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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202013128)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013128

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

31 August 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 repairs to the resident’s drains.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a detached two-bedroomed bungalow.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 25 November 2019 that the toilet was blocked, and that this happened regularly. It raised a job to repair this by the following day.
  3. On 10 January 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing a backflow of wastewater into her sink and bath. It raised a job for this to be repaired by the following day.
  4. On 14 and 15 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord as her toilet had blocked and wastewater was backflowing into it. She reported this again on 17 February 2020. It raised these jobs as emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 21 February 2020. She described instances of backflow occurring into her toilet, sink and bath which began in November 2019 after it had attended to clear the outside drain for her property. The resident relayed that she reported these backflow instances to the landlord on several occasions. When she reported the issue to it on 10 January 2020 it told her that it would attend as an emergency, but she had needed to make further contact after a few hours as the issue worsened.
  6. The resident said that she had written to the landlord on 7 January 2020 but had not received a response. She had phoned on 14 February 2020 due to a reoccurrence of the backflow which made her toilet unusable, and it had given her an emergency appointment, but this was not attended for more than 24 hours.
  7. The resident said that she thought it was unhygienic for her bath sink and toilet systems to be connected and this knowledge was causing her distress. She wanted the drainage for her toilet to be separated from the bath and sink; she added that she was also having problems with the kitchen drains. The resident highlighted that her property was at the end house of the street, and she believed that the waste that was being brought into her property by the backflow originated from her neighbours’ properties. She said she had been contacted by a member of the landlord’s staff who had offered to repair the drainage; she asked it to liaise with this person and resolve her drainage problems urgently.
  8. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2020. It noted that it attended an emergency call to deal with backflow in the toilet bath and sink on 10 January 2020, it received a report of backflow in the toilet on 14 February 2020, which it attended at 4.30 pm on 15 February 2020, and that it made an out of hours recall visit between 17 and 18 February 2020. The landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on 30 April 2020 when she had confirmed to it that the drainage system was operational.
  9. The landlord upheld the complaint as it attended the appointment on 15 February 2020 later than the emergency timescale of 24 hours. It advised that it would assess the internal drainage issues once corona virus restrictions had lifted. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £10 for the missed emergency appointment and £20 for poor communication and complaints handling.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2020 to reject the offer of compensation and request that her complaint be kept open. She believed that the backflow issues would continue, and she said that she did not want to return to “square one” after the virus restrictions were lifted.  
  11. The landlord recorded on 17 November 2020 that sewage drains were backing up through the resident’s toilet which was completely blocked. It raised this as an emergency repair with a 24 hour response time.
  12. After receiving contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021 to convey her continued dissatisfaction with the outcome of her stage one complaint, as the issues with her drainage persisted. The Ombudsman requested that it contact her to progress her complaint to the final stage. The landlord exchanged correspondence about the complaint between 16 and 23 February 2021 before confirming escalation of the complaint on 24 February 2021.
  13. The landlord attended the property on 17 February 2020 to jet the drains. It recorded that it was “all running OK” and recommended a CCTV survey due to the recurrent attendances to the site.
  14. The landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the drains at the property on 25 February 2021 and jetted the drains again at the resident’s request. It recorded that no further work was indicated by the CCTV survey. The landlord’s contractor provided a report on the CCTV survey on 1 March 2021 and, the following day, emailed the landlord to advise that there did not appear to be a problem with the drains. They suggested a cleanse of the drain lines, noting that there had been historical accumulation of fat and grease at the drains at the property, along with an accumulation of debris.
  15. The resident reported to the landlord on 8 March 2021 that the toilet was getting blocked again and she had been required to use a plunger to unblock it and store her refuse in plastic bags. She asked it to arrange for the drain contractor to attend on a weekly basis until the problem was resolved in the long term and requested an update on the situation. The resident requested that the contractors did not disturb her by knocking at the door or requesting access as she was “extremely distress[ed] due to this problem”.
  16. The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 April 2021 and noted her comments that the toilet blocked daily, which she had to clear with a plunger. She also said that her property was at the end of a terrace of properties and was the only one to experience this issue which led her to believe that the issue lay with the design of the drainage system.
  17. The landlord recorded on 14 April 2021 that it attempted to arrange an inspection of the property with the resident to inspect the layout of the drainage system and identify the cause of the repeated blockages at the property. It noted that she would not allow it to inspect the property. The landlord arranged for some minor repairs to the drainage pipework which had been identified in the CCTV survey. It recorded that it would attempt to arrange another inspection with the resident to assess if the problem persisted after the minor repairs.
  18. The landlord issued a final stage response to the resident on 22 April 2021. It noted that she had not provided access for an inspection of the drainage at the property. Due to this, the landlord proposed that it would carry out a final CCTV survey of the drains and carry out any works as necessary. After this, it planned to carry out a post-inspection which it would discuss with her closer to the time to arrange access.
  19. The landlord acknowledged that it had not carried out the repairs promptly nor communicated with her effectively. It reasoned that this was due to the drainage issue being intermittent which posed difficulties for it to diagnose. The landlord also noted that the matter was not escalated to its senior staff before the complaint was escalated to the final stage, after “around a year”. It said that earlier escalation may have allowed it to consider alternative options and deliver a resolution sooner. The landlord assured the resident that it had made internal changes which allowed it to have better oversight over its repairs teams, which would help it to resolve complex issues better.
  20. The landlord acknowledged that it had not complied with its own standards in the handling of the complaint, which led to it being kept open for longer than necessary. It also acknowledged that it should have corresponded with the resident more frequently, offered more updates and that the issue was not brought to the attention of its senior staff soon enough. The landlord advised that it was reviewing its processes within its complaints handling team to provide a more effective service for its residents.
  21. The landlord apologised for the standard of service the resident had received and acknowledged that it could have handled her complaint, its communication with her, and the repairs better. In recognition of this it offered her compensation of £750. This was made up of £300 for its failure to carry out works over several months, £300 for her time expended and the trouble she experienced in pursuing the matter, and £150 for its handling of the complaint.
  22. The landlord carried out a final CCTV survey of the resident’s drains on 10 May 2021 and inspected her property on 24 June 2021, and it found no blockages after removing the toilet for the examination. It was suggested that, due to the absence of a vent to relieve pressure in the drainage pipe, the backflow was due to an airlock in the pipe.  Works to install an external soil and vent pipe to the bathroom waste were raised on 2 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance of the installations that it provides for sanitation and supplying water; this includes the basins, sinks toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes in the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it is the resident’s responsibility to remedy waste pipe blockages and residents must demonstrate that that “have made all reasonable efforts to unblock waste pipes”. This guide confirms that it regards an emergency repair as one which “is required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety”. As examples of emergency repairs, this guide lists a “blocked WC where it is the only one in the property” and “blocked drain causing wastewater to surge into basin, bath, sink or WC”. The guide specifies that emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage formal complaint process where stage one complaints are to be resolved within 28 calendar days. At the final stage the complaint should be resolved within 28 calendar days, with contact made with the resident at least once every two weeks. Extensions to the 28-calendar day timeframe at the final stage are to be submitted to the landlord’s complaints panel for approval.
  4. The landlord’s compensation procedure provides for compensation payments of £250 to £500 for instances of service failure which have persisted for over six months and whether the resident has chased the landlord for over six months for resolution. This procedure also provides for payments of between £250 and £500 pounds where has been a “difficult error to put right” and where the resident’s “standard of living has been severely affected”. For poor complaint handling, the landlord’s compensation procedure provides for payments of “£10 to £150 dependant on the severity of the failure”.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s drains.

  1. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to maintain the drainage pipes at the property and therefore it was responsible for remedying the backflow reported by the resident. It is evident that it attended to her reports of wastewater backflowing into her property appropriately as emergencies, in accordance with its repairs guide, as this posed a potential risk to health. The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2020, that it had attended slightly outside the 24-hour timeframe specified in its repairs guide and it was reasonable for it to offer compensation of £10 for this.
  2. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then went on to fulfil its agreement, in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2020, to further investigate the drains at the property until 16 February 2021, after the resident escalated her complaint through this Service. This was a period of approximately 14 months and represented an excessive delay. Although some delay was inevitable due to corona virus restrictions over this period, the landlord would still be expected to make contact with the resident to update her on the situation, and there was no evidence of this.
  3. The landlord’s final response to the resident on 22 April 2021 offered compensation of £600 for its failure to carry out the further works to her drains and her time and trouble during this period. This was a reasonable offer as it was in accordance with its compensation procedure. This offer was also broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.
  4. It should be noted that, when considering offers of compensation, this Service considers whether the offer is reasonable based on whether an offer proportionately recognises the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by its actions, or its failure to act. Awards of compensation are not intended to punish, or make an ‘example’ of, the landlord. It is also considered whether it took reasonable actions once a failure was brought to its attention.
  5. It is noted that the landlord took measures to investigate the drains, by carrying out CCTV surveys on 26 February and 10 May 2021, carried out a further inspection on 24 June 2021, and raised works to remedy the backflow issue on 2 July 2021. While the remedial measures were not those requested by the resident – to have her drainage system separated from her neighbours – it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff and contractors, therefore it was reasonable for it to carry out the works which were recommended after the inspection.
  6. Therefore, in light of the actions taken by the landlord to address the drainage issue, once the resident’s continued dissatisfaction was brought to its attention on 15 January 2021, and the level of compensation which it offered, which was in accordance with its procedure, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which reasonably and proportionately recognised the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her by its delay.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided to the resident on 5 May 2020, 70 calendar days after her stage one complaint was raised on 26 February 2020. This was 42 calendar days in excess of the timeframe specified in its complaints procedure.
  2. It is evident that the complaint was then kept open at the resident’s request when she asked it to be escalated on 6 May 2020. However, it did not provide a final response to the resident until 22 April 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on her complaint, which it would be expected to do in accordance with its complaints procedure. Therefore, the landlord delayed excessively in resolving the resident’s complaint and did not act in accordance with its procedure.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £150, in its final response to her on 22 April 2021. This was the maximum payable under its compensation procedure. When this offer is considered together with the level of compensation it offered above for the resident’s inconvenience for its delayed response, this offer is a reasonable offer of redress which recognised the level of failure it exhibited in handling the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves satisfactorily:
    1. the complaint concerning its handling of repairs to her drains.
    2. its poor complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s offer of compensation recognised its excessive delay in acting on the resident’s dissatisfaction with her drains, and it took reasonable actions to remedy the drainage issues once the complaint was escalated again on 15 February 2021.
  2. The landlord made an offer of compensation which recognised the level of failure it exhibited in its handling of the complaint and was in accordance with its procedures.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should now pay the resident the £750 compensation it offered in its final stage complaint response to her on 22 April 2021.