Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201817108)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201817108

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

8 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint handling, specifically, its offer of compensation in recognition of its delay in attending the property following the report of a potential gas and carbon monoxide leak, and its communication.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 12 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the emergency gas service had attended the property and capped the gas as there was a suspected carbon monoxide (CO) leak and she said that she had been feeling unwell. She stated that the engineer also advised that her CO alarm had not been turned on. The landlord, later having contacted the company as part of its investigation of the complaint, was informed that there was no evidence of a gas leak or CO detected at the time of the visit. When contacted by the resident, the landlord had advised that an operative would attend later that evening, although this did not take place. 
  2. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord about the missed appointment and advised that she had a health condition which meant that she had to keep warm. She found the member of staff she spoke to unhelpful and they refused to give their name when she asked.
  3. An engineer attended later that evening and found the CO alarm to be faulty, possibly due to it being battery-operated.  All necessary safety checks were carried out and the gas reinstated. Evidence of a gas or CO leak was not found. 
  4. On the same date the resident contacted the landlord stating her dissatisfaction with it missing the appointment on 12 March 2019, its communication, and the information it had provided on the issue. In the landlord’s response of 18 March 2019, it acknowledged that it should have attended the property within four hours in accordance with its service standards, apologised for this, and offered £20 compensation for the missed appointment. It stated that the complaint had now been closed.
  5. Following contact the resident made with this Service, on 27 March 2019, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to advise that she was dissatisfied with its response and requested the matter be escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day, advising that it would escalate the complaint to stage one of its complaints procedure and provide an initial response by 11 April 2019. It added that it had tried to telephone her to discuss the issue on 15 March 2019 but had been unable to contact her.
  6. On 12 April 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was still in the process of gathering information in respect of her complaint. It then issued its stage one response on 24 April 2019, when it acknowledged that, although no gas leak or CO issues were found and the engineer had reinstated the boiler and fitted a new CO alarm, it did not attend within its articulated timeframe of four hours. It would therefore make staff aware of the requirements to do so. It also accepted that, having listened to telephone calls, the standard was below that expected and apologised for the way the resident was spoken to. It advised that feedback had been provided and a coaching course would go ahead to “improve customer service delivery”.  It offered £97 compensation in acknowledgement of the missed appointment (£15), two days of no heating or hot water (£12), two days of no cooking facilities (£20) and a gesture of goodwill (£50).
  7. At some point around this time, the landlord also telephoned the resident to provide a verbal apology for what had happened.
  8. On 3 May 2019, an operative attended the property to carry out a safety check on the boiler. This operative was an external consultant, which the landlord has said it arranged in an attempt to reassure the resident that there were no safety issues.
  9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 May 2019 as she was dissatisfied with the response and the level of compensation. In the landlord’s response of 21 May 2019, it advised that the request for an increased level of compensation had been forwarded to the relevant member of staff. On 7 and 10 June 2019, the landlord contacted the resident again to ask her to specify her reasons for escalation.
  10. In the resident’s response of 10 June 2019, she confirmed that she did not feel the landlord had taken the matter seriously enough or acknowledged the inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged her reasons on 11 June 2019, advising that it would respond by 25 June 2019. On that, the landlord wrote to the resident, advising that it was satisfied that her complaint was satisfactorily dealt with at stage one of its complaints procedure and it would not, therefore, be offering additional compensation.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and, following correspondence with the landlord in August 2019 (following a letter to it in July 2019 which never arrived), it confirmed that her complaint had been escalated to stage three of its complaints procedure and that a panel would convene to hear the matter. During October and November 2019, there was correspondence between the resident and landlord to arrange the hearing. The resident’s responses to the landlord’s requests for availability were delayed and there were complications as she difficulties attending the hearing due to health issues.
  12. The hearing ultimately took place on 5 February 2020, in the resident’s absence, and the landlord issued its final response on 11 February 2020. The panel found that the compensation offered had been fair and reasonable.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s service standard in respect of suspected gas leaks is to attend the property within four hours of the report being made.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond at stage one within 10 working days and provide a response at stage two within 20 working days.  At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a third complaints stage whereby a panel would convene to hear a complaint where the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome at stage two. 
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy also sets out circumstances in which the landlord may offer compensation, which includes where there is a failure to meet its service standards, unreasonable delays or where the landlord has failed to act in a reasonable and fair manner.

Assessment and findings

  1. Once notified of a potential gas leak which had led to the gas being capped (leaving the resident without heating, water and cooking facilities) the landlord was required to attend the property within four hours, which it did not do. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this in its responses to the complaint, apologised and offered compensation in recognition of its service failure and the impact on the resident.
  2. ‘Learning from outcomes’ is a fundamental tenet of the Ombudsman’s ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’, which facilitates successful complaint resolution, demonstrates that a complaint has been taken seriously, and indicates that the landlord actively seeks to improve its service delivery. In its response to the complaint, the landlord identified that learning was required on its part, specifically in respect of its communication with the resident over the telephone when she was reporting the issue and missed appointment. The landlord missed an opportunity, however, to identify why the appointment itself was missed and what specific actions might be required to help prevent a recurrence.
  3. Having attended the property, the landlord undertook appropriate safety checks and found that there was no evidence of gas or CO being leaked into the property. It also went to efforts to establish this from the emergency gas company, and to arrange a further independent inspection, to help reassure the resident and alleviate her concerns. It acted appropriately in carrying out the required safety checks as it was obliged to do and was reasonable in facilitating a further inspection, because it was not required to obtain a further report, having already satisfied itself of safety in the property.
  4. The delay in attending initially, however, did have consequences and was inconvenient and upsetting for the resident. The time of year also meant that the property would have been cold without heating for an unreasonably long period. The landlord’s offer of compensation sought to put things right but the resident was disappointed with the amount offered. The landlord’s policies provided to this Service do not specifically refer to compensation amounts, so it is unclear how the landlord arrived at the amount that it did. 
  5. The Ombudsman, however, is able to use its own guidance and judgement as to what is reasonable in all the circumstances and finds that the total amount offered is in the region of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, as set out in this Service’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’.  This guidance suggests compensation of between £50 and £250 for service failures of this kind, which the landlord has offered, albeit at the lower end of the scale. The landlord could have exercised its discretion to offer an additional amount of compensation to specifically recognise the stress and inconvenience caused, particularly given the resident’s clear worry and the health issues she referred to, although it was not obliged to do this. This may be encompassed within the landlord’s ‘goodwill’ payment, but this is not explicitly mentioned. By being more specific about this, the landlord could have demonstrated that it had heard and understood that the situation had had an impact on the resident and more appropriately recognised this element of the complaint.
  6. In terms of the complaints handling itself, the landlord failed to provide a response to the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure, as it did not initially investigate the matter or provide a formal response. Instead, it issued an informal apology letter and an offer of £20 compensation, concluding that the complaint was closed. In not managing the complaint in accordance with its procedure, there was service failure on the part of the landlord. Further, it did not explain in its initial response how the resident could request escalation of her complaint, which the Ombudsman expects members to do. The wording and tone of the email could be perceived as seeking to shut down the complaint rather than satisfactorily resolve it.
  7. The landlord’s responses at stages one and two were delayed, although it did make the resident aware of the delay and it was entitled to take longer to investigate matters where it deemed it necessary for good complaint handling. The panel hearing took a particularly long time to convene, although the landlord was proactive in trying to arrange a suitable date with the resident for this to take place. While the resident was recommended to attended, this was not a necessity and although possibly an opportunity missed for her, attendance was not mandatory and should not be detrimental to the consideration of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

Reasons

  1. Whilst the landlord offered compensation for its identified service failures and this was in the region that the Ombudsman would expect, it did not respond to the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. Specifically, the landlord did not initially respond to the complaint formally at stage one of its complaints process, instead sending an informal letter which advised that the complaint was closed. It also did not explain how the resident could request escalation of the complaint if she remained dissatisfied. Additionally, the landlord did not investigate or explain the reasons for the service failure in terms of the delay, or take action to help prevent this from recurring in the future.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £50 compensation for the service failures found in its complaints handling;
    2. pay the resident the £97 compensation offered (if it has not done so already);
    3. write to the resident, explaining why there were delays in its response to the substantive issue and what steps are being taken to prevent this from happening again.