Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201911461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911461

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

30 January 2021

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 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 response to the resident’s report of leaks in her property.

The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint-handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 10 August 2009.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident first reported a leak and mould growth in her bathroom in November 2017. On 8 November 2017 the resident had requested an escalated call back from the landlord who tried to return the call but could not leave a message. The landlord’s records of that day noted that the leak issue only arises when the washing machine is being used in the property above the resident, and that the neighbour in that property was away on holiday at that time. The landlord conveyed to the resident on that day that nothing could be done until the neighbour returned from holiday.
On 17 November 2017 the landlord attended the resident’s property, confirming that the extractor fan in the bathroom was working. It noted it needed to contact its contractor to organise a humidifier to be placed in the resident’s property that day for the cubby hole to treat the wet and mould growth. The landlord advised the resident that the humidifier would arrive within 24 hours. It was noted that the neighbour in the property above would return from holiday on Sunday, and that works to undertake asbestos removal at that property would need to be finalised before the leak could be rectified.
On 22 November 2017 the resident raised a formal escalation request with the landlord, making reference to an earlier complaint escalation request she had made in July 2017, which had been acknowledged by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this more recent request on the same day and stated it would provide her with a response within 15 days.
An appointment was confirmed for 23 November 2017 to undertake the asbestos removal. A repair was carried out in the property above the resident in December 2017 on the basis that the landlord believed it to be the source of the leak, however the resident continued to report that the leak had not been resolved and she was having issues with damp and unpleasant smells.
On 27 December 2017 a repair was raised to hack off, replaster and paint affected areas in a cupboard following a “leaking stack”. The following day, 28 December 2017, the resident reported that the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working and that the bathroom remained humid following its use by the resident. The same repair issued was reported again on 30 January 2018 and 13 March 2018.
On 9 May 2018 the resident reported that the wall in the bathroom above the bath area was damaged and flaking. On 1 August 2018 the landlord’s records report the issue with the flaking above the bath area on the wall in the bathroom was finalised, and on 2 August 2018 an order was raised to repair and encapsulate the textured coating to the concrete ceiling.
On 11 February 2019 the landlord’s internal emails noted that asbestos had been removed from the resident’s property, but it believed that there was an asbestos pipe under the wooden boxing in the above neighbour’s property, as there had been one in the resident’s property before being taken out. It noted there was “still” an asbestos issue in the adjoining/adjacent property which would impact works so it was awaiting a response from its asbestos team.
In March 2019 the landlord advised the resident that there were issues with asbestos in the flat above.
On 5 March 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord seeking an update. She noted that the issue had begun in September 2017, and that she had been waiting and cooperating with all of the contractors, including engineers and plumbers while they went about the work.
On 18 March 2019 the landlord’s internal emails note it was chasing the asbestos team for an update, noting they had previously chased the issue on 11 March 2019.
On 24 July 2019 the landlord noted that there was a leak behind the water closet, and that it needed to take the panelling/brick in the cupboard out to investigate. The same record was repeated on 21 August 2019, with further notes on that day stating that there was a leak in the cavity behind the toilet, coming from the copper waste pipe. It noted that the wall and toilet would need to be removed to access it. The same record was noted on 3 September 2019.
On 13 August 2019 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the issue with the extractor fan had been ongoing since May 2018, and that it was seeking for its asbestos contractors to finalise the work as soon as possible.
On 6 September 2019 the landlord attended the resident’s property to review the damp issue. The resident stated that she had an open disrepair case regarding the damp. The previous day, 5 September 2019, a contractor collected the humidifier which was at the property. The landlord’s records noted that the damp was behind the toilet in the bathroom, on the bedroom wall and in the cupboard adjacent to the bathroom. The resident stated that when she used the washing machine, water leaks into the cupboard. The bathroom extractor fan did not work, and there were two holes in the cupboard, one on the ceiling and on the wall. The resident emphasised that the damp problem was affecting her health and she was sleeping on the sofa.
On the same day, 6 September 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord noting that she had had unfinished repair work since 2017. She noted that in July 2017 the landlord had contacted her, noting that at that date the repairs remained outstanding and that the complaint had been escalated with a staff member planning to contact her shortly afterwards. She noted that since receiving the email which confirmed the formal complaint would be escalated, she had not heard from the landlord while the substantive issue also remained outstanding. The resident stated that she had called the landlord a number of times and was informed that she would be called back by the customer service team, but did not receive any return contact.
On 7 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident, noting that following its previous phone conversation with her, it had scheduled an appointment with her neighbour to scope the works required so that the repair of the leak could be completed. It noted that it appreciated the matter had been ongoing for an unacceptable amount of time and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. Its internal emails requested that the asbestos works be arranged to be completed as a matter of urgency, noting that the resident had an appointment scheduled for Monday which it assumed would not go ahead because of the asbestos. It also noted that there was a leak that was ongoing due to the incomplete works, and that this couldn’t be resolved until the asbestos issue was resolved.
The resident’s emails to the landlord on the same day, 7 September 2019, noted that she had another leak behind the wall in the bathroom. She stated that the mould, wet and unpleasant smell was “so bad” it was affecting her bedroom and store room and affecting her health.
On the same day, 7 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the delayed response. It confirmed that the asbestos was “currently undisturbed” and therefore it had no reason to believe that there was any impact to her health. It did note however that it could not carry out any works until the asbestos had been removed. It had notified the contractor who was visiting the next week, so that if there was any issue with the coming Monday’s appointment the resident would be informed. The repairs team would be removing the asbestos as a matter of priority so that it was able to carry out all the repairs, including the leak in the bathroom. Once all the issues were resolved it noted it would be completing the complaint review and including an offer of compensation.
On 10 September 2019 the landlord called the resident to leave a message asking if a contractor could attend the property that day to inspect the asbestos prior to its removal.
On 20 September 2019 a repair was raised with a request that a contractor attend and survey the issue.
On 15 October 2019 a pre-inspection was scheduled for the asbestos issue.
On 23 October 2019 the landlord’s internal notes confirmed it raised an order for pest treatment works for 30 October 2019 due to an infestation that had arisen seemingly as a result of the leak and damp, and this was confirmed with the resident. The landlord’s internal communications noted that a staff member attended the property that morning and confirmed that contractors had failed to rectify a leak believed to be coming from sink fittings that feed into the stack at the property. The contractors believed that there was a leak on the stack located at the neighbour’s property above. The contractors had raised concerns about the stack and fittings possibly containing asbestos. The landlord noted that its asbestos team had failed to complete a survey/removal in a timely manner, leaving the resident “extremely distressed”. It noted the resident had a new kitchen and bathroom that was fitted by contractors which failed to connect the extractor fan, as the fluepipe had been blocked off due to a previous leak. It had arranged to meet with the contractors onsite on 25 October 2019.
During the visit on that date, 23 October 2019, the resident stated that she would not be paying rent until the landlord resolved the above issues and would like to be decanted due to the smell in the property, which the landlord confirmed was potent with a number of small flies present. It noted that due to the weather the resident was unable to keep her windows open to allow fresh air to flow. The resident reported experiencing emotional and physical distress resulting in her seeing her doctor, and noted that she wanted to be compensated financially.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord telephoned the resident to request an appointment for the next day in the morning, but was unable to speak to the resident.
On 28 October 2019 the landlord left a voicemail for the resident requesting an appointment to discuss the decant and ongoing works. An order was raised by a staff member for investigating blockages and leaks into the internal waste pipes.
On 30 October 2019 an urgent decant was organised for the resident, with the works to start with the drains team attending on 31 October 2019 and 1 November 2020. Internal records the next day noted the works did not yet require the resident to decant. A dehumidifier was provided on 1 November 2019, however it was no longer required as the resident stated she didn’t want one.
On 7 November 2019 the landlord’s emails confirmed that the resident and her neighbours in two other flats had all been booked into a hotel to allow for works to be undertaken that would affect each of the three properties.
Work was scheduled for 14 and 15 November 2019. The notes stated that the resident would need to be decanted for the full duration due to the enclosure setup. It was noted that a plumber would be required to remove the toilet and sink basin as it was removing the adjacent riser with a breaker to gain access to the leaking soil pipe. All water would need to be shut down/isolated within the riser for the bathroom.
On 14 November 2019 the resident was decanted and informed that the works to her bedroom would be done in situ. The resident requested a scope of works.
On 19 November 2019 the resident was noted to be able to return to the property. There were follow-on works that needed to be carried out, but these could be carried out with the resident in situ. The landlord made the following notes on the works that were carried out and those that remained outstanding:
1. The smell was caused by the vent from the stack being diverted back into the property via the old boiler flue.
2. The stack pipe that was reported by following an inspection by the contractors was actually cast iron and not asbestos. It therefore changed the schedule with the asbestos team to encapsulate the area exposed and not remove it because it was not posing a threat to anyone.
3. An access was created in the service ducting behind the toilet. This would serve as an inspection access point for any further issues.
4. Waste in the kitchen, bath and basin was cleared.
5. There was a leak on the basin waste going into the stack (copper waste). This was removed and fitted with a flex waste directly into the stack.
6. The basin and toilet was refitted for the resident to return.
7. Scaffolding would be required to complete the newly installed vent for the fans of both the resident’s flat and the neighbour’s, noting that some roof works would be involved (roof vent installation).
On 25 November 2019 the landlord carried out an inspection for the leak, noting that, as per the report of the previous contractors, there were ventilation issues throughout the entire flat with a build up of water and damp affecting the resident. There were also noted to be drain flies onsite.
On 28 November the landlord’s notes indicated that the dehumidifier was to be left in place for two weeks.
Upon the resident’s return to the property in early December 2019 she reported that there were outstanding repair issues:
1. A foul smell coming from the extractor fan in the bathroom, which also made loud “scary” noises when it was windy;
2. The bathroom sink was blocked;
3. There was damp in the bathroom.
On 6 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an update. On the same day, 6 December 2019, the landlord emailed the resident, apologising for a lack of contact from a particular staff member, noting it was seeking to provide her with an update.
On 12 December 2019 the landlord’s repair notes recorded a job to trace and repair the leak, and to carry out the decoration works. These were noted as being completed on 3 March 2020.
On 4 March 2020 the resident called the landlord and left a message to discuss reimbursement for the cost of her decant.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord’s internal records noted that the repairs had been outstanding for a long period of time and the works required had been misdiagnosed previously. It indicated that there were several delays due to asbestos and failure to meet its own service standards. It also acknowledged that there had been poor communication during both parts of the complaint.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It noted the issue had been ongoing for some time and that it was disappointed that it had been unable to promptly resolve the issue following its first report in November 2017. It noted multiple jobs were raised to fix the issue, with the work ultimately being resolved the previous week.
2. Due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing, the landlord had been unable to determine the exact cause of the delay. It recognised however that there had been more than one point of failure. In December 2017 a repair was carried out in the flat above the resident as it believed this was the cause of the leak. It noted that despite this the resident continued to experience issues with damp and unpleasant smells. A second leak was found on the waste pipe, although it noted this was only after a significant delay. It was disappointed to see that there were other delays due to “confusion over asbestos” and missed appointments, noting that these could have been avoided and that the resident had not received the expected level of service.
3. Regarding its complaint handling, it noted that it received the complaint on 22 November 2017 and an acknowledgement was sent to the resident promptly, confirming that a response would be sent within fifteen days. It noted that the staff member dealing with the complaint had maintained contact with the repairs team and noted updates from them on the complaint file, it had not updated the resident on each occasion. It also noted that the information provided by the repairs team was not always consistent with the situation at the time, ultimately leading to emails being sent to the resident which were inaccurate and added to “an already frustrating and upsetting situation.” It apologised for the further inconvenience this caused. Sine escalating the complaint, it noted that the communication had not improved and it apologised again for this.
4. It offered compensation to the resident of £1,200, consisting of:
  1. £500 for service failures regarding the delays in completing the repairs and the standards of work previously carried out
  2. £500 for the resident’s time and trouble, taking into consideration the upset and inconvenience caused to her
  3. £150 for poor complaint-handling
  4. £50 for missed and unsuccessful appointments
On 28 March 2020 all ventilation and damp was signed off on and internal emails noted that it was confident the scope of the works carried out by the contractors at the time, after failed attempts by the previous contractors, would have resolved the issues.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy sets out the following:
1. Residents are responsible for:
  1. Taking initial steps to unblock waste pipes. They must demonstrate that they have made all reasonable efforts to unblock waste pipes, including the use of a plunger or domestically available drain cleaning products.
2. Landlords are responsible for:
  1. Repair/replacement of hand basins and sink units
  1. Plastering/plasterboard
  2. Plumbing repairs and leaks
  3. Sanitary fixtures and fittings
  4. WC blockages
3. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and include floods, unsafe electrical fittings, burst pipes, major water leaks where the leak cannot be contained, blocked WC where it is the only one in the property.
4. Routine repairs that can be deterred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, without long-term deterioration of the building. These should be completed within 28 calendar days.
5. Replacement of major items such as boiler replacements are normally completed to an agreed work programme.
6. Major repairs are repairs which are necessary for the property to remain habitable, including structural repairs on floors, walls and roofs, service installations for renewal of water supplies, heating and ventilation.
7. If materials containing asbestos are discovered in the property, the landlord is required to make regular inspections based on a risk assessment. It will write to or telephone the resident to arrange access for these inspections.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint should be raised within three months of the incident, though this time period may be extended on a case by case basis. It will aim to:
1. At stage one, acknowledge a complaint within two working days from the date received and respond within ten working days.
2. At stage two, following the resident’s request for escalation of the complaint within twenty working days of the response date, acknowledge the complaint within two working days and send a full response to the customer within ten working days. If the timescale is not possible another date will be agreed with the resident.
3. At stage three, a review or panel hearing can be convened with the panel’s findings provided to the resident within ten working days of the hearing.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out:
1. In circumstances where there has been a high level service failure, defined as a resident chasing the landlord for over six months for the issue to be resolved, the amount to be considered is £250-£500.
2. Time and trouble payments will be paid in addition to service failure payments in recognition of exceptional circumstances. They will be considered against the length of time the resident had to chase the issue, the resident’s individual circumstances e.g. age and health, and the degree of distress and inconvenience caused. In circumstances where there has been a high level service failure, defined as a serious failure in service standards where the resident’s standard of living has been severely affected, the amount to be considered is £250-£500.
3. Poor complaint handling will result in consideration of an amount of £10-£150.
4. Reimbursement costs of up to £300 will be considered, and costs beyond this will be considered by the insurance team.
5. Missed appointments will result in a payment of £10 per appointment up to a maximum of £50.

Assessment and findings

Repair issues

The resident’s first report of the issues with a leak in the property are recorded in the landlord’s systems as having been raised in November 2017, with the resident stating that the issue had first arisen in September of that year. As at 17 November 2017 and based on the landlord’s attendance at the property, it had established that there were damp walls and mould growth in the bathroom. Though the extractor fan was working, it had been established that a dehumidifier would need to be installed to assist with resolving the issue. In December 2017, the landlord stated that it undertook some form of work in the neighbour’s property in an attempt to resolve the leak, though it has been unable to establish specifically what this work was, as set out in its final complaint response. Though this was a prompt step at resolution, it was evident that the issue had not been resolved via this intervention.
Furthermore, the references to asbestos removal in the neighbour’s property demonstrate that the landlord was aware that to put in place a permanent solution, this removal work would need to be undertaken. The landlord’s internal records, communication with the resident and the Ombudsman all support the position that, despite the sparse repair records covering the period of 2018 the leak issue was not resolved. This is because the problem with asbestos in the neighbour’s property had itself not been dealt with over the period of November 2017 to February 2019, though the landlord was aware of it and its impact on the resident’s problems in her bathroom at the latest by 17 November 2017.
The landlord has provided repair records covering this 14 month period that demonstrate it undertook works in the resident’s property in response to bathroom repair issues she raised every few months, such as leaks from her toilet cistern and renewal of the bathroom walls and ceiling. Nevertheless, the communications demonstrate that the asbestos work remained outstanding over that period despite being a necessary step to resolving the resident’s repair. In early 2019 the landlord’s communication records clearly set out its position that asbestos removal was needed in the neighbour’s property, on the basis of information/evidence it had ascertained at the end of 2017. Specifically, removal of asbestos in the resident’s property had drawn attention to the need to do undertake the same asbestos removal work in the neighbour’s property. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why works were not progressed during this period of 14 months.
Following the resident being made aware of the asbestos issues in the neighbour’s property in March 2019, it is not clear that significant steps were taken to progress the necessary work until September 2019, some six months later. The resident has described her distress at the presence of asbestos, noting that she was concerned about the affect it might have on her health.
In September 2019 the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the ongoing repair issues, apologised to the resident for the length of time the works had been ongoing which it described as “unacceptable” and attempted to raise the asbestos works as a matter of urgency. The leak and damp issues were noted to be continuing at this point, with no evidence having provided that the issue was resolved at any point within this two year period. Following this, the records demonstrate that the landlord was taking proactive steps to resolve the asbestos issue so as to properly address the repair issue, as it attended the property repeatedly with its contractors, carried out inspections, booked in with the asbestos contractors and maintained a more regular system of communication with the resident over this period. As part of its contractor’s work investigating the asbestos, it reviewed the stack and fittings in the neighbour’s property, examined the internal waste pipes and removed the toilet and sink basin to access a particular leaking soil pipe. It also arranged to decant the resident in recognition of the impact that the outstanding issues were having on her.
Based on its report of 19 November 2019, the repair issues were largely resolved while the resident was decanted, with the landlord noting that the leak had been fixed, though there were outstanding works to be carried out which were completed in late March. Therefore the total length of time that the repair issue has remained outstanding has been a period of approximately two years and four months, with the leak issue that led to the secondary problems of damp on the wall and other problems with the bathroom and bedroom, being outstanding for approximately two years. The landlord has acknowledged in its internal communications and its complaint responses that the length of time taken to resolve the issue was significant and that the issue was ongoing over this period. Due to the length of time taken to resolve it, the landlord has stated it is unable to determine the exact cause of delay while recognising that there had been “more than one point of failure,” including delays due to “confusion over asbestos and missed appointments.”
In its final complaint response, the landlord has recognised that its response to the resident’s repair issues fell well short of its set service standards. As it has largely not been able to justify the significant delays in the response, the final complaint response largely acknowledges its failings rather than pointing out the work that it did sporadically undertake before commencing more thorough repair work in September 2019. This was appropriate given the records of the almost two year period up this date do not demonstrate the landlord taking significant steps to resolve the issue.
The repair issue has had a severe long-term impact on the resident, both on her ability to live in and enjoy her property. In these circumstances, beyond the inconvenience of the continuing leak issue and the problems that this caused with her bathroom appliances and surfaces, the resident described experiencing significant emotional and physical distress, which was supported by the landlord’s findings upon inspecting the property that there was a noticeable smell, as well as the presence of flies and humidity in various rooms. The resident noted in September 2019 that she was sleeping on the sofa due to the damp spreading through her bedroom and affecting her health. The length of time the repair issue was outstanding contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, which was clear from her communications with the landlord about the effect the outstanding issues were having on her.
It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident in recognition of the significant delays that characterised the repair process as well as the resident’s distress, time and trouble in following up the issues, causing her significant inconvenience. It has stated that the offer of £1,900 represents the maximum amount available to offer to a resident in these circumstances under its compensation policy. This is based on the maximum calculation available to the resident for a high level service failure, the resident’s time and trouble, poor complaint handling and missed appointments as well as a discretionary element. It was appropriate that the landlord offered the maximum amount available under its policy given the circumstances of the case and the length of time the issues went unresolved, and the offer demonstrated a recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Complaint-handling

The formal complaint was raised sometime in mid-2017 though the landlord and resident have been unable to provide the records of exactly when. Nevertheless confirmation of an escalation request by the resident was provided to her by the landlord on 22 November 2017, though nothing came of this until February 2020 when the landlord acknowledged its delay and confirmed again that the complaint would be escalated. As a result, the length of time between the stage one and stage two complaint responses went significantly beyond the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe and required the resident to chase the landlord for updates. The lack of communication up until September 2019 also caused the resident distress as she was not made aware of where the repair work was up to and if the issues were to be resolved.
The resident made specific reference to her complaint in her communications with the landlord in September 2019, asking why she had not received a formal response despite the passage of over 2 years since her request for it to be escalated, and this was acknowledged by the landlord. Nevertheless, it still took up until mid-March 2020 for it to provide its final complaint response, a delay of a number of months even after the resident pushed it for updates. The length of time it took for the final complaint response to be provided went well beyond what could be considered reasonable, particularly considering the impact the substantive issue had already had on the resident. The landlord’s failure to engage appropriately with the complaint over this period would have aggravated the distress she already felt with the delays in resolving the substantive issue, as set out with her communication to the landlord in September 2019 where she draws attention to the distress she has experienced on both counts.
The landlord has recognised that there were these failings with its complaint-handling as part of its broader failings with the substantive issue. It has acknowledged that while it undertook steps to investigate the complaint, it failed to keep the resident informed about the progress of the investigation and was unable to provide a firm explanation as to the original cause of the leak given the length of time that had passed between the first report of the issue and the final complaint response. In recognition of this, it has apologised to the resident and offered compensation to her of £150, as part of the broader offer of £1,900 for the totality of the complaint elements. These were appropriate steps to take in recognition of the impact the issues had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the repair issues.

In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaint-handling.

Reasons

The delays in properly investigating and then affecting a fix to the repair issues for the resident’s issue caused her significant distress and inconvenience. There were large periods of time were minimal work was done to investigate or attempt to resolve the issue, though the evidence clearly demonstrates that the landlord was aware that the repairs remained outstanding. Nevertheless, the landlord has recognised these failings and offered the maximum amount available to it under its compensation policy to the resident, which was an appropriate step to take.

The landlord failed to properly follow its complaint process, with the delay between the escalation request and final response being upwards of two years. The resident sought updates during this period but the landlord nevertheless did not provide a response until a number of months after the substantive repair issues were finalised. Nevertheless, the apology and total offer of compensation made to the resident demonstrated a recognition of the upset and inconvenience that she had experienced as a result of the issues, as well as a good faith attempt to make things right.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident its previous offer of £1,900 in recognition of the delays and failings in responding to the substantive repair issue.

The finding of reasonable redress is conditional upon the above recommendation being implemented.