Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202104837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104837

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

16 March 2022

Amended 12 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the block his property is situated in, causing consequential damp to his ceiling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block.
3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states a medium range remedy which is between £51-£161 will be offered for cases where there is considerable service failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
4. At the end of 2019, the resident reported a leak into the property which was causing damp to his ceiling. Works were raised and it was noted scaffolding was required. The resident advised works were being completed to the windows and roof in March 2021 which also required scaffolding.
5. On 28 January 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord.  The resident stated:
   1. He had reported damp in the ceiling in April 2017 which was misdiagnosed by the landlord’s contractors as internal humidity condensation and the damp was painted over.
   2. The landlord raised an appointment for 23 December 2019, but it had not requested his availability. The resident had emailed requesting for this to be re-arranged as he was out of the country but did not hear back.
   3. He had explained that recently the leak had stopped even though it was heavily raining, and he had concerns about where the water was now collecting.
   4. There had previously been damp in the communal areas which may have been from the same source.
   5. The resident stated that he was unhappy with the delay in completing the repairs, the poor communication, unannounced visits by contractors; the inconvenience this had caused and additional costs to leaseholders due to the landlord not resolving the leak.
6. On 20 September 2020 the landlord provided a Stage One response.  The landlord explained:
   1. After the work order was raised on 11 November 2019 it could not trace that he had requested for the inspection to be rearranged. It apologised for the unannounced visits by its contractor.
   2. It partly upheld the complaint on the basis of how the appointments were managed and that it had not provided recent updates.
   3. It explained that if repairs would cost more than £250 it would carry out a consultation with leaseholders before repairs could be commenced.
   4. It offered £50 for poor complaint handling and £25 for poor communication.
7. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint as the repairs remained outstanding, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 16 December 2020.  The landlord’s final position was that:
   1. The resident had reported the leak in November 2019; contractors had attended to inspect on 23 December 2019 despite the resident advising he would be out of the country. Lockdown measures then meant the repair was put on hold.
   2. On 31 July 2020 there was an inspection of the water tank in the building, but no leaks were found. It was agreed a cherry picker would inspect the roof, but no appointment was arranged
   3. An inspection was carried out on 4 November 2020 and identified that the leak was coming from the flat roof and the surface needed to be relayed.
   4. The repairs had been completed week commencing 30 November 2020.
   5. The complaint was upheld, and £100 compensation offered for poor complaints handling and poor communication.
8. As the resident remained dissatisfied, he referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

9. The Ombudsman understands that the resident initially raised the issue of the leak in 2017, however in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, an assessment of the issue has been made from 6 months prior to the formal complaint.
10. Following the resident’s report of the leak in November 2019 the landlord responded a week later to arrange an inspection. The resident advised the landlord he was unavailable for the appointment however contractors still attended the December appointment. The landlord acknowledged this error and apologised to the resident. This was reasonable.
11. Following the resident being unavailable for the appointment, the Ombudsman cannot see that the appointment was rearranged even after the resident requested this. In considering the complaint, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The Ombudsman notes that there was further delay before the landlord completed the inspection, however this was as a result of the national lockdown, during which the landlord adequately advised the resident that all non-urgent repairs were being put on hold. Given that the resident had confirmed there was no longer water ingress, the landlord’s classification of the repair was reasonable and in line with general good practice.
13. It is noted that the landlord was informed the damage to the ceiling worsened, whilst this is the case, as a leaseholder the resident would is responsible for the internal damage, but given that it was not confirmed that the issue was resolved, it was understandable that the resident push for its resolution, prior to rectifying the internal damage.
14. The landlord continued to chase its repairs team once lockdown eased and repairs commenced. Following inspections, it was found that there was no issue with the water tank. While this water take was not above directly above the residents property, the inspection of the tank remains reasonable as the landlord was trying to ascertain the source of the leak in order to apply a fix in line with its responsibilities under the lease.
15. After being satisfied that the leak was not coming from the water tank, the landlord pursued the inspection of the roof. As planned works were already scheduled to parts of the roof and windows, it was reasonable that this work be completed at the same time. Th inspection was therefore taken over by the planned works team. The landlord’s planned works team inspected the roof in the course of the major works being carried out and found the issue. This was subsequently repaired in line with the schedule for planned works.
16. The Ombudsman appreciates that it was a year from the resident raising the issue until its final repair, however there were factors outside of the landlord’s control which contributed to the delayed timescale for completion. Planned works had been scheduled for March and if not for the national lockdown, it is certain that the issue would then have been identified and resolved sooner. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its own delays in the complaint and communication and subsequent offer of £100 compensation, expresses that it reasonably considered the service failures and sought to put this right. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the housing Ombudsman scheme, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord offered redress which reasonably resolved the complaint.

Reasons

18. The landlord identified its service failures and offered compensation. Internally it continually chased updates on the works and significant delays were outside of its control. The work was subsequently completed.

Orders and recommendations

19. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reoffer the £100 compensation if this has not been paid already.