Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202105791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105791

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

03 February 2022

Amended on   19 May 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 concerns how the landlord handled repairs to, and the subsequent replacement of, the front door of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is first floor maisonette with its own external front entrance door on ground floor.
3. The landlord categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Routine” (attend within 28 calendar days) and “Major Routine” (attend within three months or as part of a planned programme of works).
4. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that is “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 building”.
5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is made, it will be acknowledged within five working days and a stage one response sent within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. A review of the complaint will then be undertaken, and a stage two response sent within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy categorises the levels of impact its service failure has had on a complainant as low, medium and high. Medium level failure is defined by the policy as “considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. The recommended payment at this level is £51 to £160.

Summary of events

7. On 24 September 2020, the resident suffered a burglary at the property which resulted in damage to the front door and he reported the incident to the landlord on 25 September 2020. The landlord’s repair logs state that an emergency repair was raised on 25 September 2020 to make safe the front door as it could not be secured from inside the property. A further work order was raised on 29 September 2020 to make safe the front door by moving the lock and latch.
8. On 20 October 2020, a note to the repair logs was added stating that a new front door was required. A work order was raised for an inspection of the door on 13 November 2020 and a quote for a new door was requested on 17 November 2020.
9. On 4 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. Following the burglary, the landlord had arranged for a temporary repair to the front door. However, there were now gaps between the door and doorframe which had resulted in the resident having to heat the property constantly.
   2. She no longer felt safe in her home, which had caused her stress and anxiety.
   3. Despite numerous telephone calls, the front door had yet to be replaced.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 December 2020. It informed her that a new door had been ordered and it would arrange to have it installed as quickly as possible.
11. The resident replied on 9 December 2020 and requested the specifications of the new door as she planned to fit a Ring doorbell. The landlord informed her on 13 December 2020 that it had passed on her request to its repairs team.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 December 2020. She noted that she had been informed during a telephone conversation that the door would be installed by 22 December 2020, but this looked unlikely as the contractor had not been in touch with her. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of updates being provided by the landlord and that it had yet to provide her with the requested specifications.
13. In its response of 31 December 2020, the landlord explained that the delay in fitting the door was as a result of staffing issues with the subcontractor. It informed her that the subcontractor had made the fitting of the new door a priority and it would be in contact with the landlord on 4 January 2021 with an update.
14. On 2 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and enquired if the subcontractor had been in contact with her. It explained that due to the holiday period, its internal system notes would not be updated until 5 January 2021. In her response, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint as she was not happy with how it had been handled.
15. The landlord replied to the resident on 4 January 2021. It explained that the complaint was currently at stage one, and she had the right to request an escalation to the next stage but would need to set out the reasons for the request before it would be considered.
16. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 January 2021 to confirm that the new door had been fitted and the stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 28 January 2021.
17. The landlord recognised that there had been a delay in installing the new door and that that information provided to the resident during this period was inconsistent and gave no clarity as to when the door would be replaced. The landlord apologised to the resident for the stress and anxiety its service failures had caused and offered £250 compensation, which it broke down as £150 for the service delay and £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
18. On 16 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
    1. The length of time it took the door to be replaced and the complaint to be progressed was unacceptable.
    2. She had to live in in an unsecure property for five months.
    3. The landlord should properly compensate her for the time, effort and distress that hat issue had caused. It should also award compensation for the financial loss incurred by the resident due to the increase in heating bills while the temporary repair of the old door was in place.
19. The landlord replied to the resident on 17 February 2021. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide a response by 3 March 2021.
20. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 February 2021. The landlord stated that it was satisfied by its position as set out in the stage one response as it related to the replacement of the front door. However, the landlord noted that there were additional delays in the complaint process. The landlord apologised to the resident and stated that it was satisfied that its £250 compensation award was adequate redress for the service failures experienced by the resident.
21. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
22. The resident replied to the landlord on 24 February 2021. She informed it that she had not received the stage one response and was unaware that she had been offered £250 compensation. Following further correspondence, the resident wrote again on 4 March 2021 and informed the landlord that she had been unable to find a copy of the stage one response and that the level of compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
23. In an email sent to this Service on 16 July 2021 the resident described her desired outcome to the complaint was to be properly compensated for the distress and inconvenience that the matter had caused, for the increase to her fuel bills, and in recognition of the adverse effect on her health that the situation had caused.

Assessment and findings

24. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in replacing the door and in its complaint process, and that the resident had experienced poor communication during this period. The landlord apologised and offered £250 compensation for its service failures.
25. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
26. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by escalating the matter internally to senior management to identify any other lessons that could be learned. Internal correspondence provided by the landlord showed that during its investigations it had identified the reason for the delay as being due to the first quote for the replacement door being deemed to be too high. The second quote was approved, and it then took six weeks for the door to be manufactured as it was a composite door. This information should have been provided to the resident at the time.
27. The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy (payments of £100 and £150 made at the medium impact level). The overall payment was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
28. In this case, it took several months and several emails and telephone calls by the resident until the door was replaced. During the complaint process, the landlord accepted that the length of time it took to replace the door and the poor communication to the resident during the time period was not acceptable, and this had caused significant delays, stress and inconvenience. A payment of £250 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
29. The resident requested that the increase in her heating bills while the temporary repair was in place should have been taken into account by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer. In order for the landlord to make a determination of whether this request was reasonable, it would need sight of the resident’s utility bills for the time period time the temporary repair was in place and utility bills from a similar time period in a year when the temporary repair was not in place in order to determine what changes in energy usage could be attributed to the damage to the door.
30. No evidence has been provided which suggests that this information was provided during the complaint process. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take this into account when calculating its compensation offer. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident and request her to provide it with any evidence she has that shows an increase in her energy bills and then review its compensation offer based on what evidence it receives.
31. The resident also highlighted her dissatisfaction that medical issues caused by the ongoing wait to have a new door fitted were not considered by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer.
32. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
33. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
34. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the repairs to and subsequent replacement of the front door of the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

36. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the significant length of time it took to replace the door, progress the complaint and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and request to be provided with evidence that shows an increase in heating costs while the temporary repair to the front door was in place. Upon receipt of the evidence, it should review its compensation offer, consider whether the evidence supports the offer of a further sum and then write back to the resident to inform her of its decision.