The landlord further noted that it had commissioned and biological air quality assessment report which found no environmental concerns, The landlord noted that it had provided guidance to the resident, and reiterated maintaining a slight level of heat in the bedroom and to regularly open the door.
35. The landlord accepted that it had damaged the resident’s mattress when attempting a deep clean, and had agreed a payment of £1,439 to cover the cost. The landlord also accepted failings in its communication and complaints handling, including not meeting the service level agreements of the complaints procedure, infrequent and insufficiently helpful communication and a lack of ownership of complaint issues causing delays in responses.
36. The landlord stated that it would be offering compensation of £800 comprised of:
- “£300.00 to recognise the time and trouble you personally expended during the management of your wet room works.
- £300.00 to acknowledge the service failure in not delivering the wet room works over a significant period of time.
- £150.00 to address the poor complaints handling on our part throughout the process.
- £50.00 in recognition of failed and missed appointments that occurred
throughout the time the works were ongoing.”
37. Following completion of the complaint procedure, there followed further correspondence between the parties with the resident stating that she remained dissatisfied. She disputed that it was normal for the wet room to be inundated with water and asked for the air vent in the bedroom to be removed.
Assessment and findings
Policies and Procedures
Complaint Procedure – February 2019
38. The procedure states that “Stage 1 complaints must be resolved in 28 calendar days. The customer has the right to ask for their complaint to be escalated to the next stage if they don’t feel their query is being dealt with adequately. Complaints will be escalated to stage 2 when:
- 28 calendar day timescale at stage 1 has been breached.
- The complaint is related to an issue which has been raised in the last 12 months.
- The customer has requested an escalation
39. At stage 2, the landlord “will investigate and liaise with relevant teams to resolve the complaint, updating the customer and complaint logging system throughout, contact will be made at a minimum of every 2 weeks. Complaints will be closed at this stage where the customer is satisfied that a plan of action is in place to resolve the complaint and a communication detailing this has been sent to the customer”. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the Stage 2 outcome, they are referred either to a Complaint Panel or direct to the Ombudsman.
Complaint Procedure – 2014
40. The procedure states that at Stages 1 and 2, it should:
- Respond to the customer within 10 working days. If this time scale is not possible another date may be agreed with the customer.
- Make sure action is taken to put things right.
- Keep the customer informed (this may be by telephone calls as well as emails and written correspondence).
41. At stage 3, where the complaint is escalated, a Head of Service or Director will arrange a review or a panel hearing or offer a meeting / telephone call with a Head of Service or Director.
Compensation Procedure
42. The landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments states that payments can be made for a failure of service taking into account whether the “customer has received a poor or unreasonably delayed service, or not received a service” and the landlord’s “actions or inactions.” In cases of “high failure”, where the issue has been ongoing for over 6 months, the amount to be considered is £250 – £500.
43. The Tariff states “Time and Trouble” payments, which reflect circumstances when a customer has been disadvantaged or inconvenienced “while pursuing a complaint, will only be paid in addition to Failure of Service in exceptional circumstances.” In cases of “high failure” where there is a difficult error to put right or a serious failure in service standards and the customer’s standard of living has been severely affected”, the amount to be considered is £250-£500.
44. With regards to poor complaints handling which incorporates failures to adhere to timelines, poor communication and failure to respond to correspondence, the Compensation Tariff states that the amount to be considered £10 – £150 depending on the severity of the failure.
45. Regarding missed appointments by contractors, the Compensation Tariff provides £10 for a missed appointment to a maximum of 5 appointments.
Repairs Policy
46. The landlord’s Repairs policy states that Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days and by appointment, and that Major Routine repairs should be completed within three months or as part of a planned programme of works.
Assessment
The landlord’s handling of repair works to the wet room
47. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to carry out an independent assessment of technical issues and form its own conclusions about repair issues in dispute. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of repair issues, taking into account its obligations, policies and procedures, and good practice.
48. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “maintain any installations that we provide for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity. This includes:
basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and water storage facilities;”
As such the landlord had a responsibility to respond to reports of disrepair to the resident’s wetroom and carry out repairs as appropriate.
49. The landlord attended to the resident’s initial reports in line with the repairs policy, carrying out repairs to the pump on 25 May 2018 within the timeframe for routine repairs and them attending on an emergency basis after the resident reported further drainage issues. After the resident continued to report drainage issues the landlord inspected on 3 July 2018 which was appropriate as where a repair request is repeated, a landlord should take steps to ascertain how a permanent solution can be achieved, including the specification of works required. In this case, the landlord identified changing the slope to the wet room floor to make drainage faster. This demonstrated its intention to resolve the repair issues raised by the complainant at that time. However, completion of works did not take place until 10 October 2018 which was outside the timeframe for Major Routine works from the date that the works were identified. Also, the repair records indicate that the works were to the shower and pump, but not the floor, and it is not evident that the landlord made clear to the resident the extent of the works it thought necessary at that time.
50. According to the information provided to this Service the landlord did not update the resident on the flooring works until December 2018 and inspect to ascertain the specification of the works until January 2019 which was insufficiently prompt given that the works were first identified in July 2018. With regards to the works that were completed later in January 2019, it was unavoidable that there would be a degree of inconvenience to the resident given the loss of use of the wet room at times and the time taken for the all the works to be completed. Given this and taking into account the resident’s medical conditions, it would have been prudent if the landlord had formalized the arrangements for the works, including confirming in writing its understanding of the resident’s needs and that the issue of a decant and bathing/toilet arrangements had been considered and discussed.
51. The landlord was entitled to rely of the professional judgment of qualified staff and approved contractors, and having completed the works in January 2019, it was reasonable that it considered that the wet room was in good repair at that time. Its case review of 3 April 2019 indicates that the resident continued to raise concerns about the drainage in the wet room insofar as water ran under the shower door but that it had inspected on 30 January 2019 and did not consider this to be indicative of disrepair. However, it is not clear that the landlord confirmed its position at this time to the resident in order to manage her expectations about the wet room and how it should function.
52. The resident thereafter reported further issues with the wet room, specifically a leak under the wet room floor in September 2019 and the growth of mould in the shower area in November 2019. It is accepted that the presence of the further issues caused disappointment and inconvenience to the resident, in particular because there had been extensive works earlier that year. However, on being notified of these repairs issues, the landlord once again attended and carried out remedial works in line with its repair obligation and within the timeframe for routine repairs.
54. It is a dispute resolution principle of this Service that landlords learn from the outcome of complaints. In this regards, it is noted that the landlord has changed its organizational structure by forming a new property team which is intended to oversee contractors and ensure the smooth completion of follow on repairs.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bad smells in the property
55. The landlord does not have a particular obligation to eliminate smells that the resident can sense and which she considers unpleasant. However, insofar as a smell can be indicative of a disrepair issues and/or a health and safety concern, it is appropriate that a landlord investigates. Following the resident’s initial reports of a smell in June 2018 the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate by sending staff to witness the smell, although a source could not be identified. It was also reasonable that the landlord arranged for pest controllers to visit as the smell could possibly have arose from the presence of a pest, and the pest controllers have expertise in ascertaining whether this was the case.
56. Thereafter, it would appear that the landlord relied on the pending wet room works to resolve the smell issue, although as noted above the works were delayed. The resident evidently did not consider that the landlord was sufficiently prompt or proactive in resolving the smell insofar as she escalated her formal complaint to Stage 3. It was appropriate that the landlord then sought to involve Environmental Health as it has the authority and expertise to determine whether the smell represented a hazard and can advise or instruct remedial action.
57. Environmental Health advised that the smell derived from water on the roof or water ingress from the roof. The landlord followed this advice, requesting that the managing agent inspect the roof area and carry out any necessary repairs and cleaning, thereby demonstrating a commitment to resolve the resident’s concern about a smell. Works to the roof were identified at the inspection on 12 February 2019. The works were delayed due to contractor health and safety issues until 4 June 2019 which was undoubtedly frustrating to the resident; however, this was beyond the control of the landlord, therefore not due to any failings on its part.
58. The resident continued to report a smell. The landlord continued to take steps to investigate and resolve the issue insofar as it sought to recall Environmental Health, carried out works to increase the ventilation in the resident’s bedroom, carried out a joint inspection of the roof and inspected the resident’s property for damp or condensation. Furthermore, the landlord sought to provide reassurance to the resident by commissioning an air quality report the purpose of which was to ascertain whether the smell was indicative of a high or risky level of viable airborne mould spores and/or a high or risky level of viable airborne bacteria levels. The landlord’s advice that the resident ventilate the bedroom (to reduce moisture levels) and maintain a slight heat in the room (to prevent an increase in humidity) was consistent with the conclusions of the air quality report, therefore reasonable to provide.
59. The landlord took further steps to provide reassurance to the resident by arranging to clean her mattress, even though it had no obligation to do so. It was unfortunate that the mattress was damaged during the cleaning, but the landlord has covered the cost of a new mattress thereby bringing the resident to the position she was in if the damage had not occurred.
60. In conclusion, the landlord has taken a range of steps to investigate the smell reported by the resident and to provide reassurance to her about the risk. In particular, it has visited the property on several occasions and inspected for damp and condensation; asked expert external bodies to investigate, specifically, Pest Control, Environmental Health and air quality experts; arranged for the inspection of the roof and the cleaning of gutters; increased the ventilation of the room; cleaned the mattress and provided advice to the resident about the use of her bedroom. In the absence of evidence of any outstanding repair issue or of any risk to the resident, the landlord’s actions have been reasonable and sufficient.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about these matters
61. The landlord’s complaint procedure dated 2014 was in effect at the time that the resident submitted her complaint about the wet room and the smell in her property. The complaint procedure outlines a response time of 10 working days which was not adhered to. Where the resolution of a complaint is contingent on further investigation of the substantive matters raised and/or the completion of works or other actions, it can be reasonable for time frames to be extended. However, as recognised by the complaints procedure, it is important that the complainant is kept informed so as to manage their expectations about the complaint process, including the circumstances under which the complaint can be escalated and who they should contact about the complaint.
62. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaints November 2018 which was appropriate as by then it had taken action to resolve the complaint but the resident had requested the escalation of the complaints. Merging the complaints into a single stage 3 complaint was pragmatic and reasonable given that the resident agreed with this approach. Thereafter, 17 months passed before the landlord issued the Stage 3 response which was a lengthy period of time .
63. It is evident that the landlord throughout the complaint process did take action in response to the substantive issues complained about, and periodically provided updates. However, it is not evident that the landlord consistently or clearly advised the complainant about the status and progress of her formal complaint. Nor did it provided timeframes, or otherwise make clear at what point it would confirm its position its position on the complaint. As a result, the complaint process appeared to be open ended and confusing for the resident. The landlord in its stage 3 response accepted the failings in its communication and complaints handling.
The level of compensation the landlord offered in respect of these matters
64. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
65. As noted above, in respect of the repairs to the wet room, there were delays in completion of works and failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident. However, it offered a total of £300 in respect of the resident’s time and trouble, and a further £300 in respect of inconvenience caused by the delay. These were discretionary awards in line with the guidance within its compensation policy for cases of “high failure”. The awards were also proportionate to the circumstances of the case insofar as the landlord did respond to the repair issues raised and the repairs that were reported did not render the wet room unusable. The landlord’s offer of £600 is also consistent with this Service’s Remedies Guidance which outlines orders compensation of £250 – £700 in cases where there are considerable failures in the landlord’s service with significant impact. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation is comparable to what this Service would order. As such, the Ombudsman concludes that the landlord has offered redress which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
66. The landlord also offered compensation specifically for missed appointments which was appropriate as this is a stand alone outcome within the landlord’s compensation tariff. The offer of £50 was reasonable as it was the maximum payable under the tariff and also because the landlord was not responsible for all missed appointments, such as the managing agent’s roofer failing to attend on 7 February 2019.
67. The landlord further accepted that there were failures in its complaints handling. Again, this was a reasonable offer of redress insofar as it accorded with the maximum payable under the compensation tariff. It was also proportionate given that although the complaint process was protracted, the landlord did provide periodic updates.
Determination (decision)
The landlord’s handling of repair works to the wet room
68. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord’s response to her reports of bad smells in the property
69. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
The landlord’s handling of her complaint about these matters
70. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this complaint satisfactorily.
The level of compensation the landlord offered in respect of these matters
71. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
Reasons
The landlord’s handling of repair works to the wet room
72. The landlord in response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her wet room has carried out inspections and carried out works that were identified in line with obligation to keep the resident’s wet room in good repair. However, there were delays on the part of the landlord, in particular in completing the works to increase the drainage and related works that were identified on 3 July 2018. It is also not evident that the landlord has consistently kept the resident updated about the works to be completed to her property and managed her expectations in respect of timeframes. The landlord in its Stage 3 response has accepted its failings and offered compensation which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
The landlord’s response to her reports of bad smells in the property
73. The landlord has taken a range of steps to investigate the smell reported by the resident and to provide reassurance to her about the risk. In particular, it has visited the property on several occasions and inspected for damp and condensation; asked expert external bodies to investigate, specifically, Pest Control, Environmental Health and air quality experts; arranged for the inspection of the roof and the cleaning of gutters; increased the ventilation of the room; cleaned the mattress and provided advice to the resident about the use of her bedroom. In the absence of evidence of any outstanding repair issue or of any risk to the resident, the landlord’s actions have been reasonable and sufficient.
The landlord’s handling of her complaint about these matters
74. It is evident that the landlord throughout the complaint process did take action in response to the substantive issues complained about, and periodically provided updates. However, it is not evident that the landlord consistently or clearly advised the complainant about the status and progress of her formal complaint. Nor did it provided timeframes, or otherwise make clear at what point it would confirm its position its position on the complaint. As a result, the complaint process appeared to be open ended and confusing for the resident. However, the landlord in its stage 3 response accepted the failings in its communication and complaints handling. It offered compensation which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
The level of compensation the landlord offered in respect of these matters
75. The landlord’s compensation awards were in accordance with its Compensation Tariff, and provided reasonable and proportionate redress for the failures of service identified by this Service.
Recommendations
76. Since this determination is in part dependent on the £800 compensation offered by the landlord within its complaints procedure, it should pay the resident this amount if it has not already done so.
77. In cases where the landlord is carrying out works to a resident’s bathroom over several days, the landlord identifies the resident’s needs and confirms in writing how the work is to be carried out and the arrangements for use of the bathroom facilities during the works.