Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (201903124)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903124

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

27 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a semi-detached house.

Summary of events

In May 2018 the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding its response to remedy a leak into the property. In summary the resident stated:
1. The leak had caused internal damage to the property (a bedroom) which required redecoration.
2. The leak occurred on an annual basis.
3. She believed that the leak was caused “by debris in the gutters”.
4. To prevent the leak from reoccurring the landlord should arrange an annual clearing of the gutters in the autumn.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
On 14 May 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident thanking the resident for her “communication… received on 11 May 2018”. The landlord stated that it was sorry to learn that she was “dissatisfied with the outcome of [her] complaint” and therefore it would escalate it to stage two. The Ombudsman understands from the landlord’s stage three complaint response (referred to later within the report) that the landlord incorrectly linked the resident’s complaint about the leak to a complaint about the boiler, thus its reference to escalating the matter here.
The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided the resident with a response to her complaint about the leak in 2018. The resident has confirmed to this Service that during 2018 she contacted the landlord on multiple occasions regarding the leak.
On 10 March 2019 the resident made a second complaint about the landlord’s “response to the leak… [which had] been prevalent for many years”. In summary the resident said:
1. She acknowledged that the landlord had made several attempts to rectify the leak on various occasions however the leak persisted. The resident stated that this demonstrated that the landlord’s actions had “not been responsive enough”.
2. Following the most recent repair the landlord informed her that the leak was due to a problem with the adjoining property’s roof (property A). The resident stated that despite the landlord confirming that it would contact the private landlord, who owned property A, to fix the leak it did not appear that it had done so.
3. The leak was serious, causing “water to seep, drip and pour into the bedroom when it rained”. The resident confirmed that this had resulted in water damage to bedding, a mattress, a wardrobe, the carpet, the ceiling and the walls.
The resident concluded the complaint by confirming that it was “totally unacceptable that the leak [had] not been resolved permanently”. The resident added that the leak was impacting on her childcare business which she operated from the property. The resident set out that in order to resolve the complaint she would like the landlord to:
1. Arrange for the leak to be permanently repaired within a prompt timeframe.
2. Keep her updated “at least weekly” on the progress of the repair.
3. Reimburse the costs which she had incurred for:
  1. Laundering and drying bedding made wet by the leak.
  2. Loss of earnings and potential loss of earnings should the leak not be resolved within the next two weeks.
  3. Damage to the carpet and wardrobe.
4. Undertake make good works to the ceiling and walls.
5. Offer a sum of compensation for “the years of enduring the situation”.
On 15 March 2019 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord stated that it was sorry that the resident was “dissatisfied with the outcome of [the] stage two complaint”. The landlord advised that it had therefore escalated the matter to stage three of its complaint procedure. In a separate email, also on 15 March 2019, the landlord confirmed that it would like to speak with the resident to discuss her complaint and next steps. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord and resident spoke regarding the complaint, however no record has been provided.
On 18 April 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the leak and her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She was disappointed that the leak was “still active and water [would] come into [the property] whenever it rained”.
2. She understood that prior to a repair the landlord needed to liaise with the private landlord, however she was concerned regarding timescales. The resident stated that it appeared that little progress had been made.
3. She had attempted to contact the landlord for updates, however had been unsuccessful.
4. Although the weather was currently dry, she was living in constant fear of rain.
5. The leak was affecting her childcare business, had caused damage to the bedroom and her personal belongings – issues which had not been resolved.
The resident concluded by asking if her complaint could be considered by “a panel”.
On the same day the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident continued to experience a leak. The landlord stated that it was “doing the best [it could] to have this resolved”.
2. It had been in regular contact with the letting agent (the agent), managing the property on behalf of the private landlord”, who was “continually contacting” the private landlord to arrange for the repair to be done as a priority. The landlord noted that landlord A had accepted liability for the work.
3. Its roofer had visited the property recently who had confirmed that the leak was from property A.
4. It was sorry that it had not provided an update within the last week, however it had no further information at that time.
5. Once the repair had been completed it would look to complete any make good works.
6. It was unable to arrange for the resident’s complaint to be considered by a panel as it was working to resolve the issue, and there was no more that it could do as it could not repair the roof itself. The landlord noted that the situation was frustrating.
The resident replied to the landlord later that day. In summary the resident:
1. Asked the landlord to confirm:
  1. When the landlord’s roofer had last inspected the property’s roof, as she was not aware of a recent inspection.
  2. Whether direct contact with the private landlord could be attempted, rather than via the agent.
2. Stated that the tenants occupying property A had confirmed that they were not experiencing a leak and therefore it was not clear if the leak was caused by a repair issue at property A.
3. It was unacceptable that the landlord had not provided a timeframe an update. The resident stated that she would like to be contacted by 2 May 2019 with an update.
On 24 April 2019 the landlord responded. The landlord said:
1. Its roofer attended on 8 April 2019 where it was confirmed that responsibility for remedying the leak rested with the private landlord.
2. It had been emailing the agent “consistently for the past few months” who had assured it that they were chasing the private landlord. The landlord noted that the agent was unable to give it contact details for the private landlord as this could be a breach in data protection rules.
3. Both its roofer and the private landlord’s roofer had confirmed that the leak was as a result of a repair issue from property A. The landlord noted that it had photographs of the work it had completed to address the leak from the property, and therefore that the outstanding repair issue was to property A.
4. It was sorry that its updates had been “so vague”, however it was a “challenging situation” as it was waiting to hear back from the private landlord, via the agent.
5. It would be happy to contact the resident every second Friday with an update.
6. It was sorry for the inconvenience the leak was causing the resident. The landlord advised that it was an unusual situation as it was unable to complete the repair needed to resolve the leak itself. The landlord reiterated that once the repair had been undertaken it would attend the property to undertake make good works.
On 25 April 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord, following a phone call with it earlier that day, providing photos and a video of the leak. The resident stated that it was not clear why the situation was “able to continue endlessly without resolution or timescales”. The resident suggested that legal action should be considered as next steps as the private landlord did not appear to be engaging.
On the same day the landlord responded confirming that it had asked the agent if it could pay for the work and claim it back from the private landlord as the delay was not acceptable. The landlord also confirmed that it had contacted its legal team in respect of the situation.
On 29 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the agent had hired a cherry picker and works to repair the roof on property A would commence “ASAP”. The landlord confirmed that it had asked the agent for a start date. The landlord advised that its legal team were aware of the situation and were “ready to send [landlord A] a letter” regarding court action if no progress was made.
On 11 June 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the leak had spread to the kitchen and was getting worse in the bedroom. The resident stated that the landlord had attended the property “yesterday” however no solution had been provided. The resident added the leak was impacting on her childcare business, earnings and living conditions. The resident suggested that the landlord offer a 50% rent rebate from 1 January 2019.
On the same day the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. It attended the property on 10 June 2019 to review the leak with a hope to find a safe temporary fix, however it was unable to do so.
2. As previously noted it had done all it could to resolve the issue of the leak. The landlord confirmed that the outstanding repair causing the leak was on property A, for which the private landlord had accepted responsibility for. The landlord confirmed that it was unable to make adjustments or alterations to property A’s roof.
3. It had been working with the local authority who had issued a notice to the private landlord to begin the work. The landlord confirmed that it had also been “very pushy towards the agent” to arrange for the work to be completed. The landlord noted that the agent had confirmed that scaffolding would be erected later that day.
4. It would complete make good works once the leak was remedied. The landlord confirmed that it would however be unable to reimburse the resident’s rent costs as it had not caused or deliberately avoided repairing the leak.
5. The resident may wish to claim compensation and loss of earnings from the private landlord on the grounds of negligence for not repairing the leak promptly. The landlord also noted that the resident could make a claim on her own contents and business insurance.
6. If the resident believed that the property was unhabitable it could look at moving the resident temporarily.
On 27 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that the works to repair property A’s roof had been completed and it would now look to complete make good works inside the property. Later on the same day the landlord wrote to the resident again setting out that its roofer had reviewed the repair and had raised concerns with the quality. The landlord confirmed that it had raised the issue with the agent and would get back to the resident with an update as soon as possible.
In response the resident thanked the landlord for the update. The resident noted that the landlord had not addressed her concerns regarding “financial reimbursement and complaint resolution”.
On 1 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had chased the agent for a response to its concerns regarding the quality of the repair and it was awaiting a response. The landlord advised that once all the repairs relating to the complaint had been completed it would look at reimbursement as it would be in a position to issue a final response to the complaint about the repair.
On 2 July 2019 the resident responded stating that she did not understand the benefit in waiting months before the landlord reviewed financial matters, including as it may prejudice her seeking redress elsewhere. In response the landlord confirmed that it would discuss the matter internally.
On 16 July 2019, following a chaser from the resident, the landlord responded providing an update on the situation. In summary the landlord said:
1. The agent had confirmed that it considered the repair to property A’s roof to be complete and no further works were therefore required. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she had experienced any further water ingress.
2. The resident would need to seek a claim for reimbursement for personal income from landlord A as the leak has been caused by their negligence in addressing the repair within an acceptable timescale.
On 23 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that make good works had been raised to be completed on 19 August 2019. In response the resident asked the landlord to confirm if the skirting board in the bedroom would be addressed in addition to the damage in the kitchen as the works were not included on the repair order.
On 31 July 2019 the landlord confirmed that during the appointment on 19 August 2019 the operatives would inspect the skirting in the bedroom to see if it required replacement. The landlord confirmed that it has also raised an order to stain block and redecorate the affected area in the kitchen, with an appointment date to be confirmed in due course.
On 8 October the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about the leak, at stage three of its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. On receipt of the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2019 it incorrectly linked the complaint with a previous complaint she had made about the boiler. The landlord explained that this was due to human error.
2. On receipt of the resident’s complaint it informed the resident that the leak was as a result of a repair issue from property A and therefore it was liaising with the owner – the private landlord via the agent – in order to address the defect.
3. Landlord A instructed their contactors to resolve the leak, with the repairs being completed on 26 June 2019. The landlord confirmed that it worked with the agent in order to achieve this resolution.
4. The leak had caused internal damage to the property, including decoration. The landlord confirmed that once the leak was resolved it instructed its contractor to complete make good works, which were completed on 12 September 2019. The landlord noted that there “were multiple missed appointments during this time”.
5. On 17 September 2019 the resident advised that there were signs of damp in the bedroom and kitchen. The landlord set out that it inspected the damp and found that this was due to the room still drying out. The landlord confirmed that it would monitor the damp “over the coming months”.
6. From review of the chronology of the case it had identified that its communication could have been better. The landlord acknowledged that its poor communication would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord confirmed that this would be taken forward as learning.
7. It would not offer compensation for loss of earnings “due to the liability of the leak sitting with [landlord A]”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it partially upheld the resident complaint on the grounds that the complaint was not raised correctly in the first instance. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer £310 compensation in respect of the complaint comprising:
1. £150 for poor complaint handling.
2. £50 for multiple missed appointments.
3. £110 for delays in completing the make good works following the repair to address the leak – based upon £10 per week from 26 June 2019 until 12 September 2019.
As the resident was not happy with the landlord’s response she referred her complaint to this Service for adjudication. In a recent update to this Service in September 2021 the resident has confirmed that the leak had reoccurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has suggested that as a result of her living conditions and the landlord’s inaction to remedy the leak, she has become “clinically stressed, anxious and depressed – having to seek medical support”. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between landlord’s actions and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its repair log for the property, in addition to its contemporaneous records documenting its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from January 2018.
The records shows that the resident reported a leak on 11 January 2018. In response the landlord attended the property on 2 February 2018 and cleared the gutters for blockages. The records show that the landlord attended the property on three further occasions in 2018 in response to a leak, in August, September and October – to “lay tarpaulin over roof to deter leak” and to “seal up gulley and dip”. The records also show the landlord attended the property in December 2018, to erect scaffolding following a work order dated November 2018, but the record does not clearly state the reason for the scaffolding. However, as the work order is linked to the work order to lay tarpaulin the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to assume that it was in connection with the leak.
In addition to the work orders described above, the landlord’s records show that in November 2018 the landlord wrote to landlord A setting out that it suspected a problem with the roof which required attention and therefore to request intervention.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s initial approach to the leak between January 2018 and Autumn 2018 was appropriate as it sought to address the source by undertaking repairs to the property’s roof where it identified weaknesses. The Ombudsman notes that it may not have been immediately clear that the leak was due to a defect with property A, rather than the property itself, as the source of a leak can often be difficult to locate and trace.
From the chronology of the case the Ombudsman understands that the landlord confirmed that the leak was due to a repair issue with property A, while the scaffolding was erected in December 2018. As the landlord had identified that the leak was as a result of a repair issue with property A, a building which it did not own and therefore have responsibility over, in order to address the defect the landlord was required to work with the agent working on behalf of the private landlord, who did own it. The Ombudsman appreciates that sometimes a landlord can experience difficulties when dealing with a third party, however there will always remain an overriding responsibility by the landlord to its resident despite any difficulties it may experience.
The evidence shows that landlord A arranged for the repair to the roof to be completed on 26 June 2019. This was approximately six months after the scaffolding was erected by the landlord, and when it was sure that the leak was as a result of a defect with property A.
While the landlord has provided evidence that it was liaising with the agent, in order to try and progress the repair to property A between December 2018 and June 2019, overall the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s approach. When it became clear that the private landlord was not engaging with the repair and it was not demonstrating urgency to resolve the leak, the landlord should have looked to have taken a more robust approach to compelling the private landlord to complete the repairs, such as legal action. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this. While the landlord did reference legal advice in respect of landlord A’s response to the leak in May 2019 in correspondence to the resident, the landlord has confirmed to this Service “that it appears that legal advice/ action was never taken”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s light touch approach in pursuing landlord A to remedy the leak impacted adversely on the resident, including uncertainly, distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period of time. The Ombudsman notes that had the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint dated March 2019 at the time it was made it is possible that the landlord may have identified that more intensive liaison with landlord A was needed in order to progress the matter.
Following the repair in June 2019 the landlord arranged make good works in the property, which were completed by 12 September 2019. This was a period of approximately three months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a protracted period of time, nothing the length of time the repair had been outstanding.
In responding to the complaint the landlord recognised that the make good works were delayed and there were some missed appointments in connection with the repairs. Where a landlord recognises a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has taken action to put things right. In this case the landlord awarded a total of £160 compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will award between £51 and £160 compensation for service failures where there has been considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, “a medium failure”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation for the delays in completing the make good works was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case to recognise the impact on the resident.
As part of her complaint the resident requested reimbursement for costs she had incurred in respect of the leak including damage to personal belongings and loss of earnings. In response the landlord advised the resident that it would not accede to her request as it was not responsible for the leak as it was from property A. The landlord therefore directed the resident’s request to landlord A or suggested that she make a claim on her own insurance. The Ombudsman is not clear if the resident has pursued either option. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was reasonable as it was its stance that it had not acted negligently, and because the repair was the responsibility of landlord A. However, while the landlord’s position on reimbursement was reasonable, the Ombudsman does consider that some compensation is due to reflect impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s approach in pursuing landlord A for the repair – as noted in paragraph 39 above – as a more responsive approach may have resulted in a lesser impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that the leak has recently reoccurred. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on landlord’s response to the recent leak, or comment on whether the leak is connected to the original problem from property A. This is because the leak has occurred outside of the period under investigation. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation, as set out at the end of the report, in order to help bring the matter to a close.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first made her complaint about the leak in May 2018. The landlord did not provide a formal response to her concerns under its complaint procedure at that time. The resident therefore made a second complaint about the leak in March 2019. Again the landlord did not provide a formal response to her concerns under its complaint procedure at that time. The evidence shows that the landlord eventually responded to the complaint, at stage three of its procedure, in October 2019 when it considered that the matter had been resolved.
Within its formal complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the resident’s complaint about the leak in March 2019 had been unsatisfactory. The landlord noted that this was due to an administrative error where it incorrectly linked the resident’s new complaint to an existing complaint about a boiler. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not reference or consider the resident’s complaint dated May 2018 within its final response.
As set out in the preceding section, where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has made a reasonable offer of redress to put matters right. In this case the landlord awarded £150 compensation.
While it was appropriate that the landlord did engage its compensation policy, as it had identified a service failure, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer for a medium failure did not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the landlord failed to take into account that it did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the leak in May 2018, which was a missed opportunity to review its handling of the leak at that time and therefore to potentially put things right at an earlier point. As a result the resident experienced uncertainty and distress for an extended period of time, which may not have been necessary had the landlord carried out a complaint investigation at that time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

The landlord’s initial response to the leak between January 2018 and Autumn 2018 was appropriate, as it sought to remedy the source by undertaking repairs.
The landlord’s approach to remedying the leak, once it was identified that the source was due to a defect with property A was unsatisfactory. This is because when it became clear that landlord A was not engaging with the repair or demonstrating urgency to resolve the leak it failed to take a more robust approach to compelling it to complete the repairs with a reasonable timescale, thus significantly impacting on the resident.
The landlord’s offer of redress in respect of its handling of the make good works was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the detriment experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs she incurred in respect of the leak, and to sign post her to landlord A or her insurers, was reasonable as it was its stance that it had not acted negligently in respect of the repair and landlord A had acted negligently in completing the repair causing the damage.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory, and therefore awarded compensation, its offer of redress was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Specifically, as the landlord did not take into account that it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the leak in May 2018, and therefore that an earlier resolution could have been achieved had it undertaken an investigation at that time.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation:
1. £250 for not taking a more robust approach in pursing landlord A for action to address the defect to property A causing the leak into the property.
2. £150 for failing to respond to the resident’s complaint dated May 2018 about the leak.
The landlord should comply with the orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the compensation which it awarded itself in considering her complaint, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the new leak, including an inspection of the roof, in order to determine its cause and whether it is a new issue or connected to the original fault from property A, within four weeks of the date of this report. Following the assessment/ inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome within two weeks. Where works are identified the landlord should set out a timeline for providing a remedy to resolve the leak. If the leak involves property A, the landlord should ensure it proactively pursues landlord A for a resolution, to ensure that the resident is not left in a situation where the issue remains outstanding for a protracted period of time.