Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202106427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106427

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

5 April 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 the leaseholder’s reports that there was no heating and hot water at her property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

2. The leaseholder lives in a three bedroomed house which she occupies with her family under the terms of a shared ownership agreement with the landlord. There is a hot water cylinder in the property which is connected to a communal boiler serving the row of terraced houses in which the property is situated. The property’s usage is then metered and the administration of this is undertaken by the landlord’s metering and billing agent (the agent).

 

3. The leaseholder experienced a loss of heating and hot water in late October 2020. The landlord took responsibility for resolving the issue. There was a delay in sourcing a new pump. The system was restored in late November 2020, that is after a period of four weeks.

 

4. Following the restoration of the heating, the leaseholder noted intermittent problems with the system and the landlord instructed its contractor to attend the property again in January 2021 to carry out investigations/works to the system. It also attended to a further loss of heating/hot water in March 2021.

 

5. The landlord has since concluded that it should not have arranged any of the repairs it attended to on the basis it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to carry them out under the terms of their agreement.

 

6. The leaseholder is aware that the landlord is responsible for any repairs necessitated by the communal part of the heating/hot water set up and asserts that it has not satisfactorily identified which part of the system was at fault. Certainly, with regard to the breakdown of the system in March 2021 she reports the landlord’s contractor advised that the cause was a faulty valve and wiring outside of the property – that is within the communal equipment.

 

7. The leaseholder states that the result of these works is that the meter at the property is recording that she is constantly using heat and being charged for it. She considers the meter to be faulty. She also reports to this service having difficulty in engaging independent contractors to work on the system because it is specialised. Given the landlord, via its contractor, has the necessary expertise to deal with the system, she wants it to carry out all repairs in future and recharge any that are her responsibility back to her. She also wants compensation for the delay in restoring the system in October/November 2020 and for the stress and inconvenience the situation has caused to her.

 

Summary of Events

 

8. On 26 October 2020 the leaseholder contacted the landlord as her heating and hot water were not working. The landlord raised a repair with its contractor who attended that day. The issue was not resolved however as an electrician’s attendance was required. The following day the leaseholder was provided with a fan heater.

 

9. On 30 October 2020 the contractor attended the property again and identified that a faulty pump might be the problem in that it was not pushing the water around the radiators. A further three fan heaters were left with the leaseholder. The landlord started to make enquiries to secure a replacement pump.

 

10. The leaseholder continued to liaise with the contractor direct and on 16 November 2020 she contacted the landlord instead, explaining she had been without heating or hot water for three weeks and that its contractor had now advised her the part needed for her boiler was obsolete and that they were awaiting further instructions from the landlord as to what to do next.

 

11. On 25 November 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the property once more, drained the system, and was able to remove and replace the faulty pump. The system was then refilled, tested, and left working. The following day the contractor was required to reattend the property as the system had failed again. It was determined that this was due to trapped air in the system, which it dealt with.

 

12. On 4 December 2020 the leaseholder complained to the landlord about the fact it took its contractor four weeks to repair the heating and hot water. She was seeking compensation for the extra electricity used for the fan heaters and generally for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord emailed the leaseholder the same day to acknowledge the complaint and stated it aimed to provide an initial response by 18 December 2020 although there might be a delay due to pressures caused by the pandemic.

 

13. On 14 January 2021 the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Manager noted that it was only responsible for delivering heat to the property via the main distribution pipes but what happened within the home was the leaseholder’s responsibility. The landlord contacted the leaseholder by telephone, and she asserted the problem was in a communal space.

 

14. On 18 January 2021 the landlord’s staff member confirmed to the leaseholder that the complaint had been assigned to them for investigation and enquiries were ongoing.  The leaseholder responded the next day, explaining the boiler was outside of her property, that it was communal and an unusual set up designed to service a number of properties and be more environmentally friendly.

 

15. On 22 January 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the property again as the leaseholder was still reporting intermittent problems with the system. The contractor noted that the programmable room thermostat settings were “completely incorrect” with the timer being set for 2.45am. Further, the contractor explained to the leaseholder that the system was based on ‘hot water priority’. This meant that if there was demand in the property for heating and hot water, the hot water was heated first. The contractor noted the cylinder thermostat was set to a high temperature meaning heating would be limited until the hot water had been heated up to that degree. Adjustments were made and the pressure in the system checked. It was then tested and left working.

 

16. On 25 January 2021 the landlord updated the leaseholder about her complaint, explaining its investigations were ongoing. The leaseholder responded, confirming the issue seemed to have been resolved and the landlord asked for a current and previous electricity bill so that it could take any “discrepancies” into account when considering “any redress payment”.

 

17. On 27 January 2021the landlord emailed the leaseholder with its stage one complaint response. It stated it was “upholding” the complaint. It apologised for the fact that its contractor had attended the property in the first place when it actually should not have been instructed to do so. It explained that that action was due to a miscommunication at its end. It understood the issue had recurred with the heating becoming “temperamental”. The landlord noted its contractor had attended again and had resolved the issue.

 

18. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the leaseholder’s heating bills, as supplied to it and was minded to offer compensation of £90 which it calculated as £20 for poor complaints handling; £30 for the leaseholder’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter; and £40 for the service failure – delayed repair.

 

19. On 10 March 2021 the landlord raised a further repair to the heating/hot water system with its contractor. That contractor suspected there was an electrical fault, and an electrician was required to check the power supply. However, the following day the landlord noted that the contractor had “found programmable thermostat to be faulty” and its settings had been changed and all was left working.

 

20. On 13 March 2021 the agent emailed the landlord explaining the leaseholder had reported an issue to them with the heat meter readings and stating that they suspected there may be a fault somewhere that was causing the system to overcharge. They concluded that this was an issue for them to attend to, but they needed a purchase order from the landlord to do so.

 

21. On 29 March 2021 the leaseholder emailed the landlord, reporting that having been without heating and hot water from 25 October to 25 November 2020, since it had been repaired, the system continued to be unreliable and since 24 March 2021 she had once again experienced the loss of these facilities. The landlord had suggested boiling kettle loads of water. The leaseholder was under the impression the problem was affecting neighbours too and that it had been ongoing for a number of years. She suggested the landlord review the communal heating/hot water system. The landlord took this email to be a request to escalate the leaseholder’s complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure.

 

22. On 8 April 2021 the agent’s operative attended the property to carry out an inspection and supplied a report to both leaseholder and landlord. It concluded that there was no fault with the meter and commented “there is a constant demand being recorded by the system”. It understood the landlord’s contractor had carried out extensive time and temperature control replacement and rewiring but the agent noted that any considerations as to whether this was causing an inaccurate demand on the system was outside of its remit.

 

23. On 26 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder with the outcome of its stage two review. It understood the complaint had been escalated because the redress it had offered did not include any offer of compensation for increased electricity bills. In addition, the leaseholder had reported that the meter was damaged, and this was also causing an increase in their bills. Its conclusions following this review were as follows: –

 

a. It considered that the repairs should not have been allocated to its contractor due to the fact the property was under shared ownership. The repairs had been raised against the leaseholder’s individual property and not to the communal plant room. It pointed out that the leaseholder was responsible for the plant and equipment that solely served their property with the landlord only carrying out communal repairs.

 

b. It confirmed that the heat meters had been replaced in September 2020 and the new metering system enabled actual bills to be calculated. As a result, the leaseholder’s bills had been reviewed and it was noted that the pre-existing payment arrangement did not cover the bills in full (and needed to be increased). In addition, the (agent’s) portal had been checked for issues with the meter and it showed that the bills were being based on accurate readings.

 

c. The landlord also noted the leaseholder’s report that its contractor had “tampered” with the meter and their bills had increased. An inspection visit had determined that the meter was functioning correctly and that only the heat being consumed by the property was being charged for. Accordingly, the landlord did not consider it was under any obligation to reimburse the cost of the electricity being used by the leaseholder.  The landlord explained that whilst the system recorded demand 24 hours a day, this meant that heating was available during this time and not that it was being continuously charged for – the system recorded heat consumption constantly, as heat was used.

 

d. As the landlord was not upholding the complaint at this final stage of the complaints process, so it had no further offer to make in terms of redress/compensation.

 

24. The leaseholder was dissatisfied with this response and on 19 May 2021 the landlord further clarified the situation for her, explaining its relevant staff member had advised as follows: –

 

1. “The heat consumption that the occupier consumes for their heat/hot water is measured by their heat meter – the monthly bills the occupier receives from our metering and billing agent (the agent), only charges for the actual heat consumption of the property at the tariff set by (the landlord) the heat supplier, as per our obligations under the Heat Metering and Billing Regulations.

 

2. The occupier needs to ensure that their heating controls/ timers/ immersion, as appropriate, are set to have heat consumption when they need it. It is up to the occupier to set these up to accommodate their consumption preferences. If they have an immersion heater connected to the communal supply, this for instance will need setting to their preferred consumption times, otherwise it would constantly draw supply to pre-heat their water.

 

3. The landlord’s Energy and Sustainability Team is responsible for ensuring that (the agent) bills appropriate residents for the appropriate consumption periods, checking for any meter faults, carrying out an annual reconciliation on heat tariffs, sending out comms regarding any changes to their tariffs, etc.”

 

4. There is no fault with the heat meter, or the metering and billing services provided to the occupier.”

 

25. There followed a series of contacts between leaseholder and landlord after this. The leaseholder expressed frustration as she had been led to believe there was an issue with “the Heat Interface Unit” at the property which was causing her to be overcharged. She asked if the landlord could arrange a suitably qualified engineer to investigate it and accepted that the cost of this was likely to be charged back to her. The landlord denied there was any such fault and declined to take any further action on the basis it was not its responsibility.

 

26. On 10 September 2021, in an internal email, the landlord’s staff member noted as follows. “The issue we find on this address is that this is a leaseholder property and as such they should be responsible for the equipment that solely serves their demise. When a (leaseholder) calls into the property desk and they advise that communal system is down then we have a responsibility to attend to affect a repair. Once the process starts down this route its course is set. Following the repair that was carried out at this property we have reviewed the (leaseholder) properties on site to make sure there is better clarity on referring this back to the (leaseholder) for them to organise their own repair.  We are currently having internal conversation regarding the possibility of our incumbent contractors advising (the leaseholders) on these specialist units and then (the landlord) recouping the costs from the (leaseholder) for any work that is undertaken, this would have to be with the (leaseholders) express permission. These are initial conversations at the moment and would need to be agreed by senior leadership before we adopt this as a policy.”

 

Assessment and Findings

Agreements, policies and procedures

27. The leaseholder entered a Shared Ownership Lease with the landlord which is dated 6 January 2010. It contains the following provisions: –

 

1. The leaseholder covenants with (promises) the landlord to maintain and keep the property in good repair and condition and to keep all “Estate Service Media” (which includes the heating apparatus) laid for the “exclusive service of the Premises in good repair and condition”.

 

2. The landlord covenants with (promises) the leaseholder to maintain the Estate Service Media (other than in the premises) and is entitled to include the cost of this in a service charge which is payable under the terms of the lease.

 

28. The landlord produces a Repairs Guide for residents which states that a total loss of heating is defined as an “emergency repair” which it aims to complete in 24 hours. If replacement parts are needed to complete the repair, it states this may take a further seven days to complete. In this situation, temporary heating will be supplied within the 24-hour period.

 

29. The landlord operates a Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Policy which sets out its approach to making compensatory offers by way of redress for service failings. It will consider awards to cover expenses incurred by the resident as a result of the situation and also a monetary sum for the impact on the resident, by way of time, inconvenience, and so on. Its Compensation Procedure sets out how any offer will be calculated.

 

30. The policy states every case should be decided on its merits, but it will always take account of the severity of the failing, the length of time the situation continued for, the number of people affected, whether the resident is vulnerable and the time and trouble spent on the matter by them. A table of tariffs then sets out that for service failures which are ongoing for up to 6 weeks and are minor in nature, the amount to be considered is up to £50; for more impactful failings lasting up to 6 months, that figure rises to up to £250; and for the most serious failings the amount increases up to £500.  The landlord can also offer compensation for “time and trouble” which follows the same three categories with the same levels of payment.

Landlord response to the heating system issues

31. The system of delivering heating/hot water to this property is described in the evidence as ‘specialist’ by both leaseholder and landlord. It is unusual for a communal system to service rows of houses as such a system is more typically associated with flats.

 

32. The lease agreement contains some provisions relating to the maintenance/repair of the system which have been set out at paragraph 27 above. This Service cannot provide a legally binding decision on the interpretation of this document. It is noted, however, that responsibilities are set out for both parties.

 

33. Neither can this Service determine the nature of the fault(s) the leaseholder has experienced and whether it relates to the communal apparatus or the equipment serving this property alone. That would require an expert opinion, and evidence of such has not been provided.

 

34. The landlord accepted responsibility for reinstating services when they failed in October 2020. Irrespective of whether it was technically obliged to do so or not, this Service’s view is that once it accepted that responsibility, it was bound to do so in accordance with its stated levels of service. This is because the leaseholder relied upon the landlord and was therefore denied the opportunity to organise the repair herself.

 

35. The leaseholder was without heating and hot water for 4 weeks during the winter of 2020. She reasonably reports finding this uncomfortable and distressing, especially as she has a young family to care for. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have carried out the repair in 24 hours or if replacement parts were required, within 7 days with temporary heating being provided in the interim. This represented a three-week delay on its target completion times which was inappropriate.

 

36. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response (January 2021), it accepted that it had failed to accomplish this and that there was an unacceptable delay, and the evidence confirms this was the case. Compensation was offered accordingly.

 

37. By this point, the landlord had concluded it had not been obliged to carry out the repair after all, but it then arranged further attendances at the property when the system became “temperamental’” according to the leaseholder (March 2021). A finding cannot be made as to whether this was because the ongoing fault was with the communal equipment or not – but it does represent the provision of conflicting information to the leaseholder. This is particularly so when, in late April 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response withdrawing its admission of a service failing and its offer of compensation.

 

38. In summary, the landlord accepted responsibility; then denied responsibility but offered compensation; then accepted responsibility for further repairs and finally denied responsibility and refused compensation altogether. In this Service’s view that sequence, in itself, represented a failing in the landlord’s service to the leaseholder because it was provided an inconsistent and confusing overall response to the resident.

 

39. The delay in completing the original repair coupled with inconsistent communications represent a service failing on the landlord’s part. It is this Service’s view that it is fair and reasonable to expect the landlord to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident by way of compensation.

 

40. It is important to recognise at this point that if the fault(s) in the system related to the equipment in the property and was the leaseholder’s responsibility then, by carrying out these repairs, the landlord has taken on a financial burden which the leaseholder would otherwise have had to finance herself. Potentially, the leaseholder has received a monetary benefit in this way. As stated above however, it has not been proven, with expert evidence, which part of the system was to blame – whether communal or otherwise. For the sake of completeness, however, it is confirmed that this aspect of the complaint has been noted and considered.

 

41. In respect of the increased electricity bills, the evidence demonstrates the following: –

 

1. The landlord noted that the cost increased due to the resident using temporary fan heaters whilst the heating was not working. Given the landlord delayed in the repair, it would normally be held responsible for this additional cost.

 

2. The leaseholder asserts that the cost has increased because the meter is registering usage 24 hours per day and states the agent’s operative confirmed this as a fault when inspecting the meter. The landlord has clarified that this amounts to a misunderstanding as to how the system works. It states it registers that heat is available 24 hours per day, but only charges for heat that is used during that time. There is no evidence to contradict this clarification or from which to confirm there is an ongoing issue with the meter.

 

3. There is evidence to show that the leaseholder’s previous monthly payments were creating a deficit and an increase was to be expected.

 

4. The tariff for the property had recently been reviewed and increased.

 

5. The leaseholder had compared consumption in the winter with usage in the summer when submitting bills to demonstrate an increase.

 

42. In this Service’s view the evidence from which to confirm the landlord’s failings have increased the leaseholder’s bills is not sufficiently certain to base an award upon it.

 

43. Applying the landlord’s own compensation tariff, it is reasonable to conclude the impact on the leaseholder of being without services would have been more than just nominal even though the delay lasted less than the six weeks provided for in the first category. An award of between £50 and £250 would have been fair and reasonable. Likewise, an award for ‘time and trouble’ in pursuing this matter in the face of an inconsistent approach from the landlord, might reasonably be assessed as having more than a nominal impact. Again, an award of between £50 and £250 would be fair and reasonable.

 

44. Taking all of the above into consideration, the landlord will be ordered to pay compensation totalling £250, made up of £150 for the delay and £100 for the leaseholder’s time and trouble.  A higher figure might have been appropriate had there been expert confirmation that the fault(s) were in the communal space and the leaseholder was not potentially having the financial benefit of the landlord paying for the repair(s).

 

45. Whilst the landlord originally offered compensation of £20 for its complaint handling (and then abandoned this offer), this Service has not been asked to assess that part of this complaint. A recommendation will be made that the landlord consider whether it will pay this sum in addition to the above order in any event.

 

46. Compensation is appropriate in this case, but it does not resolve the real issue facing the leaseholder – that she has a property with an admittedly “specialist” system which she struggles to find appropriately qualified contractors to maintain. It is noted that in September 2021 the landlord considered whether it should have a policy of taking ownership of the leaseholders’ repairs, as long as it could recharge them to the respective residents of this series of properties. It is recommended that the landlord advise the leaseholder of the outcome of its deliberations.

 

47. Finally, it is recommended that the landlord provide the residents of this row of properties with contact details for the contractor it uses to maintain the equipment (and whom it has determined is qualified to do so) – should they wish to enquire whether that contractor could assist them too.

 

Determination (decision)

 

48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leaseholder’s reports that there was no heating and hot water at her property.

 

Reasons

 

49. Heating and hot water at the leaseholder’s property is provided via a specialist system and there are communal aspects to it which are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and personal aspects which are the leaseholder’s burden. The landlord accepted responsibility for a fault to the system and organised repairs but delayed in doing so. It arranged further repairs later on but ultimately denied it was not responsible after all.

 

50. The evidence does not confirm whose responsibility the fault(s) actually were but having taken responsibility, the landlord was obliged to carry out repairs in accordance with its service level standards. It failed to do so.  To then exacerbate the situation, the landlord offered an inconsistent approach to its dealings with the leaseholder.

 

51. This is a case where a payment of compensation is an appropriate remedy. A broad approach was necessary which took account of the possibility the leaseholder may have had the benefit of getting repairs done without cost which she might otherwise have had to pay for herself.

 

52. The system is specialist, and the leaseholder would appreciate the landlord’s assistance in arranging any repairs for which she is responsible, identifying suitable contractors to carry out the work. Recommendations have been made to this effect. 

 

Orders and Recommendations

 

Orders

 

53. The landlord to pay compensation of £250 to the leaseholder.

 

54. The landlord to evidence to this Service, within 28 days, that it has complied with this order.

 

Recommendations

 

55. The landlord to consider whether it will pay to the leaseholder the sum of £20 compensation in respect of its complaints handling that it offered during the complaints process.

 

56. It is recommended that the landlord advise the leaseholder of the outcome of its deliberations into taking ownership of all repairs to the system and charging back those which are the leaseholder(s) responsibility.

 

57. The landlord to provide to the residents of this row of properties, contact details for the contractor it uses to maintain the communal equipment (and whom it has determined is qualified to do so) – should they wish to enquire whether that contractor could assist them too, if and when required.