Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202010783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010783

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

12 August 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 that its contractors had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures when working in her property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding missed and unannounced appointments by its contractors.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns that cooking facilities were not provided during works to her kitchen.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.

Summary of events – complaint A

On 8 September 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding an appointment to inspect the property’s boiler. In summary the resident said:
1. The appointment was originally scheduled for 4 September 2020 between 8am and 1pm. The resident confirmed that at 12.50pm the contractor (contractor A) phoned to cancel the appointment.
2. The appointment was rearranged for 8 September 2020 between 8am and 10am however the engineer had not arrived. The resident set out that she phoned contractor A who cancelled the appointment as she “could not wait in until 1pm”. The resident confirmed that despite contractor A cancelling the appointment an operative turned up at 10.40am.
3. The attending operative did not:
  1. Have personal protective equipment (PPE).
  2. Wear gloves or a mask.
  3. Sanitize their hands before entering the property.
  4. Clean the surfaces which they had touched during the appointment.
  5. Clean their “computer log” prior to requesting that she sign to confirm the appointment.
4. It was “a disgrace” that the operative had attended without “appropriate attire or cleansing equipment”. The resident stated that the operative had put her “life at risk”. The resident noted that she was from the “black community and [had] been identified as one of a group particularly affected by Covid-19”.
5. The landlord should take immediate action to address the situation with contractor A.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in issuing its response.
2. It understood that there were two occasions when contractor A did not show up at the agreed time and that when the inspection was carried out the operative did not wear PPE or clean down surfaces. The landlord apologised for “the distress and inconvenience caused”.
3. It was “very disappointed to hear of these circumstances”. The landlord noted that it was “conscious that feedback [had] previously provided to [contractor A] regarding this matter”.
4. It was currently in contact with contractor A regarding the matter.
5. To prevent any further issues with the use of PPE it had requested that contractor A explain “exactly what steps [would] be taken to remedy the situation”. The landlord noted that while this action did not help with the resident’s recent experience, it hoped it would offer reassurance that it had taken the matter seriously.
6. In order to resolve the complaint it would like to offer the resident £95 compensation comprising £50 time and trouble, £25 poor complaint handling, and £10 for each delayed appointment.
On 2 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she was not happy with the landlord’s stage one response and would therefore like to escalate her complaint. The resident reiterated her concerns that the operative’s conduct during the appointment in relation to Covid-19 safety measures was unsatisfactory.
On 5 October 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident regarding her complaint. The landlord’s record of the conversation noted that it explained that it was unable to offer enhanced compensation in relation to the complaint due to the resident’s ethnicity.
On 6 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that she would accept the landlord’s offer of compensation.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident had requested to escalate her complaint as she did not believe that the compensation offered was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint. The landlord noted that the resident believed that its offer of compensation had failed to take into account “the increased risk Covid-19 [had] on those of a black or ethnic minority background”.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the operative had not worn PPE and complied with Covid-19 safety measures.
3. It had liaised with contractor A regarding the resident’s concerns who had provided “assurances” that feedback had been delivered to all operatives and that “appropriate safety precautions [were] now being taken on every visit”. The landlord confirmed that this included that PPE must always be worn during all appointments and that there was no requirement for customer signatures while the pandemic was ongoing.
4. Its residents’ health and safety was of “paramount importance to it” and it was sorry that its standards had “slipped in this instance”.
5. It had awarded £95 compensation in respect of the complaint. The landlord confirmed that while it noted the resident’s view that “data suggested those of black and ethnic minority background were more susceptible to severer symptoms of Covid-19, [its] policies [were] designed to be inclusive of all backgrounds”. The landlord explained that it could therefore not offer “different levels of compensation based on factors such as race”.
6. It understood that the resident had recently accepted its offer of compensation.

Summary of events – complaint B

On 21 October 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding an unannounced repair appointment in relation to the boiler. In summary the resident said:
1. Contractor A turned up announced in respect of her “heating” earlier that day. The resident confirmed that despite just waking up she consented to the appointment going ahead.
2. In response to the operative’s request to check each room she granted permission for all rooms to be checked apart from her bedroom. The resident stated that in response the operative had a “meltdown” and left without fixing the “lid for the boiler”.
3. The operative’s behaviour was inappropriate and unprofessional.
On 23 October 2020 the resident provided an addendum to her complaint. The resident reiterated that she felt that the operative’s behaviour was inappropriate and had made her feel uncomfortable in her own home.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to request to discuss the complaint. It is not clear if the resident responded to the landlord’s request.
On 1 and 17 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it was waiting for a response from contractor A in order to provide a full response to the concerns which she had raised.
On 27 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord said it had spoken with contractor A regarding the unannounced “servicing” appointment. The landlord set out that contractor A was sorry that the resident had not been given prior notification of the appointment and for the inconvenience this would have caused. The landlord confirmed that it was therefore “partly upholding the complaint” as an apology had been offered in respect of the announced appointment.
On 8 January 2021 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The resident stated that the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory as the response did not address the operative’s conduct during the appointment.
On 13 January 2021 the landlord provided its final response. The landlord said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as she had raised the same issues within her escalation which it had responded to at stage one.

Summary of events – complaint C

On 25 November 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding the contractor (contractor B) carrying out works to the kitchen. In summary the resident said:
1. She had had “a bad experience” with contractor B.
2. Despite reassurances that the attending operatives would wear PPE they did not.
3. During the works contractor B did not provide a “small stove to cook on”. The resident stated that as a result she was required to buy takeaways for “over three and a half weeks”.
On 26 November 2020, following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint, the resident wrote to the landlord setting out this was the “second time [her]health [had] been put in jeopardy” by its contractors not adhering to Covid-19 safety guidelines. Within her correspondence the resident noted that she was from an ethnic minority group and was therefore considered vulnerable.
On 7 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In order to investigate the complaint it had liaised with contractor B.
2. Contractor B had confirmed that the operatives in attendance were equipped with full PPE including masks and gloves.
3. During the works a duty of care was provided to the resident by contractor B. The landlord confirmed that this included creating a work zone for the operatives and requesting that the resident avoid communication with them when in the work zone.
4. While the operatives were working in the kitchen, the work zone, they removed their masks. The landlord noted that the resident was advised to not enter this area until the operatives had finished their work for the day and sanitised the surfaces. The landlord set out that the operatives had recorded that the resident entered the work zone before they had left the property.
5. While it appreciated that the resident was unable to access the kitchen while the operatives were working in it, she had access to the cooker and sink at the end of the day.
6. It was contractor B’s position that its operatives had adhered to its Covid-19 policy while in the property.
7. It could find no evidence of a service failure.
On the same day the resident requested to escalate her complaint. In response the landlord asked the resident to clarify the ground on which she wished to escalate her complaint.
On 8 December 2020 the resident responded stating that the landlord should “read [her] review” and “its for me to know and you to find out”.
On the same day the landlord confirmed that it was not able to escalate the complaint unless the resident explained her grounds for escalation. In response the resident said she did not want any more contact with the officer dealing with her complaint until they had received training. On receipt of the resident’s reply the landlord confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Contractor B had confirmed that on arrival the operatives wore “full PPE” and “efforts were made to minimise contact with [the resident]” by setting up zones. The landlord confirmed that the zones included a “safe area for [the resident] and a work area that [the resident] was advised to avoid while the operatives were on site”.
2. The operatives were not required to wear PPE within the work zone as they did not anticipate any contact with the resident and all surface areas were sanitised at the end of the day.
3. It understood that the resident came into contact with the operatives while they were not wearing PPE as she entered the work zone before they had finished and sanitised the area.
4. As suitable precautions were taken by the operatives there was no service failure.
5. It was appropriate that it had requested further details from the resident regarding her request to escalate the complaint. The landlord advised that the resident had not responded to the request.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures when working in her property

In respect of complaint A the landlord acknowledged that during the appointment on 8 September 2020 the operative had failed to adhere to Covid-19 safety measures. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has made an offer of reasonable redress to resolve the complaint.
In this case the landlord apologised that the operative had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures, liaised with contractor A regarding the appointment and offered £50 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint for the following reasons:
1. The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it acknowledged the service failure and the impact on the resident.
2. As the landlord had identified that something had gone wrong during the appointment, it was appropriate that it discussed the operative’s conduct with contractor A, in order that contractor A could take the necessary actions to put things right in order to prevent the situation occurring again. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of contractor A’s Covid-19 risk assessment which outlines the controls which should be used to mitigate risks and to demonstrate the contractor’s commitment to ensure safe working practices. This demonstrates that contractor A is aware of its responsibilities in relation to Covid-19 safety measures.
3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation where something has gone wrong. As the landlord had identified that a service failure had occurred in relation to the appointment, it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award £50 where there has been a service failure causing low impact. As there was no evidence of on-going detriment to the resident as a result of the service failure the Ombudsman is satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded was appropriate. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s request for enhanced compensation, due to her ethnicity and vulnerability, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s award was made in line with its compensation policy and it explained that it must treat all customers the same.
In respect of complaint C the landlord determined that there was no evidence of a service failure by contractor B in relation to adherence with Covid-19 safety measures. As the Ombudsman was not present during the works to the kitchen the Ombudsman cannot determine what actually happened. It is for the Ombudsman to therefore consider the available evidence and to decide whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the appointment was reasonable, and appropriate, in the circumstances.
In order to respond to the resident’s complaint, the evidence shows that the landlord liaised with contractor B regarding the works. This was a reasonable course of action to obtain contractor B’s version of events. Contractor B confirmed that:
1. All of its operatives had “full PPE, gloves, masks, sanitisers etc”.
2. It had a “Duty of Care Agreement” which a resident must agree to before operatives enter a property to start work. Contractor B noted that the agreement is left in the property throughout the duration of the works and clearly stated “observe zone conditions” and “avoid communication with site operatives”.
3. The resident broke the agreement as she entered the kitchen work zone when operatives were working. Contractor B noted that the operatives had removed their masks as they were in their “safe zone” and the resident should not have entered the area.
Based on contractor B’s account of the works, the requirements of the duty of care agreement, and noting that the resident has not disputed that a duty of care agreement was in operation during the works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that there had been no service failure by contractor B or its operatives.
The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord’s procedure on “PPE requirements for colleagues” sets out that operatives who do not provide personal care are not required to wear PPE when completing a task where social distancing with a customer is in place.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding missed and announced appointments by its contractors

The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the landlord will offer £10 per missed appointment. As the landlord acknowledged that there had been attendance issues in relation to two appointments in respect of complaint A it was appropriate that the landlord awarded £20 compensation as redress.
In responding to complaint B the landlord acknowledged that the resident had not been given advance notice of the appointment on 21 October 2020. The landlord therefore apologised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the apology was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, taking into account that it was open for the resident to decline to allow the appointment to go ahead if it was not convenient to her.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that cooking facilities were not provided during works to her kitchen

In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord did not provide the resident with a temporary cooker during the works to the kitchen. This is because the landlord confirmed that the resident had access to the cooker at the end of each day. The Ombudsman accepts that a resident may experience some disruption during overhaul works, and therefore disruption will not automatically reflect a service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to complaint A at stage one in line with its service standard of 10 working days. The landlord therefore awarded £25 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the delay which the resident experienced.
The landlord’s stage one response to complaint B was also provided outside of its service failure. While the Ombudsman can see that in December 2020 the landlord did inform the resident that its response would be delayed, the Ombudsman notes that notification of the delay was only provided after the original deadline for the response has passed. This is unsatisfactory.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to complaint B was unsatisfactory. This is because the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the operative’s conduct during the appointment and that they left without completing all tasks scheduled for the appointment. This is unsatisfactory as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to all the issues which she raised. It has also prevented the Ombudsman from carrying out a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the resident’s concerns:
1. That its contractors had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures when working in her property.
2. Regarding missed and unannounced appointments by its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that cooking facilities were not provided during works to her kitchen.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures when working in her property

In respect of complaint A the landlord apologised that the operative had not adhered to Covid-19 safety measures, liaised with contractor A regarding the appointment and offered £50 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint as it sought to put matters right and to prevent the situation occurring again. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
The landlord’s conclusion that there had been no service failure by contractor B in relation to adherence with Covid-19 safety measures in respect of complaint B was reasonable. This is because it reached this conclusion taking into account contractor B’s account of the works and the requirements of the duty of care agreement which the resident has not disputed. The landlord’s conclusion was also reasonable as its procedure on PPE sets out that operatives who do not provide personal care are not required to wear PPE when completing a task where social distancing with a customer is in place.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding missed and announced appointments by its contractors

As the landlord acknowledged that there had been attendance issues in relation to two appointments in respect of complaint A, it was appropriate that the landlord awarded £20 compensation as redress in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s apology that the resident had not been given advance notice of the appointment on 21 October 2020 in respect of complaint B was proportionate to the circumstance of the complaint, as it was open for the resident to decline to allow the appointment to go ahead if it was not convenient to her.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that cooking facilities were not provided during works to her kitchen

As the resident had access to the cooker at the end of each day it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer a temporary cooker for the duration of the works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While it was appropriate that the landlord award £25 compensation for the delay in responding to complaint A at stage one of its complaint procedure the landlord’s complaint handling was otherwise unsatisfactory as:
1. The landlord only notified the resident that its stage one response to complaint B would be delayed after the deadline for a response had passed.
2. The landlord failed to address all aspects of resident’s B complaint, specifically her concerns regarding the operative’s conduct during the appointment.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of the determination:
1. £50 for the delay in responding to complaint B at stage one of its complaint procedure.
2. £50 for not responding to all aspects of the complaint B.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff who are responsible for responding to complaints to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.