Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202008511)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008511

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

13 April 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. request for CCTV to be installed;
    2. requests for repairs to the communal door;
    3. reports of littering around the property;
    4. associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 7 August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord with concerns about events over the previous few weeks in relation to a number of bike and motorbike thefts, including one bike theft from within the building. He was therefore asking for more security. He said the trades button on the communal door allowed anyone to enter the building in the morning. He knew everyone who lived there as there were just five flats but other people were hanging around, including in the gardens. He asked for the letter boxes to be moved outside so that the trades button could be disabled, signage to discourage littering, and the installation of CCTV to be considered for the block.
  2. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email on 16 August 2019 and said that it had been forwarded to the housing officer. It apparently then emailed the resident on 11 September 2019 to say that someone was looking into the issues (no copy provided to the Ombudsman).
  3. On 3 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the communal door had been broken again and the building entered. He said that a temporary repair would not stop it from happening as the door was not fit for purpose, so he asked for it to be replaced.
  4. In the landlord’s response of 5 December 2019, it stated that the issue had been resolved on 3 December 2019. However, the resident responded that it had not been resolved as the door had been temporarily repaired but was insecure and could easily be broken again. He said that he would not be paying any further service charges until he received a response to his email of August 2019 regarding CCTV, litter and a replacement door.
  5. On 17 December 2019, the resident emailed for an update as he had not heard anything and said that he was making a complaint. Around that time the landlord told the resident that the housing officer was going to contact him to explain the current situation with CCTV and litter signs and how the issue of antisocial behaviour (ASB) could be addressed. The communal door had clearly been damaged again because a further repair was carried out on 19 December 2019.
  6. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 8 January 2020, it apologised for the time taken to respond. It said that a housing services manager, along with local councillors, had attended the site on 13 December 2019 to discuss the concerns raised. Following that, the landlord had concluded that it was unable to install CCTV at that time as it did not have the ability to fund or monitor it. If a significant number of residents expressed the requirement for it then it may look at taking it through a process of consultation, but it would be at additional cost to the residents.
  7. With regard to litter/signage, its estates team had been notified of the issue of littering and a decision had been made to move the litter bins to a more accessible place. The council would be instructed to reposition the recycling bins to prevent any litter generated from and around them. In addition, the housing officer was due to attend site again shortly to identify where signage might be placed. With regard to the communal door, its contractor had attended on 6 January 2020 and adjusted the trade button clock, which the housing officer had inspected on 7 January 2020 and deemed the door to now be secure. It stated that the complaint was now closed.
  8. The resident responded on 20 January 2020 asking for the complaint to be kept open. He asked how much the CCTV budget allowed for and said he would try to work something out. He also said the trades button was not the only issue with the door as the door itself was nearly 20 years old and had been broken through multiple times. He said he welcomed the site visit and the plan to move the bins and he enclosed photos of the litter and ASB outside the door.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 29 January 2020 and said that, due to an unexpected increase in complaints, its response time had increased and it expected to be back in touch within a maximum of 10 working days. On 21 February 2020, the landlord made further contact with the resident to say that there was a delay due to the person who was looking into it having left.
  10. On 17 March 2020, in response to an email from the resident chasing his complaint response, the landlord said that the responsible team had advised that it was currently waiting to go through a Section 20 process to consult on what options the resident and other leaseholders had with regard to security. The team was now preparing to send a Notice of Intent but unfortunately the time frame for this was not known currently.
  11. The resident responded to say that he understood a process was required with regard to CCTV but the issue with the litter bins/signs and replacement front door also remained outstanding. The landlord clarified that, with the onset of the Covid–19 lockdown, workmen and contractors were unable to carry out any works.
  12. The next set of correspondence provided by the landlord (in the form of partial emails) begins from mid-August 2020 when there was a flurry of internal emails and queries relating to the complaint, including that the communal door had again been broken into. It appears that the repairs team had been asked for a quote for a replacement door and, by September 2020, the housing officer was in the process of getting quotes for littering signs.
  13. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 13 November 2020, it confirmed its position as follows:
    1. ASB at the property had raised security concerns for the resident and other tenants. It had agreed to proceed with the section 20 process with all residents with regard to the installation of CCTV and replacement of the communal door. That process would review the potential costs with residents before works were carried out. Assuming no objections would be received, the CCTV would be installed during the current 2020/21 financial year.
    2. The communal door would be replaced during the 2021/22 planned programme of works but, in the meantime, temporary repairs would be carried out to ensure it was secure.
    3. With regard to litter, it confirmed that agreement had been given to erect litter signs around the area.
    4. It offered £80 compensation (£50 for time and trouble and £30 for poor complaint handling).
    5. Overall, it upheld the complaint.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident first contacted the landlord in early August 2019 and he does not appear to have received any substantive response to this approach. Correspondence resumed in December 2019, when the communal door was yet again broken through, although the landlord appears to have believed that the issues of the CCTV and bins/littering had been resolved. It was not until the resident made a formal complaint on 17 December 2019 that the landlord ultimately provided a fuller response on 8 January 2020.
  2. The landlord’s neighbourhood statement states that it has a commitment to keeping neighbourhoods and communal areas safe and clean and that it puts residents at the heart of their neighbourhood by encouraging active involvement and consultation. However, when the resident contacted the landlord about these very issues, he struggled to get any meaningful engagement. Therefore, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it was mindful of its obligations under its own policies and procedures.
  3. The resident requested that his complaint be kept open and escalated on 20 January 2020. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, if it is unable to respond within 20 working days, it will keep the complainant informed and agree new response times. In this case, although the landlord did initially inform the resident that his complaint might take longer to respond to, it failed to keep him informed beyond that. In the event, the resident did not receive a stage 2 response until 13 November 2020, some 10 months after he had originally asked for it. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there has been a service failure in the way that the landlord communicated with the resident and an unacceptable delay in responding to his complaint.
  4. From the evidence provided, repairs to the communal door were carried out promptly once reported. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s position that these temporary repairs were ineffectual because the intrinsic nature of the door was that it could be easily broken into by bending back a piece of metal. However, it was appropriate that emergency repairs should be made at those times to immediately secure the building.
  5. The landlord now appears to accept that a replacement door may be required and, subject to undertaking a successful consultation process with all residents, plans to carry out the work in the 2021/22 financial year. Although the resident says it is unacceptable to have to wait, the landlord has limited resources and therefore must prioritise the works it undertakes. Whilst appreciating the resident’s frustration about ongoing issues of security to the building, overall, the Ombudsman considers that it is reasonable for the landlord to consult and plan the potential replacement of the door as part of its planned works.
  6. The resident has said that CCTV is cheap and easy to install and that the landlord cannot be trusted to action its installation without a concrete promise. The landlord has also said that it would consult about the installation of CCTV, so installation would depend on the outcome of the consultation process. Notwithstanding the length of time it has taken to reach this point (addressed further below), overall it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to consult on the installation of CCTV and then to plan that installation in line with its available resources and budgetary limitations.
  7. With regard to the bins/littering, the landlord was slow to act upon this when the resident first made contact in August 2019. The landlord did inspect the area and made a decision in January 2020 to move the litter bins to a more accessible place. The resident then asked for a projected timescale for when the bins would be moved, but it is not clear if he received any response to this. The stage 2 response talked about signage having been erected but not about the bins being moved. According to the resident, the bins had still not been moved. Although the resident’s initial complaint was that the bins were poorly placed, he is now saying that there are not enough bins.
  8. The landlord has awarded time and trouble compensation of £50. Looking at its compensation policy, this amount is within the ‘low failure’ category. However, the Ombudsman considers that the complaint falls within the medium failure category, an example of which is given as being ‘a longer period of delay, customer has had to chase several times’. The resident first raised these issues in August 2019 and finally received the stage 2 response in November 2020 and often had to prompt the landlord for a response. Even allowing for delays due to the pandemic, there appears to have been a failure to progress matters, for example, the resident was told in March 2020 that the landlord was looking to instigate the Section 20 consultation process and yet nothing seems to have come of that at that time. The Ombudsman therefore considers that £75 would be more appropriate, which is towards the middle band for medium failures for time and trouble under the landlord’s own policy.
  9. The landlord has awarded poor complaint handling compensation of £30. Available compensation under the landlord’s policy ranges from an apology to £150. The policy says that, when awarding compensation, things to consider are the complaints policy not being met, poor communication and failure to respond to correspondence. The policy gives an example of a ‘medium failure’ being when a complaint is repeatedly passed between teams. Although the resident was receiving responses solely from a customer care officer, that officer was clearly not being kept informed by others. For example, there were times when he incorrectly told the resident that the CCTV and litter/bins issues had been resolved. That, together with the fact that it took 10 months to provide the stage 2 response, moves the appropriate compensation up into the medium bracket. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £75 for poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was:
    1. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
      1. request for CCTV to be installed;
      2. reports of littering around the property;
      3. associated formal complaint.
    2. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for repairs to the communal door.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to engage with the resident in a meaningful or timely way in relation to its stated aim of keeping neighbourhoods and communal areas safe and clean. When the resident then made a complaint, the landlord failed to communicate effectively in relation to the CCTV and littering or meet the targets for responding set out in its own complaints policy. However, it did respond appropriately to the resident’s requests for repairs to the communal door.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. provide an update on the relocation of the bins by the council, as per its commitment in the Stage 1 response of 8 January 2020;
    2. pay the resident £150 compensation (£75 for time and trouble and £75 for poor complaint handling). Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from this sum.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. If it has not already done so, continue with the consultation processes required to replace the communal door and install CCTV;
    2. consult with the resident and other tenants about the need for additional bins.