Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202108647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108647

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs and major works to the resident’s windows.
2. Communication with the resident about the replacement windows.
3. Decision not to provide the resident with secondary glazing.
4. Handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the top floor of a grade two listed building.
Under the lease the resident is responsible to keep in good repair the interior of the premises including all window frames and the glass within the windows. The landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the windows and window frames on the outside of the flats.
Within the repair’s handbook, it is outlined that windows, except for window locks, are the responsibility of the landlord to maintain. The replacing of the windows is classed as a major repair with the timeframe for this being within three months or as part of a planned programme of works.
A section 20 notice is a notice given by landlords to leaseholders to tell them that it intends to carry out work or provide a service that leaseholders will have to pay towards. It must serve this notice on any leaseholder who would be affected by the work or receive the service. The section 20 notice will include information about what the planned and how much it is estimated to cost. It will also give leaseholders an opportunity to take part in the consultation process.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. This says the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within five working days and a response must be given within ten days of that acknowledgement; at stage two the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the structure for compensation. The areas that the resident has been awarded compensation for are service failure, time and trouble, poor complaints handling. The maximum compensation is £350 for high failure in service failure and time and trouble; and £150 for complaints handling. It also offers compensation for reimbursement costs of up to £300 for quantifiable loss, including increased heating bills due to disrepair.

Summary of events

On 23 May 2016 the landlord sent a section 20 notice to leaseholders in the building (paragraph 5). The landlord sent a description of the proposed works, including window repairs and replacement; this said, in some instances, windows needed to be replaced as they were not economically viable for repair.
In August 2017 the resident asked the landlord for permission to replace three windows in the property. The landlord noted that, as the property was heritage‑listed, formal planning permission might be required from the local authority. It noted there appeared to be joint responsibility for the windows. The application was forwarded to the planned works team (and it is noted that this would happen when the lease would not permit the proposed alterations). It is not clear from the evidence if the resident had a further response from the landlord on this application.
On 10 January 2018 the resident told she had been making contact about the condition of her windows since August 2017. She said there was “a 2cm gap at the top of my bedroom window” and had “experienced considerable discomfort during the recent bad weather”. She also said she had high heating costs of approximately £130 a month. She said she had not been told what the landlord was planning in respect of the windows and asked for an update.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 April 2018 about the poor condition of the windows, the impact on her home and her heating costs. She said the landlord was not maintaining the windows as it should in line with the lease.
On 22 May 2018 the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two as it had not been able to resolve it within its complaint timeframes. It advised the resident of this the same day.
On 8 October 2018 the landlord told the resident that it had measured the windows and these works had been “placed in a larger programme of works” for the site. It added it was now awaiting approval from the local planning authority.
On 12 October 2018 the landlord sent a statutory notice of intention; leaseholders were able to send their observations of the proposed works. The end date for observations was 14 November 2018.
On 26 November 2018 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the works to the windows. On 10 December 2018 the landlord told the resident that the delay in repairs to the windows had been escalated to its regional head of planned works.
On 12 December 2018 the landlord told the resident that planning for the works was scheduled for January or February 2019, and that it “hoped to be on site” in February/March 2019. It said it would send a newsletter about the works to residents before Christmas.
An internal note dated 12 December 2018 states that the landlord planned to call the resident to offer secondary glazing while she was waiting for works to take place. Another note dated 1 February 2019 states that the resident declined the offer. The landlord updated the resident on 22 February 2019, telling her there that it had been unsuccessfully trying to obtain updates and apologised for the lack of information.
On 4 March 2019, and again on 12 March 2019 when her first email was unanswered, the resident emailed the landlord expressing her concerns that she had not received an update on the works, despite being told they would be starting in February or March 2019. The landlord responded on 20 March 2019 advising it was “still waiting on the council to approve the planning permission”.
On 11 April 2019 the landlord applied for planning permission to carry out various work including “window repairs and replacement”. The local authority officer’s report notes that the application included repairs to the existing single-glazed sliding sash timber windows and possible replacement of nine existing window units throughout the property. It noted further that a provisional assessment had determined that these windows were past the point of effective repair and would benefit from replacement with like for like single glazed sliding sash timber windows to match existing.
The local authority granted planning permission on 17 December 2019 with the proviso that, prior to the removal of any windows, detailed drawings of the existing windows and their replacements should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The reason for that was to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building.
Meanwhile, on 23 August 2019 the resident had requested an update from the landlord. She then called the landlord on 26 September 2019 as she was still waiting for a response; it advised it was waiting for clarification on whether her replacement windows would be included in the works.
As the works had not been completed, the resident asked the landlord on 2 October 2019 to install the secondary glazing it had previously offered (paragraph 17) as the winter months were approaching. The landlord denied the request on 7 October 2019 saying it expected the project to go out to tender within the coming weeks with the intention of the works starting within the next four to six weeks; therefore, the secondary glazing “was unnecessary”.
On 20 December 2019 the landlord advised the resident that planning permission had been approved for a number of works including “window repairs and replacements”. It said the expectation was for the works to commence in early February 2020.
On 16 January 2020 the landlord told the resident works were still “on track” to start in February 2020. On 20 January 2020 the landlord sent the resident a section 20 outlining the estimated costs of the works. This gave a description of the intended work which included window repairs or replacements either partial or full to the block.
There was no communication between the landlord and the resident from 20 January 2020 until 25 September 2020.
Between 25 September 2020 and 4 March 2021 the landlord sent regular newsletters to the residents detailing progress with the scheduled works.
1. A newsletter on 27 November 2020 stated that the windows repair survey had been completed and external repairs had started.
2. On 22 February 2021 a newsletter said window replacements would be carried out in phase two.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord applied to the local authority for planning permission to, among other things, replace the roof windows. Planning permission was granted on 23 April 2021.
On 25 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, that was originally opened 9 April 2018. She said her windows had not been repaired and she had been told by the contractor on site that the works they were permitted to do had been completed. The resident said that the contractor had told her that her windows were “beyond repair” and that planning permission was required to replace them so this would form part of phase two of the works later that year. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of time the complaint had been open with no resolution, the fact that correct planning permission had not been obtained and that she had not received a new timeline for phase two of the works. She was particularly frustrated that the landlord had only recently obtained planning permission to repair the windows despite the fact it had already been established they needed to be replaced.
On 29 March 2021 the landlord wrote to all leaseholders including the resident with an update. It said that it had not included the full scope of works in its application for planning permission and it therefore had had to resubmit it. It said it had therefore asked its contractor to do the work it did have permission for, which was phase one. The later works would be phase two. It explained it had been working with an external consultant to ensure that all required planning permissions were submitted. It said the planning application had been made on 26 February 2021 and it expected the outcome in about twelve weeks. It gave details of the work to be carried out in phase two and this included window replacement in areas where repairs could not be carried out.
The local authority granted planning permission on 23 April 2021. This included permission to replace existing rooflights. It is not clear if this is permission to replace the windows that are beyond repair in the property, including those of the resident.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord sent a final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. The main points of that response were:
1. There were initial delays in July 2019 as it needed to obtain the necessary planning permission. The delays with planning permissions continued and no further progress was made with regards to the commencement of the works until December 2019.
2. Although there were further delays whilst the section 20 process was completed, it was anticipated that works would start in February 2020, with an estimated completion date of July 2020. However, due to the length of time taken to complete the section 20 process, along with the pandemic and national lockdown restrictions, the work did not go ahead as planned within that timeframe.
3. Works started in October 2020; from that point regular communication was sent out to all residents of the building to keep them updated of the progress of the repairs.
4. In January 2021 it became clear that there would be further delays to the works due to issues with the original scope of work and planning permissions. It was explained that any change to the specification or scope of works would take some time to arrange. As the building was a listed building, every element of work needed to be signed off by the appropriate external parties.
5. The work was split into two phases: the first phase was underway and the second phase would be starting shortly. It added it had received further planning permission and was looking to go out to tender.
6. The landlord said regrettably, due to the length of time passed and the change in the complaint management system it had been difficult to assess the specifics of the complaint. However, it was evident that its complaint handling had lacked consistency and it had not provided the resident with the frequent updates it would hope to deliver. It was also clear that it had not managed her complaint in a timely manner.
The landlord apologised to the resident and offered her compensation of £1,150 in recognising that she had reported this issue “a great deal of time ago” and had had to endure some very cold winters whilst waiting for the windows to be renewed. This sum was made up of £500 for time and trouble, £500 for service failure and £150 for poor complaints handling. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said there had been “no progress” and furthermore matters had deteriorated as there was now a hole in the rotten timbers of one window. She added she had had to “stick a tea towel in it to stop the draught”. The resident said, as a result of the poor state of the windows, the property was extremely cold and the heating was on constantly in the property. The resident explained that her focus was on getting the windows repaired, rather than compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of replacing the windows

The landlord had an obligation under the lease to keep the window and exterior window frames in good repair (paragraph 3). It identified in 2016 that some windows in the building required repair or replacement. To date, the landlord has not replaced the windows that it identified for replacement at that time. In its complaint handling, the landlord has acknowledged that it did not act appropriately and that there had been delays. It offered the resident compensation of £1,000 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
This compensation was proportionate to the impact on the resident as a result of the delays and the time and trouble in pursuing the window replacements up to the date of the final complaint response; however, the landlord did not consider its communication with the resident as part of its complaint handling and this has been considered as a separate issue, below.

The landlord’s communication with the resident about the window replacements

The landlord’s communication with the resident about the replacement windows was not reasonable. It was not open and transparent with the resident about what was happening with the window replacement and/or action it had taken. Several examples of that have been identified which I have outlined, below.
In October 2018 the landlord told the resident it was “waiting for approval” from the local planning authority (paragraph 13); in December 2018 it said it “hoped to be on site” in February/March 2019 (paragraph 16); and in March 2019 said it “was still waiting on the council to approve the planning permission” (paragraph 18). Given that the landlord did not apply for planning permission until 19 April 2019, its emails which suggested it had already done so were misleading. The landlord would have been aware of this and therefore its statement that it hoped be on site in February/March 2019 was not appropriate given the likely timescales for a decision on such applications (its most recent application took for the building took eight months).
After planning permission had been granted in December 2019 (paragraph 20), the landlord informed the resident. However, it had not yet been given permission to replace the windows despite its confirmation to that effect (paragraph 23). Its further email to the resident in January 2020 which said that works were “on track” to start the following month did not clarify that that did not include the replacement windows.
It was only in February 2021 that the landlord made it clear to the residents by way of a newsletter that the window replacement programme would be part of phase two (paragraph 26). The landlord would have been aware since December 2019 that it could not proceed with the window replacement until further planning permission had been applied for and granted, it was not reasonable or fair to the resident not to have made that clear to her sooner.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was not reasonable. It was not open with her about its ability to proceed with the work given the initial delay in applying for planning permission; this lack of transparency continued from October 2018 to February 2021 when it was clear that a second phase of works would be undertaken that would include the replacement windows. The landlord did not consider its communication with the resident as part of its complaint despite the fact this had evidently caused her frustration and inconvenience. Further compensation is therefore appropriate to reflect the impact of this on the resident and an order has been made, below.
The evidence shows that further planning permission has been granted for various works but it is not clear if that includes the resident’s window replacements; the resident has told the Ombudsman that there has been no progress. Therefore, in view of the fact that the landlord has an obligation under the lease to maintain the windows at the property and it acknowledges that it has not done so since 2016, various orders have been made below to assist the landlord in progressing this matter.

The landlord’s decision to refuse secondary glazing

In October 2019, the landlord had refused to install secondary glazing for the resident, which she had previously offered and turned down (paragraph 24). That decision was not reasonable; the landlord had no secure grounds to believe the work would start within weeks given that planning permission had not yet been granted and it had yet to tender for the works. Had the landlord agreed to install the secondary glazing as a temporary measure this would have at least reduced the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by having to live in a cold property.
The resident told the landlord that her heating costs had increased in January 2018 (paragraph 10). While the landlord could have considered awarding compensation for financial loss in line with its compensation procedure (paragraph 7), it did not do so. That was not reasonable and is not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute principles: be fair and put it right. It is reasonable to assume that she has had increased heating bills since at least January 2018 when she reported a gap at the top of one window in the property.
While the resident’s focus is getting the windows replaced and not on compensation, redress for some financial loss is appropriate here. It is reasonable to presume that the heating bills have been at least £20 a month more expensive than they should have been had the gap in the window not existed for at least the colder months of the year (October to February inclusive). Therefore, an order has been made below for a payment of financial loss of £400 which is for the years 2018/19 to 2021/22 which takes into amount the time the landlord would have taken to replace the windows without any service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It took over three years to provide a complaint response; this was an excessive delay.
The landlord stated in the final stage response that it was unable to properly assess how the complaint had been handled due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the original complaint and the lack of records resulting from a change in the complaints handling system. It would be reasonable to expect that the landlord should have a full record of the complaint, despite the change in system, as the complaint was still open and ongoing. The landlord recognised that it had not handled the complaint effectively in its complaint response and awarded the maximum amount of £150 for complaint handling failures as outlined in the complaints handling procedure.
The landlord’s failure to progress the complaint meant that, until the resident had received a final complaint response, she could not bring the complaint to the Ombudsman. This evidently caused further inconvenience and frustration to the resident. Accordingly, further financial compensation is appropriate for the impact of this on the resident because the sum previously offered is not proportionate to the extreme complaint handling delays. An order has been made, below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Communication with the resident about the replacement windows.
2. Decision not to provide the resident with secondary glazing.
In accordance with chapter 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs and major works to the resident’s windows.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident about the replacement windows was not appropriate. It was not transparent and meant that the resident believed matters were progressing when they were not.
The landlord’s decision not to install secondary glazing in late 2019 was not reasonable. It had no secure grounds on which to refuse the request.
The landlord recognised its delays in progressing the window replacements had caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and offered redress of £1,100. This was proportionate to the impact on the resident
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It did not comply with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. The compensation offered was not appropriate as the delays were excessive.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman within that period:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the landlord for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of:
  1. £150 for the communication failings identified in this report.
  2. £400 for the financial loss she experienced as a result of higher heating bills.
  3. An additional £150 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Give the resident a named person whom she may contact with further enquiries about the window replacement programme (with a direct dial telephone number and direct email address).
4. Write to the resident with a timeframe for when the window replacements will take place. This should include:
  1. Confirmation that full planning permission has now been applied for (or a date by which time such application will be made).
  2. The dates it expects its contractors to be on site.
  3. The date by which the window replacement will be completed.
5. Provide regular updates to the resident by email on a monthly basis until her windows have been replaced.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £1,100 that was offered in the final complaint response (if it has not done so already).