Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202009590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009590

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

9 June 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 information provided by the landlord to the resident about the renewal date of the bathroom.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since 6 March 2000.
3. The resident complained that she was told by the landlord’s staff member, who had attended the property to inspect the damp and mould, that the bathroom would be renewed. He had also noted that the gutter upstairs needed to be fixed as water was coming through the wall. The resident asked that the gutter is fixed as soon as possible. She further stated that the staff member did not follow up with her as expected and when the resident spoke with him, he advised that the planning department, not himself, would decide about a new bathroom.
4. In its response to the complaint, the landlord stated that its earlier response to the effect that the bathroom had been renewed in 2000 and was due another renewal in 2030 was incorrect. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 in compensation for the time and trouble in raising the complaint and any distress caused. The landlord advised that the lifespan of a bathroom is 30 years so the bathroom will be considered for renewal in 2026. The landlord advised that until then, the resident can raise repair requests if required.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied because she considered that the landlord had not taken into consideration her mental well-being, that it had told her the bathroom would be replaced but then stated that this work would not be done until 2026 and that £100 in compensation was insufficient for the emotional pain.

Assessment and findings

6. According to the resident, the repairs officer told her that the bathroom was not 25 years old. However, when the resident contacted another member of staff, she was told that the property was built in 1996, meaning the bathroom was over 25 years old. The resident noted that the mould and damp in the bathroom had not been there before the ceiling collapsed in November 2020 and that she had difficulties cleaning this due to her eye condition.
7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response apologised for the inconvenience caused and noted that the resident was unhappy with the staff member because he did not call back when he said he would do so and had told her she was entitled to a planned replacement bathroom but now detracted that. The landlord also noted that the resident advised it about water leaking through the wall which needed to be resolved; a contractor was to attend on 28 January 2022 to address this. It apologised that the resident had to chase the staff member on the issue. It explained that this had been raised with the staff member’s manager to discuss the matter.
8. The landlord further advised the resident about how to report further issues with respect to the staff member and provided her with contact details for this purpose. It confirmed that the bathroom renewal was raised with its planning team for consideration. Following the landlord’s initial complaint response that the renewal date for the bathroom was in 2030, the resident pointed out this inaccuracy to the landlord. She clarified with the landlord that the property was built in 1996 and the bathroom had a lifecycle of 30 years.
9. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two noting that there was an error regarding the renewal date for the bathroom that was communicated to the resident and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord advised that bathrooms have a standard life cycle of 30 years and as the property was constructed in 1996 the replacement is due in 2026 not 2030, as previously advised.
10. From the foregoing, it is not in dispute that the repairs officer gave inaccurate information about the bathroom renewal and that the stage one response gave an inaccurate date for the bathroom renewal. The landlord has apologised for both matters and provided correct information. Under the Decent Homes Standard, “a reasonably modern bathroom” is considered to be 30 years old or less. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise, in its stage two decision, that the bathroom would be replaced in 2026 (given it was installed in 1996) and that any repairs required would be carried out in the meantime.
11. The landlord advised that a mould wash treatment for the bathroom had been scheduled for 1 February 2022 and the bathroom was to be plastered and painted. Any further repairs were to be reported to the landlord via email. With respect to the incorrect information given, landlord stated that it had provided feedback to its ‘Planned Team’ so that lessons can be learnt and services improved. The stage two response offered compensation of £100 calculated on the basis of £70 already offered for time and trouble at stage one of the complaints procedure and a further £30 offered at stage two.
12. The resident was satisfied with the mould and damp treatment that was carried out but remained concerned that the repairs officer had not been held accountable for misleading her about the bathroom replacement and that she had not received an apology. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint as she considered that the landlord had not taken into consideration her mental well-being and that £70 of compensation was insufficient given that the bathroom would not be due for replacement until 2026. The resident wanted the bathroom to be replaced sooner but advised this Service that she would accept £300 as compensation. The landlord did not agree to increase compensation, noting it had apologised for the error and already offered compensation.
13. It is understandable that the resident was distressed when she was told the bathroom would not be replaced at this time, after her expectations were raised regarding a replacement bathroom. Any distress would have been compounded by the landlord’s mistake regarding the planned renewal date for the bathroom in the stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman considers both events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake. In this case, the landlord has fully acknowledged its mistakes and taken steps to offer redress.
14. Under its compensation policy, the landlord can offer discretionary payments for time and trouble where a resident has expended unnecessary effort communicating with the landlord or taken time to complain which would not have happened if service failure had not occurred. At the lower end of this scale, an apology is considered sufficient, and for “medium failure” payment in the range of £51 to £160 is considered appropriate, according to the landlord’s compensation policy.  A “medium failure” can include where a complainant has had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes. On this basis, offering the resident compensation of £100 was appropriate in the circumstances of this case and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
15. The resident referred to the impact the issues raised in the complaint had on her health, having stated in her complaint to the landlord that she experiences mental health issues which cause her anxiety.  The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on the impact of a landlord’s actions on a resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim as this is the appropriate means of escalating this aspect of her complaint.
16. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides 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’.
17. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the mistakes by the landlord, based on our assessment of the issues.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has identified and acknowledged its mistakes and made an apology and an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendation

19. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £100 that it offered at stage two of the complaints procedure (if this has not already been paid).