Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202111953)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111953

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

20 April 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 complaint is about the level of compensation offered for repair delays to the resident’s immersion heater.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat, owned by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show on 1 March 2021 the resident reported that her immersion heater was not working, and that she had no hot water. The landlord fixed the heater on 3 March 2021. She reported that it had stopped working another four times throughout March and April 2021. The landlord fixed it on 30 April 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the above. She was dissatisfied it had to attend multiple times. The landlord offered her £220 compensation. It said this was in light of her increased utility bills (from using the off-peak setting), her time and trouble, missed appointments, and its service failure (delays completing repair).
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said she was left without heating, and hot water for multiple days.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it is responsible for repairs to immersion heaters. It will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It considers emergency repairs to be burst pipes, or the total loss of heating, or electrical supply. 
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it can offer £50 compensation for a failure of service when it has had a minor impact on the resident. It can offer £50 to £150 for the resident’s time and trouble when there has been a longer period of delay. It will offer £10 per missed appointment. It requires evidence before reimbursing residents for any loss or damage. It does not explain whether it will offer compensation for loss of amenities (like hot water or heating).
  3. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases 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. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported a problem with her immersion heater on 1 March 2021. She said she had no hot water. The landlord attended on 3 March 2021 to resolve the issue. She reported a similar issue on 15 March 2021, and it attended that day to resolve it. She reported that her immersion heater was not working again on 16 and 18 March 2021. The landlord attended within 24 hours of both reports. It said it could not find any issues with the immersion heater, and suggested she contact her energy provider as her storage heaters did not work on Economy 7 (a type of energy tariff). On 23 April 2021 the resident reported that the immersion heaters were not working. The landlord attended that day and found it needed to replace ta part. It ordered the necessary part and fixed the heater on 30 April 2021.
  5. In total the resident made five reports that her immersion heater was not working. Aside from the report from 1 March 2021, the landlord attended within 24 hours for each report, in line with its target timeframe for emergency repairs. It is understandable that it would have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident to have to report the same issue multiple times. However, in some cases, multiple attempts can be needed before a repair problem is fully resolved. For the landlord to be considered to have failed in its service to the resident, evidence would need to be seen indicating that the eventual cause and resolution could, and should, have been identified in the first few visits. It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to make such a technical finding, and so, this investigation must rely on the documents, records, and other evidence relating to the underlying issue, and the complaint. None of the evidence provided indicates that the time taken to resolve this issue was a service failure.
  6. The evidence provided for this investigation indicates the resident did have access to hot water through the off-peak switch on her immersion heater. However, she said this was too expensive to use. As such, although the resident said in her complaint to this Service that she was without hot water for multiple days and wanted to be compensated for that, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to corroborate her version of events. The evidence shows she did have access to heating and hot water, and that the landlord attended promptly when she reported her concerns. As such, in the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord would not be expected to compensate her for the loss of the amenities.
  7. The resident explained that she had incurred higher electricity bills whilst the repair was ongoing and asked the landlord to reimburse her. The landlord asked her to provide evidence of an increase of her electricity charges. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the resident provided the landlord with the information it requested. This Service concludes, therefore, that its offer of £50 was not unreasonable, as it had requested evidence in accordance with its policy, but the resident has not provided this. 
  8. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for missed appointments. It did not explain how many appointments it failed to attend, and its records do not show that there were any. However, the resident referred to one missed appointment (in April 2021) in her correspondence with the landlord. As such, it appears that the offer was reasonable as it exceeded what its policy deemed suitable for one missed appointment. Nevertheless, it is important that the landlord keeps robust repair records which clearly outline which appointments were attended to as it is unclear what exactly happened. This will form the basis of our recommendation for the landlord.
  9. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2021 concerning the immersion heater repair. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or responding to her complaint as it should have. This was poor practice as it was unreasonable not to, at least, inform the resident that it was not going to consider her complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord’s total offer of compensation (£220) was reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (as explained above).
  10. Overall, this Service finds though there were shortcomings in the handling of this case, the landlord demonstrated its willingness to put things right. Its offer of compensation was reasonable and proportionate to the impact its failings which have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £220 previously offered, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord considers our comments on its records keeping and how it can ensure it clearly documents which appointments it attended.