Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202006693)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006693

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

21 October 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

The complaint is about the:
1. The level of redress awarded by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of the property which is a two bedroom flat on the top floor of a six story block. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
The resident lives at the property with his partner and for ease we have referred to both the resident’s partner and the resident as “the resident”.
Paragraph 6 of the lease says that the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the roof foundations and all external parts thereof.
The landlord’s Repair Guide for Leaseholders sets out its target times for responding to repairs: Emergency repairs within 24 hours; Routine repairs within 28 calendar days; Major routine repairs within three months or as part of its planned programme of works.
Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 says that landlords must consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying work at a property. This replaced the previous consultation procedure set out in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but the old title ‘section 20’ is still used. The consultation process has three stages.
The landlord’s complaints policy has two stages. The response time at stage one is 10 working days and at stage two 20 working days. If the landlord cannot respond within those timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
In January 2018 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that the roof of the building was leaking causing damage to the ceiling in the flat. On 6 February 2018 the resident sent a further email to the landlord asking when the roof would be fixed. The landlord responded the same day saying “In regards to the roof works, I have had a conversation with my manger (sic) and he has informed me that a more intrusive inspections were needed to have a look at the roof. And potentially [the landlord] may have needed to issue a section 20 to the block before carrying out the repairs to the roof. Fortunately following these investigations it has been determined a section 20 is not needed and the repairs are to be raised by [landlord member of staff]”.
On 20 January 2019 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that the roof issue had still not been addressed. On 27 January 2019 the resident sent a further email to the landlord saying, “We received a letter last year explaining that the roof was going to be repaired, is there a confirmed date for this work?”. The landlord replied on 1 February 2019 saying that it was chasing the repairs team regarding the repairs to the roof and would update the resident when it had more information.
The resident and a neighbour met with the landlord at the building in July 2019 to discuss various issues including the leaking roof.
On 27 October 2019 the resident sent the landlord an email saying, “We would like to report extensive rain damage to our roof.”
The landlord replied to the resident on 29 October 2019 saying, “I can see on our systems a job has been raised… to rectify issue with the flat roof which is causing a leak in multiple flats”. Following a further enquiry from the resident the landlord confirmed on 30 October 2019 that the roof repair was booked to be carried out on 19 November 2019 between 1pm and 5pm.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its contractors wouldn’t need to access the flat. It also explained that the resident could lodge a claim with its insurer concerning any damage form the leak and, if the issue was found to be due to issues with the roof for which it was responsible, the resident could ask it to refund the excess.
On 20 November 2019 the landlord informed the resident that the repair job hadn’t been carried out the previous day as planned but had now been scheduled for 21 November 2019.
On 25 November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update following its roofing contractors’ visit. The landlord informed him that the contractors had not been able to access the roof as they did not have the key to the fire exit door from the balcony. The landlord informed the resident that its contractors would now inspect the roof on 24 January 2020.
On 23 December 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the time taken to repair the roof and the damage it was causing.
On 15 January 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint saying that as the repair work was scheduled for the 24 January 2020 and the resident had been informed, it had not contacted the resident as “now the repair has been put into place I would close down the stage 1 to allow this to be escalated to stage 2 should the repair not go ahead or you were unhappy with the works….I shall get the final response out to you as soon as possible.“ The landlord explained that its complaints team was short staffed so there would be delays in responding.
The resident responded the same day saying that, although it was aware that the roof repair was booked for 24 January 2020, his complaint was about the time the landlord had taken to carry out the repair. The landlord responded the same day saying that it wanted to manage the resident’s expectations concerning it responding to complaints. It said it would address delays and timeframes once the repair had been carried out and would provide a further update after the repair had taken place. The resident responded by email the same day saying “the one thing I want to get across is that apart from repairing the current situation our complaint is that the roof has been left to get in such a bad state that part of the ceiling is now peeling/cracking etc, letting in rain water and look like they are about to collapse. We went to great lengths to arrange 2 f2f (sic) meetings at the property but your colleagues that came round have not once got back in touch to follow up.”
On 27 January 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying that the roof contractors had identified that the leak might be coming from the rubber matting roof material. This was not something the roof contractors specialised in and so it was investigating how best to move matters forward.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 3 April 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying that the landlord had recently cleared six bags of moss from the roof and that it had identified “several defects with this roof that will need to go to the planned team.”. The landlord said that it would update the resident when it had more information.
On 18 May 2020 the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 12 July 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking for an update on the roof repairs. The landlord responded on 13 July 2020 saying that it would update the resident shortly.
On 6 Sep 2020 the resident sent another email to the landlord asking for an update concerning the repairs to the roof. The landlord replied on 8 September 2020, apologising for the delay and saying that it was trying to find information about the roof repairs and expected to update the resident within two weeks.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and informed him that the landlord’s legal team had been considering whether the responsibility for repairing the roof lay with it or the main leaseholder and it would update him shortly.
On 5 October 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that due to heavy rainfall there was water ingress into the flat which was causing substantial damage to the property.
On 5 October 2020, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to clarify the status of, and respond to, the resident’s complaint in line with the Landlord’s complaints procedure and within 15 working days.
On 15 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying that it was currently seeking quotes which would then determine if it needed to go through a section 20 consultation.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email headed “Stage One Complaint…Final Response”. In its stage one response the landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint about the delays in repairing the roof.
2. Said that it would be asking its contractor to provide a scope of works so that “we can act swiftly once a conclusion has been reached.” The landlord repeated that it might be necessary to complete a section 20 consultation.
3. Offered to reimburse the resident £250 for the excess he would have to pay on his insurance to return the property back to a habitable standard.
4. Offered to pay the resident £100 compensation for poor complaints handling.
On 5 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint on the following grounds:
1. He did not accept the landlord’s compensation offer
2. He had requested a copy of the landlord’s complaint procedure and this had not been provided.
3. That, despite his previous requests to escalate the complaint to stage two the landlord had not done so.
4. That the landlord had previously served a section 20 notice on the residents about works to be carried out to the roof.
5. That residents of the building had been requesting repair work be carried out to the roof for a number of years.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 11 December 2020 and on 14 December 2020 informed the resident that it aimed to provide a resolution within the next 10 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 January 2020 saying that there was still water leaking into the flat and he had not received the promised stage two complaint resolution.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. In its response the landlord confirmed that it had upheld the complaint and:
1. Said that during the roof inspection in March 2020 the operative had carried out some “mild works” and had identified that more substantial works were required. The landlord said that the delays were partly due to the national lockdown, which meant there were no updates between March and August 2020. At that time the landlord’s complex repairs team took ownership of the repairs and it apologised that there were further delays due to some confusion over the legal responsibility for the roof.
2. It had received the repair records from 2016 onwards and confirmed that, although multiple repairs had been reported for the roof, the landlord had taken reactive measures each time.
3. Whilst the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint a copy of the acknowledgement was not kept and so it was unable to determine if it had sent the resident a copy of its complaints procedure. It apologised if this had been missed and for failing to update its records.
4. The landlord hadn’t escalated the complaint when requested by the resident as at that time a stage one response had not been provided.
5. It confirmed that a previous section 20 process concerning works to the roof had been started. The landlord was unable to determine why the section 20 process had not continued. There had been high staff turnover and this had “ultimately added delays.” The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused the resident.
6. It offered to pay the resident compensation totalling £650, made up as follows:
  1. £150 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £250 reimbursement for insurance excess.
  3. £150 for time and trouble.
  4. £100 failure of service, specifically relating to the cancellation of the previous Section 20 works and the delay in identifying responsibility for the repair.
On 2 March the resident emailed the landlord rejecting the level of compensation offered to say that the repair work had still not started, and the landlord had not served a section 20 notice.
On 18 March 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying:
1. It was currently discussing quotes for the repair work and confirmed that the start date has been scheduled for 25th March 2021.
2. Due to the delay it would not be carrying out a Section 20 process and it would be covering the cost of the work.
3. It appreciated the additional time the resident had invested in getting further answers and that the decision to progress through the Section 20 process had changed so it had awarded a further £50 compensation.
The roof repairs were completed in May 2021.

Assessment and findings

The level of redress awarded by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.

When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apologies and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging, and apologising for, the delays in addressing the roof repairs and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the staff turnovers meaning that the previous section 20 notice had not been pursued.
The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in:
1. Reimbursing the resident £250 for the excess he would have to pay on his insurance to return the property back to a habitable standard.
2. Deciding to cover the cost of the repair work itself, rather than carrying out a Section 20 process.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for time and trouble and £150 for service failure related to the cancellation of the previous section 20 notice and the delay identifying responsibility for the repair. The reasonableness of these offers is assessed below.
The resident reported the issues with the roof to the landlord in January 2018 and the repair was completed in May 2021. Even allowing for delays due to the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions (see paragraphs 20,22 and 23 above) the landlord took over 35 months to carry out the repairs to the roof. The landlord’s response time was substantially outside the three months response time for major routine repairs set out in its Repair Guide for Leaseholders (see paragraph 5 above).
The landlord had no explanation of, or records relating to why, the previous section 20 process had not been followed. Neither has the Ombudsman seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation: A timeline of events dating back to January 2018, including:
1. Details of the first report of water ingress / roof damage raised by the resident.
2. Copy of the landlord’s response to this initial report and details of the investigation and information relied upon when responding.
3. Details of any subsequent report of water ingress / roof damage from the resident, the landlord’s investigation and response to each, and the information relied upon when responding to each.
4. All records relating to repair, remedial, or monitoring work booked by the landlord following the initial and any subsequent reports of water ingress / roof damage by the resident.
5. Copies of all communication with the resident relating to water ingress and roof damage in the property since the first report of a problem.
This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the repair service the landlord provided the resident, specifically:
1. Whether the landlord’s initial response to the repair reports was reasonable.
2. How quickly the landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports.
It is also noted that copies of much of the correspondence referred to in paragraphs 8 to 16 above was provided to the Ombudsman by the resident and not by the landlord.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations and notices served under section 20. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively. This, along with the 35 month delay in completing the repair would represent maladministration by the landlord, had the landlord not attempted to put things right.
The sum of £300 compensation is at the lower end of the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration.
The landlord has also not provided any details to the resident about whether it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint and the Ombudsman has made an order that the landlord review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in responding to repairs reported by leaseholders do not occur in the future.
The landlord’s response was not proportionate, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The £300 compensation did not fully put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings set out in paragraphs 42 to 46 above and therefore additional compensation has been ordered.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord acted fairly in apologising for not having records to show whether it had provided the resident with a copy of its complaints procedure.
The landlord also acted appropriately in not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure before it had issued its stage one response to the complaint.
However, the landlord did not issue its stage one complaint response until 238 working days after receiving the resident’s formal complaint and 228 outside the 10 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy (see paragraph 7 above). It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay issuing a complaint response whilst it was investigating what repairs were required to the roof. Whilst there is some evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the progress of the complaint, there is also evidence (see paragraphs 24 and 25) showing that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on the repairs (and therefore the complaint response). The landlord’s delay in issuing a stage one complaint response also caused the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting this Service.
The landlord’s delay in its complaints handling is a service failure. The sum of £150 compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of this service failure is in the middle of the £50 to £250 range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. The impact experienced by the resident could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble.
Therefore, the redress offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact that its complaint handling failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the level of redress awarded by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its complaints handling.

Reasons

The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
The landlord’s complaints handling demonstrated inappropriate delays. However, it apologised for this service failure and awarded proportionate compensation.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident compensation totalling £1100 made up as follows:
1. £700 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
2. An additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and to provide this Service with a summary of the review setting out what went wrong and the steps it will be taking to ensure that the failures are not repeated. The management review should include:
1. A review of its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in responding to repairs reported by leaseholders do not occur in the future.
2. A review of its record keeping practices to ensure that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that it has met its repairing obligations.
3. A review of its staff training concerning complaints handling.