Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202010483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010483

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

26 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of the communal fire alarm at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property following the installation of the communal fire alarm.
3. Decision to include charges for the maintenance of the communal fire alarm in the service charge.
4. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s decision to include charges for the maintenance of the communal fire alarm in the service charge.
On 19 December 2019 the resident spoke with the landlord. The landlord’s note of the conversation says, “The customer is still querying the service charge for the fire & safety.”
Paragraph 39 (g) says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove the communal fire alarm, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property following the installation of the communal fire alarm and the landlord’s complaints handling are assessed below.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of a ground floor flat in a three-storey block of flats (“the block”). The landlord, a housing association is the freeholder of the property.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At both stages complaints should be acknowledged within five working days. At stage one a complaint response would be sent within ten days of acknowledging the complaint. If more time is required, the landlord will agree a new response time with the resident and will update the resident weekly beyond the initial ten days. At stage two the landlord will provide a full and final response to the complaint within 20 days following a full investigation of the complaint. If the landlord needs further time to investigate, it will agree a further extension with the customer up to 30 days in total.
The landlord’s repairs guide for leaseholders says that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments lists the following compensation amounts:
1. For missed appointments: £10 per missed appointment up to a maximum of five appointments.
2. For complaints handling: £150 depending on the severity of the failure.
3. For time and trouble where there has been a longer period of delay and the resident has had to chase several times: £51 – £150.
In 2018 the landlord installed a new fire alarm system in the communal area of the block. Sometime following this the landlord informed the resident that the fire alarm was not suitable for the building and that it would be removed.
On 24 January 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord concerning several outstanding repair issues following damage caused to the communal areas and to the internal wall of the resident’s property during the installation of a fire alarm system in the block.
The landlord visited the property on 08 April 2019 and identified the remedial works that were required to rectify the damage caused during the alarm installation.
The landlord arranged for its contractors to carry out the works on 16 July 2019, however the works were not carried out.
The fire alarm was scheduled to be removed on 9 September 2019. However, the removal did not go ahead.
The resident informed the landlord in September 2019 that the repairs had not been completed.
In October 2019 the landlord informed the resident that, although its contractors had attended the property, they hadn’t carried out any repair work. The works were scheduled to be carried out on 27 November 2019. This appointment date wasn’t convenient for the resident and the landlord carried out the repairs on 7 December 2019.
The resident informed the landlord that he was not happy with the quality of the repair works but the landlord informed him that no further works were required.
During the landlord’s visit to the property on 7 December 2019 the resident raised concerns that the fire alarm had not been removed. The resident was also concerned that he was being charged for the maintenance of the alarm in his service charge.
On 19 December 2019 the landlord decided to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process (a stage one response had not been issued).
The landlord maintains that in January 2020 it advised the resident that, due to budgetary constraints, the removal of the fire alarm would take place from April 2020 unless any risks were identified at the property which necessitated an earlier removal.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 18 May 2020 the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 17 July 2020 the resident submitted an online complaints form to the landlord saying that he was still waiting for a response to his complaint and a date for the removal of the alarm.
On 21 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s income team concerning his service charge and said that he was still waiting for a response to his complaint. The income team said it would chase the complaints team for a response and provided the resident with the complaints team’s email address.
On 31 July 2020 the resident sent the landlord’s complaints team an email asking for a response to his complaint. The landlord replied on 3 August 2020 asking for the resident to confirm his full name, full address and complaint reference number if he had one so it could forward his email to the relevant caseworker to provide an update. The resident replied the following day with his full name and address.
On 28 August 2020, 1 September 2020 and 13 September 2020 the resident sent further emails to the landlord asking for an update on his complaint. The resident also received, and responded to, further requests for his full name and address so the landlord could contact the relevant caseworker.
In September 2020 the landlord sent the resident a letter saying that the alarm would be removed in due course.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. In its complaint response the landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint about the length of time it had taken to arrange the removal of the fire alarm system.
2. Acknowledged that the fire alarm should have been removed in September 2019, but this hadn’t occurred due to budgetary constraints at the time.
3. Apologised that the resident had spent a lot of time chasing the landlord to remove the alarm and acknowledged that this was a great source of frustration for the resident.
4. Apologised that a number of appointments were missed that had been arranged to inspect the damage caused when fitting the alarm system.
5. Acknowledged that due to a number of changes in staff, his complaint was reallocated to several members of staff which had been a great source of frustration for the resident as he had experienced poor levels of communication.
6. Apologised for any inconvenience caused by its poor complaints communication and said that it had addressed this internally to ensure it prevented a repeat occurrence.
7. Offered £125 compensation for poor complaints handling.
8. Offered £40 compensation for missed appointments
9. Offered £100 for time and trouble.
The landlord’s letter dated 12 November 2020 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of the communal fire alarm at the property

The landlord upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint and:
1. Acknowledged that the fire alarm should have been removed in September 2019.
2. Apologised that the resident had spent a lot of time chasing the landlord to remove the alarm and acknowledged that this was a great source of frustration for the resident.
3. Offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (set out in the previous paragraph), put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Whilst the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging that it should have removed the alarm in September 2019 and in apologising for the time the resident spent chasing the landlord it did not put things right as:
1. It did not remove the alarm, nor provide the resident with a date for the removal.
2. The delays in responding to the resident’s enquiries about the alarm removal were significant, even allowing for the delays as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions (see paragraphs 22 to 24). Despite being told that the alarm would be removed in September 2019 the resident only received updates from the landlord about the removal on two occasions, in January 2020 and September 2020. Neither update confirmed when the alarm would be removed, and both were given in response to the resident’s requests for information. Compensation of £100 was therefore not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation at the maximum level set out in its tariff of discretionary compensation payments (see paragraph 10 above) for time and trouble where there has been a longer period of delay and the resident has had to chase the landlord, which would be £150.
The landlord provided no evidence to show that it had learnt from outcomes so that similar delays did not occur in the future.
The landlord’s response was therefore not reasonable because the measures taken to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property following the installation of the communal fire alarm

In responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint the landlord apologised that a number of appointments were missed that had been arranged to inspect the damage caused when fitting the alarm system and offered £40 compensation for missed appointments.
The £40 compensation was appropriate and in line with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments for missed appointments (see paragraph 10 above).
However, the landlord did not address the time taken to carry out the repairs. From the evidence seen by the Ombudsman it is not clear when the resident reported the repairs required to the communal areas of the block and to the wall in his flat following the installation of the alarm. However, it would appear that the repairs were reported sometime before the resident made his formal complaint on 24 January 2019. The repairs were carried out on 7 December 2019, 317 calendar days after the resident made his complaint, and therefore at least 289 calendar days outside the landlord’s 28 calendar days timescale for carrying out routine repairs (see paragraph 9 above).
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property following the installation of the communal fire alarm was therefore inappropriate and represents a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman will be making an order for compensation in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling

In response to this aspect of the complaint the landlord:
1. Acknowledged and apologised that due to a number of changes in staff the resident had experienced poor levels of communication.
2. Said that it had addressed the poor communication internally to ensure it prevented a repeat occurrence.
3. Offered £125 compensation.
The landlord’s complaints handling was inappropriate and in breach of the provisions of its complaints policy (see paragraph 8 above) as:
1. No stage one complaint response was sent, despite the landlord’s complaints process saying that one should be sent within ten days of acknowledging the complaint.
2. Having not sent a stage one response within ten days of acknowledging the complaint the landlord failed to agree a new response time with the resident or to update the resident weekly beyond the initial ten days.
3. The landlord did not provide a response to the complaint until 22 November 2020, 658 days after the resident made the complaint and 329 days after deciding to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The complaint response was therefore provided 621 days later than the acknowledgment and response times set out in the landlord’s competition policy.
4. The landlord did not agree an extension with the resident in order to have further time to investigate the complaint at stage two.
5. The resident incurred time and trouble in having to chase the landlord to provide its complaints response.
6. The landlord’s failure to address the complaint caused the resident delays in being able to bring his complaint to this Service.
The sum of £125 is below the range of remedies set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident, a resident being repeatedly passed between staff, significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the resident.
As set out in paragraph 43 above the landlord’s complaint handing failures were significant and an apology and £125 compensation did not put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings.
The landlord’s response was therefore not appropriate, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of the communal fire alarm at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property following the installation of the communal fire alarm.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that it should have removed the alarm in September 2019, apologised for the time the resident spent chasing the landlord but did not provide a date for the removal of the alarm nor pay compensation that was proportionate to the impact that its failings had on the resident.
The landlord apologised for missing appointments to carry out the repair work and offered appropriate compensation. However, the landlord demonstrated inappropriate delay in carrying out the repairs.
The landlord’s complaints handling failures were significant and it did not pay compensation that was proportionate to the impact that its failings had on the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to:
1. Pay the resident compensation (in addition to the £265 already paid) totalling £500, made up of:
  1. a further £50 for the time and trouble incurred in chasing the landlord for information about the removal of the fire alarm.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repairs following the installation of the fire alarm.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. Provide the resident with an update as to when the fire alarm will be removed.