Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202000359)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000359

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

18 December 2020


Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 delay to the landlord installing new windows at the property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has stated that he had been promised new windows by the landlord for six years preceding the formal complaint that he made on 11 December 2017. 
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider matters dating back to circa 2011.  Paragraph 39(e) states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. 
  4. Whilst the resident may have been promised new windows for 6 years prior to 2017 – a matter which this Service cannot comment on either way – the formal complaint was brought on 11 December 2017.  Notifying a landlord of a problem is not the same as raising a matter as a formal complaint and for this reason, this investigation will focus on matters from December 2017 only. 
  5. For completeness, it is the case, however, that even in circumstances where the resident had previously brought a formal complaint to the landlord about the same matter, this would also be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, by virtue of paragraph 39(a), which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”.  The Ombudsman was not approached until 2020 and this was regarding the formal complaint he made in 2017.
  6. It is acknowledged that this is likely to be disappointing news for the resident, however, the Ombudsman is able to investigate the landlord’s handling of matters once reported and its handling of the complaint itself and this is done below.

 

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property from 31 March 2003.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that window replacement constitutes major works and are normally completed to an agreed work programme.
  3. The landlord has a three stage complaints procedure; at stage one, the landlord aims to provide a response within 10 working days, at stage two, within 20 working days and at stage three, a review panel will convene to consider the complaint, although a specified timescale for this is not stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out circumstances in which it may offer discretionary compensation and provides a tariff of payments as follows; for poor complaint handling, the landlord may offer up to £10-£150 compensation, depending on the severity of the failure, for time and trouble, up to £500 and for a failure of service, up to £500, with the maximum amount being awarded where the complainant has had to chase the issue for over six months.
  5. The compensation policy explains that if the complainant owes money to the landlord, any compensation award will be offset against the debt,

Summary of events

  1. On 11 December 2017, the resident raised a stage one complaint in respect of delay to the landlord replacing the windows at the property.  The landlord initially advised the resident that the windows were due to be replaced in the 2016/17 financial year but there had been a delay due to its budgeting constraints.  The landlord’s records provided to this investigation confirm this to be the case. It then advised that the windows would be replaced in the 2018/19 financial year.
  2. Having spoken to the resident about his complaint on 19 and 20 December 2017, the landlord telephoned the resident again and sent a closure letter on 2 January 2018.  The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he had experienced whilst the complaint was in progress and explained that the windows would be replaced in the 2018/19 financial year.
  3. On 16 September 2018, in a telephone call between the landlord and resident, the landlord stated that the complaint could not be considered at stage two yet because it had not yet failed in its efforts to resolve the complaint at stage one.  The landlord advised that should the resident have not heard by January 2019, he should request escalation of his complaint (to stage three of the complaints process) at this time.
  4. On 16 January 2019, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated through the landlord’s complaints process, as he was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered and stated that he had been told he would receive new windows for the last six years.  He said that had he known the windows would still not be replaced after all of this time he would have vacated the property.  The resident suggested a compensation amount of £8100 to cover six years of winters and reimbursement of rent, due to not being able to use the whole property, due to the cold caused by the windows.
  5. On 6 June 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint and confirmed that it had now been escalated to stage three of its complaints process and that the resident would receive an outcome within 10-15 days.
  6. On 8 August 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that its ‘planned works team’ were liaising with the contractor with regards to rescheduling and would be in touch with regards to this.  It apologised that the matter remained unresolved and invited the resident to contact it, should there be anything further it could do.
  7. Eight months later, on 3 September 2019, the landlord raised the complaint at stage two of its complaints process and on 16 September 2019, it shut the complaint down, as the financial year had not yet concluded and this was the timeframe within which the landlord had agreed to carry out the window works.
  8. On an unknown date, the resident chased the landlord as to the matter.
  9. On 23 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident, advising that the most information it could give him at present, was that the windows would be replaced by April 2020.
  10. On 27 March 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage three of its complaints procedure.  The landlord upheld the complaint, finding that it did not complete the window renewal within its promised timeframe.  Going forward, it advised that scaffolding now was due to be erected in the week commencing 9 March 2020, however, it was unable to complete any non-emergency works because of government advice in light of the pandemic.  It said it would seek to carry out the works as soon as it could.
  11. The landlord offered the resident an additional compensation amount of £1100, comprised of £500 for a failure of service, £300 for the resident’s time and trouble and £150 for poor complaint handling.  It explained that due to the resident being in rent arrears of £829.41, it would pay the remaining amount of £270.70 to her by cheque or bank transfer. It further explained that to help prevent a recurrence, there were a number of projects underway to improve front-line services, including now having a dedicated property team.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord was responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, including the maintenance and repair of the windows, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and in law; specifically, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. Limited information has been provided to this Service in terms of the condition of the windows at the time of the complaint, however, what is clear is that the landlord had confirmed that the windows required replacing and that works had been raised to do this. 
  3. Replacing windows in a property constitutes major works and it is reasonable for landlords to carry out major works under a planned works programme.  The landlord is not obliged to carry out improvement works to its properties but is required to ensure that the windows in the property are not in disrepair in the interim.
  4. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is for major works; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case in conjunction with the landlord’s repair and maintenance priorities and budgetary considerations. In this case, the resident has stated that the property was cold because of the windows and that this rendered his property unusable in part.  Whilst it is not disputed that the windows did require replacement and may not have been providing the same level of insulation as new windows, there is no evidence that the windows rendered the property uninhabitable. Consequently, the landlord was not required to decant or move the resident or to offer him compensation for half of his rent for any period of time.
  5. In terms of the timeframe, however, the landlord initially advised the resident that the windows would be replaced in the 2016/2017 financial year.  The resident therefore had a reasonable expectation that they would be replaced within this timeframe and his expectation was not met or managed thereafter. 
  6. On occasion, there can be delays to major works and it is not unreasonable for this to happen where there are issues that need resolving before works commence; it is better to get things right at the start.  However, the landlord did not ultimately replace the windows until 2020 – up to four years after it communicated that it would.  This delay was unacceptable.  The reason the landlord has given it due to budgetary constraints and whilst there were financial implications, it is not good enough to advise a resident that major works are going ahead and then fail to do so for a number of years because of this and moreover, to not keep the resident updated as to the situation and when he might reasonably be expected to receive the upgrade.
  7. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations initially or later, when it then advised that the windows would be replaced in 2018/19, which also did not happen. As previously stated, no evidence has been provided as to the condition of the windows at the time the decision was made to replace them, but to agree to major works to do this, indicates that the condition was sufficiently depleted and beyond repair, requiring renewal.  During this delay, it would be expected for the condition of the windows to continue to worsen, which was not accounted for in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  8. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its response to the complaint, that there was service failure in respect of the delay to installing the windows, offering £500 compensation in recognition of this, as well as £300 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £150 for service failure in its complaints handling. The compensation offered by the landlord was the maximum for service failure and for complaints handling, in accordance with its compensation guidance and falls within the compensation amount the Ombudsman would consider for maladministration; going beyond a failure of service.
  9. The complaint responses were delayed at all three stages of the complaints procedure and not only were the complaint responses themselves delayed, but there was delay in escalating the complaint internally and a lack of communication and updates provided to the resident about his complaint. The compensation offered reflects these failings. 
  10. There is a reasonable expectation for a complaint to be pursued by a resident and there were gaps in time where there was no chasing of the complaint, as would be expected where there are keen attempts to get a matter resolved. However, it is noted that the set of circumstances in this case meant that there was essentially nothing to chase until the end of the financial year, by which time, the windows were expected to have been replaced.
  11. Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the issues raised and a chance to put things right.  An offer of compensation is not the only way to put things right; often an explanation of what has gone wrong and why and an apology, is equally, if not more, important.  It is also important for a landlord to show that it has taken the matter seriously and identified any learning going forward, to help prevent a recurrence.
  12. The landlord did not apologise for what had happened in its complaints responses or show that it had heard the issues the resident had raised about the property being cold or express empathy with his situation.  Whilst the landlord was not obliged to pay the resident in excess of £8000 compensation, it unreasonably shut down his request without exploring the reasons behind it. The landlord could have done more in respect of its customer service in responding to the complaint.
  13. The landlord advised the resident that it had learned lessons from the complaint, making changes, including to its structure, going forward; demonstrating learning from complaints is advocated by the Ombudsman as being good complaints handling practise. The implementation of the ‘property team’ does not seem to directly address the root cause of the issues in this case, however, around delay to major works.
  14. Notwithstanding this, taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, the landlord’s offer of compensation for service failure and complaints handling were the maximum in accordance with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman finds this to be reasonable redress of the matter.  The further offer of £300 for the resident’s time and trouble is also reasonable, being at the upper end of what the landlord will offer in accordance with its compensation policy and reasonably reflects the time and trouble made by the resident in pursuing his complaint.
  15. The landlord was entitled to put this compensation towards the debt accrued by the resident in his rent arrears, in accordance with its compensation policy and this is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.  Finally, it is noted that the windows have now been replaced.

Determination

  1. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “at any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that  the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was reasonable redress insofar as the landlord offered the resident compensation in accordance with its policy and commensurate to the service failures found.  It made service improvements to help prevent a recurrence and carried out the works to replace the windows.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. In the interest of maintaining the landlord/tenant relationship, the landlord to issue an apology to the resident regarding the lengthy delay to replacing the windows.
  2. The landlord to carry out a root cause analysis in respect of the complaint, in particular, paying attention to the reasons for the delay to the installing of new windows and expectation management, as well as communication and complaints handling.