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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202104137)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104137

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

 

 

8 December 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about incomplete repair work to his balcony.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His property is on the top floor of his building, and has a balcony.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 12 August 2020. He said that in May 2019 his downstairs neighbour reported that water was leaking from the resident’s balcony into their home. He said that a few months later contractors attended (it is unclear when) removed some tiles from his balcony, and left without completing the work. He said the excess tiles were still on his balcony, and that “due to that there [was] a small pond full of dirty rain water making place very dirty and unhygienic”. He asked the landlord for compensation for the inconvenience caused, and to complete the work.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 13 August 2020. It said it would contact him by 27 August with its initial complaint response. There is no evidence of a further response.
  4. On 30 November 2020 the landlord’s complaints officer emailed the resident. They said the repair to the balcony would be delayed as the problem was a latent defect issue. They said they would confirm the landlord’s offer of compensation the following day. The resident responded to this email on 1 December, and asked whether the landlord would reduce his rent until the work was completed.
  5. On 3 December 2020 the complaints officer emailed the resident. They said they would offer him £450 compensation, “the breakdown of which: £200 time & trouble £250 service failure”.
  6. The resident emailed the complaints officer on 3 December 2020. He said the offer was not proportionate to the trouble and inconvenience he had experienced. The complaints officer responded on the same day, and said they would increase the offer to £600. They said “given the level of impact from the absence of being to access your balcony”, they would not consider reducing his rent. The resident reiterated his dissatisfaction with the offer of compensation. He asked to escalate his complaint.
  7. On 9 December 2020 the complaints officer sent the resident a letter saying:

“Thank you for taking the time to contact us on 12 August 2020. In your complaint, you explained that you are unhappy with the delays you have experienced regarding a fault with your balcony. Although I have been investigating your case and offered to award you £600 compensation as an interim payment, you are unhappy with the continued delays you are still facing and unhappy with my compensation offer. As per my email which I sent to you on 09 December 2020, I can confirm that your case has now been escalated and a Customer Care Officer will contact you within 10-15 days. I would like to apologise as I was unable to resolve your case during my investigation”

  1. The landlord has confirmed with this Service that the above was its formal stage one complaint response. The letter is headed “stage two escalation”.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 January 2021. It said his complaint was still being investigated, and that it would contact him when it had an update.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 February 2021. It said a surveyor had attended and inspected on 19 January. It reiterated that the problem was a latent defect issue. It said it would contact the original builders and request they take responsibility for the problem. It said it did not know how long this process would take. The landlord updated the resident on 19 February. It said it had contacted the builder and were pursuing a latent defect claim with them. It said it was awaiting their response.
  4. The complaints officer (the same one who had initially investigated the complaint) issued a stage two complaint response on 25 March 2021. They apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused. They reiterated that the problem was due to a latent defect. They said they expected to identify a permanent resolution, and undertake work in the next financial year (2021-22). They said that “given the external nature of the fault”, they would not offer the resident a rent reimbursement. Instead, they offered £600. This comprised of:
    1. £300 for service delays
    2. £200 time and trouble
    3. £50 complaint delays
    4. £50 time and trouble
  5. The two separate amounts for time and trouble were not explained. The complaints officer concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident responded to the stage two complaint response on 25 March 2021. He said he was “entitled to get proper discount on the rent” backdated to 2019 when the issue first arose. The resident forwarded his reply, and the stage two response to one of the landlord’s senior managers.
  7. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 26 March 2021 the senior manager discussed with the complaints officer that “if the balcony (fully or partly) has been out of action since some time in 2019, it would represent a loss of amenity and a tenant would ordinarily be entitled to a slightly lower rent”. The complaints officer said they were unable to consider a rent reimbursement as their compensation policy only allowed it for an unusable/uninhabitable room. The colleague clarified that:

“rent reimbursement for an unusable/uninhabitable room is exactly what I am talking about, and this could be applied to a balcony (albeit any reimbursement would be lower). This is a basic policy or principle which almost all landlords have in place – usually in their compensation policy or disrepair policy. I would be surprised if nothing exists in the organisation. It would also have been helpful if this issue had been deal with as part of the stage 2 investigation as [the resident] was raising this matter.”

  1. On 6 August 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it had revised its offer of compensation. It offered him £1,075.79. This comprised of £350 for the inconvenience caused by the resident allowing access to complete the repair, and £725.79 rent reimbursement for him being unable to use his balcony. It explained how it had calculated the rent reimbursement. The landlord told this Service on 1 September that the resident had accepted its offer.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident made his complaint to the landlord in August 2020. Throughout his complaint he has explained that the landlord did not complete repair work to his balcony in 2019. The Ombudsman requires complaints to be raised formally with a landlord within a reasonable period from when the issues complained about arose. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that a reasonable period is usually six months. Given the amount of time between the original repair issue and the formal complaint, this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, rather than its handling of the initial repair reports.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that when a resident raises a complaint it will attempt to resolve it via local resolution. If it is unable to, it will log a formal stage one complaint. It will provide its stage one response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, it will escalate the complaint to stage two. It will issue its stage two response within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will offer up to £150 compensation for poor complaint handling depending on the severity of the failure.
  3. The landlord explained to the resident from 30 November 2020 onwards that the problem with the balcony was due to a latent defect issue. It said it needed to liaise with the builders, and would update him accordingly. This was a reasonable response as it managed the resident’s expectations and kept him updated. 
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 August 2020. The evidence shows the landlord responded to him on 30 November, 3 December, and 9 December about it. The landlord has told this Service that its 9 December response was its formal stage one response. In that response the landlord confirmed that it had already escalated the resident’s complaint. It stands to reason that an individual cannot escalate their complaint without having received an initial response. It is therefore unclear why the landlord combined its stage one complaint response with its stage two acknowledgement.
  5. The 9 December 2020 response gives no indication of being the landlord’s formal stage one complaint response, and did not seek to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”, as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It was also not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy, which calls for a clear separation between informal attempts to resolve a complaint and the formal complaints process.
  6. On 3 December 2020 the landlord offered the resident £450 compensation. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £250 for service failure. The landlord then said it would increase its offer to £600. It did not explain what its service failure was. We therefore cannot robustly determine whether its offer was reasonable or proportionate to the impact its failing had.
  7. Nonetheless, in the landlord’s stage two response, it explained that its offer of £600 was in recognition of service delays, the resident’s time and trouble, and complaint delays. The offer does not appear to be unreasonable given the available evidence of the delays faced by the resident. It is also in line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance for when there has been considerable service failure, but no permanent impact. The same applies to its increased offer in August 2021. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses and compensation were appropriate remedies to its repair failings.
  8. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it acknowledged that there had been complaint delays. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation in light of them. The evidence shows the landlord took 85 working days to issue its stage one complaint response, and 73 working days for its stage two response. It goes without saying that it exceeded its target response timeframes set out in its repairs policy (10 and 20 working days respectively). Although it was good practice for the landlord to acknowledge its shortcomings, its offer of £50 was disproportionately low given the excessive delay for both responses, and when considering that its policy allows it to offer up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
  9. It is evident that the same complaints officer wrote both complaint responses, the apparent stage one on 9 December 2020, and the stage two on 25 March 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence after the stage two response shows that there were other options available to the landlord for remedying its repair delays (such as rent refund), and that they appear to have been overlooked. This omission demonstrates the importance of having an escalated complaint considered by different officers who have not had prior involvement in the case. This is basic good practice, and practically essential for any robust complaints process. It helps ensure impartiality, and brings a wider perspective of the matters at hand. It was good that the landlord eventually reconsidered its response and revised its compensation, but that was several months after it had completed its complaints process. 
  10. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged and reasonably remedied its failings with the repairs to the resident’s home, its complaint handling was poor, and did not follow its own complaints policy, the Ombudsman’s guidance, or general good practice.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s final offer of compensation for its repair failings appears to be reasonable. However, the same officer carried out the stage one and two complaint investigation, there were large complaint delays, and the landlord’s complaints policy was not consistently applied. These failings were either not suitably remedied or acknowledged.


Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the failings identified in this investigation. This payment is in addition to the other compensation offered by the landlord during its complaint process and afterwards.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.

  1. There is no evidence that the Landlord commenced or completed repairs to the latent defect. Hence, the disrepairs are continuing.

 

  1. Accordingly, this Determination includes an order requiring the Landlord to provide a proposed repairs works schedule with estimated commencement and completion dates or an explanation as to why it will not be doing so.

 

  1. The Landlord is ordered to provide a proposed repairs works schedule with estimated commencement and completion dates within 1 calendar month.