Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202106386)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106386

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

23 November 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 complaint concerns how the landlord handled:
    1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property from October 2020.
    2. historical reports of damp and mould at the property.
    3. the resident’s insurance claim for damage to her personal belongings.
    4. the residents reports that the condition of the property had caused medical problems to her family.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord handled historical reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. In her email to the landlord on 22 January 2021, the resident explained that mould and damp had been an ongoing issue at the property for over ten years. When she brought her complaint to this Service on 16 June 2021, the resident noted that the landlord’s complaint investigation only considered events from October 2020 and that she wanted the full period of when damp and mould had been an issue to be investigated.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to August 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint raised in February 2021.

How the landlord progressed the resident’s insurance claim for damage to her personal belongings

  1. During her correspondence with the landlord about the elements of her complaint, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with how her insurance claim had been progressed and her communication with the landlord’s insurance provider.
  2. Paragraph 35 of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member. Paragraph 2(c) of the Scheme defines a member as “social and private landlords, lessors, licensors, managing agents and other providers of housing services which are members of the Scheme either on a mandatory or voluntary basis;”
  3. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of the landlord’s insurance provider. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about social landlords, who are members of the Scheme. The insurer is not a member of the Scheme and therefore the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about its activities. The insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decisions regarding the resident’s claim or the time taken by the insurer to reach a decision. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s decision to refer a claim to its insurer, as detailed further below.

 

How the landlord responded to the residents reports that the condition of the property had caused medical problems to her family.

  1. In her emails sent to the landlord on 22 and 28 January 2021, the resident claimed that the condition of the property had caused and/or exacerbated the medical conditions of her daughter. The resident also requested that this aspect of the complaint was considered by the landlord in support of her request to be rehoused in a larger property.
  2. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  3. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the medical conditions of her daughter, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family and the way in which the landlord responded to her concerns about her family’s health.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord categorises its repairs as ‘Emergency’ (attend within 24 hours), ‘Routine’ (attend within 28 calendar days) and ‘Major Routine’ (attend within three months or as part of a planned programme of works).
  3. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that is “required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety; a risk to the residents’ or others’ safety or property; serious damage to the residents’ home or adjacent building”.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is made, it will be acknowledged within five working days and a stage one response sent within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. A review of the complaint will then be undertaken, and a stage two response sent within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy states that if it is unable to provide a response within its timescales, it will contact the complainant to agree a new response time.
  6. The complaint policy also describes what circumstances the landlord would not open a complaint, or it would not consider an element of the complaint as part of the complaint process. These include:
    1. Issues that occurred six months prior to a complaint being raised.
    2. Insurance claims.

Summary of events

  1. On 22 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding damage to her personal belongings as a result of mould in the property. She explained that since the property had undergone a refurbishment more than ten years ago, she had experienced issues with condensation and mould. She noted that several visits had been made to the property, but the issue had yet to be resolved. The resident also provided photographs of the damaged items
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 28 January 2021 and provided further information on the condition of the property. She noted that:
    1. Work was raised in October 2020 for a block stain treatment for the living room. An appointment was arranged for 9 December 2020 and follow-on work was arranged for 19 and 25 January 2020 to paint the walls.
    2. Four days after the painting was completed, the walls were still wet. The paint was dripping onto the skirting boards and the original paint colour was still visible. She reported the matter, and the landlord requested to visit the property to take photographs.
    3. She had raised the issue of mould and damp with the landlord on numerous occasions for several years which had resulted in frequent visits by the landlord and its contractors. However, the matter remained unresolved.
    4. Her daughter had suffered from asthma and other medical issues over the last four years which she believed were as a result of the condition of the property.
    5. She currently lived in a two-bedroom property and was eligible for a three-bedroom property. In light of her circumstances the resident requested that the landlord consider moving her to a four-bedroom property.
  3. The landlord replied on 7 February 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed that follow-on work had been raised to attend to the issues she had reported. It also informed the resident that an inspector would be visiting to examine the quality of the work at the property.
  4. In relation to the resident’s request to be rehoused in a four-bedroom property, the landlord provided information on how the resident: could register on the local authority’s housing register, could apply to join the landlord’s internal housing transfer list, and what steps to take to be considered for a mutual exchange.
  5. On 8 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into how it had handled the repairs to mould and damp in the property. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested compensation for her damaged personal items. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 February 2021 and informed the resident that it would provide a response within ten working days.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2021 about arranging appointments for the outstanding work it had raised, and on 18 February 2021 it sent a stage one complaint response.
  7. The landlord explained that several properties in the building, including the resident’s, suffered from mould and damp. It confirmed that a contractor would visit the property on 12 February 2021 and that “extensive works” were planned to resolve the matter.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with the details of its insurance provider in order for her to make a claim for the damage to her personal items. The landlord further advised the resident that as issues with mould and damp were still ongoing, that she should wait until the issue had been fully resolved before submitting a claim to its insurer.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 February 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
    1. She first raised a complaint on 22 January 2021, but it was not acknowledged until 9 February 2021.
    2. She raised the current repair with the landlord on 7 October 2020, and over four months later it had yet to be completed.
    3. She did not understand why the landlord would advise her to wait to make an insurance claim when the personal items had already been damaged.
    4. The response did not address her concerns about her daughter’s medical condition.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 March 2021 and responded on 8 March 2021, it asked the resident if the 12 February 2021 appointment went ahead. The resident replied on 9 March 2021. She confirmed that the appointment had gone ahead, and that she was informed by the contractor that the walls would need to be replastered and they may also install insulation boards.
  11. The landlord called the resident on 16 March 2021 and confirmed that appointments had been agreed to carry out the recommended repairs. It then wrote to the resident the same day and advised that it would not consider issues relating to work that occurred in 2019 which she had highlighted and that it would only consider more recent events from October 2020 onwards.
  12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 March 2021. She confirmed that all work had been completed and the landlord would be visiting the property on 1 April 2021 to inspect the work.
  13. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 12 April 2021. It informed her that:
    1. It accepted that although it did not receive a formal complaint request from the resident until 8 February 2021, it should have considered her email sent on 22 January 2021 as a letter of complaint and opened the formal complaint at that stage.
    2. According to its records, the resident had experienced ongoing issues with mould and damp from the property for several years. It records also showed that numerous repair work orders had been raised, particularly in the winter months.
    3. The most recent report was made by the resident on 7 October 2020. Work was carried out in December 2020 and January 2021. Following an inspection on 12 February 2021, it was decided to install thermal boards into the living room and a silent smart fan to extract extra moisture. This was completed on 31 March 2021.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint on the grounds of the length of time it had taken to identify and resolve the issues, and for the delay in opening a complaint at stage one of its process. It apologised for the distress that the matter had caused to her and her family and offered £435 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £250 for failure of service
      2. £170 for time and trouble.
      3. £25 for poor complaint handling.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property from October 2020

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising. It took appropriate action to put things right by raising the issues it identified internally and awarding appropriate compensation.
  3. The landlord’s internal correspondence during the period of the complaints show that it also looked to put things right by assigning a single point of contact to work with its repairs team and contractor to ensure that appointments were booked and all work completed. It also remained in contact with the resident until all the work had been finished.
  4. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was made in line with its compensation policy. For the delays in completing repairs (£250) and time and trouble (£170), the issues were classified as “High Failure”, which recommends a payment of £161 to £350. The compensation policy recommends this level of payment “in recognition of severe lack of ownership and accountability. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”.
  5. The overall compensation award was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends payments of £250 to £700 in cases where considerable service failure or maladministration has been found, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples given of when this level of redress should be considered include:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.
    2. A complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and/or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services
    3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
  6. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  7. It should also be noted that, as previously stated, this compensation award does not take into account historical repairs prior to August 2020, the resident’s insurance claim relating to damage of her personal items or any impact on the resident or her family’s health from the damp and mould in the property.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably in referring the resident’s claim for damage to her personal items to its insurer. The landlord would not be expected to pay these costs itself rather than referring the matter to its insurer. This is because it is common practice for landlords to have insurance to allow residents to make claims for damage caused by negligence by the landlord or its contractors.
  9. The resident wants to transfer to another property on the basis that her current property is overcrowded and that the damp and mould is affecting her daughter’s health. At the time when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, in April 2021, the landlord had not yet made a decision on the resident’s rehousing request and the request was still being assessed. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the options the resident has for rehousing and by asking for medical evidence to support the resident’s request to more on medical grounds. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision regarding her request to move after she has provided medical evidence, she can raise a new complaint about this to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the complaint to our service for investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property from October 2020, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the excessive length of time it took to investigate and complete all repairs at the property and the distress that this had caused to her and her family. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.