Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202100690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100690

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

12 July 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the communal bin store serving her property;
2. it’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer;
3. the effect the situation has had on her family’s health;
4. how the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds was handled by the landlord, and;
5. the formal complaint into these matters.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The effect on the resident’s family’s health.

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
In her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has described the medical conditions affecting her and her family she believes have been caused and/or exacerbated by the condition of bins, and that her medical evidence had not been properly considered by the landlord.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

How the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds was handled

Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
The resident has highlighted her dissatisfaction with how the landlord and the local authority handled her request to be rehoused and the change of banding status based on the medical evidence she had provided.
The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for re-housing made to a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is advised that the Complainant contact the LGSCO if she wishes to take this aspect of the complaint further.

Scope of investigation

In raising a complaint with the landlord on 7 August 2020 and in bringing her complaint to this Service on 9 April 2021, the resident explained that she had experienced issues relating to the bins and the communal bin store for five years.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in August 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a communal building.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is made, it will be acknowledged within five working days and a stage one response sent within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. A review of the complaint will then be undertaken, and a stage two response sent within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that if it is unable to provide a response within its timescales, it will contact the complainant to agree a new response time.

Summary of events

The landlord’s call logs record two telephone calls made by the resident on 5 August 2020 to inform it that the communal refuse bins had not been emptied and that the communal bin store was in a poor condition.
The landlord’s notes state that the resident informed it of the strong odour from the bins, which were located below her kitchen window, and that the unemptied bins were attracting pests. The resident also requested for the landlord to contact her to discuss the matter further.
On 7 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
1. The bins had not been emptied and due to the smell, she was unable to open her balcony doors.
2. This had been an ongoing situation which has had an adverse effect on both her and family’s health.
3. She has reported this issue on numerous occasions over the previous five years, but nothing had been done about it.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested the landlord consider relocating the bin store, increasing the frequency of cleaning and/or rubbish removal, look to add protection to the property to lessen the impact of the smell from the bins. The resident noted that if none of these options were possible, she would like to be moved to a different property. The resident also requested the landlord consider subsidising her rent due to the living conditions.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 August 2020. It confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint and that it aimed to provide a response by 24 August 2020. It also advised the resident that due to the restrictions on its service during the Covid-19 pandemic, a delay in providing the response may be possible.
The resident called the landlord on 1 September 2020 and enquired on the status of the response. The call notes state that a call back was arranged to inform the resident on the timescale for providing the response.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 19 September 2020. It informed her that:
1. The landlord had contacted the local authority, which is responsible for refuse collection, to arrange for the bins to be emptied.
2. After the collection, the landlord’s contractor inspected the communal bin store. The contractor informed the landlord that residents had not been disposing of rubbish in the designated area. This was passed on to the housing manager.
3. The contactor would carry out a deep clean and jet wash of the bins and the store. Weekly inspections would be undertaken, with the area photographed to ensure rubbish is disposed of correctly.
4. The landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience that this matter had caused the resident.
5. In relation to the health and housing issues raised by the resident, the landlord had passed this on to her housing officer who would contact her to discuss these issues further.
The landlord concluded the response by awarding the resident £20 compensation for poor complaint handling.
The resident called the landlord on 25 September 2020. The landlord notes of the call state that the resident described her unhappiness with her current housing situation. The landlord advised the resident that she would be unlikely to meet the threshold for a management transfer, but it would write to the local authority on her behalf to establish if she was eligible to bid on a two-bedroom property via the local authority’s housing list.
The local authority wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2020 and informed it that the resident would not be eligible for a higher housing banding for overcrowding but she could make an application on health and welfare grounds.
The landlord called the resident on 28 September 2020 to pass on the information from the local authority. The call notes stated that the resident brought up the option of a management transfer and the landlord informed her that it was currently undertaking a review of its management transfer policy and a new policy was scheduled to be introduced in October 2020.
On 13 October 2020 the resident’s member of Parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on her behalf to inform it of her dissatisfaction in how it had handled the issues of the bins and her rehousing requests.
The landlord then wrote to the resident on 14 October 2020 and informed the resident that following the contact from her MP, it had escalated the complaint and aimed to provide a response by 28 October 2020.
The landlord sent the resident an application form for a management transfer on 21 October 2020. On 25 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to discuss the current condition of the bins. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it had informed her that it had been in contact with the local authority’s Environmental Health department (Environmental Health), who had inspected the area on 14 November 2020 and were waiting to hear back.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 November 2020. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. It was aware that the issue of odours from the bins had been an ongoing problem, particularly in the summer months.
2. Cleaning of the communal bin store was undertaken on Tuesdays, the day they were emptied by the local authority. However, due to personnel changes within its contractor as a result of the first lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic, the bins were not always taken out of the store on Mondays to be made ready for collection.
3. It had now been assured by the contactor that these issues had been resolved and its regular service had resumed. The landlord also noted that following a visit from Environmental Health, it believed that the matter was no longer considered a health and safety issue.
4. The landlord had undertaken an inspection of the communal bin store to identify any alternative measures that could be considered to alleviate the odour from the store. However, due to the intermittent nature of the issue, no options other than regular cleaning and removal of the rubbish were found.
5. It had explored the option of rehousing the resident via a management transfer, however this was declined as the threshold for a transfer was not met. The landlord also noted that the resident was made aware that that property weas situated above the bin store when she accepted the tenancy in 2015.
6. It had partially upheld the complaint on the grounds of poor complaint handling. It increased its compensation offer to £50 in recognition of the further delay in providing the stage two complaint response.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 November 2020. She informed it of her intention to bring her complaint to this Service and noted that:
1. She was never informed that the property was above the bin store when it was offered to her, nor was this stated anywhere in the tenancy agreement.
2. She had been reporting this issue to the landlord for five years and it was only after she raised a formal complaint that the bins and bin store began to be cleaned.
3. She disputed the landlord’s comments in the response relating to Environmental Health’s inspection.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the communal bin store

It is not in dispute that the communal bin store was in a poor condition in the weeks leading up to the formal complaint being raised. The landlord explained that this was due to staff changes with its contactor caused by the Covid-19 lockdown. As a result of this, the bins were not always taken out of the store to be emptied by the local authority each week. This caused in a build-up of rubbish and an increase in the odours from the store. In order to get the issue resolved, the resident raised a complaint.
The landlord accepted that the resident had received a poor service. In response, it arranged a deep clean and jet wash of the bins and store, inspected the store to identify alternative solutions to the problem of odours, and implemented a new weekly inspection programme with its contractor.
This was an appropriate response from the landlord. It acknowledged its mistakes, apologised to the resident and changed its procedures for how the bins were cleaned and inspected. This response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
However; in order to fully resolve the complaint, the landlord should have recognised that it was not until the resident raised a complaint that it responded to the matter and the delay and inconvenience that this caused to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord should consider compensation in cases where a complainant has spent an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing the matter or if their quality of life has been affected. Not awarding compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident in both pursuing the mater and living with the odour was a service failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy describes the three types of tariffs (low, medium and high) it uses to calculate compensation payments. For calculating compensation for time and trouble, the policy states that the medium tariff should be used in circumstances of “longer period of delay [where a] customer has had to chase several times”. The recommended level of compensation is given as £50-£250. This recommendation is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website).
Therefore, to fully resolve this aspect of the complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the length of time the resident lived with the bins not being regularly collected and the time and trouble caused by having to pursue a complaint in order to get the matter resolved.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord’s management transfer policy describes the process as a “discretionary award whereby a direct offer can be made to a resident of accommodation owned by [the landlord]”.
The circumstances in which a management transfer would be considered by the landlord include serious antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse, critical medical need and critical welfare need. The policy also notes that the evidence supplied to request a transfer must include a professional recommendation.
Management transfers are not considered as part of a landlord’s normal transfer and/or allocations procedure. As management transfers are deemed to be initiated by the landlord, they are not covered by allocations rules in the Housing Act 1996.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s request as the landlord is under no obligation to agree to a management transfer. The decision is made at the landlord’s discretion and is independent from any banding and/or bidding scheme operated by the landlord.
In its complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that her application was declined as she had not met the criteria. However, no further detail was provided. It is not clear if the landlord wrote separately to the resident to explain the reasons for declining the management transfer. No such correspondence has been provided to the Ombudsman. It would be best practice for a landlord to provide this information to the resident. A recommendation relating to this is made below.

The landlord’s complaint handing

In bringing the case to this Service, the resident highlighted the delays she experienced during the complaint process. This was recognised by the landlord in its final response. It apologised and awarded the resident £50 compensation for failing to meet its target times at both stage one and stage two.
This was appropriate action by the landlord. While it had advised the resident that delays may be possible as a result of restrictions in its service due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy as it did not inform the resident of the delay or provide a revised timescale.
The landlord awarded compensation at the bottom end of the medium tariff scale and the top end of the low tariff scale (low level of nuisance and/or short delay caused to a customer) of its compensation policy. This was reasonable redress for the level of inconvenience caused to the resident that satisfactorily resolved this element of the complaint.
It should also be noted that the landlord’s call logs show that during the two periods of delay in providing the responses, the resident and landlord continued to correspond about the outstanding issues in the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the communal bin store.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling, which satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the poor service the resident had experienced in relation to the upkeep of the communal bin store. It apologised and made changes to its cleaning and inspection programme of the bin store.
However, the landlord did not award any compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident as specified in its compensation policy.
The offer of a property via a management transfer is a discretionary process. Therefore, the landlord was under no obligation to offer a property to the resident and it acted reasonably in approaching the local authority to see if a transfer could be arranged via another method.
The landlord recognised it had not met its timescales in providing the stage one and stage two complaint responses. It apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified in respect of these delays.

Orders

For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £150. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. This payment is in addition to any other compensation offered to the resident by the landlord during the complaint process.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, write to the resident and set out the reasons why it declined her request for a management transfer.