Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202102620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102620

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

9 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: –
   1. The installation of a new kitchen at the resident’s property.
   2. The conduct of members of the landlord’s staff and its contractors.
   3. The resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a second floor flat. In around August 2020 the landlord determined that the kitchen in the property needed replacement. The works were scheduled to take place by its contractor beginning on 9 February 2021. They were expected to take up to ten working days.
3. Towards the end of this period, the resident’s representative expressed concern to the landlord about how the works were being handled and the quality of them. In particular, he reported that the water pressure in the kitchen was low and that the washing machine was no longer working.
4. The landlord registered a formal complaint and on 12 March 2021 provided its Stage One response stating an appointment had been made for 16 March 2021 for an inspection to discuss any outstanding issues and how they might be addressed. At that visit, the landlord determined the installation was finished. However, in its Stage Two complaint response the landlord conceded that whilst it considered there had been no service failings in respect of the management of the works, it accepted that mistakes had contributed to the time taken to complete the installation. It offered compensation to the resident of £50.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with this outcome and referred the matter to this Service with the assistance of her representative. The resident wants compensation of £2,412 representing 12 months’ rent. She asserts that work remains outstanding, and that the landlord should continue to forego rent until it is completed. She states this work consists of correcting the installation of the pipework to the washing machine and addressing “all remaining visible defects concerning the joinery”.

Assessment and findings

6. Before assessing this complaint, the following three points should be noted.
   1. For the purposes of this assessment, contacts made with the landlord/its contractor by the resident’s representative will be referred to as coming from the resident, as they were made on her behalf (and with her approval).
   2. This Service has been provided with some photographs showing a kitchen. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on such evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs or the validity of the images. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. Reference will be made, however, to the written documentation which has been provided.
   3. The focus of this complaint is the landlord’s installation of a new kitchen at the resident’s property via its contractor. Such work is a major undertaking and represents a substantial disruption to any householder, irrespective of whether they are a tenant or an owner occupier. The process can be stressful even when everything goes according to plan and there are no issues along the way. The Ombudsman has kept this in mind in the assessment of this complaint.

The installation of a new kitchen at the resident’s property.

7. When the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident to arrange a date for the installation it confirmed that it was required to maintain the existing cooking facilities. The Ombudsman subsequently would have expected the landlord to have ensured that the cooker was connected for the resident’s use, or that an alternative option was offered.
8. However, after commencing the works on 8 February 2021, on 22 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating that the cooker had been left disconnected. This was contrary to what had been agreed.
9. On review of the evidence, this Service is unable to determine the length of time that the resident’s cooker remained disconnected for. While the resident indicated on 11 February 2021 that the cooker was left disconnected for the first four days of works, in her later correspondence, different and conflicting timeframes were suggested. The Ombudsman notes that in March 2021, she suggested that this had gone on until 25 February 2021, and in June 2021, that it had been a total of 15 days.
10. In its Stage Two complaint response the landlord accepted the cooker had been disconnected at the outset of the works but asserted a “Baby Belling” temporary cooker had been offered for use on a temporary basis. It did not state when this happened and this Service has not seen any evidence of this offer. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this was offered soon after it was brought to the landlord’s attention that the cooker remained disconnected. The resident maintains that this was not offered until the installation was complete.
11. In the Ombudsman’s view, nonetheless, the resident’s report on 22 February 2021 that the cooker had been disconnected up until 11 February 2021 is suggestive that after this time, and up until the complaint was made, she was no longer experiencing this issue. It is unclear why the resident would have complained about the first four days solely, if the cooker remained disconnected at the time of the complaint.
12. As the landlord suggested, it would have been practical for the resident to have raised the matter with the Liaison Officer at the time, or to have made clear within the complaint that there continued to be no cooking facilities, if the issue remained ongoing. This would have been reasonable given that it would not have been assumed from the resident’s initial correspondence. This Service is therefore unable to conclude that outside of the initial four days reported by the resident, there was a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to confirm that the resident continued to experience the issue or that the landlord would have been aware of the ongoing matter, to enable it to offer resolution.  
13. With regards to the kitchen shelving, the resident has complained that the landlord’s contractor positioned the sink in the kitchen to the right of where it had been previously and because of the installation of pipework underneath it, shelving could not be installed under that facility. The resident experienced a loss of storage space as a result.
14. The landlord responded that the size of the base units dictated the position of the sink and that a shelf was installed underneath. It accepted, however, that its contractor’s operative had cut two holes in the panels of a base unit to allow for plumbing only to realise this was already provided for elsewhere. It accepted this had been a mistake and remedial work had been necessary to cover them.
15. The evidence shows the landlord carried out a “Pre-Condition Survey” at the property on 28 October 2020 and it is noted that the design of the kitchen was discussed with the resident beforehand, including a choice being given for units, handles, flooring, tiles, worktop, and paint colour. The shelf was installed sometime between 17 and 29 March 2021 according to the evidence (the earlier date being when the resident raised the issue and the latter when the landlord noted it was complete). The landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s report by offering a solution which was implemented without any real delay.
16. The resident also raised concerns about the retiling of the new kitchen – noting that the contractor removed some tiles from under the pre-existing boiler to instal new pipework. The resident complained that that tiling was not then replaced. However, comments in the resident’s email to the landlord of 17 March 2021 show she was aware that the area with this pipework, was to be boxed in with a wooden cover of the same type and design as the units. By the time of the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response, it had done both – tiled and boxed in the area in question – but the evidence does not confirm when this was done to assess whether this resolution was offered within a reasonable time frame.
17. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord handled this issue reasonably. This is because it offered a solution and given the area was to be boxed in and the lack of tiling would not be apparent, it was reasonable to assert the retiling of this area was not essential.
18. The main attention of the resident’s complaint centres around the washing machine at the property. This was working at the start of the installation, according to the resident, but after it had been disconnected and then reconnected by the contractor, it was found to be faulty.
19. The evidence shows the machine was awaiting reconnection by 22 February 2021 when the resident contacted the landlord about getting it set up again – 11 working days after commencement of the installation. By 9 March 2021 this had been dealt with, a fault discovered, and a dispute unfolded regarding whether the landlord’s contractor had re-connected this properly. The resident asserted that there was low water pressure in the kitchen relating to the hot water, also noting that a leak had been repaired during the build and pipework altered. She concluded that the connection / plumbing had resulted in an issue.
20. The landlord liaised with its contractor and an internal email shows it explained minimal changes were undertaken to the pipework which would not have affected the pressure. It was noted that this had been explained to the resident but she could not be persuaded. The internal email also highlighted that it was a cold feed washing machine which had been connected correctly, and the cold water pressure found to be good.
21. An inspection took place at the property on 16 March 2021 and whilst it is not possible to confirm whether the machine and connection were checked at that point (or indeed on a date afterwards), it is reasonable to conclude from the evidence and the resident’s emails that she became aware of the landlord’s stance. It is not clear, however, as to exactly when or how she came about this information. In its Stage Two complaint response of 7 June 2021 the landlord referred to an inspection having taken place, the result of which was that the pressure was found to be normal/acceptable. It therefore denied responsibility for the fault but stated it would reconsider if the resident produced an engineer’s report confirming the blame lay with the contractor’s actions.
22. The resident states she went without use of the machine from 8 March 2021 until 27 June 2021 when the landlord’s plumber attended the property after she had reported the fault to its repairs department to see if she could get it attended to that way. She states that that operative “confirmed that the connection to the washing machine was incorrect: the cold-water feed was not connected at all, and the hot water was connected at 20%.”
23. Typically, landlords will keep records of the repairs it carries out at its properties, and as part of this investigation, this Service asked to see those records relating to a possible plumber’s attendance at the property on 27 June 2021 and in respect of the leak mentioned at the start of the installation. The landlord responded with an email stating it was attaching “repair logs” but the documents it supplied consisted of copy access letters, complaint correspondence, and photographs which had already been submitted previously. The attendance and its outcome cannot be confirmed.
24. The landlord relied upon its contractor to guide it in considering the position with the washing machine. Given the resident’s accusations, however, and the coincidental nature of the issues experienced after the contractor had been involved with the washing machine / pipework, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for an independent plumber to inspect the issue, for a second opinion. Whilst it invited the resident to obtain her own report, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was better placed to do this and should have confirmed for itself, independently of its contractor, that the issue being experienced was not the result of previous poor workmanship.
25. In the Ombudsman’s view, the failure to do this was an oversight which meant that responsibility for the issue remained unclear. The question as to whether the landlord’s plumber attended and whether they criticised the contractor’s workmanship in the process becomes academic. The resident was left without clothes washing facilities from 8 February to 27 June 2021 and some of this period might have been avoided otherwise. This will be considered further when the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offer are examined below.
26. For completeness, The resident has complained that the installation took longer than expected. The landlord asserts this was because work additional to the contract was required (thus confirming it did take longer) and which had not been apparent in the time estimate at the outset. It is not possible, from the evidence, to determine exactly what work took place and when; what was left over after the initial ten-day time estimate; or whether it was indeed additional work. This Service has therefore been unable to assess whether the landlord handled this aspect reasonably. In any case, this Service would not have expected the landlord to have reimbursed the resident for a loss of wages over this period, given that she was obligated to enable the landlord to complete its works. With that said, and given that the landlord acknowledged that it did have to reattend to address some defects, it may have been reasonable for it to have done more to recognise the inconvenience further works would have caused.

The conduct of members of the landlord’s staff and its contractors.

27. On 1 February 2021 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident to confirm work would commence on Tuesday, 9 February 2021. However, she asserts that despite also agreeing this date verbally with the contractor, she was then contacted on Saturday 6 February to be told the work would start on Monday, 8 February 2021. She was asked for access to the property on Sunday, 7 February for photographs to be taken. She states that when she tried to insist on the original start date, the contractor’s staff member was “abusive” and “hung up”. The resident then states she received a text message at 6 am on the Monday morning stating the operatives were coming that day regardless, which they did.
28. There is no evidence of these communications but the works having commenced on 8 February is supported by the various communications between the resident and landlord/its contractor. In the absence of evidence, this Service is unable to comment on what took place and what was agreed.
29. On 22 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord expressing concern that the contractor’s operatives were not wearing face masks or maintaining a social distance. Further, the resident complained that the operatives had used inappropriate language and that some struggled to adequately communicate with her, due to language barriers.
30. In the landlord’s response, it subsequently advised that its Planned Works Team would be made aware of this and would take the issue up with its contractor. This was reasonable. This Service has not seen any evidence of how this was raised, or the follow-on actions that may have been agreed to prevent any future issues, but in the Stage Two complaint response, the landlord did confirm that steps had been taken. This, along with its apology that the resident was unhappy with her experience, was a reasonable response.  

The resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

31. The landlord operates a Complaints Policy. That policy sets out how it aims to handle complaints and there are two stages to that procedure. It states that firstly complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and a resolution will be offered within ten working days. Secondly, if the resident remains unhappy the complaint can be escalated to Stage Two where a resolution will be provided within 20 working days. These timeframes can be extended by agreement.
32. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the installation in emails of 9 and 10 March 2021. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged these, it did instead attempt to provide a resolution on 12 March 2021. This was within the timescale envisaged for a first response – be it an acknowledgement or an answer. The landlord’s proposed solution was to arrange an inspection when any issues could be discussed and resolved. That visit took place four days later. In the Ombudsman’s view this was an appropriate response.
33. The resident has stated to this Service that the Stage One response was inappropriate because it gave incorrect information and was mismanaged. It appears, however, that this response only took steps to set up an inspection. This Service cannot see that any incorrect information was given at this time.
34. Following that inspection, the resident continued to raised concerns in emails dated 17, 23 and 28 March 2021. Whilst the landlord has provided evidence of its staff members discussing the issues, no response was given. This was despite the resident making contact where she remained dissatisfied, as recommended in the stage one response. The resident contacted this Service and on 5 May 2021 the landlord was asked to provide a complaint response. On 10 May 2021 it responded that it would escalate the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to treat the resident’s ongoing emails and their contents as amounting to an escalation request. The resident clearly remained dissatisfied.
35. Accordingly, a Stage Two response might reasonably have been given within 20 working days of 17 March 2021 when it was already clear that the inspection (resolution) of the day before had not settled the matter. However, the Stage Two complaint response was not provided until 7 June 2021, representing a two-month delay. This represented a service failing on the landlord’s behalf.
36. The landlord stands by its handling of the installation but admits ‘mistakes were made’ and has offered compensation of £50. The resident responded that this was “insulting” and she wanted five months’ rent refunded to reflect the time she spent without a washing machine. She has since indicated to this Service that she wants 12 months’ rent to be refunded, to a total of £2,412 to compensate her for lost earnings and the loss of her washing machine. The resident wants the rent refund to continue until all work is completed. This has been set out as the landlord addressing the incorrect installation of the pipework to the washing machine and all “remaining visible defects concerning joinery”.
37. However, the evidence does not confirm that any work is now outstanding. While the Ombudsman cannot offer an expert opinion as to whether the pipework installation was correct or not, it is understood that the landlord attended again in June 2021 and the washing machine was left working. It is also unclear what visible joinery defects exist.
38. Moreover, although the figure for compensation is considered to be too low given the findings in this report, the resident did continue to have full use of her home during the time her washing machine was not operating, and it would not be reasonable or proportionate to offer her a refund of full rent during this time – or indeed on an ongoing basis. There is no evidence to suggest that the property was uninhabitable.
39. The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which sets out calculations for compensation based on a “Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments”. That provides for a medium failure of Service (which the Ombudsman considers appropriate here) to be compensated at between £51 – £150. In addition, compensation can be offered on the same basis for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the issue of £51 – £150. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer compensation of £200 in total to reflect the failings, as identified in this report.
40. Further the landlord can offer compensation for complaint handling failures. In this case there was a delay in escalating the complaint and providing a Stage Two response and compensation of £50 is considered appropriate.

Determination (decision)

The installation of a new kitchen at the resident’s property.

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.

The conduct of members of the landlord’s staff and its contractors.

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.

The resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of this issue.

Orders

44. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £250, calculated as:
    1. £200 for Service failing and time and trouble; and
    2. £50 for its complaint handling.
45. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.