Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202014439)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014439

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

26 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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the heating system in his property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s “repairs: a guide for tenants” handbook confirms that routine repairs are to be completed within 28 calendar days. The handbook also states that emergency repairs have a 24-hour response time frame.
Section 11.7 of the landlord’s management agreement confirms that it is responsible for keeping all gas and electrical equipment in good working order.
The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments procedure details the following awards:
1. £50 to £250 “failure of service” payment for poor or an unreasonably delayed service, where a number of errors have been made, or a repair is repeatedly not resolved.
2. £50 to £250 for the resident’s time and trouble in progressing the complaint, where there is a longer period of delay resulting in the resident chasing “several times.” It would only consider paying this in addition to a failure of service payment in exceptional circumstances.
3. £10 to £150 for poor complaint handling.
4. £10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of 5 appointments.
5. It may consider payments for loss of earnings “in exceptional circumstances”, where the resident can demonstrate that they went unpaid.
Schedule 8 of the landlord’s management agreement confirms that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, with a further date being agreed if this timescale was not possible. For stage two and final stage complaints, a response should be sent within 20 working days.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a first-floor flat.
On 15 April 2019, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident called to raise a complaint. The call notes state that he explained:
1. There had been a suspected water leak from the flue in the resident’s property. This resulted in the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm ringing.
2. An appointment had been made for 12 April 2019 to fit a flue and carry out a full test of the system; however, nobody turned up. This was one of “a number of missed appointment[s]”.
3. He wanted compensation for the missed appointments and “for the lack of consideration” from the contractor.
4. A new appointment was made for 16 April 2019 for the contractor to re-attend.
On 1 June 2020, a fumes investigation report was completed for the property. It had identified no problems with the installations or appliances, and assessed them to be “safe to use with no defects identified”.
On 11 June 2019, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It explained that:
1. It had received the first report of concerns from the resident on 8 April 2019 and completed the required work on 23 April 2019. It had completed a full integrity test and had arranged a fumes investigation report.
2. The issue was found to be the condensate pipe, which had come away from the boiler and leaked onto the carbon monoxide alarm.
3. It apologised for taking longer than the expected one week to complete this type of repair, and it had raised this with the contractor, who apologised for any distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident.
4. It offered a total of £160 compensation: £50 for its delay in completing the repair, £50 for the resident’s time and trouble; £50 for the missed appointments; and £10 for poor complaint handling.
On 17 June 2019, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident wanted to escalate his complaint. He believed that the contractor had lied to the landlord, as “the flue had totally come away in the ceiling void.”
On 29 September 2019, the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. The contractor had attended on “numerous occasions”, believing the resident’s concerns over low pressure in the boiler to be due to a descale being required to the boiler. This was not resolving the issue, with a return visit having been required just four days after the contractor had previously attended.
2. The resident had seen water under the flooring on 22 September 2019, resulting in a further visit from the contractor, who could not find the source of the leak. After he had left, the resident’s downstairs neighbour had complained of a water patch spreading on their ceiling. The contractor attended again and traced the source of the leak with the resident’s assistance.
3. This leak had caused water damage throughout the property. The resident wanted to know what work it had planned, and when it expected to complete the work.
4. The resident also wanted compensation, with consideration to the fact that both the resident and his wife having suffered a loss of earnings following the missed appointments.
On 2 October 2019, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and confirmed it would contact the resident within 15 days to discuss the case.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response. In the response it:
1. Apologised for not providing the resident with a final response to the resident’s complaint in October 2019. This was due to the complaint not being moved across to its new system. It noted that it had continued to support the resident with the complaint during this time.
2. It found that it had identified its failure to complete the repair in line with its expectations and offered compensation for this. However, as it recognised the complaint had been ongoing “for a long time”, it increased its compensation offer to the following:
  1. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in progressing the complaint
  2. £50 for the delayed repair, as offered at stage one.
  3. £150 for poor complaints handling.
  4. £10 for missed appoints, “as offered” in its stage one complaint response. However, £10 was offered per missed appointment, up to the maximum of £50, as per paragraph its compensation policy.

Assessment and findings

The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the complaint on his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute his comments regarding his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This is because we do not have the expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which he has explained the situation has caused him.

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the heating system in his property.

Following the resident’s reports of a leak in his property, the landlord completed the necessary repair work, in line with its responsibility as detailed in paragraph 3. The landlord explained in its complaint response that the work had taken longer that its expected one-week time frame. It is not apparent from the landlord’s information what the one-week target was in relation to, as only a 24 hour or 28-day target are mentioned in its repair handbook. Nonetheless, the landlord believed it had taken too long. It acknowledged and apologised, and offered compensation. Those were reasonable remedies in the circumstances.
A water leak had been reported by the resident in September 2019, with the landlord attending in response. The landlord found the source of the leak difficult to locate as it was located behind the wall. That meant it took longer to identify, and required the resident’s assistance to do so. Water leaks, by their nature, can sometimes require repeated investigations in order to successfully identify their source and resolve them. The time taken by the landlord would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, but the evidence shows the landlord was taking appropriate and reasonable steps to fix the problem.
The landlord recognised that its actions resolving the leak complaints had not been of a consistently good standard. It apologised to the resident and offered £260 compensation. The level of compensation reflected both the delayed service and the resident’s time and trouble. It was in line with its discretionary compensation payments procedure, and also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendations.

Complaint handling.

After receiving the resident’s stage one complaint on 15 April 2019, the landlord issued its response on 11 June 2019. That was significantly outside its 15-working-day response target, and clearly a failing.
The resident requested the escalation of his complaint on 17 June 2019. There is no evidence of any action by the landlord in light of it. The resident complained again on 29 September 2019. The landlord later explained that its handling of this complaint was delayed by its own IT problems and changes. That explanation is useful in understanding what went wrong, but the handling and delay was nonetheless poor.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling in its final complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the impact on him, and offered further compensation of £150. That amount was the maximum recommended in its compensation policy, and was reasonable and proportionate.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s communication with the timeliness of the repairs to address the leak in the resident’s heating system, and for its complaint handling. The landlord took the opportunity of its complaints process to identify its failings, and to offer redress which proportionately reflected the impact and was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, as well as its own compensation and payment schemes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the heating system in his property.
2. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a delay in the repair to the leak from the condensate pipe. The landlord failed to provide a timely final complaint response to the resident, in part due to its failure to transfer the complaint to its new system. It recognised its failures and offered fair and reasonable compensation to acknowledge the detriment experienced by the resident.