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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202011850)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011850

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

21 June 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 handling of:
  1. Repairs to the communal lift.
  2. The resident’s complaint about the issue.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the landlord’s tenant. His property resides in a block of similar properties, which has one communal lift.
  2. On 1 September 2020, the landlord raised a repair for the communal lift because it had stopped working. The lift breakdown report, dated 1 September 2020, says that the fuse was “blown” on arrival; this was replaced at the time, but the lift had been vandalised and parts were required to fix it.  The lift was turned off.
  3. The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord on 15 September 2020 that it was awaiting parts for the repair.
  4. The landlord’s repair records note on 12 October 2020 that the supplier was experiencing a delay in obtaining the necessary parts and quoted an estimated time of arrival of eight weeks. Its contractor was looking for different suppliers.
  5. The landlord received a call from the resident on 15 October 2020. It noted that he was unhappy that the lift was not working and requested compensation. The landlord advised the resident to “write in” with his complaint.
  6. On 5 November 2020 the resident called the landlord for an update on the lift repair. He was advised that it could take several weeks for the parts to arrive.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2020. He asked for compensation for the distress caused by the lift being out of service, explaining that he is disabled, his property is on the fourth floor of the building, and he found it difficult climbing the stairs. He confirmed that he could provide proof of disability if required. The resident also said that the landlord had not told him that he could “get help” or be temporarily moved if necessary, which he said it had told other residents.
  8. In its letter dated 19 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 2 December 2020.
  9. A lift repair report, dated 23 November 2020, says that the damaged part was replaced, and the lift needed to be “commissioned” i.e. checked before returning to service.
  10. The landlord’s report of 26 November 2020 states that it tested the lift and left it in working order.  In internal correspondence of 18 January 2021, the landlord confirmed that the lift repair took a total of 87 days (two months and 26 days).
  11. On 30 December 2020 the landlord noted a call-back request for the resident. The resident called the landlord again on 4 January 2020 about his call–back request. There is no evidence of the call being returned.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2021. It said that it usually aimed to repair lift breakdowns within 24 hours, but if additional works or parts were required, it allowed 28 days to complete. However, as the part had to be ordered from abroad, during the restrictions and challenges from the coronavirus lockdown, the landlord was unable to complete the repair within its usual timeframes. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the impact the delays had on him, and advised him who he could contact if he believed that he needed to be temporarily rehoused (decanted) in the future.
  13. The landlord’s internal correspondence of 19 January 2021 states that “Tenant states … the ombudsman have been in touch and you have 20 days to stage 2 which he states is 9th Feb, the offer of £50.00 has been declined, however he states he will accept £200.00. Please call to discuss further.” There is no evidence of the landlord calling the resident to discuss his complaint, but it appears to have escalated the complaint at this point.
  14. On 19 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge his request to escalate his complaint. It confirmed it would respond by 16 February 2021. However, the landlord sent its response the next day. It explained that “as your request to raise your complaint to a stage two has not met either of the three valid reasons to further investigate your complaint, we stand by our initial decision given at stage one.” The landlord advised the resident that he could bring his complaint to this Service, if he remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants sets out its responsibilities for completing repairs, which confirms that communal areas and lifts are the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. Although the landlord’s repairs guide classes a lift fault (when there is only one lift in the block) as an emergency repair to be completed within 24 hours, this usually relates to making it safe as soon as possible. Lifts are understandably complex mechanisms, and repairs to them, in general, can sometimes take longer than 24 hours due to the need for appropriate technicians and/or replacement parts. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint response, where it explained that if additional works or parts are required, it allows 28 days to complete the repair (the same timescale for routine repairs). The landlord’s repairs guide also allows for works to building services (where they are seriously impaired e.g., renewal of installations such lifts) to be completed within three months, or as part of a planned programme of works.
  3. The landlord did attend within 24 hours, completed an inspection, and made the lift safe by turning it off for further repairs, in line with its repairs guide and good practice. The landlord’s correspondence confirms that it set a 28-day timeframe to complete the repair following its inspection, but it explained to the resident that this was delayed due to not being able to obtain a specialised part.
  4. The landlord’s explanation for the delays was in line with the evidence in the repair records. There will be times where there are unavoidable delays, such as needing specialised parts. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable.
  5. However, there is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident during the delays, or attempting to manage his expectations about the time the repairs would take. This meant the resident had to call the landlord for updates. Proactive communication from a landlord is essential in cases where repair delays are being experienced, and where the fault lies with an important piece of equipment, such as a lift. Furthermore, the resident explained to the landlord in November that he was facing difficulty with the lift being out of order, because he lived on the fourth floor, and found climbing the stairs to be a hardship. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action in response to that information, such as asking the resident if it could assist him in any interim manner until the repairs were completed. As it was, the lift was repaired approximately two weeks later. Nonetheless, it was a missed opportunity to try to ease the impact on him.
  6. Overall, while the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs was reasonable, its communication with the resident about the repairs was not.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, if a local resolution is not suitable, it will contact the resident and log a formal stage one complaint. It will investigate and provide a resolution within ten working days.  If it cannot respond within this time, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a resident may ask for a complaint to be escalated to stage two if they remain unhappy with the stage one response. It says that a complaint will only be reinvestigated at stage two when: the response received at stage one is factually incorrect (details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the resident), the response received does not address the initial complaint, important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered, and actions agreed at stage one have not been completed as agreed.
  3. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), complaint investigations must be fair. To ensure fairness, the landlord’s processes and procedures require it to deal with complaints on their merits, act independently and have an open mind, and consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord offered the resident £50 for the impact the delays had on him. It did not explain how it decided on this figure, or give any indication that it had considered the specific manner in which the resident had been affected by the long repair time for the lift. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concern that, unlike other residents, he was not offered temporary accommodation while the lift was out of order. The resident may have been misinformed on that point, but good practice was for the landlord to address and clarify the issue.
  4. The Code advises that residents do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. In his call to the landlord in October 2020 the resident explained that he was not happy with the lift repairs and wanted compensation. That information should have been enough of a trigger for the landlord to either treat his contact as a complaint and seek further details, or take his complaint over the phone at that point. It is unclear why the landlord asked the resident to “write in” when he called to raise a complaint and ask for compensation on 15 October 2020. The landlord advising the resident to make a written complaint was not in line with its complaints policy, nor the Code — which advise landlords to provide different channels for making a complaint. As a result, the landlord did not raise a complaint until a month after the resident’s call.
  5. In the landlord’s letter to the resident, dated 19 November 2020, it acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint and said it would respond by 2 December 2020. However, the landlord did not send its response until 18 January 2021. There will be times where a landlord is unable to respond within its set timescales, but it is expected, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and good practice, that it will keep a resident informed of any delay, and agree new response times. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this, despite the resident’s attempts to make contact.
  6. In line with the Code, landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for not escalating a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it had addressed the resident’s full complaint, such as his concerns about not being offered temporary accommodation during the delays in the lift repair. This is despite the resident requesting a call back on 19 January 2021 to discuss his complaint (as noted in the landlord’s internal email). Had the landlord called the resident back (no evidence has been provided of it doing so), it might have identified that further investigation, and escalation, was warranted. The landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint was not in line with its complaints policy, or this Service’s complaint handling code, and was not reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
    2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord attended within 24 hours to make safe the lift (by turning it off), has provided a reasonable explanation for the delays in it repairing the lift, and offered compensation for the impact this had on the resident. However, the landlord did not explain how it had calculated the compensation offered for the impact the delays had on the resident, or indicate that it had considered the resident’s specific circumstances. The landlord also did not redress its failure to update the resident, nor has it fully addressed the resident’s complaint. In particular, it did not address the resident’s concern that he was not offered help or to be temporarily moved while the lift was out of order. 
  2. Additionally, the landlord unreasonably delayed in raising a complaint for the resident and responding to the complaint at stage one. It did not call the resident back to ensure that it fully understand the resident’s reasons for escalating the complaint, as requested, before declining to investigate the complaint further. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, or the landlord’s complaints policy.

Orders

  1. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 within three weeks of the date of this decision. This is calculated at:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its poor communication during the lift repairs.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience and frustration the resident will likely have experienced due to the landlord’s poor complaints handling.
  1. The landlord should also pay the £50 already offered during its complaints process, if it has not done so already.
  2. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made. The resident should also update this Service if payment has not been received by the due date.