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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202125396)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125396

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

12 July 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 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 length of time that the landlord took to restore power to the resident’s property and its response to his request for compensation for this.

Background

  1. The resident is a former licensee of a room in a shared supported living four-bedroom house. He was assigned a support worker for the duration of the licence.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that there was no power to his property on the 26 October 2021. Its records showed that it had contacted its electrical contractor about this, who came out on the same day at 4.48pm, but they noted that they were unable to enter the building at that time as they called twice with no response. The landlord recorded that it had therefore requested an out of hours contractor’s appointment to follow this up.
  3. The landlord’s out of hours contractor then came out on 27 October 2021, and they had reported that no power was going into the resident’s property from the pre-pay electric meter. After attending the property later that day, the landlord’s records showed that credit was applied to the meter and that power was restored after its contractor re-attended the property on 28 October 2021, although the electricity provider had stated that this should have been restored on 27 October 2021.
  4. The resident’s support worker’s repair logs confirmed that power was restored at his property on the 28 October 2021 at 10.30am. The landlord had contacted its electricity supplier at 2.49pm for an update about this on 27 October 2021, and it received notification from them at 5pm on the same day that power would be restored to the property that night.
  5. The resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord on the 8 November 2021 looking for compensation for spoilt food, other costs, distress and inconvenience, as he reported that he was unable to live in or use his home safely without electricity. This was because there was no lighting, heating or cooking facilities there from 26 to 28 October 2021, so that all of his food was ruined when his refrigerator was off and he had to stay elsewhere. It acknowledged the complaint on 9 November 2021, advising of Covid-19 related delays in its response, for which it informed the resident that it had extended its response timescale on 7 December 2021.
  6. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued on 22 December 2021, detailing that it would not uphold the complaint. This was because it stated that the power outage was found by it to have been due to the credit running out on the pre-pay electric meter after it attended this within 24 hours, and that no compensation would therefore be awarded for this, as the power was restored following credit being added to the meter.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 December 2021 to dispute this and to escalate his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. A final stage complaint response was issued by it on 13 January 2022, repeating that the complaint would not be upheld or progressed by it. This was because the landlord reiterated its position from its stage one complaint response. The resident then complained to this Service about the length of time that it took to restore power to his property and it declining to compensate him for this, for which he sought £250 compensation for his ruined food, the cost of takeaway meals, and his distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants states that it will attend emergency repairs including the total loss of electric power within 24 hours. It responded to the resident’s report of a power outage on 26 October 2021 by calling out the contractor for a same day visit, who attended at 4.48pm but was unable to enter the property to diagnose a fault. The landlord therefore ordered an out of hours appointment on 27 October 2021, when its contractor found that no power was coming from the pre-pay electric meter. In a same day follow-up appointment, the contractor found that the meter had not been credited, resulting in power loss to the property. Credit was added on the same day, and power was restored on 28 October 2021.
  2. However, the landlord’s electricity provider stated that power would be restored in the property on 27 October 2021. The resident states this had also caused his food to spoil, and had caused him considerable distress. The landlord nevertheless responded to this by attending within its repairs guide for tenants’ 24-hour timescale, finding that the loss of power was not due to a repair but a lack of credit, and arranging for this to be restored 24 hours after that. This showed a timely and appropriate response on its part, and it was advised by its electricity provider that the power was due to be restored within the first 24 hours of this being lost.
  3. While the resident experienced delays in power being restored to the property from 26 to 28 October 2021 and this would have been distressing, the length of time that it took the landlord to resolve the issue was reasonable and so did not require it to compensate him. This is because its electricity provider informed it that the power would be restored within 24 hours, which was lost due to a lack of credit and not a repair issue, and there is no evidence that it was responsible for the further 24-hour delay in this being restored.
  4. With regard to the resident’s request to be compensated for his spoilt food and other costs, the landlord has been recommended below to provide him with details to enable him to submit claims for these to its insurance team, and to its electricity provider. This is because this Service does not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for his spoilt food and other costs in the way that a court or insurer might. Whereas the landlord’s insurance team or electricity provider may be able to do so, including by establishing why there was a further 24-hour delay between adding credit to the pre-pay electric meter and restoring power to the resident’s property, contrary to the advice of the electricity provider.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the length of time that it took to restore power to the resident’s property and its response to his request for compensation for this.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with details to enable him to submit claims to its insurance team and its electricity provider for damages for his spoilt food and other costs.