Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202012607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012607

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

3 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 landlord’s response to window repairs and snagging reports.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2-bed house, owning 60% of the property and paying rent to the landlord for the remaining 40%.
4. The landlord is responsible for any snagging works and defects which exists following the end of defect inspection.
5. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will look to resolve the complaint quickly and effectively with local resolution. If it cannot do this it will contact the customer, and a formal stage one complaint will be logged. It will Investigate the complaint and where possible look to offer a response within 10 working days. This will be when a resolution is agreed, and it commits to deliver the action. It will respond within 10 working days, and will keep the customer informed. If the customer remains dissatisfied with the stage one response, it will be escalated to a formal stage two complaint. If it can’t respond within 20 working days, it will keep the customer informed, and agree new response times.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy notes, failure of service meaning the standard of service was not provided and there as been an unreasonable delay, with several errors made or repair repeatedly not fixed awards are considered up to £350. For time and trouble, the payment is to compensate a customer for the time taken to complain. Where there is a longer period of delay and customer has had to chase several times amount to be considered is up to £350. Poor complaint handling, where the policy is not met and timescales are not adhered to including poor communication, an apology or up to £150 will be paid. Reimbursement of cost will be covered with evidence. Missed appointments will be £10 per missed appointment to a maximum of 5 appointments.

Summary of events

7. On 19 July 2019, the resident formally complained that she had moved into the property 21 months ago and various snagging works were still outstanding. She noted she had been visited 10 months ago following the yearly review of the property, yet nothing had been done. The landlord requested a list of the outstanding snagging works and provided its complaints information sheet. The landlord followed up its request for the snagging list on 23 July. The resident provided this on 25 July, noting snagging to all rooms. The landlord confirmed it would escalate this to the appropriate team.
8. On 2 August the landlord updated the resident that some of the snagging had been noted at the end of defect inspection (17 August 2018) and it would attend the property to confirm the rest. Internally on 12 August, the landlord advised  it would book the necessary trades to rectify matters.
9. On 16 August 2019, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated as it was no further forward. The landlord escalated the complaint and provided a brief stage 1 response, noting it had been pursuing matters, but accepted that it had been unable to resolve these. It apologised for the additional stress and inconvenience and advised it would be in contact again within 5 working days.
10. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any records noting communication or action that may have taken place between September 2019 and beginning of February 2020.
11. On 27 February 2020, the resident put in a claim with the National Housing Building Council (NHBC), and an inspection was booked for 11 March. Following internal discussions an appointment for the landlord and contractor to attend, was booked for 19 March, with the front door replacement booked around 18 April.
12. In March, there were further internal discussions on the works needed at the property, as some remained outstanding following the visit on 19 March. The complaint remained open. It is noted that works stopped due to the national lockdown and following the easing of restrictions, these commenced again. Up until September 2020, works were being completed. It was noted by the landlord that the complaint had been outstanding for 6 months. The resident continued to complain about lack of updates and a failed appointment.
13. On 26 September, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint. It noted that there had been ongoing snagging issues and it had visited the resident 10 months ago, however no further action had been taken and there had been a lack of communication. It acknowledged that the issue had been raised since September 2019 but that the national lockdown had further delayed works being completed. It acknowledged that its contractors were able to attend on 17 August 2020, however, did so without the necessary tools and this was rebooked for 20 August. It accepted that the issues with the windows at that point were outstanding and the resident had continually chased updates to no avail. It also noted she had been promised £25 for electricity reimbursement for the cost of running the dehumidifier for six weeks, but that also had not been paid.
14. It confirmed all works were complete by 7 September 2020. The landlord accepted there had been poor communication and confirmed whilst it had been chasing updates internally, this was not communicated due to no fruitful updates. It upheld the complaint, noted training needs would be identified and offered £538.34 broken down as follows:
    1. £10 – Missed appointment– due to contractors turning up without the required tools.
    2. £150 – Time and Trouble- over 6 months delay of repairs and lack of communication from the team and contractor
    3. £200 – Service delay
    4. £103.34 – Reimbursement of electricity due to the humidifier
    5. £75 – Poor Complaints handling

Assessment and findings

15. It is accepted by the landlord that it was aware of the snagging and window issues 10 months  prior to the resident making her formal complaint. This has also been confirmed by the August 2018 end of defect correspondence. Given the length of time that the resident had been waiting for these issues to be addressed, this was a failing on the landlord’s part.
16. Following the complaint, being escalated in August 2019, the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any communication between the parties. It was the landlord’s obligation to update the resident and move matters forward, but it did not.
17. It was only following the resident logging a claim with the NHBC that the landlord then resumed communications in relation to the outstanding matters. The Ombudsman accepts that there was then a national lockdown from March 2020, with restrictions easing in July, which subsequently allowed work to take place. However, had the landlord progressed matters in the10 months prior to the formal complaint, and failing this within the 8 months from the formal complaint, further delays would have been avoidable.
18. While the landlord has offered compensation towards the failings it had identified, the Ombudsman deems that this is insufficient. This is as the landlord has limited the compensation to 6 months delay and has failed to acknowledge the preceding 16 months of time and trouble, stress and inconvenience and excessive delay.
19. Additionally, given the failures in communication, it failed to adhere to its complaints policy, as there was no agreed date for a response, neither were there updates. The landlord could have informed the resident that it would be responding at stage 2 following the resolution of the outstanding issues, or it could have responded on the promise of completing all repairs and then reviewing any compensation due, but it did not. The complaint remained open with minimal updates, and it was a year before the stage 2 response was provided. This was a failing.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to window repairs and snagging reports.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

22. The landlord failed to consider the previous 16 months delay in the works being completed.
23. The landlord failed to update the resident about when she would receive a response and it took over a year to provide its final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24. The Ombudsman orders that within the next four weeks, the landlord pays the resident a total of £1013.34 broken down as followed:
    1. £538.34 as agreed in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so
    2. £400 for the time and trouble caused by the 16 months delay in repairs being completed, prior to the 6 months delay accepted by the landlord
    3. A further £75 for the poor complaint handling.

Recommendation

25. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide its staff further training on complaint’s handling in order to ensure that it is complying with both its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.