The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202010666)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010666

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

15 June 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of her service charge in relation to the number of times the communal lift was not in operation;
    2. the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the third floor of a building with similar properties. The building has a communal lift that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of. Tenants pay a service charge for its service, maintenance, and repair.
  2. This Service has been provided with engineer and inspection reports detailing inspections and repairs required to the building’s communal lift, following a number of breakdowns for the period between January 2020 to September 2020.
  3. On 21 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to request a refund of her service charge for the periods in which the communal lift was not working. The resident provided a selection of dates that the lift had not been operational between 10 January 2020 and 19 February 2020 (eight in total). She disputed the charge because she claimed she was paying for a service, via the service charge, that she was not receiving.
  4. No further communication has been provided in relation to this issue until the 14 August 2020, when the resident outlined the issue again in an email. Here, the resident highlighted her original email sent in February 2020 and requested compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s response confirmed that the matter had been raised with the relevant department to consider.
  5. On 7 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that she had yet to receive a response. She asked, therefore, what the next step would be in regard to her complaint, reiterating that she had been waiting since February 2020 for an update.
  6. The resident sent a follow-up email on 6 October 2020, explaining that she had not had a response to her email of 21 September 2020 (this Service has not had sight of this email). The resident confirmed she would now like to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (‘this Service’) because she had initially raised the complaint in February 2020 and had contacted the landlord on several occasions since, yet no action had been taken.
  7. The landlord’s records, dated 6 October 2020, state it had been in contact with the resident to confirm the issue was under investigation. This also detailed the resident’s desire for confirmation of the entire period the lift service was not being supplied. In the landlord’s email of 6 October 2020, it confirmed the complaint had been escalated to its complaints team and that it had requested information regarding the dates the lift was out of service.
  8. The landlord sent an acknowledgment email on 7 October 2020, confirming that the resident’s complaint would be fully investigated, and she would receive a complaint response by 20 October 2020.
  9. The landlord’s call records confirm it called the resident on 12 October 2020, whereby the resident explained that the issue with the lift had been ongoing for a couple of years. 
  10. The resident asked for an update on 4 November 2020. The landlord responded on 8 November 2020 to confirm that it had requested the information from the Leasehold Service Charge Team but had yet to receive a response.
  11. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 16 November 2020, the landlord first apologised for the delay in providing its response. Secondly, the landlord confirmed that the resident would be contacted by the Leasehold Service Care Team, to ensure all the resident’s concerns were addressed. Finally, it confirmed it had upheld the complaint due to the non-response to the resident’s “several” queries regarding the service charge. The landlord confirmed that feedback and training would be provided to improve its service in the future (no apology was given).
  12. On 21 November 2020 the resident acknowledged that her complaint had been upheld and therefore asked when she would be receiving her refund of the service charge and compensation. The landlord’s response, dated 1 December 2020, confirmed that her request for information regarding the lift being out of service had been referred to the relevant team and it would provide this as soon as possible, which should include the periods the lift was out of service for in 2019 and 2020. The resident’s reply that same day highlighted that the dates she had previously provided were a selection of dates and were not a reflection of all the dates. She therefore requested the landlord provide information “as far back as possible”. She clarified that she had been charged for a service she had not received and would like to be refunded and compensated accordingly. She requested a conclusion to her complaint by 9 December 2020.
  13. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 December 2020 on the basis that the stage one response:
    1. did not give reasons for the frequency of the lift breakdowns;
    2. did not address her request for a refund of the service charge for the periods the lift was out of service;
    3. did not address her request for compensation.
  14. The landlord confirmed the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaint process on 21 December 2020.
  15. In the landlord’s email, dated 23 December 2020, it apologised for the time it was taking to obtain the information concerning the lift being out of service. It confirmed that this information had been requested from the relevant department and that it had also sought information on the compensation procedure.
  16. On 23 December 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident apologising for the time it was taking to obtain the information concerning the lift breakdowns. The landlord added that this information was necessary to determine whether a refund of the service charge and/or compensation was reasonable. No timescales were provided for when this information would be available.
  17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 December 2020 to confirm the complaint would be reviewed at stage two of the landlord’s complaint process and a response would be provided by 9 January 2020.
  18. The landlord provided an update via email on 30 December 2020 confirming that it was awaiting information from its lift contractors.
  19. The landlord’s records state that it called the resident on 7 January 2021 to provide an update on the progress of her information request, explaining that it was still waiting confirmation of the periods when the lift was out of service and that it required this information in order to consider whether a service charge credit was appropriate. A further update was given on 21 January 2021, which confirmed that the information request was still being processed and the resident would be notified when this had been compiled.
  20. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 28 January 2021, it informed the resident that it was still awaiting confirmation of the periods in which the lift was out of order. It said that once this information was obtained, it could then calculate whether a service charge credit was appropriate. It explained that, unfortunately, the query had passed through various departments before reaching the correct one and had thereby taken longer than expected.
  21. Regarding the management of the complaint, the landlord concluded that, upon the complaint being logged, the landlord’s initial contact was “very good” and meaningful updates were provided.
  22. The landlord concluded by acknowledging the resident’s patience while it resolved the complaint and apologised for any frustration caused. The complaint was upheld on the basis that there had been a delay in service and communication could have been better. The landlord awarded £50.00 compensation specifically for the service delay.
  23. The resident did not accept the landlord’s compensation offer, making the landlord aware of this on 29 January 2021.
  24. On 12 February 2021 the landlord provided an update which confirmed it was still awaiting the information in regard to the specific amount of times the lift had broken down in the past.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Fixed Service Charges Policy defines a service charge as a payment made by a resident towards the costs of providing and maintaining services and benefits in addition to the occupation of their home.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as:
    1. “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
  3. The complaint policy provides for a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage one, the landlord will aim to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and respond within ten working days of acknowledging the complaint. If more time is required, it will agree a new response time with the complainant and it will update weekly beyond the initial ten days. At stage two, the landlord will aim to acknowledge the escalation within five working days and provide a response within twenty working days.
  4. The landlord has a guidance document on awarding compensation which defines three types of failures in service based on severity, which gives examples to consider to help award fair and reasonable compensation when failures are identified. These are as follows:
    1. Low failure, where remedy/compensation ranges from an apology to £50.00 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. This recognises that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. An example would be the failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
    2. Medium failure, where remedy/compensation ranges from £51.00 to 160.00 where there is considerable service failure or a total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include:
      1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant;
      2. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint; and
      3. Significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant. For example, complaints that are not formally logged or for those that have been logged and left open with no contact for a long period of time.
    3. High failure, where remedy/compensation ranges from £161.00 to £350.00 used in recognition of severe lack of ownership and accountability – normally when a department does not want to own the issue. This usually has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.
  5. Moreover, the landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out that discretionary compensation payments can be made for poor complaint handling, delays in providing services such as repairs, failure to provide a service that it has charged for, temporary loss of amenities, and failure to meet its target response times. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does stipulate that a deduction to the service charge can be considered as a remedy to put a complainant back in a position they were in before the service failure occurred.

Scope of Investigation

  1. It should be made clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Moreover, we cannot determine whether a service that was provided was rechargeable via the service charge. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the service charge, as well as for the handling of the request, its corresponding communication, and its complaint handling.
  2. In addition, it is noted that the resident wanted the landlord to consider redress for all the times the lift was out of service going back over 12 months. However, this Service cannot reasonably consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from August 2019 onward, which is approximately six months prior to the formal complaint being made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of her service charge

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, detailed in paragraph 30 above, the landlord can consider partial reimbursement of the service charge as a remedy to put matters right for a complainant in circumstances where service failure has been identified. This would be the apparent approach the landlord took in this instance, referring to this numerous times in correspondence dated 23 December 2020, a call on 7 January 2021, and in the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 28 January 2021. The landlord deemed that the information about the lift breakdowns over a period of time was necessary in order consider whether a refund was appropriate. This, in itself, would be a reasonable approach in the circumstances and in line with the aforementioned Complaints Policy.
  2. However, in this case, this approach did not resolve the issue, as the resident was still awaiting a conclusion to this request when the complaint was duly made with this Service on 25 March 2021, which is more than 12 months after the complaint was first made in February 2020. As such, the landlord has not determined whether or not the amount of times the lift was not in operation was unreasonable and thereby requiring a proportion of the service charge to be reimbursed. The landlord was therefore unable to specifically address the resident’s request for reimbursement of the service charge; nor was it able to provide an adequate explanation as to why the lift had broken down on numerous occasions. In light of the above, this was a failure, on the landlord’s part, to adequately address the resident’s complaint and resolve the matter satisfactorily.
  3. It is noted that the landlord did offer £50.00 compensation at stage two of the complaint process for the delay in service, which was subsequently refused by the resident. However, this did not provide sufficient redress for the time and trouble spent pursuing a resolution, nor did it consider the distress and inconvenience caused, and nor did it consider the fact that the main issue remained unresolved even though the landlord’s complaint procedure had been exhausted.
  4. To put matters right for the resident, the landlord is therefore ordered to obtain the necessary information in relation to the breakdown of the lifts and determine whether a service-charge reimbursement is required, if it has not already done so. The landlord is also ordered to pay compensation for the time and trouble taken in pursuing a resolution to this complaint, in line with its compensation guidance above at paragraph 29b. Consideration has been given, when calculating the compensation, to the lack of evidence to show that the resident was pursuing this matter between February 2020 and August 2020. A recommendation will also be made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, as the evidence suggests that the information relating to the lift repairs was not easily obtainable, causing the unnecessary delay in providing a resolution.
  5. Ultimately, during the landlord’s investigation into this matter, it did not obtain the necessary information in order to establish whether a remedy was required. As this information was not forthcoming, this resulted in unnecessary delays in resolving the complaint. As such, further compensation is required to adequately address the delays and, moreover, the landlord still needs to obtain and assess the information regarding the lift repairs and make a determination on whether further redress, in the form of a recharge, is required.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s definition of a complaint, as detailed in paragraph 27, should have meant that, when the resident first raised the issue on 21 February 2020 regarding her request for reimbursement of her service charge, a formal complaint was raised at that point. It was clear that the resident was dissatisfied with the service she had been provided and, as a result, a complaint should have been acknowledged and addressed in accordance with its Complaints Policy timescales.
  2. As previously noted, the resident did not further pursue this complaint until August 2020. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a complaint should have been raised in February 2020. This was a service failure by the landlord.
  3. Similarly, there were further service failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the complaint following the resident’s contact on 14 August 2020, as the resident had to pursue her complaint further on 7 September 2020 and 6 October 2020 before the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 October 2020. This was some six months after the issue had been first raised, and approximately two months after it was re-raised in August 2020. The landlord did not, therefore, follow the timescales in which to respond to a complaint as stipulated in the landlord’s Complaints Policy in paragraph 28, as the complaint should have been acknowledged following the contact on 14 August 2020.
  4. Moreover, having acknowledged the complaint on 7 October 2020, the resident did not receive her stage one response until 16 November 2020, 29 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was also not in accordance with the timescales stipulated in the landlord’s Complaints Policy in paragraph 28. During this period, the resident also had to request an update on 4 November 2020 having been advised the landlord would aim to provide its response by 20 October 2020.
  5. Furthermore, having escalated her complaint on 18 December 2020 and received confirmation that it had been acknowledged on 21 December 2020, the resident did not receive her stage two complaint response until 28 January 2021, 26 working days after the escalation, which was again not in accordance with its Complaints Policy, outlined in paragraph 28. Though it is noted that the resident was kept updated in regard to the information request, this was not explicitly in relation to the complaint and therefore this did constitute a failure in service by the landlord, especially as the information was not included when the resident finally did receive the stage two response.
  6. All in all, the landlord has, on more than one occasion, not adhered to its timescales in which to provide a response. It is noted that the landlord did offer an apology at stage one of the complaints process for the delay in providing a response. However, this was not sufficient redress for the failures identified above and therefore further redress in the form of compensation should be given to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s request for a refund of her service charge in relation to the number of times the communal lift was not in operation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not obtain the necessary information regarding the lift breakdowns in order to determine whether or not a partial or full reimbursement of the resident’s service charge was reasonable in the circumstances. This resulted in an unnecessary delay in providing a resolution. During the complaint process, the landlord did recognise the delay and did award compensation. However, this was not sufficient to resolve the complaint and therefore further compensation should be given.
  2. Further, the landlord did not adhere to its timescales and processes when addressing the resident’s complaint, in accordance with its Complaint Policy.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay £150.00 compensation for its handling of the resident’s request for a refund of her service charge.
    2. Pay £100.00 compensation for the failures identified during the complaint process.
  2. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter. The total amount, therefore, is £250.00 compensation. This does include the £50.00 offered by the landlord. If this has been given to the resident already, the amount of compensation due is £200.00 only.
  3. The landlord is also ordered to obtain the necessary information regarding the lift breakdowns and determine whether the resident should be reimbursed a proportion of the service charge.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping, especially in regard to repairs, to establish if further training for staff is required and whether record-keeping processes need to be revised, to ensure that required information is more easily obtainable in the future.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its complaint handling process, highlighting any need for further training, to ensure delays are managed in accordance with its policy obligations moving forward.