Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202009910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009910

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

25 April 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a two bedroomed maisonette pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement dated 3 June 2015. On 12 August 2020 she complained to her landlord about its handling of various repairs at the property. This included, the kitchen tap, the shower and other ongoing repair issues (kitchen cabinet, beeping noise in airing cupboard and damp pact in bathroom). The resident reports she had tried to register various issues in June 2020 but was told to report them online as they were not an emergency and operations were limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The landlord’s initial Stage One complaint response (dated 3 September 2020) suggested that both the tap and shower leaks had been reported together on 26 July 2020 and made safe that day with a permanent repair being concluded by 24 August 2020 which was within the timescale it committed to for routine repairs. The landlord’s view was that once the emergency was dealt with, it was reasonable to categorise the situation as routine because the resident had access to alternative facilities, namely a bath. It concluded there had been no service failing but it accepted its communication could have been better and offered compensation of £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.

The resident requested escalation of the complaint. She said that the issue with the tap had been reported separately to the shower, and that the landlord had not resolved either issue successfully. She said that she wanted the shower replaced and that the landlord had not resolved the other ongoing issues she had reported. In addition, she was also dissatisfied with the level of compensation that had been offered.

The resident chased the landlord for an update on the complaint on 18 September 2020 and in early December 2020 she enlisted the aid of this Service in contacting the landlord to seek a response as none had been received. On 22 December 2020 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had initiated a Stage Two complaint review which had not been concluded due to “unprecedented caseloads”, but it was now dealing with the matter.

On 9 February 2021 the landlord provided its Stage Two (final) response. It said that it had responded within timescales to a November 2019 report about the tap, but that a further fault had been reported on 14 May 2020 and repaired on 24 August 2020. It accepted this amounted to a delay of 74 days for which it apologised. It also said that it was awaiting evidence of increased water usage from the resident. With regard to the shower, it noted it had attended the property within 24 hours when the leak first occurred. A further leak had been reported on 3 August 2020 and its contractor had attended the next day but determined that the shower was in working order. Accordingly, the landlord did not agree to refund the £156.19 cost of the installation of a new one, as requested by the resident.

The landlord accepted it had not addressed all the repairs in its initial response and apologised for failing to do so. Since the escalation request it had raised repairs in respect of the beeping noise and with reinstating the airing cupboard ceiling. It apologised for missing an appointment in respect of the first issue and confirmed that a further visit (February 2021) had corrected the problem. The landlord also said that the cause of the water stain was an isolated incident due to a leak in the property above this one. It noted that decorative works were the resident’s responsibility according to the Tenancy Agreement and that the resident had claimed £330 representing the cost to her of having a tradesperson instal the new shower and carry out the decorative works to the ceiling.

As the shower had been found to be working by the landlord’s contractor, it declined to refund this cost. It agreed, however, to reimburse the cost of the paint to recompense the resident for her time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Finally with regard to the broken kitchen cabinet, the landlord commented that the issue had been reported on 24 June 2019 and completed on 26 June 2019 and the resident had now confirmed this was the case. The landlord did not consider there had been any service failure in that regard. By way of compensation, the landlord offered £100 in total broken down as: £25 repair delays; £45 poor complaints handling; £10 missed appointment; £20 paint reimbursement.

The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to this Service for two reasons: –

Firstly, she said that the “beeping noise” had not been resolved and the repair remained incomplete.

Secondly, she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She sought reimbursement for the shower – £156.19, her tradesperson’s labour – £330, paint – £20, additional water costs (unquantified and unevidenced) and for her inconvenience in chasing the various repairs and accommodating appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Apart from the decorative side of the repairs referred to in this complaint, there is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the issues reported.

It is important to note that from March 2020 onwards, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, substantial restrictions were placed on all sectors of society, and it is reasonable to conclude this would have had some detrimental impact on the landlord’s ability to discharge its repair functions.

The resident acknowledges that she was advised it was not ‘business as usual’ where non-emergency repairs were concerned, and it is apparent from the chronology of this matter that the timing of the repair reports/delays largely coincides with this difficult period. Having said this, the resident was still entitled to have the landlord acknowledge repairs as she reported them and communicate with her in a constructive manner about how and when they might be carried out.

Kitchen Tap

There is a disagreement as to when this was reported and how long it was outstanding for. No evidence has been produced to confirm either side’s version. The landlord has, however, agreed that there was a delay of at least 74 days in dealing with this repair, following the resident’s report of 14 May 2020 and this did not accord with its aimed service levels. This represented a failing in the service offered to the resident and it was appropriate that the landlord recognised this.

It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for delays in its repairs service as part of its resolution to the complaint. Further consideration of the overall amount offered is provided below.

Shower

The landlord’s Repairs Guide sets out its intended service levels. It states that “major water leaks where the leak cannot be contained” are classed as “Emergency Repairs” and should be attended to in 24 hours. It aims for completion of “Routine Repairs” within 28 calendar days.

It is not disputed that the initial attendance took place as planned. The resident states the leak was reported on 24 July 2020 and the landlord’s records show an attendance the following day. Although the landlord has asserted that subsequent repairs were classed as “routine” and took place within 28 days, it is noted that the evidence states the repair was complete at the time with nothing outstanding. The problem then recurred (an uncontrollable leak) and the resident states she reported it on 2 August 2020, but no-one came. No evidence has been produced of this report however.

The resident states a neighbour stopped the water flow. The landlord’s records show a report on 3 August 2020 which stated, “leaking uncontainable; can isolate and use bath”. The landlord’s contractor then attended within 24 hours of that report, that is on 4 August 2020, and found nothing wrong.

The landlord acted in accordance with its stated response times as an attendance took place on both occasions within 24 hours. For the sake of certainty, had there been an ongoing repair, not involving an uncontrollable leak, and given the resident has a bath, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat that as a routine repair.

In terms of the cost of replacing the shower (parts and labour), the Ombudsman cannot provide an expert opinion as the whether the equipment was faulty and if so, whether replacement was necessary. According to the resident’s communications it was a neighbour who advised it needed replacement rather than the landlord’s contractor. This does not provide confirmatory expert opinion that the renewal was required. Accordingly, the landlord acted reasonably in declining to reimburse the cost of this work.

The Ombudsman expects a landlord to be provided with the opportunity to resolve repair issues through its standard repairs service. In this case, it is clear that the resident took the decision to purchase and then pay to install a new shower system, despite remaining in contact with the landlord at that time on the same issue. Whilst the resident’s sense of frustration was clear and her desire to ensure that her bathroom returned to a fully functioning capacity was understandable, it is apparent that her actions to resolve the issue herself effectively prevented the landlord’s repairs service to progress. As such, the landlord’s decision to refuse reimbursement of costs incurred was both reasonable and appropriate.

Other repair issues

No evidence has been produced from which to confirm when the remaining issues were individually reported. However, it is reasonable to conclude that they were reported to the landlord before 12 August 2020, because the resident refers to her reports not having been acted upon in her initial letter of complaint of that date. The resident makes a general complaint of being ‘brushed off’ by the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord may have declined to commit to non-emergency repairs at that point in the pandemic, as set out above. However, it might reasonably have been expected to offer reassurance to the resident as to when and how it would satisfy its obligations in the circumstances and there is no evidence of this happening.

Further, even if the complaint letter of 12 August 2020 is taken as the reporting date, there were still some significant delays as discussed below and which cannot wholly be explained by the prevailing situation.

Broken Kitchen Cabinet

The landlord asserted in its Stage Two response that this was reported and attended to in June 2019 and there was no service failing. The resident has not challenged this response and it will not be considered further in this report.

Beeping Noise in Air Ventilation System

Once again, the latest date that this was reported to the landlord was mid-August 2020. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it emailed the resident on 25 January 2021 confirming a repair had been raised. It has then acknowledged that its contractor missed the appointment that was confirmed with the resident for 29 January 2021 and a further attendance was scheduled for 8 February 2021. The landlord admitted this failing as part of its complaints handling and offered compensation which was appropriate under the circumstances.

The landlord’s stage two response stated the repair had been completed. This was not factually correct. The landlord’s contractor had reported that they were not able to identify a beeping noise and that the system did not have any ‘audible indicators’ anyway. The contractor could not give an explanation for any beeping noise and denied witnessing/experiencing one during its visit. It had noted, however, that the system had blocked filters and was obstructed with debris and recommended works to resolve these issues. The evidence shows the landlord took no further action in this regard until after this Service contacted it requesting evidence for this investigation in December 2021. A repair was then raised.

Allowing the landlord some leeway for the pandemic situation, it can be seen that there was still a significant delay between August 2020 and February 2021 when the first appointment took place. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to organise an attendance earlier than this (some restrictions had been relaxed at this point) and the delay represented a service failing on its behalf. The additional recommended works may not actually relate to the issue reported but did amount to a fresh report of a necessary repair at the property by the contractor and no action was taken on it for 10 months. Again, this was inappropriate and represented a service failing.

Replacement of roof in airing cupboard

As set out above this was reported by mid-August 2020 at the latest. As a routine repair the landlord commits to attending to it in 28 calendar days. The landlord’s internal records show that on 25 January 2021 it emailed the resident to confirm it had raised a repair and this was completed on 28 January 2021. This demonstrates a significant delay on the landlord’s part, even affording it some leeway due to pandemic restrictions.

There is no evidence of the landlord making any attempts to manage the resident’s expectations in the meantime. It is reasonable to conclude that the repair simply would not have been organised had the resident not continued to chase it in her escalation request in September 2020 and by enlisting the aid of this Service when that was not responded to (December 2020). The landlord’s delay and lack of communication represents a failing in the service it offered to the resident.

Damp patch(es) on bathroom ceiling

The resident reported that water stain(s) had appeared on the ceiling in the bathroom at the property and it is agreed that this was an isolated incident from a leak to the upstairs property. The resident has also commented to this Service that there was mould in the ensuing dampness, although this issue was not raised in the complaint to enable this Service to consider it further. In any event it is not uncommon for residents to experience such a problem and to be expected to eradicate mould themselves with a relevant treatment regime and good ventilation of the affected area.

The landlord’s Repairs Guide states that internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident, and it was reasonable for the landlord to point this out to her and decline to reimburse the cost of redecorating the area. However, the resident raised this issue in mid-August 2020 at the latest (in her complaint) and there is no evidence of her being given this definitive answer until the landlord’s stage two response the following February, 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord subsequently acknowledged it might reasonably have been expected to address this issue earlier – in its stage one response in particular – and that it offered to pay for the paint by way of compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.

Compensation

Whilst the landlord accepted some delay in carrying out repairs, this investigation has demonstrated additional delays than those acknowledged during the complaints process. The landlord did not take into account the delays in investigating the beeping noise or reinstating the airing cupboard ceiling although these should have been apparent when it made its stage two compensation offer. Neither did it take account of its failure to provide a clear response about redecoration in the bathroom or that it gave incorrect information in asserting the beeping noise was resolved. Finally, the stage two response was also delayed despite this Service prompting the landlord to deal with the matter.

The resident has not raised the landlord’s complaints handling as part of her referral to this Service. It is noted however that the landlord acknowledged there had been inadequacies in its Stage Two response and offered compensation of £45 for its poor complaint handling.

The landlord has produced its Guidance on Awarding Compensation and its Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments which both categorise three levels of service failure depending upon what has gone wrong and the impact it has had on the resident. It is divided into “low Apology to £50”, “medium £51 to £150” and “high £151 to 350”.

The landlord’s final offer of compensation included £25 for delays in repairs service delivery. In the circumstances, this figure presents as unreasonably low given the acknowledged failures in the delay in resolving the tap issue, together with the further failures identified in resolving the beeping noise, damp patches and airing cupboard roof issues. It is noted that the landlord has offered to reimburse the costs of the paint used by the resident whilst redecorating, however, despite this, an award in the ‘higher’ impact category for impact on the resident for multiple issues over a protracted period would have been appropriate. As such, a total amount of £200 has been ordered to reflect these service failures.

The landlord’s offer of £10 for the missed appointment was reasonable. All properties require maintenance from time to time, irrespective of whether they are tenanted or owner occupied and so it is reasonable to require residents to make themselves available to provide access to the property. The Ombudsman does not expect an automatic offer to cover lost wages when this occurs.

The offer of £20 for paint was fair and reasonable given the resident’s responsibilities for decoration.

Finally, no evidence has been provided by the resident to confirm her water bills were increased as a result of any delays on the landlord’s part and no award of compensation has therefore been considered here to reflect such an expense.

In summary the landlord offered compensation of £100 in total; however, in the Ombudsman’s view, a more significant amount would have reflected the overall failures identified on the case. As detailed above, a total of £275 has been ordered, broken down as detailed below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at her property.

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £275, broken down as follows:

£45 compensation offered in relation to complaints handling failures.
£20 for costs relating to redecoration (paint).
£10 for an acknowledged missed appointment.
£200 for the overall impact on the household in relation to the failures relating to the landlord’s response to the multiple repair issues reported by the resident.

The landlord to provide evidence of compliance to this Service regarding the above order within four weeks of the date of this determination. Any amounts of compensation already paid in relation to the issues under investigation to be deducted from the figure payable by the landlord.

Recommendation

Upon the resident confirming to the landlord that the beeping noise is still an issue, it should discuss with her the possible causes and undertake appropriate investigations to identify a relevant repair.