Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202011840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011840

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

1 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak at the property and subsequent repairs and associated damage.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant at the property, a one-bedroom flat and is subject to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing trust.
3. At the time that the complaint was made the landlord operated a two-stage complaints policy, the policy stated that the complainant must be kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 28 calendar days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request that the decision be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and a response provided within 28 calendar days.
4. The landlord’s Repairs Guide for Tenants outlines that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the roofs and guttering at the property. The policy highlights that the landlord ‘aims to perform routine repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported by the resident’.
5. Under the landlord’s compensation policy it will compensate £10 per week for any delay of a minor repair as a result of service failure.  The policy also allows for time and trouble payments up to £250 for long delays where the resident had to chase a response several times.

Summary of events

6. In November 2019, the resident reported a repair issue to the landlord in relation to a pipe which was overflowing on the outside of the property causing green moss to form on the outside of the building.
7. On 23 January 2020, contractors attended the property and performed repair works to the satisfaction of both parties. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 28 January 2020 and made a formal complaint and advised that there were further issues and the pipe had continued to overflow. The resident raised that she would like compensation for the distress caused and for damage to her garden bench.
8. The landlord organised a joint visit with its contractors at the resident’s property on 6 February 2020.
9. Between 12 February and 7 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on four occasions in relation to repairs to the overflow pipe at the property and to seek an update regarding repair works.
10. On 13 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that a contractor had attended the property however the plumber was unable to complete the repair.
11. On 26 August 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following:
    1. That neither its repairs team or its independent contractors were able to establish the cause of the leak to the overflow pipe which caused multiple visits to the property without the issue being resolved.
    2. It conceded that there were further delays to the repairs due to government restrictions as a result of Covid–19 with the repairs completed on 24 August 2020.
    3. It accepted that it failed to identify the issue during initial visits to the property and awarded the resident £150 compensation for its failure. It also acknowledged that the resident had to chase the repairs on multiple occasions and therefore awarded £100 for the resident’s time and trouble. It advised that training had been performed in relation to the complaint and that her case would be used as a case study in order to improve service delivery and help its service understand the root causes behind its failures.
12. On 3 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the matter to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She said that the compensation offered by the landlord was not adequate to compensate for the distress and her time and energy and the damage to her bench and flowers.
13. On 7 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it had not been able to contact her neighbour in order to gain access to complete repairs at the neighbouring property and asked for the resident’s help in establishing contact.
14. On 14 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the issues with the overflow pipe was ongoing and water had continued to overflow.
15. On 21 September 2020, a contractor attended the property but was unable to fix the issue as it needed to gain access to the upstairs neighbour’s flat. The landlord attended the neighbouring property on a number of occasions without success and left a calling card.
16. On 7 October 2020, the leak was resolved at the property and restorative and decorative works were performed to the outside of the resident’s property and completed on 13 November 2020.
17. On 14 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final review and addressed the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in providing a response and advised that it was due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
    2. It advised that both it and its contractors attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions in February 2020 in an attempt to fix the issue; however, it continued to persist. It advised that it organised a joint visit with its contactors on 6 February 2020 however due to government restrictions it was not able to compete any non-emergency follow up repairs
    3. Once restrictions had eased plumbers attended the resident’s property on 11 June 2020 and it was established that three tanks needed to be removed or overhauled in each loft space, these works were completed on 24 August 2020, however there were further reports of a leak from the resident.
    4. It established that further works were required to a neighbouring property but it had struggled to gain access. Works were completed on 7 October 2020 and decorative works performed on 13 November 2020.
    5. It assessed its complaint handling at stage one of the complaints process and found that the operative followed its complaints procedure and did what it could to provide the resident with an appropriate outcome. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the outcome however there was no service failure at stage one of the complaint.
    6. It offered the resident an additional £50 on top of the £250 offered at stage one for her time and trouble and for the time in which she spent chasing follow on works. 
18. On 2 July 2021, the landlord offered the resident an additional £300, on top of the £300 offered above, towards any damaged items in line with its compensation tariffs and said that if this did not cover the cost it could be dealt with as a separate complaint. 

Assessment and findings

A leak at the property and subsequent repairs and associated damage.

19. The resident raised issues of an overflowing pipe at the property in November 2019 which had led to green moss forming on the outside of the property and damage to the resident’s garden bench. The landlord has an obligation under its repairs policy to make the appropriate repairs within 28 days of it being reported by the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did not respond to the repair until 23 January 2020 and therefore there was a minimum delay of 3 weeks in rectifying the issue at the initial stage of the complaint. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the failure in its stage one complaint response and offered the resident £150 compensation which was reasonable to compensate for the conceded failure.
20. The resident reported further issues in relation to the overflow pipe on 28 January 2020, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and organised a joint inspection with its contractors for 6 February 2020 in line with its repair’s obligations. It is accepted by this Service that the follow up works from the inspection did not take place to Covid-19 and subsequent government restrictions. The repairs to the overflow pipe were complete on 24 August 2020 however further issues were reported by the resident and the landlord notified her that it had trouble contacting her neighbour to gain access to fix the issue. The repairs were completed at the property on 7 October 2020 and decorative works were performed on 13 November 2020 representing a small delay under its repairs policy. The landlord offered a further £50 at stage two of its complaints procedure for the time and trouble the resident spent chasing follow up works at the property which was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
21. It is accepted by both parties that the resident attempted to contact the landlord on at least four separate occasions between February and August 2020 in order to obtain an update from the landlord in relation to the repairs at the property. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had to chase the repairs and awarded her £100 compensation for her time in trouble which was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
22. The landlord offered the resident £300 towards any damaged items as a result of the overflowing pipe. It is acknowledged by this Service that the offer by the landlord was made after the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure however the landlord took a resolution focused approach and used its discretion to make an offer to compensate the damage to the resident’s bench and flowers. This was a reasonable approach taken by the landlord to resolve the complaint and also appropriately advised that the resident could contact it if the value of the damage exceeded the amount offered.

The landlord’s complaints handling

23. The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint was made by the resident on 28 January 2020 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 26 August 2020. This represents a six-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord expressed that the delay was due to the effects of the Covid-19 however the lockdown regulations did not come into effect until 26 March 2020 and while it may have had some negative effect on the time of the response it is not reasonable that the landlord did not provide a formal response for a further five months. The resident also had to chase the landlord for updates during the period demonstrating further failure.
24. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process on 3 September 2020 and a final response was provided by the landlord on 14 December 2020. This represents a two-month delay in the landlord providing a response to the resident. The length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policies and only an apology was offered for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord however appropriately performed training in relation to the complaint in order to improve service delivery in order for its service understand the root causes behind its failures.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to its handling of repairs due to leaks which affected the leasehold property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

27. The landlord acknowledged its failings with respect to the handling of the overflowing pipe and offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as having adequately redressed all the issues.
28. The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one and two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct 28-day time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay at both stages of the complaints process.

Orders

29. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

30. If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the previously offered £600 compensation, comprising:
    1. £150 for its repair’s failures.
    2. £100 for the resident’s time in trouble.
    3. £50 time and trouble for the time in which the resident spent chasing follow on works.
    4. £300 for damage to the resident’s belongings.