Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202103269)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103269

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

25 January 2022


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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to his storage heating and immersion heater.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the assured tenant in a one-bedroom flat in sheltered housing, which tenancy began on 5 February 2020. While he had no recorded vulnerabilities, he was an old-age pensioner.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to maintain installations for space heating and water heating.
  2. In accordance with section 11 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water and an obligation to effect repairs within a reasonable period. What is reasonable would depend on the nature of the defect reported.
  3. Under the repairs handbook, the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the central heating, including storage heaters and immersion heaters.
  4. Emergency repairs included total loss of heating. Where requested by the resident, temporary heating would be supplied within the 24–hour period. If replacement parts need to be sourced, ordered and fitted, the repair could take a further seven days.
  5. Routine repairs would include defects that could be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience. These repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  6. The landlord’s complaint procedure consisted of two stages, where stage two entailed a review of stage one. A complaint could be escalated where actions agreed at the first stage had not been completed as agreed.
  7. Under the compensation policy, the landlord would use a “high–level” of discretion when considering individual cases to decide what was fair.
  8. There were three categories of compensation:
    1. Low : The remedy would range from an apology to £50 for failures that resulted in some impact on the complainant, where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
    2. Medium: The remedy would range from £51 to £160. This would be for cases where there was considerable service failure but there was no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples included: the complainant repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant, failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy to address repairs.
    3. High: The remedy would range from £161 to £350. This would apply to where there was a “severe lack of ownership and accountability” and had had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range would be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. They would include where the resident lived long term within the property without basic requirements, such as heating and water.
  9. Reasons for payment would include a service failure including loss of amenities, the resident’s time and trouble. These would be assessed according to the above criteria. Poor complaint handling would attract compensation of £150 and £10 per missed appointment.

Chronology

  1. The landlord provided limited records, in particular for the period between February 2020 and January 2021. However, it is not disputed that the resident’s hallway storage heater was not working when the resident moved into his property on 5 February 2020. According to the resident, the heater was not working prior to his moving in.
  2. The lounge heater was condemned on 19 June 2020 after the resident reported it as not working. The hallway heater was also condemned on or shortly after 25 September 2020. As at 20 January 2021, neither heater had been replaced so that the only heating in the property was fan heaters and the heating in the bedroom. 
  3. The immersion heater was not working properly in that the water was lukewarm on the night-time setting. According to the resident, it was disconnected on a date in December 2020. It was not disputed that at February 2021, the resident had not had hot water for three months.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 15 January 2021 as follows:
    1. The storage heaters in the lounge and bedroom were not working. This was reported on 4 February 2020 prior to the resident moving in on 5 February 2020. A workman attended in June 2020 and had condemned the lounge heater.
    2. He had continually been chasing this job for completion.
    3. The hallway storage heater was not working. The landlord attended on a date in October 2020 and stated that the heater was unserviceable due to its age and condition and would recommend a replacement. The landlord re-attended and stated the heater was unserviceable due to its age and condition and required a replacement.
    4. The immersion heater was not working on the daytime tariff and was only lukewarm on the night-time tariff. The repair was still outstanding.
    5. He was an old–age pensioner and had no heating and or hot water.
  5. An appointment was made for a date in January 2021. The landlord’s records do not state the exact date. The landlord did not attend and rebooked for 1 February 2021.
  6. On 3 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its first stage response. The landlord had contacted the contractors and raised a job regarding the two storage heaters and an inspection of the immersion heater. The contractor was awaiting a costs estimate. The resident had also reported that a new water tank was needed and he had no hot water. It said that it would escalate the complaint as the landlord had not been able to resolve the complaint at the first stage.
  7. The resident replied on the same day to state he had to buy fan heaters. He also requested that the complaint be escalated. According to the resident he had been unable to contact the named complaints officer. The landlord stated it would reimburse the resident for the cost of the fan heaters.
  8. On 5 February 2021, the landlord stated it would order a larger heater as none other was available. It fitted one storage heater on 8 February 2021. It also identified that the tank was full of limescale. There was some correspondence between the landlord and its contractors to ensure the repairs were effected. The second storage heater was fitted on 9 February 2021 and the contractor investigated the tank. According to the resident, the lounge storage heater did not work immediately but took a further week to resolve due to an issue with the software.
  9. The landlord installed a replacement water tank on 4 March 2021. The resident has informed this service that his only source of hot water until that time was his electric shower and boiling water with his kettle.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident with its second stage response on 10 March 2021. It offered the resident compensation as follows:
    1. £25 poor complaints handling (due to “working outside” of complaint policy).
    2. £100 for the resident’s “time and trouble”.
    3. £250 in relation to its service failure.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 March 2021 to state that he felt the compensation was inadequate given it had taken over a year to repair the heater in the lounge and in excess of 6 months to repair the heater in the hall. He was without hot water for 3 months during the winter. He had purchased a heater and had had to use daytime electricity as the night storage heaters did not function. He had made ‘countless’ calls to the landlord to chase this.
  12. According to the resident has informed the Ombudsman that a heater was left off for safety reasons on a date in March 2021. While the Ombudsman does not investigate events that occur after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, it is noted that the resident reported a fault with the lounge storage heater on 13 April 2021. An electrician attended to repair it the following day, he disconnected the wiring but did not re–attend. The heater was replaced on 27 May 2021 but emitted a burning smell. As at 8 July 2021, the lounge heater was still not working, however was repaired shortly after.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to his storage heating and immersion heater.

  1. The landlord’s responsibilities were not in dispute. While the Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was under an obligation in law to maintain in repair the structure of the building and keep in repair and in proper working order the system for providing hot water.
  2. The evidence showed that the bedroom storage heater was not in disrepair however the lounge and hallway heater were. There was a significant and inappropriate delay in replacing the two storage heaters, while the repairs policy was to effect repairs within 28 days. The landlord was aware that the hallway storage heater required repairing at the outset of the resident’s tenancy, yet the hallway heater was not repaired or replaced for over a year and the lounge heater for approximately eight months. This required the resident to chase the landlord and to be without heating for a significant period in his lounge and hallway. The Ombudsman bears in mind this was supported accommodation and the resident was an old-age pensioner. Moreover, the resident incurred the costs of purchasing fan heaters and additional costs of running those heaters, without the advantage of using the economy rates of storage heaters.
  3. The landlord has explained to this service that due to Brexit and the pandemic, it had had difficulties with its supply chain in relation to both the storage heaters and immersion heater. There were also some internal administrative and costs delays which contributed to the delays to both. The evidence showed that the repairs to the immersion heater were delayed due to the need for a limescale clean. However, the delay to the heating repairs cannot be fully attributed to lockdown. The evidence of the difficulties was of later on in the repair process. Moreover, lockdown commenced six weeks after the landlord was aware of the issue with the storage heater. This was over the 28 days’ timescale for effecting response repairs that was set out in its repairs policy.
  4. While the Ombudsman notes that some of the delays were outside the landlord’s control, it is not clear from the evidence the extent of external factors. In any event, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, or explained to the resident what the reasons for the delays were, or ensured that he had adequate alt heating in the meantime. This increased the resident’s frustration and required him to chase the matter.
  5. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow through its promise that it would compensate the resident for the costs of the fan heaters. It would also expect the landlord to proactively offer alternative heating where appropriate as a resident cannot be expected to know that is an option available to him. The resident purchased his own heaters, because of the delays, and therefore it would fair to refund the resident for the heaters and additional costs. The Ombudsman will make an order in that regard. While in most cases, a landlord would ask the resident for comparative energy bills, in this case, the Ombudsman has considered it proportionate to fix a sum. The Ombudsman has calculated the figure based on some information provided by the resident and taking into account the different day time and night time tariffs. 
  6. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s report on hot water and heating which states where repairs cannot be resolved quickly, the landlord should ensure they have access to temporary heating and provide a clear timescale for repairs.
  7. The impact of having no hot water for three months was significant. The only means the resident had to access hot water was an electric shower and using a kettle. The resident was faced with washing in cold water. Not only would this been uncomfortable but government advice during the pandemic was to wash in hot water.
  8. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised that the impact of the service failure was “high”, given the resident suffered was significant long term-effect and the issue involved loss of heating and hot water. It was also reasonable that the impact of the resident’s time and trouble was assessed as “medium”, considerable service failure. However, the Ombudsman finds that the compensation offered did not constitute reasonable redress for the service failures. The Ombudsman is of the view that the lack of heating was a failure over a significant period with a significant and serious impact on the resident, albeit it was not permanent. It has had regard for its own guidance on remedies. It bears in mind that the resident, while not vulnerable per se, was elderly and vulnerable by reason of his age. The situation was exacerbated by the landlord not communicating with the resident in relation to timescales and not approaching the matter proactively until he made a formal complaint . Moreover, there was not only service failure in relation to the heating but in relation to the hot water as well. The resident was caused frustration by attendances, missed appointments and being required to chase his repairs.
  9. The landlord went in some way to address its service failure by offering compensation. If it had not done so, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration, rather than service failure in this matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the time frames set out in its policy with a slight delay in its second response. However, the resident was frustrated by not being able to contact the named complaint officer of the landlord. While the complaints process provided a benefit to the resident in that this was what appeared to prompt the resolution of the repairs, the initial response did not address the complaint itself. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to escalate the complaint of its own accord.
  2. The compensation the landlord offered for service failure in relation to his complaint handling was below the amount the landlord set out in its complaint policy. Not following its own policy is a failure of its own. However, the Ombudsman considers that the impact caused by the complaint handing was not so significant as to warrant any increase in the compensation offered given the service failure had no significant impact and was of short duration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to his storage heating and immersion heater.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. There was a significant delay in replacing the resident’s heaters so that he had no heating in the hallway for over a year and none in his hallway and lounge for six months. In addition, he had no hot water for three months. The compensation the landlord offered was in the circumstances inadequate, given the significant impact on the resident and lack of communication.
  2. While the resident was unhappy the complaints team did not maintain contact, it was of short duration. Overall, the complaints team addressed the substantive issues of the heating and hot water and sought to address the landlord’s service failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation was reasonable.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation within 28 days as follows:
    1. An additional amount of £350 in addition to the £350 offered to the resident.
    2. The landlord reimburses the resident for the cost of the fan heaters on presentation of suitable evidence of purchase. If the resident is unable to provide the evidence of purchase in time to satisfy this order, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the sum of £50.
    3. The landlord pays the resident £50 in relation to his additional heating costs.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord considers further compensation in relation to the period February 2021 to August 2021 in relation to the hallway storage heater
  2. The landlord considers amending its policy and proactively offering residents alternative heating where appropriate.
  3. The landlord should share with its complaints staff the Ombudsman’s report Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on heating, hot water and energy in social housing (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
  4. The landlord should review its compensation levels to ensure that they take into account all circumstances and cumulative impact of any failings identified and ensure that staff understand when they may need to apply discretion to go above standard ranges