Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202016312)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202016312
Metropolitan Thames Valley Trust
25 May 2020
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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof of the building to remedy a leak, which remained outstanding and unresolved as the proposed works were not fully completed.
Background
Policies and Procedures
2. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 days of receipt, then respond within 10 days of acknowledging the complaint. At Stage 2, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint escalation within 5 days of receipt and provide a full and final response within 20 days following a full investigation of the complaint.
3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy (October 2020) notes that the landlord can make “Discretionary Payments”, in respect of “Poor complaint handling, delays in providing our services such as repairs, failure to provide a service that we have charged for, temporary loss of amenity(ies) and failure to meet our target response times, such as missing a repair appointment where we have failed to attend”.
4. With regards to calculating compensation, the policy states that:
- Failures of Service –
- Low failure – starting from an apology.
- Medium Failure – starting from £51.
- High Failure – starting from £151.
- Time and Trouble – (Expended unnecessary effort communicating with MTVH…)
- Low failure – starting from an apology.
- Medium Failure – starting from £51.
- High Failure – starting from £151.
- Poor Complaint Handling – Starting from: an apology.
- Reimbursement – Reimbursed up to £300, losses greater will be considered by the insurance team.
- Missed Appointment – £10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of £50.
5. The landlord’s Repair Handbook confirms its responsibility to carry out repairs to roofs. The timeframe for completing “Routine repairs” is “within 28 calendar days and by appointment”.
Summary of Events
6. The resident is a tenant of a Housing Association, having a completed a mutual exchange. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy was assigned to the resident on 20 November 2017. The property is 3-bedroom house.
7. The resident initially reported concerns about the roof at her property on 3 October 2020 due to water entering the property from the chimney stack at the rear of the building. She reported this to the out of hours team and was asked to call back as there were restrictions due to working at height that meant this would need to be handled by the routine team. The resident called back on 6 October 2021 to report the issue. The repairs request raised at the time noted that there was also evidence of a missing tile to the roof.
8. The resident then contacted the landlord to complain on 3 December 2020 because she was unhappy with the length of time taken for the landlord to investigate and resolve the leak. She highlighted that she had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions and not received updates on the progress of the works and that a date for this to be completed remained outstanding.
9. The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 13 January 2021 and explained that it had reviewed the repairs history and spoken with contractors as part of the investigation. It accepted that there had been delays to progressing the works necessary to investigate and resolve the leak and provided reasons for this. It also accepted that the resident had not been kept updated and therefore she had needed to chase the landlord and its contractors.
10. In its Stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the circumstances leading to the complaint and offered the resident £130 in financial redress which comprised:
- £50.00 Time and Trouble.
- £50.00 Failure of service.
- £20.00 Poor complaints handling.
- £10.00 Missed appointment.
It also explained that it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 20 January 2021 and for the required works to be carried out.
11. On 4 March 2021, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the next stage because she remained dissatisfied that works were promised on 20 January 2021 and that this remained outstanding. She noted that scaffolding had been in place for seven weeks and that she had been without television for two weeks and that this was a service that she paid for via subscription services. On 18 March 2021, the resident advised this Service that the landlord had told her the Stage 2 response would be sent by 12 April 2021.
12. The landlord provided its second, and final response on 12 April 2021. It explained that on investigation, the contractor had informed them that there had been a delay to progressing the works due to staffing issues as a result of Coronavirus. It accepted that repairs works had been completed outside its published repairs timescales and that the resident had experienced disruption and a loss of television service.
13. In resolution, the landlord offered the resident a further £205 in compensation for the impact of the delays and the loss of television service. This offer comprised:
- Time & Trouble: £100.
- Failure of Service: £25.
- Reimbursement of Costs: £80.
The landlord explained that the contractors would be on site on 14 April 2021 to finish the outstanding works and that although it was confident the water ingress was now resolved…. “We will only be able to confirm the repairs were successful following a period of rainfall”.
Actions taken after the final response
14. After the Stage 2 response was issued, the resident contacted the landlord to report that during the final visit of 14 April 2021, the contractors had left a washing line damaged and that the downpipe for the guttering had been left disconnected.
15. In response, the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the contractor to attend and refix the guttering downpipe and to offer an additional £35 for the washing line, which it suggested could be paid without the need for a receipt. The landlord has not provided evidence that this has been agreed or paid to the resident.
16. The resident subsequently reported further a further leak to the roof and the landlord reports that this is at the front of the property, which it considers may be separate to the previous leak which was at the rear of the property. The landlord has provided evidence that an inspection was completed on 26 May 2021 and that further works were required to the right-hand side of the chimney stack at the front of the property.
17. The landlord’s records indicate that it was investigating the source of the leak and looking to carry out works to the cowl and flashing to resolve the leak, but that it is aware that removal of the chimney stack itself may be required.
18. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2021 because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because of the time and trouble it had taken her to get the initial repairs raised and actioned. She explained that the roof was now leaking in two places and that she wanted this to be fixed. The resident has since advised this Service that the roof leaks were resolved in November/December 2021.
Assessment and findings
19. On receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord issued an acknowledgement of the same day explaining that a response would be provided by 17 December 2020 as set out in its complaints policy. Its records indicate that a factsheet was provided at this point to explain how the complaint would be investigated, and that staff may contact the resident to discuss further. The provision of additional information about the complaints process is good practice and indicates that the landlord aims to be transparent in its complaint handling.
20. However, the resident subsequently discussed her complaint with the landlord on 7 January 2021 as no response had been provided to her. The landlord offered an apology for this and assured her that it would now escalate her complaint with the contractor responsible for the works. It is reasonable that the landlord apologised for a failure in service at the earliest opportunity and that it agreed to update the resident with the progress of the works.
21. The landlord’s initial response was provided on 13 January 2021 once a date for the works had been agreed. It recognised that there had been failures in progressing the repairs and offered an apology for this along with a date for the works (20 January 2021). It also apologised for the time taken for the complaint to be responded to and offered £130 in recognition of the poor handling and delays to the works.
22. Of the £130 offered, £50 was in respect of the failure in service due to the delays in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak to the property. Whilst this is in line with landlord’s internal guidance on compensation, it does not fully reflect the extent of the delay and the impact that the situation had on the resident, during the winter period where rainfall was more likely. This is service failure in that the landlord applied its internal compensation guidance, but did not flex its approach in response to the resident’s individual circumstances.
23. The landlord has not provided evidence that works for 20 January 2021 were booked at the time of the complaint response; its repairs history report notes that an order for the scaffolding was raised on 19 February 2021, and that the scaffolding was not installed until 1 March 2021.
24. There is also no evidence that the resident was informed by the contractor of any changes to the start date of the works. Therefore, having received a formal complaint from the resident, the landlord did not take the necessary action to resolve the complaint. The landlord’s failings also demonstrate weakness in its record keeping and communication with the resident which caused uncertainty and directly contributed to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to the next stage of the process.
25. Prior to the complaint being escalated, the landlord has provided evidence that the complaints team immediately contacted the repairs team for an update on the progress of the works. It has also demonstrated that it updated the resident accordingly and addressed her additional request for confirmation as to when the initial compensation payment would be made. This is reasonable and demonstrates that it communicated with the resident in a timely manner at this point.
26. In response to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, the landlord acknowledged this and explained that the Stage 2 response would be provided by 1 April 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations of the complaints process and in line with the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord then did not meet the Stage 2 deadline of 1 April 2021 and there is no evidence that it sent a holding response to the resident with a revised target response date.
27. Whilst the second stage investigation was underway, the landlord has demonstrated that it looked into the concerns by making contact with the external contractor and requesting an update within a suitable timescale. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it has processes in place that highlight where repairs are required due to a complaint being in place, and that approvals processes are flexed where required.
28. However, with respect to completion of the works required, the landlord’s complaints records demonstrate that there were several instances where works were agreed and booked but then the dates were changed. The resident was clearly frustrated by the changes and the landlord offered apologies and assurances on each occasion. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the resident’s frustration and apologised to her, it does demonstrate that the landlord, despite focussing on the repairs complained of by the resident, ultimately had limited oversight and control of the actions of its contractor and its approach to resolving the outstanding works.
29. The landlord issued its second, final response on 12 April 2021 and it set out the circumstances surrounding the challenges in progressing the works. It offered an explanation and an apology for the impact of the delays and offered her an additional £205.
30. The offer included £80 for costs due to the loss of television service. This was reasonable and by offering compensation due to a loss of the service, the landlord sought to restore the resident to the position she would have been in had the television service not been lost.
31. The offer included £25 in recognition of the service failure due to the delays to the repair works being fully completed at the property. As such the landlord offered £75 in total for the delays. This is service failure in that the landlord applied its internal compensation guidance, but given the length of the ongoing delay to works, by now six months, it did not flex its approach to make an offer proportionate to the resident’s individual circumstances.
Determination
32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof of the building to remedy a leak.
Reasons
33. This is because the offer of redress made does not fully reflect the impact of the service failure on the resident and the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this in its final response.
Orders
34. The landlord is ordered to:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the overall time taken to resolve the leak at the rear of the property and provide a copy to this Service.
- Pay the resident £590 compensation in recognition of the impact of the roof leaking at the rear of the property between October 2020 and April 2021, and her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. This award comprises:
- £300 for the failure of service in respect of delays
- £150 for the resident’s time and trouble
- £50 for poor complaint handling
- £80 for reimbursement of costs
- £10 for missed appointment.
This offer supersedes the offer of £335 made within the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, if the landlord has already paid the £335, this leaves £255 to pay. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to this Service.
Recommendations
35. Given the findings of this report, the landlord is recommended to:
- Review its record keeping where calls are made to the emergency repairs telephone line, and advice is given but no repairs are booked.
- Review its approach to contractor management, to ensure that it has full records of decisions made by contractors and subcontractors where there are changes to repairs appointments.
- Review its compensation procedure so as to provide more guidance on making awards given the individual circumstances surrounding a complaint.