Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202123112)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123112

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

23 August 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to rectify a flood in the resident’s bathroom and its handling of follow-on works.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak under the resident’s bath and its handling of follow-on works.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
3. On 28 February 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property due to her reporting a flood in her bathroom. The repair record noted that the ‘toilet in property [had] a resurgence of water also seen via bath’ which caused flooding. To rectify the issue the operative reported that they ‘cleared blocked stack and fully removed scale…used dye to test and full flow’.
4. On 2 March 2021, an operative attended the resident’s property to undertake a clean. The operative reported that they ‘cleaned up as best as possible’, but that it required a cleaning contractor to attend to do an “environmental clean” (a deep clean and disinfection of surfaces that have come into contact with wastewater).
5. On 03 March 2021, the resident sent the landlord a complaint about its handling of the repairs. She was dissatisfied as she said it had taken three visits over two days to rectify the flood, and that the environmental clean of her property had not yet been completed. On 15 March 2021, the resident added to her complaint that it had taken nine days to complete the deep clean, for which she had had to take time off work. She said the issue had a detrimental impact on her family, and her own health. To resolve the complaint, she sent the landlord a list of items which she said had sustained damage, and requested compensation for them. She also asked the landlord to repair laminate flooring in the bedroom and hallway, replace the flooring in the bathroom (as she said this had had to be removed for the repair), and asked the landlord to repaint the bathroom. The landlord logged the complaint under complaint reference 147127.
6. The repair records show that a new bath was installed at the resident’s home on 23 March 2021, and that the bathroom floor was replaced on 4 April 2021.
7. The repair records show a joinery repair was raised in May 2021, due to the boxing around the bath panel not being installed correctly. During this repair, an operative discovered water leaking under the bath and recommended that a plumber attend the resident’s home to rectify it. The operative who attended to resolve the issue that month noted that they “isolated water removed tap nut, replaced washer”.
8. On 14 June 2021, the resident sent the landlord a complaint regarding the leak under her bath. She was dissatisfied that the landlord’s contractor had been unable to complete painting work in the bathroom due to the leak causing the skirting to become sodden. She said she required new skirting in her bathroom as a result of the leak, and asked the landlord to complete the work and pay compensation. The landlord logged this complaint under a new complaint reference 161923.
9. The landlord issued it stage one response to the resident’s initial complaint (147127) on 26 July 2021. It said that during a conversation with the resident the previous May, she had clarified that her complaint was about the unresolved redecoration work following the original flood. The landlord explained it raised an appointment for redecoration to be completed on 26 and 27 August 2021. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time taken for the redecoration work order to be raised, acknowledging that it was below its usual standard. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and offered the resident a total of £60 compensation. On speaking with the resident the following day, the landlord said it did not consider all factors in its original award due to confusion regarding multiple complaints, and revised its compensation offer to £330 (for “service failure”, time and trouble, and complaints handling).
10. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s leak complaint (161923) on 6 August 2021 in which it clarified its understanding of the complaint to concern the leak under the bath and the damage to the skirting boards. It said it had undertaken an inspection at the resident’s property the week prior, and subsequently it would aim to complete the necessary repairs by 26 August 2021. It apologised for the error for when the bath was not previously installed correctly, and offered £100 compensation.
11. On 19 August 2021 the resident escalated her flood complaint (147127). She said that the offer of compensation did not reflect the extent of her complaint and was dissatisfied that work remained outstanding. She was also unhappy that she had not been consulted regarding the landlord’s arrangement for an appointment to complete redecoration works in August, regarding her availability on those days.
12. The landlord issued it final response to the flood complaint (147127) on 21 September 2021. It said its operative had attended the resident’s property on 7 September 2021 and completed painting the bathroom walls and ceiling. It acknowledged that it did not progress the resident’s complaint within a timely manner. Nonetheless, it said it would not offer any additional compensation other than the £330 originally offered, as it said this was in line with its compensation policy.
13. On 25 November 2021. the resident escalated her leak complaint (161923). She remained dissatisfied as she said the painting on her skirting was ‘sticky and difficult to clean’, and that there was a gap between the skirting and the bath panel. The landlord issued its final response on 15 February 2022. It said works to rectify the bath panel gap had been completed on 9 December 2021 and that works to rectify the skirting had been completed on 4 February 2021. It partially upheld the complaint due to the length of time taken for the repairs to be completed, and for the delay in providing a stage 2 response. It offered the resident £130 compensation, which included the £100 it offered at stage one and an additional £30 for poor complaint handling.
14. The resident referred the matter to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She believed that the landlords total compensation offer did not reflect the extent of the overall issues, which included the stress and inconvenience, the impact on her family and her health, having to be take leave from work and damage caused to personal items and flooring as a result of the wastewater flood. She also added that she had not been able to use the bathroom until it had been deep cleaned, yet the landlord had not offered to decant her family over the period. To resolve the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Policies

15. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining any installations for sanitation and supplying water, including “basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and water storage facilities.”
16. The landlord’s website states that it will attend to emergency repair reports within 24 hours, and that if the issue cannot be fixed immediately, it will make the situation safe, and arrange further appointments to resolve it.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy encourages tenants to take out contents insurance to cover belongings and decorations against accidental damage, loss, fire or flood. It states that in the event that its actions cause loss or damage, on receipt of evidence, it will consider reimbursement of up to £300. It states that losses greater than this amount (if its actions caused the damage) will be considered by its insurance team.

Scope of investigation

18. The resident explained in her complaint to the landlord how its handling of the repair issues impacted her health and affected her family. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
19. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, and consideration has been given to this in the investigation.
20. In general, this Service would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work and for loss of wages, as a resident’s occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. A request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit.

Repairs to rectify a flood in the resident’s bathroom and follow-on works

21. The resident said that the landlord first attended her home to rectify the flood when she initially reported the issue on “Saturday 28 February 2021”, but had to attend the again the following day as the issue reoccurred (it is understood that the resident meant Saturday 27 February). The repair records seen in the evidence only account for the visit the landlord made on Sunday 28 February. Nonetheless, given the resident’s account, it is clear that the landlord attended the issue within its emergency timeframe. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve repair issues as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset, and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Although it is understandable how distressing the situation would have been for the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord rectified the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
22. Internal decoration is usually a tenant’s responsibility. A landlord will generally only undertake redecorating if its own actions contributed to damage from a repair issue. There is no indication in the evidence that the original leak and flood was the result of a specific failing by the landlord, and so its decision to repaint the bathroom showed it was resolution focused in its approach. Even when undertaking discretionary work on a resident’s behalf, a landlord is expected to try to maintain appropriate levels of professionalism, efficiency, and quality. In this case the redecoration was not completed until September 2021, and so the resident’s frustration with the delay is understandable. The evidence shows that the delay may have been, in part, due to new fittings being installed such as bathroom flooring and the bath, the implications of the leak due to the bath being installed incorrectly, and the resident’s availability in August. Nonetheless, there are still periods when there is no clear evidence explaining the time taken.
23. The landlord acknowledged its redecoration delay, it apologised and offered compensation of £330. The amount of compensation the landlord offered, along with its redecoration efforts, was in line with its compensation policy, and broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for similar circumstances.
24. In her complaint the resident sought compensation for damaged personal items. The landlord did not specifically respond to this point, which it should have, given it was a central element of the complaint. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the flood was the result of any specific action or inaction by the landlord, so it would not usually be expected to consider providing compensation for any such damage. That would typically entail a claim against home contents insurance. Nonetheless, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s request, and made clear its position in regard to her claim for damaged items.
25. Also, in her stage one complaint, the resident asked the landlord to make good laminate flooring in her bedroom and hallway. It is unclear from the evidence if this had sustained damage as a result of the flood. Though the evidence shows that the bathroom flooring was replaced as per the resident’s request, it does not show if any inspection or works were carried out to hallway or bedroom flooring, nor did the landlord address this aspect of the complaint in its complaint response. While the landlord clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, it failed to put things right by not addressing all aspects of the complaint.

Repairs to a leak under the resident’s bath

26. The landlord accepted responsibility for not installing the bath correctly. It took appropriate action by agreeing to make good the surrounding damage to the bathroom skirting. The resident remained dissatisfied because, despite agreed works going ahead to replace and repaint her bathroom skirting and replace the bath panel, she said that the works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord responded appropriately by reattending the resident home to rectify the issues she had found.
27. Overall, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time taken for the repairs to be completed and for the delay in providing a stage two response. It offered £130 compensation, which included £100 offered at stage one and £30 for poor complaint handling. That suitably remedied the delay to carry out the follow-on works and the delay for issuing its stage two response, however it did not address the delay in issuing its first stage response. During enquiries with this Service, the landlord said that upon review, it did not consider its delay in acknowledging the complaint, as it was unclear at the time if it was part of what is understood to be the flood complaint, or if a new complaint was required. This was a reasonable explanation, and was in accord with the internal queries the landlord made at the time the complaint. However, it is not apparent from the evidence that it communicated this to the resident, and as such was a service failure, as she would, understandably, not have been aware of the reasons for the delay.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
    1. the complaint concerning the bathroom flood.
    2. the complaint concerning the leak under the bath.

Orders

29. In light of the inconvenience and frustration that will have been caused to the resident by the failings found in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £100 for its failure to consider all aspects of her complaint about the bathroom flood.
    2. £100 for its poor communication in respect of the complaint about the bath leak.
30. The landlord should also enquire of the resident to ensure that the concerns she raised about the flooring in her bedroom and hallway have been resolved. If not, it must respond to any relevant outstanding repairs in line with its general repair responsibilities.
31. This compensation order is in addition to the £460 compensation offered by the landlord in its final complaint responses, which it should also now pay if it has not already done so.