Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202101759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101759

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

28 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her front and back door.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 6 July 2020 and the property is a two bedroom bungalow.
3. The landlord’s records show on 16 October 2020 the resident reported that she could not lock or secure her front door. An operative attended that day “adjusted keeps” (a metallic part fixed to the door frame which keeps door closed securely), and left it in working order. On 30 December the resident reported that she struggled to open both her front and back doors. An operative attended that day, noted that both doors worked but the key needed to be turned three or four times for it to lock properly. The operative recommended they reattend to decide how to proceed.
4. On 6 January 2021 an occupational therapist (OT) contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. She said the resident was “asking for the locks to be modified to her front and back doors as they [were] reported to be very stiff and aggravating the osteoarthritis in her hands’’.
5. The landlord’s records show an operative attended on 12 January 2021. They fixed the lock, and left the property secure. They noted that the door still required the key to be turned a few times. They also noted that they told the resident to contact an OT as she had advised that her vulnerabilities made it difficult for her to use her door. An operative reattended on 2 February 2021. They noted that the doors were in full working order, and secure.
6. Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord. We said the resident was complaining about how it had handled her reports of outstanding repairs to her doors. We said she had advised that she was unable to lock her doors, and had security concerns. We said she wanted it to replace her doors. We asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 6 May 2021. The landlord said that:
   1. Its repairs team had advised that they had inspected the doors to ensure they worked correctly, the door locks were functional and that the resident did not require new doors.
   2. The doors may not be suitable for the resident due to her own needs and that it advised her to refer the matter to an OT who could carry out an assessment to see whether an alternate style of door or lock was needed. It explained how to obtain an OT referral.
   3. It apologised for any difficulty the situation had caused the resident and that it was partially upholding her complaint as its delivery of the repairs had been ongoing for several months. It said its advice regarding the door was correct, but it took time to reach its conclusion.

The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its failure to deliver the repair and provide a conclusion within the required timeframes. It also offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the matter.

8. The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on or before 10 May 2021 (it is unclear when exactly) to escalate her complaint. She said an operative who attended (it is unclear when) said she needed new doors, and that her OT had contacted it about the doors. The landlord emailed the operative who said they had not said that the resident needed new doors.
9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 7 June 2021. The landlord said that:
   1. It was partially upholding the resident’s complaint as there had been delays arranging the renewal of her locks.
   2. An OT had contacted it on 6 January but did not recommend for the doors to be changed.
   3. It had spoken to the operative who the resident claimed had said her doors needing to be replaced, who explained that they did inform the resident that the locks would be modified, and this would rectify the issues she had been experiencing. The landlord said that the operative had offered his apologies for any misunderstanding or inconvenience caused.
   4. It had now raised a work order to renew the lock mechanisms and door handles for the front and back door and reiterated how the resident could refer her concerns to an OT.

The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for her time and trouble and its service failure (it did not specify what its failure was). It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

10. The landlord’s records show it fitted new handles and locks on the resident’s doors on 2 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

11. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure and outside of the property, including doors, door frames and hinges. The tenancy agreement is silent on the subject of door locks.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that, with the exception of communal locks, all locks including multipoint locking systems must be repaired by the resident, if necessary by appointing a private locksmith.
13. The landlord’s aids and adaptations procedure sets out that residents who require aids or adaptations must first undergo an occupational therapy (OT) assessment.
14. The resident initially reported in October 2020 that she struggled to lock her front door. The landlord attended that day to ensure it was secure. The resident then reported in December that she struggled to open her front and back door. The landlord attended that day, and noted that there were issues with the lock. It reattended on 12 January 2021, fixed the lock and advised the resident to obtain a referral from an OT as she had explained she found it difficult to lock the door due to her vulnerabilities.
15. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. This was in light of the time taken from when the resident first raised her concerns about the door (in October 2020), up until it advised her to contact an OT (in January 2021), and for her time and trouble. In its stage two response it offered her an additional £50 for her time and trouble, and for its service failure. It is understood that this was in reference to its delay organising an appointment to renew the front and back door locks and handles.
16. The resident’s situation, and difficulties faced with the doors would have undoubtedly been frustrating and distressing. Nonetheless, the landlord attended promptly on multiple occasions in response to her reports. It offered appropriate advice in line with its aids and adaptations policy regarding the resident’s need to obtain an OT referral. Without a referral from the OT, there were limited steps the landlord could reasonably be expected to take to alleviate the resident’s situation, as it had not identified a repair issue with the doors which would warrant it replacing them.
17. The landlord was under no obligation to repair the door locks, as this is the resident’s responsibility in line with its repairs policy. Therefore, its offer to do so and the £150 compensation were reasonable steps to remedy its delay taking action from when the resident first reported her concerns.
18. In the resident’s escalation, she said an operative had advised her that her doors needed to be replaced. The landlord spoke to the operative who confirmed they did inform the resident that the locks would be modified, and that this would rectify the issues she had been experiencing. The landlord said that the operative extended apologies for any misunderstanding or inconvenience caused to the resident. Given that the landlord was not there when this conversation took place, there were limited steps it could take to determine what was advised. Nonetheless, it was reasonable for it to raise this with the operative, and then clarify and apologise to the resident for any misunderstanding.
19. The resident also explained in her escalation that an OT had contacted the landlord about the doors. The landlord said an OT contacted it on 6 January 2021, but did not mention replacing the doors. No evidence has been provided for this investigation showing the OT making an official recommendation for the doors to be changed. As such, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

21. The level of compensation offered to the resident was reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint. The landlord attended promptly to inspect her doors, and offered to renew the locks even though it was not obliged to.

Recommendation

22. That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident the £150 offered in its final response (if it has not already done so). The finding of reasonable redress being conditional upon the compensation being paid.