Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202103667)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103667

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

22 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 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 concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of remedial works to her kitchen following a water leak from the property above.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a communal building.
3. In December 2020, the resident experienced a water leak through her kitchen ceiling from the property above. The landlord’s repair logs stated that it raised work orders to inspect both the resident’s and her upstairs neighbour’s flats for the leak in January 2021, but that it could not initially access either property. It then raised works to repair the source of the leak in the neighbour’s property and to make safe the resident’s kitchen ceiling. However, the work in the neighbour’s property, which was required to be completed before work to the resident’s ceiling could go ahead, was delayed due to circumstances outside of the landlord’s control, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic preventing its access for the works.
4. Following the landlord’s works to make the kitchen ceiling safe on 28 to 29 January 2021, it called the resident to inform her that an operative would be attending on 24 February 2021 to reinstate the electricity and the kitchen ceiling at her property. Its call logs also stated that it called her on 10 April 2021 to inform her that its contractors were waiting on parts to be delivered before it could start work on completing repairs to the ceiling, and that it hoped to be ready for this at the start of the following week.
5. The resident then contacted this Service on 14 May 2021 to state her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled the issue of the leak into her kitchen. She described the elements of her complaint as being that:
   1. The remedial works to the kitchen after the leak from the ceiling remained outstanding following the repair of the leak.
   2. A letter posted by her to the landlord in January 2021 had not been responded to.
6. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation for the delays and inconvenience that the matter had caused to her. She also asked to be paid for the damage to the fridge and the flooring caused by the leak.
7. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, which opened a complaint on 10 June 2021, called her to discuss the elements of her complaint in detail, and then sent her a stage one complaint response on 23 June 2021. It informed her that:
   1. It had partially upheld her complaint on the grounds of the time that it was taking to complete the remedial work to her kitchen. The landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that this had caused her, and it offered her £20 compensation for the failure in its service.
   2. It confirmed that an appointment had been agreed for 7 July 2020 to complete the work to paint her kitchen ceiling after it had previously rectified the leak and plastered the ceiling.
   3. It had requested that she provide it with photographs showing damage to the fridge and the flooring on 10, 14 and 23 June 2021, but it had not received a response from her with these.
   4. During their telephone conversation, she had stated that its contractor had removed the smoke detector from her kitchen without replacing this. The landlord explained that it had raised two work orders following a telephone call on 2 February 2021 informing it of a fault with the smoke detector, but that both were marked as failed due to no access to the resident’s property on its system, for which it invited her to contact it again for further assistance.
8. The resident provided the requested photographs to the landlord on 12 July 2021, and on 17 and 18 August 2021 she requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
   1. She had not received a complaint response from it.
   2. Repairs as a result of the leak still remained outstanding to her kitchen after nine months, and she was yet to receive a reimbursement for her damaged fridge and flooring from it.
   3. The kitchen was still without a smoke alarm.
9. The landlord informed the resident that it had sent her the stage one complaint response on 23 June 2021, confirmed that it had escalated the complaint, and it provided the final stage complaint response on 16 September 2021. It informed her that:
   1. The 7 July 2021 kitchen repair appointment that it had made was cancelled as a member of her household was self-isolating due to Covid-19. Further repair appointments arranged by the landlord’s contractor also did not go ahead, as they could not gain access to the resident’s property. The work was then completed there on 8 September 2021.
   2. It had assessed the photographs provided by her in order to consider reimbursing her for her damages, but these did not show any damage to the fridge or the flooring, and so it invited her to provide it with further photographs for it to consider this.
   3. It was satisfied that it had made every attempt to complete the outstanding works to redecorate her kitchen ceiling.
10. In emails to this Service on 17 September 2021 and 27 January 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as being that:
    1. She disputed the landlord’s comments that the photographs that she had provided to it had not shown evidence of damage to the fridge and the flooring.
    2. She also disputed that the landlord’s appointments had failed due to there being no access to her property, and she reported that it had not attended on at least two occasions.
    3. The level of compensation offered was not sufficient in light of the length of time that the repairs took to be completed, and the stress and inconvenience that this had caused her.
11. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested that the landlord’s compensation offer be increased, and that it also reimburse her for the damage to the fridge and the flooring.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement makes her responsible for insuring the contents of her property against accidental damage and the landlord for insuring the property against important risks. It is also obliged to maintain the property’s structure, including internal ceilings and plasterwork but not internal painting and decorating unless as a result of its repairs or failure to carry out repairs, as well as to maintain the installations for supplying water.
13. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants categorises its repairs as emergency repairs to be attended within 24 hours, routine repairs to be attended within 28 calendar days, and major routine repairs to be attended within three months or as part of a planned programme of works. Emergency repairs are defined by it as those “required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety; a risk to the residents’ or others’ safety or property; serious damage to the residents’ home or adjacent buildings.”
14. The landlord’s complaints policy describes situations where it will not consider an issue within its complaint process. This includes matters that are more properly dealt with as an insurance claim.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy describes the categories where it will consider making a payment to the resident. These include:
    1. Quantifiable loss payments: when expenses are incurred as a result of it failing to meet its obligations, for which evidence may be required.
    2. Discretionary payments: where it has delayed or not provided a service such as repairs, failed to meet target response times, or failed to attend an appointment including for repairs.
16. The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments and guidance on awarding compensation classifies payments for its failure of service and the resident’s time and trouble as low being up to £50, medium being £51 to £160, and high being £161 to £350. Low tariff payments are described being made in circumstances where its failure had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. The landlord is also permitted to reimburse the reimburse the resident with up to £300 for evidence of the cost of damaged belongings, but losses of a greater value need to be considered by its insurance team.

Scope of investigation

17. The resident has stated her dissatisfaction with how the landlord assessed the photographs of the damage caused to the fridge and the flooring in the kitchen as a result of the leak.
18. This Service does not, however, have the authority or expertise to consider  liability for or the payment of damages in the way that a court or insurer might. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, under which the Ombudsman also cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer, and therefore we cannot comment on this or the outcome of any insurance claim.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of remedial works to her kitchen following a water leak from the property above

19. In its stage one complaint response in June 2021, the landlord recognised that there had been delays in completing the follow-on work to the kitchen ceiling. It therefore apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that this had caused her, and it offered £20 compensation for its failure in service.
20. Where there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of her case, including in accordance with its obligations and our guidance. In considering this we also take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles for it to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake in delaying remedial works to the kitchen ceiling, and by apologising to the resident for this. It looked put things right by arranging an appointment to complete the work on 7 July 2021, and by offering her £20 compensation. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by raising the issues internally and with its contractor about the difficulties in arranging appointments with both the resident and her upstairs neighbour to locate and then repair the leak, before arranging follow-on works to make good the damaged areas.
22. The landlord’s subsequent 7 July 2021 repair appointment for the kitchen ceiling was cancelled, however, as a member of the resident’s household was self-isolating as a result of Covid-19. The work was put on hold until an appointment was agreed for 8 September 2021, where the work was completed. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider this period of the delay when calculating its compensation offer, as the reason for that delay was outside of its control, together with its initial attempts to access both properties to inspect and repair the leak in January 2021 being prevented by Covid-19 restrictions.
23. The compensation offer was made in line with the landlord’s low scale tariff described in its tariff of discretionary compensation payments and guidance on awarding compensation. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of failure resulting in some impact on the resident. As examples for when this level of redress should be considered, our guidance suggests:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
24. In this case, there were delays by the landlord in completing the remedial work for the water leak into the kitchen between December 2020 and April 2021. Until it had completed the work to repair the leak in the neighbour’s property, it was unable to start any work in the resident’s property The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the reasons for the delays in starting the work in the neighbour’s property were outside of its control due to a lack of access caused by Covid-19 restrictions, and by it then having to wait for parts to begin remedial works to the resident’s property.
25. Nevertheless, the landlord should have kept the resident updated on the status of the remedial works and of any expected delays to these. The correspondence and call logs provided by it indicate that this did not occur, and that she had to chase it for updates.
26. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for any inconvenience caused to her by its repair delay, and to offer her financial redress for this. However, the level of the £20 compensation offered to her for this by it did not proportionately reflect the level of inconvenience that the matter had caused her, and constitutes a failing on its part. This is because the landlord’s offer neither accorded with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments and guidance on awarding compensation or this Service’s remedies guidance, nor acknowledged its failure to carry out or update the resident on the outstanding repairs to her kitchen in May to July 2021.
27. The landlord’s repair delays were instead longer than a short duration and affected the overall outcome of the resident’s complaint, contrary to the low tariff described in its tariff of discretionary compensation payments and guidance on awarding compensation. It is also of concern that it responded to her requests to be reimbursed for damage to her fridge and flooring by disputing her photographs of these rather than assessing whether she was seeking more than £300 for these with evidence of her costs and, if so, referring her to its insurance team, in accordance with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments. Moreover, it is concerning that there is no indication that the landlord took steps to prevent its failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
28. In order to fully resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident a further £230 to bring the total amount of compensation to £250. This is to recognise the repair delays and poor communication from it to her in relation to the status of the works in her property to repair the kitchen between December 2020 and April 2021 and May to July 2021. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to contact the resident to obtain evidence of her costs from her damaged fridge and flooring for it to assess and respond to these in line with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments, as well as recommended below to review its relevant monitoring processes and staff training needs.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of remedial works to her kitchen following a water leak from the property above. 

Orders and recommendation

30. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £250 within four weeks, which consists of the £20 compensation that it previously offered her if she has not received this already plus £230 additional compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that she experienced from its repair delays and poor communication in respect of repairing her kitchen.
    2. Contact the resident within four weeks to obtain evidence of her costs from her damaged fridge and flooring for it to assess and respond to these in line with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments.
31. It is recommended that the landlord review its monitoring processes and its staff’s training needs in relation to its timescales for, updates on and handling of damages claims from prolonged repairs and remedial works to seek to prevent a recurrence of its failings in the resident’s case.
32. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendation.