Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202200415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200415

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

30 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s front door.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident had her front door damaged by forcible entry by the police in March 2021. Records show that the door was “off its hinges” and the landlord attended on 25 March 2021 to make the door safe. She then called the landlord on four occasions between March and July 2021 to chase the replacement of the door before raising a stage one complaint on 18 August 2021.
4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 6 October 2021, in which it offered a total amount of £300 compensation and confirmed the door would be fitted the following week.
5. The replacement front door was fitted on 13 October 2021 but the resident escalated her complaint that same day as the new door was narrower than her previous door. She highlighted that the narrowness of the door would prevent her moving furniture or appliances in and out of the property. The resident also expressed concern over the ease of access for emergency services. The landlord issued its final response to her on 3 February 2022, in which it confirmed it would carry out a site visit on 22 February 2022 with a view to replacing the newly installed door. It increased its offer of compensation to her to £350.
6. The resident informed this Service on 8 April 2022 that the door had still not been replaced. She subsequently remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position and refused its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s front door

7. The landlord had a duty to ensure that the front door to the property was secure, insofar as the door could be locked. Its repairs records indicate that it acted in accordance with this by attending an emergency appointment on 25 March 2021 to make the door safe.
8. The resident said in her stage one complaint on 18 August 2021 that the door was not secure. The evidence supplied to the Ombudsman does not confirm whether the extent of the damage to the front door, after the landlord made it safe, rendered it unlockable and therefore unsecure. It is noted, however, that the landlord inspected the door on 31 March, 9 June and 31 August 2021, following the resident’s concerns, and also made contact on 5 and 14 May, and 5 July 2021 but noted no issues with the lock.
9. As such, this Service has inferred that the lock was still functioning. It is not disputed, however, that the front door was damaged and as such, the landlord should have treated this repair as a priority considering the potential for the door’s condition to deteriorate, become unsecure, and become an emergency repair.
10. The landlord’s “A guide to repair responsibilities in your home” document confirms that it was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property – this includes the front external door. Its “Repairs: a guide for tenants” document confirms that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Given that the landlord had already attended the property as an emergency to make safe the front door, it would have been reasonable for it to carry out the renewal of the door within 28 calendar days of the resident’s request. That it did not complete this work to the front door until 13 October 2021, seven months later, was an excessive delay on its part and was a failure by the landlord to complete the repair within a reasonable time or in accordance with its published timeframe.
11. It is noted that when the landlord replaced the front door with a door compliant with fire safety regulations, the new door was narrower than previously. There was no evidence that the resident had been consulted about any access requirements before it proceeded to limit the available access through the door. The landlord’s internal records on 20 December 2021 showed that it did not dispute that the door should have been replaced ‘like for like’ and that retaining the original width of the door should not have compromised its compliance with fire safety regulations. It was therefore reasonable for it to confirm to the resident that it would replace the newly installed narrower front door. While this was a fair response, the time taken for it to reach this decision, coupled with its failure to follow through with this proposal, was a failure which resulted in a significant delay in resolving the repair. To date, the landlord has not confirmed that the replacement of the door has been completed.
12. It is noted that the landlord did not provide any explanation in either of its complaint responses as to why the door had taken so long to be addressed. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident to provide updates on the repairs. This was a failure by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident to manage her expectations and provide clear timeframes for resolution of the matter.
13. Ultimately, there was an excessive delay by the landlord of five months in carrying out the first door replacement. This was unreasonable and was contrary to its published repairs timeframes. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident for her time, trouble, distress and inconvenience while awaiting the replacement.
14. The landlord’s offer of remedy, in its final stage complaint response on 3 February 2022, was £300 – which it increased from £275 following four additional months without resolve. With consideration of matters as a whole, however, this fell short in acknowledging the resident’s experience, the landlord’s poor communication, and the length of time that passed. With this, despite advising the resident that a replacement door would be arranged as part of the resolution, no replacement was undertaken.
15. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken some ownership for the replacement and to have completed this in good time to demonstrate its commitment to resolving the matter. Its failure to do so, however, was a failure to show the resident that it had taken this matter seriously. As such, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website, indicates that where there has been maladministration of this nature, awards of between £250 and £700 compensation may be awarded. This includes instances where there has been a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. With this in mind, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £700 would fairly and appropriately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident.
17. Appropriately, on 11 August 2022, the landlord contacted this Service and proposed to increase its offer of remedy to £700 for the handling of the front door repairs. It also confirmed that it would be completing the replacement of the front door shortly.
18. While the landlord’s “A guide to repair responsibilities in your home” document states that repairs are chargeable to the resident when damage has been caused by police entry because of criminal activity, and the landlord was able to confirm that this was the reason for the forced entry, it confirmed it would not seek to reclaim this amount. This was a reasonable goodwill gesture given the length of time that had passed.
19. As agreed, the Ombudsman has subsequently ordered the landlord to award the resident £700 to reflect this element of her complaint, and to replace her door – free of charge – as it said it would.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

20. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure it is to provide a response within ten working days and at the final stage it is to respond within 20 working days. If it cannot meet either timeframe it is to contact the resident and agree an updated timeframe.
21. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 18 August 2021 and the landlord responded on 6 October 2021. This was 25 working days in excess of the 10 working-day timeframe specified in its policy. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 13 October 2021 and the landlord provided its final response to her on 3 February 2022, 58 working days in excess of the 20 working-day timeframe in its complaint policy.
22. There was no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to agree an extended deadline for its response at either stage of the complaint; nor any explanation given in its responses for the delays. It therefore did not act in accordance with policy and delayed unreasonably in the handling of the complaint.
23. The landlord did acknowledge the delays in its complaint responses and its final complaint response included an offer of £50 compensation to recognise its failure to respond promptly. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 where there has been a failure which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
24. It is unclear if the delayed complaint responses contributed to the overall outcome of the complaint; however, the total of 83 excess working days taken to respond at both stages of the complaints procedure could not be reasonably described as a short duration. Therefore, the offer of £50 was not proportionate to recognise the likely uncertainty, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
25. The Ombudsman has subsequently concluded that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. In the Ombudsman’s view, an award of £150 would have been more appropriate to reflect the adverse impact.
26. This Service notes that in the landlord’s correspondence in August 2022, it acknowledged this for itself and proposed to increase its award to £150. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered it to honour this payment.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s front door.
    2. A service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

28. The landlord should confirm to this Service within the next four weeks that it has complied with the following orders to:
    1. Pay the resident £700 for its failures in the handling of repairs to her front door.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for its failures in the handling of the complaint.
29. The landlord should also undertake the resident’s door replacement, and provide this Service with confirmation of this, within eight weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

30. The landlord should:
    1. Review its procedures for the management of repairs to ensure that repairs do not remain outstanding for excessive periods without reason.
    2. Review its procedures for communicating with residents about repairs to ensure that regular updates are provided to manage their expectations.