The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202006931)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006931

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

8 March 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 Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s report about a fault with the boiler.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property concerned is a two-bedroom flat, and at the time of the complaint the resident was an assured tenant. However, the resident no longer resides at the property.
  2. Whilst there are no recorded vulnerabilities for the household, the resident does have children.
  3. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will “maintain any installations we provide for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity.”

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and includes instances of total loss of heating. However, if replacement parts need “to be sourced, ordered and fitted” the repair may take a further seven days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states complaints will be acknowledged within five working days of receipt              and where possible it will investigate and respond within 10 working days. Should the resident wish to escalate their case to stage two, the landlord will respond within 20 working days. Where this is not possible, the landlord will keep the resident informed and agree a new response time. The Complaint Pilot Process Flow Stage 2 states weekly contact is required as a minimum.
  3. The landlord has a discretionary compensation payment tariff which can be used in cases of service failure, poor complaint handling, loss of earnings, missed appointments, to take account of the time and trouble to complain or to reimburse the resident for costs or loss/damage to belongings. The amounts payable vary depending on the severity of the circumstances.

Summary of events

  1. On 23 May 2020, the resident contacted her landlord to report that she had no heating and hot water, and the boiler was showing code f.22. Code f.22 relates to the water pressure being too low for the boiler to operate correctly. The resident states she informed the landlord the boiler was leaking but the landlord states it has no record of this.
  2. The report was categorised as ‘Priority 1’, with a target date for repair of 24 May 2020. Due to CV-19 the landlord’s contractor was operating telephone consultations to resolve issues remotely where possible. The resident states she was advised to turn the boiler off and on again, to continue to do so over the weekend if the fault reoccurred and to call back if she could not manage. The resident states she was advised someone would attend the property on the bank holiday Monday. The records show the job was marked as completed on 24 May 2020.
  3. Dissatisfied with the advice provided by the landlord’s contractor, the resident states she googled the fault code where she discovered it was due to low pressure, and after watching a video she found, she reset the pressure manually. The resident states this fix lasted two to three days, after which the pressure dropped again, and she started to use a bucket to catch the water from the leak.
  4. The contact history document shows the resident used the landlord’s online service to contact them on 26 May 2020, though the document does not provide any information about what the contact related to.
  5. The repairs records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 27 May 2020 and reported she had no heating or hot water, and the pressure was low. Again, the resident states she advised the landlord the boiler was leaking but the landlord states it has no record of this. The report was categorised as ‘Priority 1’ with a target date for repair of 28 May 2020.
  6. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 28 May 2020. In its stage two response the landlord stated the report from the contractor did not mention a leak being present. The landlord has not provided a copy of this report to the Ombudsman. According to the landlord, the contractor repressurised the boiler and it was in working order when the contractor left. According to the resident, due to social distancing measures she directed the contractor to the kitchen, he looked at the boiler for approximately two minutes and when he left the pressure on the boiler was still low.
  7. On 2 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord for the third time to report that she had no heating or hot water. The evidence shows during the third visit the contractor identified the boiler was leaking and a new part was required.
  8. On 6 June 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord by email. The landlord’s contact history document states this contact was received on 11 June 2020. In the complaint the resident explains her ongoing issues with the boiler leaking, showing fault f.22 and leaving her without heating and hot water. She explained the boiler was now leaking from three places, she was having to use a bucket which she had changed twice, and her floor tiles had been flooded. The resident requested that the part be chased up “as advised by out of hours today” and the issue sorted. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  9. On 11 June 2020, the contractor attended and fitted the new part to the boiler.
  10. On 29 June 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response. It explained whilst it had attended all appointments within its timeframe, there was a delay in completing the repair which could have been avoided. The landlord awarded £40 in compensation in recognition of the delay in the repair being completed.
  11. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 30 June 2020. The landlord responded to her request on 16 July 2020. In its email to the resident, it acknowledged that she had been without heating and hot water for a total of 14 days and that it did not know whether she had been provided with alternative heating. It advised it aimed to respond to the complaint by 31 July 2020. The resident responded reiterating she had reported the boiler was leaking when she first reported it and confirmed that she had not been supplied with alternative heating. She also explained that the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend an agreed follow up appointment on 8 July 2020.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response on 20 July 2020. It apologised for the missed appointment and said it would include this in her complaint as a failed appointment. The landlord established the contractor had booked an appointment but then cancelled it as a follow up appointment was not needed.
  13. On 5 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask if there had been a resolution to her complaint. The landlord responded the following day advising it hoped to have completed the response that day and following review, it should be sent to the resident on 11 August 2020.
  14. The decision letter was sent to senior management for review on 7 August 2020. There was a discussion regarding whether the telephony records had been checked and it was confirmed the landlord’s system had not been recording anything “for a large proportion of staff in June so there are no recorded inbound or outbound calls stored on the system” for 2-11 June 2020 from the resident’s number. The stage 2 decision letter was sent to the resident on 14 August 2020.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay in its response and provided a summary of its investigation. It noted there were some differences between what the resident said she had reported and the information it held on its systems. Namely they had no record of a leak being reported on 23 or 27 May 2020 and that there was no record of any calls to them between 2 and 11 June 2020, when the resident stated she had called them “numerous times” chasing the part. The landlord explained that if the resident had reported a leak its contractor would have needed to attend “rather than just carry out a consultation on how to fix the error f.22 over the phone.”
  16. The landlord concluded it was upholding the resident’s complaint overall because it believed it was “entirely possible that the first operative could have neglected to mention or notice a minor leak in the short space of time he was actually in attendance.” The landlord also acknowledged it had not provided the resident with alternative heating between 2 and 11 June 2020 and that it could have done more to resolve the situation sooner. The landlord stated the offer of £40 compensation at stage one was generous but did not account for the time and trouble element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore awarded £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused, bringing the total compensation to £90. The landlord noted the damage to the resident’s tiles could not be evidenced and it could not award compensation for the resident using her towels and scarf to mop up the water caused by the leak. The landlord did not include the cancelled appointment in the resident’s complaint, as it said it would.
  17. The resident asked the Housing Ombudsman to review her complaint on 8 October 2020. The resident has provided a copy of her itemised billing statement in support of her complaint. This evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord:
    1. Once on 23 May 2020,
    2. Three times on 26 May 2020,
    3. Three times on 27 May 2020,
    4. Four times on 2 June 2020,
    5. Once on 6 June 2020, and
    6. Once on 10 June 2020.
  18. None of these calls are shown on the Customer Service Contact History document the landlord has provided.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s report about a fault with the boiler

  1. The evidence shows the resident first reported the issue with her boiler on 23 May 2020. The landlord’s contractor rang the resident and completed an assessment over the telephone and, according to the resident, advised the boiler should be turned off and on and that she should repeat this as necessary over the weekend. The resident states she informed the landlord at this initial call her boiler was leaking. The landlord has stated its records show there was no report of a leak on 23 or 27 May 2020 and that if the resident had reported a leak on 23 May 2020 a contractor would have had to attend, rather than completing a repair remotely. This suggests that the resident did report a leak on 27 May 2020 as otherwise a contractor would not have needed to attend the property.
  2. It is not clear what advice the resident was given by the contractor on 23 May 2020 but following the call she had to take steps herself to ensure she had heating and hot water over the weekend and ultimately, she had to contact the landlord again on 27 May 2020.
  3. The landlord’s repairs handbook states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, but, if replacement parts need “to be sourced, ordered and fitted” the repair may take a further seven days. The landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports within 24 hours and the repair was completed on 11 June 2020.
  4. The landlord has accepted that it is possible the contractor failed to mention or notice a leak during the short visit on 28 May 2020 and that the repair could have been completed sooner. It awarded £40 compensation due to the delay in completing the repair. The landlord has also accepted that it did not provide alternative heating but has not made an offer of redress in relation to this service failure. It has also not acknowledged or offered redress for the cancelled follow-up appointment.
  5. The landlord has stated it has no record of the resident contacting it by telephone between 2 and 11 June 2020. Evidence supplied by the landlord to the Housing Ombudsman Service shows it was experiencing issues with its telephony system in June. The resident has provided evidence that shows she contacted the landlord by telephone six times between 2 and 11 June 2020, as well as the email complaint she submitted on 6 June 2020. Whilst this evidence does not show who the resident spoke to and what the conversation was about, it does show the resident did contact the landlord during this time.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, whilst the £40 compensation is reasonable in relation to the delay in identifying the fault to and repairing the boiler, it does not account for the lack of heating and hot water for two weeks, the failure to provide alternative heating for the resident and her children or the cancelled follow-up appointment.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted an email complaint to the landlord on 6 June 2020.There was a delay in registering the complaint and the response was sent on 29 June 2020, which is outside of the 10-working day response time required by the policy.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 June 2020. There was a delay in responding to the stage two complaint and the response was issued on 14 August 2020, outside the 20-working day response time. The evidence shows there were internal discussions about the response showing the complaint was being progressed, however the resident had to chase for updates during this time and did not receive weekly contact as stated by the policy.
  3. The cancelled appointment was not included in the landlord’s stage two response even though it advised the resident it would do. The landlord did investigate this element but did not include its findings in its response. The evidence shows the contractor cancelled the appointment because a follow-up visit was not required. Whilst this is an acceptable reason for cancelling the appointment, the resident should have been informed of the cancellation.
  4. Whilst it is clear the landlord did not adhere to its policy throughout its handling of the complaint, it did apologise for the overall delay and has offered compensation of £50 for the time and trouble element of the resident’s complaint. The delays in the complaint handling process did not impact on the repair to the boiler and the compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the offer of compensation regarding the complaint handling to be reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a fault to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a fault did not meet the standard the Ombudsman would expect and resulted in the resident having to research the issue and manually reset the boiler herself. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident did report a leak on 27 May 2020 resulting in the landlord’s contractor attending the property the following day. The evidence suggests the contractor did not adequately inspect the boiler during this visit and missed the fact the boiler required a new part. If the boiler had been inspected thoroughly, the situation could have been rectified earlier. The landlord has relied on its call records to state there is no evidence the resident contacted them regarding the part for the boiler. However, the evidence supplied by the resident and the fact the landlord’s job tickets do not match up with call records, clearly demonstrates the landlord’s records in this respect are not accurate and the resident did chase the landlord several times regarding her repair. The landlord also failed to provide alternative heating sources.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its overall response to the complaint and the compensation offered is in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £90 compensation it has already awarded regarding the delay in identifying the fault and repairing the boiler and the time and trouble element of the complaint.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident an additional £80 in relation to the service failure related to the boiler consisting of:
    1. £50 for the period the resident was without heating and hot water,
    2. £20 for the failure to provide alternative heating, and
    3. £10 for failing to inform the resident of the cancelled appointment.
  3. The compensation, totaling £170 should be paid to the resident by 5 April 2021.

Recommendations

45.The landlord to review its record keeping and ensure its systems can adequately capture accurate data about its customer’s contact with it.