Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202007353)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007353

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

9 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request to repair the door-shutting mechanism to a communal door.
2. complaint about the above matter.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
On 11 February 2019, the resident contacted the landlord through Resolver – an online complaints service. The resident said that his issue was that the landlord had removed hooks from behind the door to the communal stairwell that enabled the doors to be kept opened. In his email, the resident explained that rather than using the hooks to keep the door open when cleaning was being done, they were being used to keep doors open for a prolonged period – which was a fire hazard. The resident advised that he wished for the landlord to fix the shutting mechanism, so that the doors could close gently.
The landlord responded via Resolver. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence relating to two separate responses that the resident received:
1. An email on 21 February, within which it was advised that an appointment for the repair had been scheduled for 1 March.
2. An email on 28 February which advised that it had attended on 22 February to fix the issue. The resident was asked to confirm whether he was still experiencing the problem.
On 1 March, the resident confirmed that he was still experiencing the issue. He said that the door was banging shut and “resounding through the entire block”.
The landlord’s Housing Services Officer (HSO) responded on 4 March and advised that the doors had been adjusted to close gently on 26 February. The resident responded the same day and said that the job was not done properly as he could still hear the door banging.
The HSO responded the next day and advised that she was present when the doors had been adjusted. She added that she had attended that morning and could not hear any of the communal doors making an excessive banging noise when closing. The HSO said that if the resident was continuing to have problems, they could arrange a further attendance.
The resident emailed the HSO on 7 March. He advised that he had noticed a change in the door-closing system and it appeared that an attempt to fix the matter had been made. The resident added that while he could still hear the door closing, there had been a “distinct improvement”, and he considered the matter closed. He explained that he would be appreciative if the landlord could take steps to ensure the problem was fully resolved, but that he would leave this to its discretion.
On 8 March, the resident explained that despite his email the day before, the door was banging shut again. He explained that he had trapped his fingers in the door when trying to stop it from banging, and queried whether a new closer fitting was required, as opposed to adjusting the current one, as the problem was returning despite attempts to adjust it.
The HSO responded on 8 March. She advised that while the door was not making an excessive noise, she and the repairs manager had agreed that they would order a new heavy–duty door closer for the ground floor door. The HSO said that this should solve the problem as it would have more control over the weight of the door, enabling it to close more slowly.
The job was raised the same and was marked as complete on 12 March. However, on 26 March, the resident contacted the landlord as the repair was outstanding. The landlord advised that a further job had been raised for 10 April.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 April. He said that whilst a repair had been carried out the previous day, he was disappointed to learn that the mechanism had only been adjusted. He said that he had been informed that it would be replaced. The resident said that the door was crashing shut, and another tenant who lived closest to it was “extremely angry” about the matter. The resident said that he found the matter to be “unacceptable”, and that it should be resolved urgently. He added that if the problem was not resolved within 24 hours, he would be referring the matter to this Service.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 16 October 2020. On the web complaint form, the resident said:
1. The complaint was about the door banging shut in the day and night. He said that the noise affected the entire block and startled him every time.
2. He raised the matter through Resolver and the repair was never completed – despite the landlord insisting that repairs had been carried out.
3. He last reported the matter on 11 April 2019, and received no reply.
4. He had been wedging the door open to prevent it from banging; however, the wedge was being taken away and he was sick of having to find a replacement each time.
On receipt of the resident’s web form, we made enquiries to ascertain whether the landlord’s complaints procedure had been exhausted. The landlord subsequently issued a stage one response on 30 January 2021. Within this, it said:
1. It had spoken with the Repairs Officer, who confirmed that there was a repair needed to the communal door that had been raised in October 2020. The repair was completed on 16 November, and no further repairs had been reported since.
2. On 11 January, it tried to discuss the complaint with the resident, but it was not possible to speak with him. Correspondence was then exchanged via email and the resident advised that he had complained previously through Resolver – and that the landlord should speak with his HSO for more information.
3. It had spoken with the Housing team, and it was unable to provide any further information. It also added that there was no issue with the door as repairs were complete.
4. While the resident had confirmed that the door had been repaired, he made it clear that he was dissatisfied. It had tried to contact the resident to obtain further information, but had been unsuccessful. As such, it was closing the complaint and it had not been upheld.
5. The resident had asked that the complaints team correspondence via the Resolver tool; however, this was not a facility that it used for managing complaints. It was happy to correspond via email, telephone or in writing.
6. It had seen no evidence of failings in relation to the repair, but wished to offer £20 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
During further communication with the landlord, we explained that the initial complaint was in relation to the hook behind the door and the soft-closing mechanism. We provided the landlord with a copy of the Resolver complaint which the resident had provided when he first contacted us. On receipt of this, the landlord confirmed that it would consider the complaint at stage two of its process.
However, the landlord subsequently informed us that it had spoken with the resident, and he confirmed that we had misunderstood his complaint. The landlord added that it had been unsuccessful in gaining further clarity with regards to the exact nature of the complaint. As such, we contacted the resident and asked him to provide a clear summary of the complaint.
On 29 March, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that it was closing the complaint. In its email, the landlord said that it had tried to ascertain what the resident’s complaint was, but had been unsuccessful. It explained that it would be closing the complaint as it had received insufficient information to allow it to carry out an investigation.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s “Repairs – A guide for tenants” sets out who is responsible for repairs to the tenant’s property and communal areas. The guide details that the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal doors. The guide also explained that repairs can be reported online at the landlord’s website, or by calling the Customer Service Centre.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy (the policy) defines a complaint as “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.”
The policy states that the landlord’s Customer Care Team manages all complaints, and that the team can be contacted via phone, email, post or online through its website.

Assessment and findings

In response to the resident’s report of the door banging, the landlord appropriately took steps to adjust the door to prevent it from banging. The landlord’s attempts were unsuccessful, and it subsequently advised the resident that it would replace the door-closing mechanism with a heavy–duty one as a result.
The resident informed the landlord on 11 April 2019 that the door was continuing to bang, and that it appeared that the mechanism had only been adjusted again – as opposed to being replaced. The resident added that he would refer the matter to this Service if action was not taken within 24 hours of his email. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it appears that no further action was taken in response to the repair after the attendance on 10 April. This was despite the resident informing the landlord that the repair had not been successful. That the landlord failed to reply, or arrange a further repair was a failing in the circumstances.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to us on 16 October 2020. It is not clear why the resident did not chase the matter with the landlord after April 2019, although it is noted that he did inform the landlord that he would refer the matter to this Service if a further repair was not completed within 24 hours of his email. There was, however, a gap of 18 months between this notification and the resident contacting us.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s records show that a further repair was then attempted on 19 October 2020, and the job was marked as complete. It is not clear what prompted this repair. It is acknowledged that the resident believes that our involvement prompted the landlord’s actions in October 2020; however, we first contacted the landlord in relation to the complaint on 29 December 2020. As such, the landlord would not have been aware that the resident had made contact with us prior to this date. We cannot speculate as to why the landlord took steps to complete the repair in October 2020; however, both the landlord and resident have confirmed that the repair is now complete.
On receipt of the resident’s complaint, we sought to establish whether the landlord’s complaints procedure had been exhausted. While it is noted that the resident is of the opinion that he had made a formal complaint in 2019, the evidence does not show that the matter had been handled by the landlord through its formal complaint procedure. In its stage one response to the complaint, the landlord had advised that it did not use Resolver – and the resident queried this given that staff had been responding to his emails through this tool.
From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it is clear that the resident had been corresponding with the landlord about the repair through Resolver. It is therefore understandable why the resident had queried the landlord’s comments in relation to it not using this platform. However, given the information in the landlord’s Complaints policy about how to make a complaint, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the advice which had been provided to the resident – that formal complaints were not managed through Resolver – was correct.
Nevertheless, in the resident’s Resolver email of 11 April 2019, he expressed dissatisfaction with how the repair had been handled. Given the landlord’s Complaints policy, and definition of ‘complaint’, it would have been reasonable for it to start its formal complaints process at this point – or for staff to query whether the resident wished for the matter to be dealt with as a formal complaint. That the landlord did not do so was a failing in the circumstances, and a missed opportunity to resolve the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request to repair the door-shutting mechanism to a communal door.
2. complaint about the above matter.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report about the communal door was appropriate. However, the resident informed the landlord that the problem was persisting at the beginning of April 2019, and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any further action in relation to the repair until October 2020.
The resident had informed the landlord in April 2019 that he was unhappy with how the repair was being handled – and that he would refer the matter to this Service. This was an expression of dissatisfaction. Given the landlord’s Complaints policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the matter as a formal complaint from that date.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the failure to carry out repairs in response to the resident’s email of 11 April 2019.
  2. £50 for the failure to treat the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint.

Recommendation

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should re-offer the resident the £20 compensation that was offered in its stage one response, if this has not been previously accepted.