Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202009961)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009961

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

30 July 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, specifically in respect of the heating and hot water systems and the landlord’s actions in respect of this.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

4. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 24 October 2000.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days.  An emergency repair is carried out within 24 hours.  Works which are not routine, such as the replacement of heating/hot water systems will be carried out according to an agreed work program.
6. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 days of acknowledgment of the complaint at stage one and within 20 days at stage two.  Where more time is needed, the landlord will communicate this to the complainant.
7. The landlord’s compensation guidance specifies that where there has been a “high failure” of service, including a “severe lack of ownership and accountability” and there has been a “severe long-term impact on the complainant”, including “a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”.  In these circumstances the landlord may offer a compensation amount between £161 and £350.
8. The same guidance advises that this level of compensation may be appropriate, for example, where there has been “serious mishandling or misdirection leading to speculative loss (balance of probabilities it can be reasonably concluded that the complainant has suffered a financial loss, but it would be speculative to try and quantify any actual loss)”.

Summary of events

9. On 25 September 2020, the resident reported that she had no hot water, that the storage heater was broken and that there was a leak under the sink. 
10. The landlord attended and repaired the leak and it was determined that the storage heater needed to be connected to an ‘Economy 7’ electricity tariff and that the water tank needed a new element.  Due to there being only one faulty heater, the landlord determined that it was not necessary to provide temporary heaters.
11. On 13 November 2020, the resident asked the landlord to carry out a test on the electricity system to make sure that there were no problems with it, as she believed it to be excessively expensive.  She had been in contact with her electricity company who had suggested this, specifically, “trace testing the meter to see if it supplies anywhere else other than the property” and also for the resident to “check [her] appliances”.  The electricity company also asked the resident to “obtain readings at 5pm each day” and for these to be taken from the resident the following week.
12. Around 23 November 2020, the resident reported that the water tank was leaking. The landlord attended that day and turned the water off at the stop cock. The resident has said that she was then unable to turn it back on because of arthritis in her hands. She says she was left without water and was unable to bathe, wash clothes or flush the toilet.
13. On 3 December 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs at the property, stating that she had been left without hot water from 25 September 2020. 
14. The resident stated that she had been advised by the landlord on different occasions that it would call her back and had not, that it had incorrectly closed the job, as well as incorrectly recording the repair as “repair needed for emersion heater”, which had caused confusion.
15. She added that her request for investigations into her electricity use had been “passed around” and “ignored” and despite telephoning the landlord several times the issue had not been resolved. 
16. As resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted repairs carried out on her water tank and storage heater, reiterating the rise in utility costs she had experienced. She wanted a new affordable water heater fitted.
17. Additionally, she wished for an apology and compensation for the stress the situation had caused and assurances that the landlord had learned from the situation and it would not happen again.
18. The landlord’s repairs records evidence numerous appointments at the property from 25 September 2020 until March 2021. 
19. On 4 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it would investigate and provide a response by 17 December 2020, although stated there may be a delay in issuing a response due to Covid-19.
20. On 26 January 2021, the landlord attended the property and replaced the water tank as the parts for repair could not be sourced.  The landlord has stated that it replaced it “like for like” and although the resident wished for a smaller tank, it believed the correct size tank for the property was installed.
21. On 2 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that her water remained tepid since the water tank was fitted the previous week and asked for this to be inspected and any repairs carried out.  She added that she was due an inspection the day after for the heating, stating that the property had been “freezing” and she had been unable to use her bedroom since Christmas.
22. There had continued to be conversations about excessively high energy bills and on the same day the landlord asked the resident to provide copies of her bills so a comparison could be made between the cost before and after the new energy system was fitted.
23. The following day, on 3 February 2021 the scheduled appointment was missed by the landlord.  A new appointment was made for 8 February 2021, at which the issue with the heating was resolved, with the landlord finding that a fuse had previously been inaccurately installed.
24. On 10 February 2021, the landlord attended to investigate the report of tepid water.
25. On the same date, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It apologised for what it recognised had been a frustrating time and offered the resident £150 compensation for its service failure. 
26. In terms of compensation for increased utility costs, the landlord reiterated its request for bills, in order for a comparison to be made.
27. Around 19 February 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, stating that the issue remained unresolved with her still not having any hot water and also that the water was chalky. 
28. In terms of heating, she stated that the property had been “freezing” throughout Christmas and through January and February and she was “appalled” at temporary heaters having been provided.
29. She added that she was dissatisfied too, that an operative had attended the property unannounced the previous evening at 7.30pm and that he had not arrived with a plumber, as she was previously advised by the landlord that a plumber would be required.
30. On 23 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised it would provide a stage two response to her complaint by 15 March 2021.
31. On 19 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint, having previously notified her that the response would be slightly delayed. Overall, the landlord upheld the complaint, apologising for the way it managed the situation.  It made the following findings:
    1. There were interruptions to hot water due to the leak, although the resident was not rendered without hot water for a sustained period.  Further, interruptions appeared to have been due in part to user error, in that the system had not been used in conjunction with the economy 7 function due to the resident’s concerns about cost (including the resident not running the water for long enough for it to heat up).  The landlord explained it could not control cost and advised there was no further work required.
    2. In terms of the water being chalky (and the mixer tap possibly not being connected to the hot water pipe, which had also been reported), the landlord noted an appointment was scheduled that same day, to investigate these issues.  It advised that any remedial works would be arranged thereafter, dependent on findings.
    3. The landlord advised it would consider compensation once the resident had provided it with copies of bills.
32. The landlord offered the resident an additional £150 compensation, advising that this was in recognition of her time and trouble (£100) and its poor complaint handling (£50). 

Post complaint

33. The landlord attended the property later that day (the same day as its stage two response) to carry out an inspection.  At that inspection, it was confirmed that the water was tepid although it was again believed to be due to the system not being left on for long enough to heat it up, with the resident advising that she could not afford the cost of the system. 
34. A further appointment to check the heating/hot water system was scheduled for the following week, nonetheless. Although there is no information as to the outcome of that further appointment.

Assessment and findings

35. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations in accordance with the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
36. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy specifies its target timeframes for repair, which includes 28 days for routine repairs and 24 hours for emergency repairs, with complex or other repairs (including major works) operating on an agreed bespoke schedule.
37. The landlord acted appropriately in quickly attending to repair the leak.  Its actions were appropriate because a leak ordinarily constitutes an emergency repair which needs to promptly be resolved and this was done.
38. Turning to the handling of issues with the heating, the landlord has accepted that it made a mistake in fusing/wiring the storage heater incorrectly, leading to a fault occurring, leading to its breakdown. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took the mistake sufficiently seriously or has learned from it as it should have done, which in turn did not provide assurance and confidence to the resident.  Responding to a complaint is not only about an offer of compensation; often it is equally, if not more, important that a landlord demonstrates that it has heard and understood the complainant’s concerns and made attempts to put things right and taken steps to prevent a recurrence.
39. In terms of the landlord not providing additional heaters to the resident at the time, it had advised that it did this because only one heater was broken and it deemed the heating in the property sufficient.  While it is not doubted that the resident felt “freezing”, the landlord was not obliged to provide additional heaters where there were other heaters in the property which were determined to be sufficient. 
40. In circumstances where the resident felt the property was too cold despite having other heaters available, there was a reasonable expectation on her to notify the landlord of the situation, in order for it to respond (for example, by measuring the temperature of the property and/or by providing additional temporary heaters as appropriate). 
41. While the resident may have contacted the landlord about this at the time, as an evidenced based service, the Ombudsman requires documentation or other evidence in support of this.  No evidence has been provided to this investigation demonstrating the resident notifying the landlord of a problem with temperature at the time and the landlord in turn, declining to take any action following being notified (or not responding to the notification/s). The landlord can only take action where it is aware of a problem and this is not apparent in respect of this aspect of the complaint, where the fact of the property being “freezing” appears to have been made retrospectively.
42. Turning to the ‘Economy 7’ tariff and the expense, the landlord is not responsible for the cost of use of the system or tariff (this is due to the electricity company who set the cost), nor to improve any heating system; its obligations are to carry out repairs it is responsible for, which it has done.
43. The landlord has therefore acted reasonably in offering to consider compensation for higher energy bills, should the resident provide the evidence supporting this. There is no information as to whether this was ever done.
44. Regarding the suggestion of the electricity company for investigations into usage being carried out, these suggestions appear to be partially related to actions the resident can take – taking readings and submitting them to the energy company and testing her appliances – as well as the landlord (by way of testing that the electricity only supplies the resident’s property). It is not clear if the landlord carried out this recommended test. 
45. Turning to the tepid and chalky water, the resident has persistently notified the landlord of this and having appropriately carried out inspections in response, the landlord has repeated that the temperature is due to the resident not using the system correctly and not a fault with the system.  Although the issue may be due to user error, this investigation has not definitively seen evidence of this, however. 
46. This includes the landlord making a finding that the resident is not running the hot water for long enough, yet not appearing to test this by running the hot water for long enough at the inspections in order to test whether this really is the case, for instance. In the absence of this, a fault cannot be conclusively ruled out.  There is also no definitive response in respect of the chalky water, which should be investigated and conveyed to the resident, who has understandably felt dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord overall.
47. The landlord made a mistake in respect of the fusing/wiring of the storage heater and took too long to resolve this and to replace the water tank.  It took too long too, to respond to the complaint and it has recognised these things in its complaint responses and offers of compensation.
48. The compensation offered, while disappointing to the resident, is a proportionate and appropriate amount. This is because it is in accordance with its compensation guidance, falling at the more serious end of the scale and similarly, is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as to compensation for service failures such as the ones identified in this case.  Any compensation for increased electricity costs is separate from this amount and dependent on investigations being undertaken, evidence being provided and the landlord’s discretion.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

50. There was maladministration by the landlord insofar as it took too long to investigate and carry out works at the property in respect of the heating and hot water system, operating outside of its repairs policy and failed to investigate issues thoroughly enough.  It did not do enough to demonstrate that it had taken issues seriously, communicate effectively or demonstrate that it had taken steps to resolve and prevent a recurrence of issues in the future, drawing a line under the issues.  It is accepted that the landlord offered compensation but there remains aspects of the resident’s complaint that were not adequately addressed including the resident’s reports of tepid and chalky water.
51. Additionally, the landlord took too long to respond to the complaint, not responding within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. The landlord is to carry out a thorough investigation in respect of the heating system, specifically, for it to test whether the tepid water is due to user error and to investigate the reports of chalky water.  The resident is requested to cooperate with any such tests for the purposes of reaching a conclusion.
53. The landlord is to carry out a lessons-learned exercise in respect of the handling of repairs and subsequent complaint and to issue a formal apology to the resident for the identified failings.
54. The landlord is to re-offer the total compensation of £300, if the resident has not already accepted and received this.
55. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders by 27 August 2021.

Recommendations

56. The landlord is recommended to carry out a test of the electricity system as per the recommendation of the electricity company and for it to provide the outcome of this test and its findings to the resident. In circumstances where it is found that the electricity supply is also serving other properties or areas, for the landlord to take action to rectify this accordingly.
57. The landlord is recommended to re-offer to consider compensation for increased energy bills for the period of time originally complained of, should the resident provide copies of her energy bills to evidence this.

*The resident to note that consideration of compensation is not tantamount to an offer of compensation and the landlord is not obliged to offer compensation in this respect.

58. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations by 27 August 2021.