Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202112107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112107

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

22 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the exterior cladding on the property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about fallen cladding at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a three bedroom semi detached house.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will maintain the structure and outside of the property.
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.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage one the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will provide discretionary payments for poor complaint handling and delays in providing its services such as repairs. For a high failure of service the level of compensation will start at £151. For a high failure involving time and trouble the level of compensation will start at £151.
On 10 February 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that the cladding on one side of the property had blown off into her and her neighbour’s garden. The same day the landlord sent an internal email saying that it believed the cladding to contain asbestos and asking for its asbestos contractors to be sent to the property urgently to remove the fallen cladding.
Following a further telephone call on 11 February 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking to make a complaint as:
1. She had called the previous day to raise a repair about the cladding blowing off the property.
2. She had been placed on hold and the landlord had told her that it wasn’t sure whether the blown off cladding contained asbestos and need to be treated.
3. She was worried because she, her daughter, partner and neighbour had touched the fallen cladding without gloves on.
4. The landlord had told her the matter would be treated as an emergency and that it would attend the property on 10 February 2020, however the landlord had not attended the property and she still didn’t know when it would.
5. She wanted an update as to when the fallen cladding would be removed.
The resident telephoned the landlord again on 12 February 2020 asking for an update on the fallen cladding.
The landlord’s records show that on 12 February 2020 it raised an order for a quotation to be obtained for replacing the cladding on the property.
The fallen cladding was removed on 14 February 2020 and the landlord’s asbestos contractors collected a sample from the fallen cladding. On 18 February 2020 the asbestos contractor provided its report to the landlord confirming that the cladding contained chrysotile asbestos and making the following recommendation: “Material to be managed as asbestos and inspected”.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging the resident’s complaint made on 11 February 2020. The landlord said that it would now conduct a preliminary investigation into the complaint.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 9 March 2020 asking for an update about the replacement of the cladding on the property. The landlords sent an internal email the same day saying that the resident was upset and asking if there was any update.
On 9 March 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that the lack of cladding was causing serious heat loss to the property. She said that the landlord had told her that the work to replace the cladding would be done by 10 March 2020 but she hadn’t received any correspondence and had tried several times to speak to the landlord to get an update.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that:
1. access to a property was only proposed for serious and urgent repairs,
2. landlords ‘must follow sensible precautions to keep yourself safe when you or contractors or others are visiting the property’ by following public health and social distancing guidance.
3. wherever possible landlords “avoid all direct contact between residents and visitors to the property’.
On 28 April 2020 the landlord’s notes say that an internal email had been sent to its repair officer regarding replacing the cladding on the property “as this should have been completed by 10/03”.
On 18 May 2020 the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 14 October 2020 the landlord sent the resident its complaint response The response was headed “stage one final response”. In its complaint response the landlord said:
1. The resident called the landlord and it raised a work order on 11 February 2020.
2. The cladding was removed on 14 February 2020 and sampling took place when this work was completed. This work was within standard timescales required by the landlord.
3. Removal of the debris was handled by a specialist team and was acted upon within health and safety guidelines.
4. It was waiting for confirmation from its fire team that the quotation it had for replacing the cladding would conform to fire regulations.
5. It was sorry that part of the cladding had been dislodged and was still to be replaced. However, during a period of time in the spring and summer months of 2020 much work, other than emergencies, was put on hold due to government health guidelines.
On 16 April 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking to escalate her complaint as the cladding had still not been replaced and she had been chasing the landlord for an update. She said that the house was costing more to heat and was now starting to smell damp.
The landlord inspected the property on 21 April 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 May 2021 saying that it had visited the property that day and measured up for the amount of cladding needed. It said that the next step was to get a quote for the scaffolding to be erected.
The landlord sent a further internal email on 12 May 2021 saying that the complaint had been partially upheld as there had been some delays in arranging the works to renew the cladding but that all works were now in hand.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response . In its response the landlord said that:
1. The complaint had been partially upheld, as there had been some delays in arranging the works to renew the cladding.
2. The works had initially been placed on hold due to the Covid-19 restriction. Once normal service had resumed, due to the scope of works required, the process for obtaining a quote had taken longer than the landlord would usually anticipate, for which it apologised.
3. The works to renew the cladding had been arranged, and once it had obtained a quote for the scaffolding to be erected it would then arrange a start date for the works.
4. Its repairs officer would keep the resident updated and would inform her when the works would start.
5. It offered to pay the resident £100.00 compensation for time and trouble and £75.00 for service failure.
6. As she had previously been informed the fallen cladding had low level crystallite content which was removed as per health and safety guidelines and the removal of the debris was handled by a specialist team.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 12 May 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint confirming that its internal complaint procedure had been exhausted.
The landlord’s notes dated 10 November 2022 detail a conversation with its works supervisor saying that there had been challenges with the completion of the cladding works, due to the specialist nature of the works. The works were therefore still outstanding. The landlord planned to attend the property on 11 November 2021 with a specialist sub-contractor to assess the works. A quote would then be submitted by 12 November 2021. Following approval, the quote would be submitted to its repairs team for final approval. The landlord would then aim to complete the works within 8 weeks.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that the work to replace the cladding at the property has still not been carried out. The resident’s heating bills had been very expensive due to the lack of cladding and the landlord had paid her some interim compensation of approximately £900. The landlord has informed the resident that when the cladding is replaced it will be able to fully assess how much more money she had spent on heating whilst waiting for the cladding to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the exterior cladding on the property.

In its final response to the complaint the landlord partially upheld the complaint as there had been delays in carrying out the works to replace the cladding. The landlord apologised, offered the resident £175 compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) 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.
The landlord’s failings were significant as:
1. The resident reported the repair on 10 February 2020 and by the time of the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 12 May 2021, the repair had still not been carried out. This is 15 months after the repair was reported and 12 months later than the three month time scale for major routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repair guide.
2. The landlord has said that some of the delay in replacing the cladding can be explained by the restrictions on landlords carrying out work during the Covid 19 pandemic. The restrictions were set out in government guidance issued on 28 March 2020 and were lifted by 1 June 2020. Therefore just over two months of the 12 month delay can be explained by the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions.
3. Whilst there is evidence that the landlord informed the resident that the work would be completed by 10 March 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated throughout the 15 months from February 2020 about when the work that would be carried out.
The landlord has not put things right as, despite the resident reporting the repair on 10 February 2020 the cladding has still not been replaced, 31 months later. This is 28 months later than the three month time scale for major routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repair guide.
The £175 compensation offered by the landlord was not appropriate as:
1. The £75 offered for service failure was below the minimum level set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for when there had been high failure, despite the significant delay in carrying out the works.
2. The £100 offered for time and trouble was below the minimum level set out in its compensation policy for when there had been high failure, despite the resident having to chase the landlord for updates on the repair over an extend period of time.
The £175 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings as:
1. As set out above the delay in carrying out the repairs was significant.
2. The landlord added to the resident’s distress by failing to keep her updated about when the work would be carried out.
3. The resident experienced distress concerning whether she would be able to pay her increased heating bills.
The landlord has also not provided any details to the resident about whether it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint to ensure similar failings in delaying carrying out repair work and in communicating with residents about when works will be carried out do not occur in the future.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the previous six paragraphs the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fallen cladding at the property.

The landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was that the fallen cladding had low level crystallite content which was removed as per health and safety guidelines and the removal of the debris was handled by a specialist team.
The landlord’s response appears to have been inaccurate as its asbestos contractors had found in their report that the fallen cladding contained “chrysotile asbestos”, not “crystallite”. The response also did not address the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint that she was worried because she, her daughter, partner and neighbour had touched the fallen cladding without gloves on. Whilst the landlord informed the resident that the fallen cladding contained asbestos it did not explain whether this represented a risk to the resident and her family and neighbour. This amounted to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord dd not provide its response to the resident’s stage one complaint made on 11 February 2020 until 14 October 2020, 171 working days later and 161 working days later than the 10 working days timescale set out in its complaints policy. This delay amounted to maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the exterior cladding on the property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about fallen cladding at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failings in carrying out the repair works to the cladding and keeping the resident updated about when the works will be carried out. The landlord has also still not carried out the work. The landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about having touched the fallen cladding.
The landlord delayed in provided a response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £1100. This is comprised of:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenient and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the exterior cladding on the property.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failure to address her concerns about having touched the fallen cladding.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to provide the resident with a detailed timetable as to when the work to repair the cladding will be completed and to commence the work within two weeks of providing the timetable.
The landlord is to provide this Service with a copy of the timetable provided to the resident.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the completion of the cladding works to provide the resident with compensation relating to the extra heating costs she has incurred since the cladding blew off the property.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to write to the resident with details of what risk, if any, the resident, her family and neighbour were exposed to in touching the fallen cladding, given the presence of asbestos in the fallen cladding.
The landlord is to provide this Service with a copy of its letter to the resident.