Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202004518)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004518

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

25 March 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 handling of:
1. the repairs following the report of a leak, including the installation of a new kitchen
2. the disposal of the resident’s belongings
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant since 9 March 2009. The property is described as a two-bedroom house.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to pay the weekly rent in advance and ‘ not to harass [the landlord’s] staff … contractors working on behalf of... We regard abusive behaviour as harassment and take it seriously.’
In addition, the tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property including the maintenance of installations supplying water. In addition, it advises that if it needs to carry out repairs which cannot be conducted with the resident in occupation, the resident is required to move out for as long as it takes for the works to be completed and the property should be reoccupied on the conclusion of the works.
The landlords’ repair policy has three repair categories. Emergency repairs which will be resolved within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 calendar days and major routine repairs within three months or as part of its planned programme of works.
The landlords’ decant process commences when a resident has to move out of their home on a temporary or permanent basis. The process details the different stages and outlines the documentation that requires completion. It advises that when explaining the process to the resident, this should include informing the resident that they remain responsible for the rent at their tenancy.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 28 days at both stages. Complaints are escalated to a complaints panel when the complaint response is overdue, unresolved and for those complaints referred to this Service. The complaints procedure advises that complaints about unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with under its unacceptable actions policy.
The landlords’ compensation policy recognises that there may be occasions when service failure occurs or it needs to provide a financial remedy to its residents and sets out its approach to doing so. In addition, it advises that residents’ cannot claim for compensation for ‘damage to personal items unless the damage has been caused by its actions’ and that any award of compensation will be offset against any debt owed to it.

Summary of events

It is recorded on the landlord’s internal records on 28 May 2020, that there were a number of outstanding repairs to the resident’s home including: leak to a radiator, defective socket in the kitchen and a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen and living room. On the same day, an appointment was raised to trace the leak from the bathroom.
On 15 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise of a flood in the bathroom, requested an update on the new kitchen she had been promised and she made a subject access request.
The resident rang to report a leak in the bathroom on 17 June 2020. The landlord terminated the telephone call with the resident due to her alleged unacceptable behaviour. The same day 17 June 2020, an emergency repair was raised to remedy the leak and the landlord’s notes record that the operatives left the property due to the resident’s behaviour. The landlord then arranged for the operatives to reattend to make the property safe.
The same day (17 June 2020), the resident called the landlord to complain that the operatives who had attended to carry out the emergency repair, did not wear masks, the leak was still occurring and she was concerned that the ceiling would collapse. She requested information on when the work to renew the bathroom would start.
The resident called on two occasions on 18 June 2020 to report that the leak was uncontrollable. It is noted on the landlord’s records that the first call was terminated and that the resident used unacceptable language.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord’s records:
1. that the resident would not allow the operative to access the bath panel to resolve the leak.
2. that the contractors had refused to undertake further works at the resident’s home.
3. in light of the resident’s alleged behaviour, the landlord would agree the next steps to resolve the outstanding repairs to her home and the resident was informed.
It is recorded that the tenancy sustainment officer was advised on 19 June 2020 of the contractor’s decision not to attend the resident’s property due to her alleged inappropriate behaviour during telephone contact.
The out of hours team communicated on two separate occasions with the resident on the following day 20 June 2020, regarding the leak from the bathroom which she described as uncontainable, and an appointment was arranged for the plumber to attend on the next working day 22 June 2020. The repair records do not indicate whether an operative attended.
The resident telephoned the landlord to report on 24 June 2020 that the property was unhabitable and on 25 June 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to advise that the front room ceiling had collapsed. In response, the out of hours service attended the same day (25 June 2020) and identified a fault with the heating pipe.
It is noted that the leak caused damage to the kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom, consequently the works were allocated to a project team to manage. The landlord decided to install a new kitchen as part of the programme of works.
It is noted on the landlord’s record of 25 June 2020 that:
1. a decant was agreed for the resident as the living room ceiling required replacement and alternative accommodation was provided.
2. its work order included a deep clean of the property, remove damaged carpets, take photos and not to remove the furniture.
On 28 June 2020, the sustainment officer was nominated as the resident’s point of contact.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 July 2020 that on 22 July 2020 she had arrived home to find that its contractor had opened the door she kept locked and had thrown out her personal items such as her passport and other ‘sentimental ‘ items. She advised that the contractor had told her they were advised to throw everything out and that she had been treated with a lack of respect. In addition, when she was leaving the property, the contractor arrived cycling her daughter’s bike and this had further eroded all faith that she had in the landlord.
On 5 August 2020, the resident added to her complaint that as she was not living in the property, she questioned why she was liable for the rent.
The works completion certificate records on 17 August 2020 that the sofa needed cleaning and the gas certificate needed to be conducted.
The resident returned to her tenancy and chased the response to her complaint on 7 September 2020 and on 14 October 2020.
On 25 November 2020 she contacted the landlord regarding a compensation payment for the items that were destroyed, carpet for the bedroom and questioned what was happening regarding the credit for her rent.
The resident chased the complaint response again on 3 December 2020.
The landlord’s record on 8 December 2020 noted that the contractor was unable to complete the repairs in the resident’s home as she would not allow access.
The landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint on 18 January 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. It recognised that:
1. though there was no record of her items being removed or damaged, it was likely that this had occurred as its contractors thought the property was empty.
2. since she had returned home, the property had been post–inspected and only minor works were outstanding to decorate her bedroom on 25 January 2021 and install the bedroom carpet on 27 January 2021.
3. it awarded £150.00 compensation: £75 for time and trouble in making the complaint and £75 for poor complaint handling.
4. signposted her to make an insurance claim for her belongings
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 January 2021 unhappy that she had to liaise with different members of staff, the repairs remained unresolved, and the complaint had been ongoing for 4 months. In addition, she advised that if she received another warning letter for her rent, she would be made homeless and stated that the landlord had made comments that could be considered as ‘slander’ and ‘negligent.’
It is recorded on the landlord’s internal email that on 25 January 2021 the resident called as the subcontractors were due to start the decoration works to the bedroom and no one had arrived.
On the same day (25 January 2021) the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure, as she was unhappy with the delay with the work to install the carpet and decorate the bedroom, wanted to decline the compensation and felt that the response did not address her concerns.
The resident called the landlord on 26 January 2021 chasing the response to the complaint. She requested for an inspection to take place as she was unhappy with the quality of the works that had been carried out in her property.
It is recorded on 28 January 2021 that the landlord’s contractor had spoken with the resident and the decorative work to the bedroom would start on 3 February 2021 and the carpet would be fitted on 8 February 2021. The resident was informed that she would need to clear the bedroom for the work to be carried out.
The landlord responded to the resident on 28 January 2021 advising:
1. it would coordinate the communication for the outstanding work to her bedroom and the snagging work she had identified to the kitchen
2. that it accepted that its contractors had been negligent; that the damaged items would be dealt with as a public liability claim
3. that it would make a goodwill gesture of £950, recognising that she was waiting for a decision on the public liability claim for the items that had been damaged or removed by its contractors.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 2 February 2021 advising that the resident refused to complete the Covid 19 screening and that she had requested assistance in emptying the bedroom. The contractor confirmed that it could not undertake work in the resident’s home without the completion of the Covid 19 screening questions.
The same day ( 2 February 2021) the resident contacted the landlord and requested that the landlord move and store her items before the work commenced and chased the complaint response.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 3 February 2021 advising that the resident had been in contact to request an update. The Covid19 screening questions had not been answered and reiterated that it would not start the decorative work or the installation of the carpet until the answers to the screening questions were supplied.
The resident contacted the landlord about being charged rent for two properties on 3 February 2021. In response the landlord contacted the resident on 11 February 2021 and confirmed that the goodwill gesture of £950 offered towards her cost of replacing the items was distinct from the compensation award of £150 made at the first stage of the complaint’s procedure. It accepted that the costs of her damaged goods may exceed the amount of the good will gesture so it had signposted her to make a liability claim.
It is noted that on 18 February 2021, the landlord explored with the tenancy team whether a member of staff could be present when the contractor was carrying out the outstanding work to the resident’s bedroom.
The landlord and the resident communicated on 21 February 2021 about the outstanding work. The resident advised that she had been waiting for 2 weeks for the work to start, appointments had been missed by the contractor and she was still paying full rent. In addition, no one had taken responsibility for the fact that her property had been thrown away and damaged. The landlord responded that the work could start on 1 March 2021 on condition that the Covid 19 screening was completed, and the room was empty to allow the carpet installation to take place. Communication continued between the resident and the landlord at the end of February 2021 regarding the carpets and decorations.
On 1 March 2021, the resident called to say that the contractors had attended without an appointment, inspected the room, stated that as the room was obstructed, they had left the property without carrying out the work.
It is noted that the landlord visited the residents’ home on 1 March 2021 and assessed the kitchen with its contractor. The resident expressed disappointment that since the installation, the cupboard space was reduced by one wall unit, the wall unit shelves could not be adjusted, and the worktop was misaligned. She also raised that there were defects to the flooring on the staircase and to the hallway. The landlord advised that the kitchen met the decent homes standard as it was useable, and the kitchen specification was an upgrade to the usual installations. In light of that, it would not be carrying out any further work or installing any alternative units.
The landlord’s internal records note on 2 March 2021 that the resident was referred to the income team to discuss her rent liability.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaints procedure on 26 March 2021 and identified that:
1. there had been a failure in its service, consequently her belongings were not treated appropriately and were left outside for several hours
2. it had decided it would not use its contractors who manage empty properties to undertake work on occupied homes
3. signposted her to make a liability claim for the damage and agreed a goodwill payment of £950 to enable her to acquire replacement items in the short term
4. recognised that there were other outstanding works that needed to take place; once she completed the Covid 19 screening questions and cleared the bedroom
5. its contractors had refused to return to her address, therefore it proposed to make a good will payment of £1000; £750 for her to fit and install the bedroom carpet and £250 towards the cost of decorating the bedroom
6. the post inspection conducted on 1 March 2021 had not identified any hazards to the flooring within the property
7. the kitchen met the decent home standard and it would not be undertaking any further work
8. it was willing to conduct a further inspection to her home, this was dependent on her behaviour towards its staff changing
  1. In summary, it offered redress of £1000 for the resident to install the carpet and decorate the bedroom, £950 for the resident to replace the damaged items in advance of the liability claim process, £300 for the delay in completing the works, £300 for the time and trouble experienced and the £150 awarded at the stage one of the complaint process. It recognised that the resident had experienced inconvenience and distress and offered its apologies for this.
The resident approached this Service on 16 March 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She explained that she wanted the landlord to replace the carpet and there was miscommunication regarding the advice it purported was given regarding the outstanding works. As an outcome, she wanted compensation for the damaged furniture and items that were removed without her permission.
After the complaint process, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 24 May 2021 about the delay in receiving the inventory for the items that were damaged in the flood and that the housing team had threatened her with losing her tenancy.
In addition, the resident and the landlord discussed whether it was appropriate to pay the £750 compensation to her rent account.

Assessment and findings

the handling of the repairs following a leak, including the replacement of the kitchen

It is the role of the Ombudsman to consider whether the landlord has followed its procedures, how it responded to the resident’s repair reports and to the concerns she raised and assess whether it acted in a reasonable manner, having regard to its repairing obligations, timescales, and any other applicable procedures. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior and structure of the property.
It is not possible to determine from the landlord’s evidence when the resident started reporting leaks in her bathroom prior to the records dated 28 May 2020, however, the landlord’s records indicate there was a leak in the resident’s bathroom at this time. Between 17 and 25 June 2020 the repair records evidence that the landlord attempted to resolve the issue with the water leak. However, the repairs it conducted only temporarily addressed the issues as there were disputes between the landlord’s staff/contractors and the resident which prevented the completion of the repairs. This involved the operatives walking off site due to the resident’s alleged behaviour. Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to ensure that its staff and contractors work in a safe environment whilst delivering a responsive service, this meant that the water leak escalated to the point that it caused the ceilings to collapse in the property.
In order to carry out the required repairs the resident was awarded decant status and as part of the package of works the landlord installed a new kitchen. The resident has expressed that she is disappointed with the new kitchen layout as the installation has reduced the amount of wall unit space that is now available, that the work top is misaligned, and she is unable to adjust the shelving within the wall mounted units.
The landlord has determined that the kitchen is compliant with the decent homes standard, is functional and it is not prepared to make any further changes unless a repair is required. The resident has not highlighted any significant defects with the kitchen and the available evidence indicates that the landlord has taken the appropriate steps to investigate the issue. It has carried out an inspection, considered the residents’ concerns and agreed to carry out a further inspection to discuss the snagging issues she had identified. The landlord has acted reasonably as it remains willing to understand the residents’ concerns regarding the kitchen installation as well as other repair related matters.
The resident reported her frustration in having to liaise with different departments to coordinate the outstanding work once she had returned home. In order to achieve a resolution to the outstanding issues, the landlord agreed to act as a liaison to coordinate communication about the work and considered having a member of its tenancy team attend with the contractor given their fractured relationship. These were reasonable steps to take to facilitate the completion of the works.
The contractor advised the landlord that before the work could commence, it required that the Covid 19 screening questions be completed and that it required for the bedroom to be clear of furniture. When this did not occur, it advised the landlord that it would not be able to carry out the work to the resident’s home. The Covid 19 screenings questions were part of the contractor’s health and safety checks introduced as part of the public health measures. It was reasonable for the contractor to request for the Covid 19 questions to be completed. After the landlord concluded that it did not have alternative contractors that could assist with the decoration of the bedroom or the installation of the carpet, given the length of time that the issues had been outstanding, it was reasonable for it to offer a good will gesture to the resident of £1000.00 to install a new carpet and complete decorations, recognising that the situation could not continue to drift and a resolution was required.
The landlord undertook a package of works including the installation of a new kitchen when it carried out repairs to the resident’s home and made an award of compensation of £750 in recognition of the delay in carrying out the work, time and trouble that the resident had experienced. In addition, it offered £1000.00 as of a good will gesture to enable the resident to arrange the installation of the carpet and to decorate the bedroom represented appropriate redress for this failure.

The disposal of her belongings

The landlord issued a works order for its contractor to carry out a deep clean and remove the damaged carpets and accepts that the contractor failed to act in accordance with its instructions. There was a serious service failing as the contractor removed the resident’s belongings including her passport, items of sentimental value and furniture from her property.
The landlord has acknowledged the impact this has had on the resident and acted appropriately by apologising to her for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. It organised for the return of some of her personal belongings, accepted that its contractors had damaged or removed her personal property and acknowledged that this was a failing on behalf of its contractors. In addition, it reviewed its processes to ensure that going forward this type of work would not be passed to its voids contractors to prevent the situation reoccurring.
The landlord has confirmed that the resident can make a claim for damage to her belongings and has signposted the resident to make a public liability claim for the damage to her belongings. It is not within the Ombudsman authority to determine whether the contractors have been negligent in this regard as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to make a public liability claim.
However, the landlord recognised that the resident returned home following the decant without some necessary items and agreed a good will gesture of £950 for the resident to obtain replacement items in advance of the determination of the insurance liability claim.
In summary, the landlord has accepted and acknowledged that there was a serious service failing which lead to the removal and damage of the residents’ belonging and signposted her to make a public liability claim. In addition, it made an offer of a good will gesture in advance of a decision of the public liability claim and that is sufficient redress for its failings.

Complaint handling

The resident complained about the contractors’ action in July 2020 after she visited her home and found the contractor had disposed of her goods. She chased the landlord on 3 separate occasions before it issued its stage one complaint response on 18 January 2021 – 6 months late. For its service failure, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding at the first stage of the complaints procedure and offered £150.00. This was broken down as £75.00 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and £75.00 for poor complaint handling. This was sufficient redress as the resident had to repeatedly chase the complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2020 to request that it include her concerns about the rent liability during the period she was decanted. She chased this issue with the landlord on 25 November 2020 and 22 January 2021 querying whether she was liable for the rent on two properties and that she was receiving warning letters about her rent. The decant process makes clear that the resident is responsible for the rent on her tenancy while she was occupying alternative accommodation. However, the landlord failed to address this issue and missed an opportunity to clarify its position regarding the rent liability in its complaint response. This may have reduced the uncertainty and confusion that she expressed about the matter. In addition, the resident had contacted the landlord to advise that she had received a warning letter about her rent, therefore, this issue was of significant importance to her.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2021 and the landlord responded on 26 March 2021. The response to the resident exceeded its published timescale as the landlord took 2 months to respond. This was a short coming which prevented the resident from obtaining a comprehensive response to her complaint and clarity on the landlord’s position regarding the outstanding works to her home.
The landlord’s records note allegations regarding the resident’s behaviour towards its’ staff and the contractor. The allegations are disputed by the resident. The landlord did not address the allegations about the residents’ alleged behaviour during the complaints process, rather it recognised that the issue was distinct from the residents’ complaint about her experience and should be considered more appropriately under its unacceptable actions policy.
The resident questioned whether the landlord was correct in its decision to pay the compensation award of £750 to her rent account. As the landlord’s policy allows it to do so when there are outstanding rent arrears then this was a reasonable approach to take as it was in line with its compensation procedure.
In summary, the landlord delayed in answering the initial complaint within its published timescales and failed to provide an answer to the residents’ query about her rent liability during the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of handling of the repairs following the report of a leak including the installation of a new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the disposal of the resident’s belongings
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged its service failures regarding the delay in completing the work, the actions of its contractors. In addition, it has considered the impact on the resident and provided an appropriate remedy through its offer of compensation.
The landlord acknowledged that a significant serious failure occurred once its’ contractor did not protect the resident’s personal belongings whilst works were being undertaken to remedy the leak in the resident’s home. It took steps to minimise the impact on the resident through the compensation and the good will gestures that it made.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s rent liability in its complaint response and its complaints responses exceeded its published time limits.

Orders

The landlord should
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. write to the resident and clarify its position regarding the resident’s rent liability for the decant period in line with its decant process
The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for not addressing its position regarding the rent liability within its complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.