Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202014430)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014430

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

19 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

  1. The resident’s complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s response about the standard of cleaning and ground maintenance in the communal areas.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started in April 2002. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a three-story block.
  2. The resident previously raised a complaint with the landlord in October 2019 regarding the cleanliness in the communal areas of her estate. The evidence indicates that the landlord closed this complaint in January 2020.

Summary of Events

  1. On 15 August 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the condition of the communal areas in her estate advising there were:
    1. Cobwebs in the communal hallways.
    2. Dusty staircases.
    3. Dirty/rotten windowsill under the stairwell.
    4. Litter and black bags in the car park area adjacent to her block -these had not been picked up for two weeks.
    5. Stains on the steps of staircase.
    6. Bushes were not cut back.
  2. The resident also said the block never smelt fresh and asked what cleaning products were used. She also asked about the duties of the Caretaker and said that he spent “too much time chatting to the residents and not enough time cleaning”. She said in her opinion his work was “shabby” and he did not help residents with issues. She also asked the landlord to explain why tenants were paying service charges whilst it was failing to provide the services in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The resident asked for a refund of the service charges for the poor cleaning service provided.
  3. The landlord replied on 18 August 2020 acknowledging the resident’s complaint and advising it would be investigated by the relevant area team.
  4. On 4 September 2020, the landlord’s Customer Care officer (CCO) emailed the resident apologising for the delay in responding. The landlord advised the resident that they had begun an investigation into her complaint but that they were awaiting a response from the Estates team. The landlord’s internal communications confirm it contacted both its Estate team and the Estates cleaning and gardening contractor (service contractor) on 27 August 2020 advising of the resident’s concerns and asking that they provide a response to all the points raised by the resident.
  5. The landlord’s internal communications show that on 13 Oct 2020, the landlord’s CCO contacted its Estate team and service contractor chasing for a response to its 27 August 2020 email. The landlord’s CCO suggested that its Estates team met with the resident.
  6. Two internal inspections were carried out by the Manager of its service contractor on 14 October 2020 and 19 November 2020. The reports for these have been provided to the Ombudsman and include dated photographs of the communal areas which included: internal stairs, landing and corridors; internal walls, lights and skirting boards; internal communal doors and windows including glass; and internal communal windows including sills and alcoves. The report dated 14 October 2020 stated that the standard of cleaning in all areas that were inspected were excellent whilst the report dated 19 November 2020 stated all areas were at a good standard of cleanliness.
  7. On 10 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising that she had not received a response to her complaint. She asked the landlord to log a stage two complaint. The landlord’s CCO replied on 15 November 2020 apologising to the resident for the lack of any update advising this was because they had not received any response from its Estates team.  The landlord advised it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process as per her request. It said a CCO would contact her within 10 to 15 working days.
  8. On 11 February 2021, the Manager of the service contractor carried out an internal inspection of the property block. The service contractor’s inspection report of the same date included eleven dated photographs of the communal areas and stated that all areas that were inspected were at a good standard of cleanliness.
  9. On 18 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response. It apologised to the resident that she felt dissatisfied with the response given to her at stage one. It acknowledged that her complaint was regarding the cleanliness of the communal areas, referring to her concerns raised about cobwebs and dust in the stairwells and windowsills as well as about rubbish removal and disposal. It acknowledged that she had requested clarification regarding the duties of the service contractor. 
  10. The landlord advised that as part of its investigation, it contacted its Estates Contract Officer (ECO) who advised the communal cleaning was being checked on a regular basis and a formal inspection of the cleaning and external areas was carried out at block on 24 November 2020. The condition of the site was found to be in line with the agreed service standards.
  11. The landlord referred to the formal inspection carried out at the block on 11 February 2021 and said that the standards were again found to be in line with the level of service it expected. The landlord said the resident was aware of the cleaning contractor’s member of staff who cleaned the block and his responsibilities were listed on the communal notice board. The landlord enclosed the service contractor’s internal report.
  12. Within its response, the landlord also acknowledged that whilst the site was to contract standard when inspected, it had missed opportunities to fully investigate the matters the resident had raised regarding cleanliness at the time of the complaint. It said as such it was partially upholding her complaint due to this and because of the length of time it had taken to respond to her and for failing to keep her informed of all developments. It offered £30 in compensation for poor complaint handling.
  13. On 19 February 2021, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with its response to her complaint initially raised on 15 August 2020. She said the level of customer care was extremely poor and its communication ineffective and that this had left her feeling upset and disappointed. She reiterated her request for a reimbursement of the service charge for the periods when the cleaning was not completed and the delay in answering her complaint. She asked for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage three.
  14. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint to the Ombudsman, in response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence from the landlord, it provided an email from its service contractor dated 8 June 2021 advising: apart from unannounced site visits, a joint inspection with its HSO was carried out on 11 February 2021 with additional inspections carried out on 15 April and 26 June 2021.  In the email the service contractor also said the blocks were scheduled for cleaning weekly but the Caretaker has been attending the blocks daily and said they were “on top of” their work. The landlord also provided signing in sheets covering the period from February to May 2021 and the site schedule.

Assessment and findings

The standard of cleaning and ground maintenance in communal areas.

  1. Under the Tenancy Agreement the resident pays the landlord service charges for it to provide services including the cleaning, caretaking and gardening in respect to the communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s estate Inspection policy states each estate/ block of property in receipt of services will have a specification covering the scope, quality, frequency, standard of service and who is responsible for its delivery. Further it states, regular inspections are an important part of its neighbourhood management strategy.
  3. Within ten days of receiving the resident’s complaint regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas, the landlord’s CCO contacted its Estates team and the contractor responsible for providing this service with details of the complaint and asked for a response. This action was reasonable. However, when the landlord’s CCO did not receive any response, they did not follow up on this request with its Estates team or service contractor until approximately six weeks later on 13 October 2020. There is no evidence of any internal response from the landlord’s Estate team or service contractor following this. However, the inspection report provided to the Ombudsman dated 14 October 2020 shows the Manager of its service contractor had inspected the standard of cleaning at resident’s block at this time.
  4. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a cleaning ‘specification’ as referred to in the landlord’s estates policy however it has supplied a Schedule for the resident’s block which sets out the cleaning and grounds maintenance tasks the service contractor is responsible for and the frequency of each task– daily, weekly or “periodic tasks”. This covers all the aspects of the cleaning and ground maintenance items that the resident was unhappy about. The service contractor’s inspection report indicates that this Schedule was displayed in the entrance hall for residents to see at the time of the inspection in October 2020 although it is unclear from the available evidence if this Schedule had been placed there or revised as a result of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, as the Caretaker’s duties were clearly displayed in the Schedule, this reasonably addressed the resident’s request for clarity regarding the Caretaker’s duties. The inspection report shows that at the date of the inspection, all areas inspected which included the internal areas complained about, were at a good standard of cleanliness. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of the outcome of the inspection at this time, which was a service shortcoming by the landlord.
  5. When the resident contacted the landlord again on 10 November 2020 chasing it for a response, it apologised for the lack of any response and said this was because it had not received any response from its Estates team. It logged her communication as a stage two complaint. In its subsequent stage two final response, the landlord said that its Estates Contract Officer had conducted a formal inspection of the cleaning and external areas at the block on 24 November 2020. The report provided by landlord dated 19 November 2020 demonstrates that in fact a further check of the internal communal areas was carried out around this time although not by the landlord’s Estates states Contract Officer as advised but by the Manager of its service contractor. This report indicates again that the standard of cleaning within the internal communal areas was reasonable and in line with the service contract.
  6. The Manager at the landlord’s service contractor carried out a further internal inspection of the property block on 11 February 2021 and the report supports the landlord’s comments in its stage two final response that the standard at this time were found to be in line with the level of service it expected. However, it is noted that the reports do not mention external areas so this evidence does not address the issues of rubbish left in the car park and uncut bushes which were also raised in the resident’s complaint. The Schedule states that hedges and shrubs must be pruned and cut back “as appropriate” three times a year and also that refuse must be removed on a weekly basis. Therefore, this shows that these areas of work were included in the service contract however the lack of evidence to show these services were being properly provided was a service shortcoming by the landlord.
  7. Whilst the scope of this investigation is restricted to the events during the complaints process up to the landlord’s final response on 18 February 2021, it is noted that the landlord has provided sign in sheets showing the service contractor’s attendance at the block over a three month period from February to May 2021. This evidence indicates visits were taking place at the frequency stated in the Schedule during this timeframe however it does not show the standard of the service being provided.
  8. In summary, the landlord has shown that the majority of the communal areas it was responsible for cleaning were at a good condition of cleanliness when inspected in October, November 2020 and February 2021. Further that the Caretaker was, from February to May 2020, carrying out weekly and daily visits to undertake the required cleaning tasks. However, the failure of the landlord to take sufficient action to establish if the cleaning was at the expected standard for approximately two months after the resident had raised a complaint and then the lack of communication to the resident regarding its findings until the final response four months later, was unreasonable. In its final response the landlord acknowledged that it missed opportunities to fully investigate the matters the resident raised in regard to the cleanliness at the time of the complaint and said it was partially upholding her complaint due to this, the length of time taken to respond to her and because it did not keep her informed of “all developments”. It also apologised for the time taken to respond to her case and offered £30 for complaint handling (discussed below). Further, it said it would be using the resident’s complaint as part of a case study with the intention of improving its services and help it better understand root causes behind such failures. This demonstrates that the landlord acknowledged the failings in its service during the complaint process and also that it was willing to learn lessons from this which is in accordance with the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles.
  9. However, it is noted that the landlord failed to address the resident’s request for a refund of her service charge apportioned to cleaning and gardening. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer any compensation for the delay in addressing the substantive issue and the poor communication during the timeframe until its final response in February 2021. This shows the landlord did not take sufficient steps to put things right or resolve the resident’s complaint about the cleanliness of the communal areas. The lack of sufficient communication for six months would have caused the resident some distress. Therefore, in the circumstances the landlord shall pay the resident £100.00 in compensation. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy which provides for discretionary payments in the event of service failures. This amount falls into the ‘medium failure’ category for service failure and time and trouble. 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to resolve complaints quickly and effectively with local resolution however if it is unable to do this, it will log a formal stage one complaint within five working days. It says it will investigate the complaint and where possible provide a response within 10 working days. The policy states if it can’t respond within ten working days, it will keep its customers informed, and agree new response times. If the customer remains dissatisfied with its stage one response, they can request escalation to stage two. It will acknowledge the complaint and if it cannot respond within 20 working days, it will keep its customers informed, and agree new response times
  2. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and logged the resident’s stage one complaint on 18 August 2020 which was within the timescale given its complaints policy, it did not provide a stage one response within the timescale stated. It did inform the resident soon after the ten working day timescale had passed that it had started its investigation but was still waiting for a response from the relevant teams. However, the landlord subsequently failed to provide any stage one complaint response to the resident and on 15 November 2020, it logged a stage two complaint in response to her request for the same 10 November 2020. The landlord’s delay in responding to her complaint and then its escalation to stage two, prior to providing a stage one response, is evidence of its failing to follow its complaints process. Therefore, the landlord did not act appropriately in this regard and missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
  3. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response within the 20 working day timescale given in its complaints process.  The landlord’s ‘final’ response dated 18 February 2021 shows it far exceeded the 20 working day deadline in its policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence of it keeping the resident informed about the delay or that it agreed a new response time with her, as per its complaint policy. As mentioned above, in its stage two complaint response it did partially uphold the resident’s complaint partly because of the length of time it had taken to respond to her complaint and for failing to adequately communicate with her during this timeframe. However, bearing in mind that the landlord failed to provide any stage one response then took a further three months to provide a ‘final’ complaint response some six months after the resident initially complained, the £30 in compensation offered for its complaint handling did not sufficiently reflect the extent of the landlord’s failures when complaint handling. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for it to pay the resident an additional amount of £75.00 for the stress and inconvenience caused by this, bringing the total to £100.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning and ground maintenance in communal areas.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did show that in the first instance, it took steps to investigate the resident’s complaint about the condition of cleanliness and ground maintenance in the communal areas.  However, it did not follow up on its initial enquiries made with the relevant teams within a reasonable timeframe. When the internal communal areas were inspected, they were found to be in line with service standards although it is unclear if rubbish was being collected or bushes were being cut back in accordance with the service contract. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it missed opportunities to fully investigate the matters the resident had raised in regard to the cleanliness in the communal areas at the time of the complaint.  It did not however address the resident’s request for a refund of her service charges or offer any compensation for its service failure when dealing the issues she raised, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord failed to follow its own timescales for complaint handling at both stages one and two of its complaint process, therefore, it did not act appropriately in this regard. The lack of any stage one response provided meant it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage. Its offer of compensation did not sufficiently address the stress and inconvenience caused by its significant service failure.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the delay in investigating the condition of communal areas and poor communication about this with her.
    2. Pay the resident a further £75 in compensation (in addition to the £30 already offered) for the delay in responding to her formal complaint.
    3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.