Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202204099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204099

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

21 February 2023

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 concerns about external works to the resident’s building;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat in a residential building. His property has a balcony.
In or around December 2020, scaffolding was erected which prevented access to the balcony. The scaffolding was erected due to issues with the balcony structures.
On 3 July 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint. He explained that the scaffolding had been in place for almost eight months and that it had caused considerable inconvenience. By way of compensation, the resident requested to be reimbursed for the service charge that he had paid over this period.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 6 September 2021. It acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused by the presence of the scaffolding, however, it advised that there were legitimate reasons for it being there, including the need for inspections of the balcony areas. It also confirmed that the cost of the scaffolding was being covered by the contractor, rather than the leaseholders.
The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 23 September 2021.
The landlord provided its final response on 16 March 2022. It explained that work was required to be carried out on the balconies, and that the developer was in the process of producing a final set of drawings to be approved. The landlord advised that work would begin in approximately four weeks from the time of writing. It acknowledged the resident’s frustrations and advised that it was working with the contractor to complete works as quickly as possible. It also offered £75 for its delayed complaint response.
On 11 May 2022, a letter was sent to the resident (including all other residents affected) which offered £325 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the works. This was £250 in respect of loss of amenity (balcony) for a period of 20 months, and a further £75 for time and trouble. The landlord also advised in an email to this service on 30 September 2022, that it had offered a further £400 to the resident. This was broken down into £150 for its poor complaint handling, and £250 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
In total, £800 was offered to the resident (£225 for complaint handling, £250 for loss of amenity, and £325 for time and trouble). The resident advised this service that he was not satisfied with the amount offered, and was seeking £2,500 (20 months of service charge). He also advised that he was not happy with the lack of communication from the landlord regarding the scaffolding, including the fact that he was not notified prior to the scaffolding being erected.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

The leasehold agreement notes that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the building.
The leasehold agreement also notes the resident is responsible for paying the service charge. The Ombudsman understands that the service charge includes a management fee component.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for medium failures of service, payments starting at £51 would be appropriate, and payments starting from £151 would be appropriate for “high” failures. The policy also states that for time and trouble, payments starting at £51 would be reasonable for “medium” failures, and payments starting from £151 would be appropriate for “high” failures.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will keep the resident informed.

Scaffolding

It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that scaffolding was originally raised to repair the soffits on the building, however, during these works, additional structural safety concerns were identified. Given that, as per the leasehold agreement, the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the structure of the building, it was reasonable that it began investigations to ensure the building structure was secure.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, however, it is not evident that the landlord initially informed the resident of why the scaffolding was being erected, nor did it provide a timely update upon determining further works would be required. Such correspondence would be expected in the circumstances. While the landlord later provided an update to all residents in August 2021, this was after the resident had raised a formal complaint, and some nine months after the scaffolding was initially erected. This period without communication would have caused frustration for the resident and led him to expend time and trouble in getting an explanation from the landlord.
Based on the landlord’s records, its contractor determined that the scaffolding should remain in place for the safety of residents while further works were assessed and completed. The records also indicate that while this process took a considerable length of time, it is not evident that the landlord was the cause of this delay and the Ombudsman understands that arranging for experts to attend, compile reports, and for subsequent works to be arranged can take a greater amount of time than would otherwise be desirable.
In such circumstances, however, the Ombudsman would expect a high level of communication to keep residents informed. While the landlord appropriately provided information about the situation in its stage one response in September 2021, there was not a further significant update given to residents until January 2021. This would have caused further frustration for the resident and once again caused him to expend time and trouble in chasing updates.
The landlord’s formal complaint investigation identified that there had been failings in its communication regarding the length of the works, for which compensation would be appropriate. The landlord’s stage two response, however, did not address compensation for the delays, instead only offering compensation for its delayed complaint responses, which is discussed further below. Even if further consideration was required for calculation of compensation, the landlord missed the opportunity to reassure the resident this was the case in its formal response.
The landlord did, however, return to the issue of compensation in May 2022, where it offered £75 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates about the works, and £250 for the loss of the use of his balcony throughout the period of the works, which was calculated using the management fee for the previous 20 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the period the issues had been going on for and that there had been an impact on the resident, the amount offered did not sufficiently remedy the distress and inconvenience caused.
Following the resident’s referral of the complaint to this service, the landlord once again reassessed its offer of compensation in September 2022. While it was appropriate that it did so, it would have been helpful had it made a full assessment of the impact to the resident in its formal complaint response prior to the intervention of this service. This delay would have added to the overall distress caused to the resident. This further offer of compensation included a further £250 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
In summary, there were repeated instances throughout the early part of the complaint where the landlord failed to keep the resident adequately informed about the purpose and progress of the works. Even after the resident raised his complaint, there were significant gaps in contact. While it may have been the case that the works were necessary and that the length of time for assessment and obtaining further scopes of works were reasonable, the poor communication, and the lack of updates about when the balcony would be useable again would have had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that in the later period of the complaint, the landlord arranged for in person meetings with residents in April 2022, demonstrating it has sought to improve its communication. The landlord has also appropriately recognised its failings and the impact these have caused on residents, and on the resident in particular.
This service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was service failure that adversely affected the resident, but where there was “no permanent impact”, payments from £100 are appropriate. This is reflected in the landlord’s own compensation policy which notes compensation from £151 are appropriate where there has been a high impact. Given the delays to its communication, along with its failure to address compensation until after the complaints procedure had been concluded, the Ombudsman considers the impact in this case to have been high. In the circumstances, therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord offered a total of £575 compensation to reflect the loss of the use of the balcony, and for the resident’s time and trouble in pursing the complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounts to reasonable redress for the landlord’s service failure.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has requested that he be refunded the full amount of his service charge for this period. The requirement to pay the service charge is a contractual obligation as set out in the lease. Given that it covers elements other than just the structural maintenance of the building, it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer to refund the full service charge. It was reasonable that it instead calculated an element of its offer of compensation using its management fee given it had identified there had been deficiencies in its management over this period.
The Ombudsman further notes that it was appropriate the landlord clarified at its earliest opportunity that the resident was not financially liable for the scaffolding, given the length of time it had been in place.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord should provide a stage one response within 10 working days, or otherwise keep a resident informed of any delays.
Following the resident’s initial complaint made on 3 July 2021, the landlord did not provide its stage one response until 6 September 2021. The Ombudsman understands that a full and thorough complaint investigation can take longer than the timeframes noted in a landlord’s policy, however, in such circumstances timely communication must be made to advise of the delay. In this case, while the landlord did provide an update advising of a delay on 8 August 2021, this was beyond the timeframe in which it should have responded. This delay would have caused frustration for the resident and led him to expend time and trouble chasing updates.
Similarly, following the resident’s complaint escalation in September 2021, there was a significant delay until the landlord’s stage two response in March 2022, during which time the resident made several update requests. While it is evident there was contact between the landlord and the resident regarding the ongoing works during this period, the Ombudsman would still expect the landlord to provide specific updated timeframes for its formal response, which it did not do. This once again caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord appropriately recognised there had been failings with its complaint responses, and it offered £75 compensation for its poor complaint handling as part of its stage two response. It increased this amount to a total of £225 as part of its reassessment of compensation in September 2022. While the delays to its complaint responses would have caused distress for the resident, the Ombudsman notes that the outcome of the complaint was not affected by these delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances, which was inline with the landlord’s compensation policy and this service’s remedy guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves both elements of the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

The landlord to reiterate its offer of compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination, if it is yet to be accepted.