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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202015484)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015484

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

14 January 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 the resident’s reports of a faulty door and intercom system.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a block of flats. The lease specifies that the landlord is responsible for ‘all equipment and apparatus used in the buildings for entry and security purposes’ and that these should be maintained ‘in good and substantial repair order.’
  2. The resident made their first report of a repair required to their communal front door and intercom on 24 November 2020. The resident said that the door did not close correctly and the handset for the door entry system ‘makes a loud noise at both ends and the entry buzzer does not work’. The resident said that the situation was urgent due to the Coronavirus pandemic social distancing restrictions since due to the problem she had to shout down from her window or go downstairs to let people in or receive parcels or shopping deliveries.
  3. During December 2020 and January 2021, the resident sent several emails to chase action on her reported repair. On 7 December 2020, the resident said that local children had been stealing parcels since they were able to gain access to the block where the resident lived as the door was not closing properly and was not secure.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 10 December 2020 to confirm that an operative was due to attend to the door on 14 December 2020 but that parts were required for the intercom system and it was not possible for them to complete that repair. The issue with the door not closing was repaired on 14 December 2020 but the resident said that the door problem returned shortly afterwards.
  5. The landlord attended the property again on 17 February 2021 and found the central unit on the intercom to be faulty and required replacing. The landlord also attended to the front door on 18 February finding an issue with the power supply which it said it fixed leaving the door closing correctly. However, the resident said that the same problem kept occurring and suggested it would be more economical for the landlord to replace the door rather than to keep attempting the repair.
  6. The resident made her stage 1 complaint about the lack of response to her repair request on 20 February 2021. In her complaint, she raised a further issue about cleaning of the communal carpets which she said were muddy and badly stained. The resident was also not satisfied with the level of communication from her landlord and said it had neither fixed the door nor updated her sufficiently on what was being done. The resident explained that the door had been fixed three times since she reported the issue but this was a problem that kept happening leaving the door unsecure.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint on 9 March 2021. The landlord said it had fixed the door and arranged for a deep clean of the carpets. However, it acknowledged in its response that the intercom entry system needed to be replaced and that a quotation had been submitted to add these works to the Door Entry Capital program of 2022.
  8. The landlord explained that this program was still in the early phase of consultation and it did not give a date when the works would take place for this reason. At this stage the landlord offered the resident a total of £50 compensation comprising £30 for time and trouble in making the complaint and £20 for poor complaint handling since it accepted that the resident had contacted it on a number of occasions since November to chase up a response to her repair request.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint shortly after receiving the landlord’s response. The resident said that the carpets remained badly stained. The resident said the issue with the door not closing had not been resolved and that it was not acceptable for the landlord to not carry out the repair to the intercom system until 2022. The resident was concerned due to the continuing coronavirus restrictions and the need for her to attend work as a keyworker.
  10. On 31 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident at stage two of the complaints process and said that:
  • The door and carpets needed to be replaced and this would be done as part of cyclical works scheduled to commence in 2021/2022
  • The intercom system would be repaired as part of Major works to the block that would commence ‘within the next few weeks.’
  • The compensation offer was increased to £70, comprising £40 for time and trouble and £30 for poor complaints handling.
  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and  approached a local councillor and this service as a result. The landlord has acknowledged that it made further mistakes including attending the wrong address on 24 March 2021 to carry out a repair when the resident had taken time off work.
  2. The landlord carried out the intercom upgrade on 30 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord complied with its repair obligations, followed its policies and procedures and handled the subsequent complaint in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
  2.  As stated above, the lease specifies that the door and entry systems are part of the ‘maintained property’ and that these must be maintained in ‘good and substantial repair order’ by the landlord. The landlord therefore had an obligation to repair and maintain these units within a reasonable time and since this was not done by the end of the internal complaints process there has evidently been some service failure.
  3. In mitigation of this failure, the landlord did attend to perform a temporary fix of the door on at least two occasions, although it was acknowledged that these were temporary measures that did not eliminate the need for replacement of the door. It is also not disputed that the intercom system was not fully functional from the period November 2020 to June 2021 when it was replaced.
  4. The resident had a legitimate expectation that her home would be secure and that she could safely receive deliveries and parcels during the Coronavirus pandemic. Although the resident had her own working front door, there was clear inconvenience to the intercom not operating correctly as well as periods when the main block door was not closing correctly. Given the Coronavirus pandemic, a safe entry system and a working intercom were important and the lack of these evidently had a significant impact on the residents causing distress and inconvenience.     

 

  1. The landlord was initially unable to give the resident a clear indication of when the cyclical works would take place. The response sent at stage 1 did suggest that a solution to the door problem would not be possible until 2022 although this was later modified at stage 2 when the landlord said it would be able to replace the intercom system ‘within the next few weeks.’  
  2. The events that took place after completion of the complaints process also suggest that the landlord did not consider it reasonable for the residents to wait for a prolonged period for these repairs since it eventually took action to replace the intercom in June 2021 without a Section 20 notice in the interests of trying to expedite the repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances and resolution focussed.
  3. If the landlord is unable to carry out its duty to make a repair due to budget constraints or a legal requirement for consultation then it should look to temporary solutions that may be available and provide redress to the residents affected by the failure to repair.
  4. The landlord offered the resident £50 at stage 1 and then £70 at stage 2 comprising £40 for time and trouble and £30 for poor complaint handling. Although the landlord has made attempts to put things right by offering compensation, the amount offered does not reflect the detriment experienced by the resident over the seven month period from November 2020 to June 2021, when the intercom system was replaced.
  5. The complaint is consistent with ‘medium failure’ as described in the landlord’s ‘supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation’. There was ‘failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’ and the resident has ‘expended unnecessary effort’ in chasing up requests for service. Both of these failures are in ranges of £51 to £160 according to the landlord’s policy.
  6. Ombudsman guidance suggests redress of between £50 and £250 where service failure has resulted in some impact on the complainant. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and delays in getting matters resolved.
  7. Given the ombudsman’s remedies guidance, outcomes from similar cases, and its own compensation policy, the landlord has not provided redress to the resident that is sufficient to put right the detriment caused by its delays and failures.

 

  1. In order to provide reasonable redress for the service failure up to the period at the end of June 2021 when the intercom system was replaced, additional compensation has been ordered below.

 

  1. Although the landlord did attempt to put things right with an offer of redress, the amount offered was too low and did not recognise the fact that by the end of June there had been an unresolved repair of the intercom system for a period of 7 months. An order has been made below for a total of £225 compensation comprising £150 for failure to carry out an effective repair and £75 for inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there has been service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a faulty door entry and intercom system.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord did attend to the door and made some attempts to fix the issue, it is not disputed that from the period November 2020 until June 2021 the intercom system was not working correctly. Since the landlord failed to comply with the lease or respond effectively to the resident’s legitimate repair request within a reasonable time period, there was service failure.  
  2. The resident had a legitimate expectation that their block would be secure.  The complaints process did attempt to put things right by offering financial redress to the resident but the compensation was insufficient and not fully in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £225 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in repairing the door entry system (to be reduced by £70 if this has already been paid) The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the order to this Service within four weeks.