Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201907476)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907476

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

29 April 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 is about:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and;

b.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Background and Summary of events 

 

Background 

  1. The resident is a (shared ownership) leaseholder. The property is a flat located on the eighth (top) floor of the building. The resident’s lease started on 12 January 2006. 
  2. Section 5.3 of the Lease agreement states that the landlord is obliged to repair, redecorate, and renew the structure and common parts, including the roof (section 5.3.1).
  3. The landlord’s repair policy (for tenants) states major repairs include structural repairs to the building. A structural repair is work that is essential to maintain stability and weather resistance of its homes i.e., to floors, walls, and roofs. Major routine repairs should be completed within three months or as part of its programme of works. The landlord’s repair policy for leaseholders similarly states that major routine repairs should be completed within three months.
  4. Stage one of the landlord’s Complaints procedure states, amongst other things, that its Customer Care team (CCT) will: advise the customer which member of the team will be dealing with their complaint within two working days; investigate and liaise with the relevant teams to resolve the issue and make contact every two weeks at a minimum. It also states stage one will be resolved within 28 days.
  5. Further, the landlord’s Complaints procedure states that complaints will be escalated to stage two when: “28 calendar day timescale at stage 1 has been breached…The customer has requested an escalation” and that stage two complaints are closed when the resident is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved. It further states that extensions to stage two timescales (cases not resolved in 28 calendar days) will be submitted to the Complaints Panel for assessment and approval.
  6. The landlord’s Compensation policy states it will consider paying compensation when: “There has been a service failure that warrants consideration of a compensation payment e.g., Published timescales for repairs has been exceeded and an extension has not been agreed with the customer. The customer has suffered financial loss as a result of (our) actions…Our customer has spent an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing (it) because of our service failure”.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) includes timescales within which a resident is expected to bring a complaint to this Service. It is evident that since completing the landlord’s Complaints procedure on 24 April 2020 in respect to the complaint raised on 5 February 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak/water ingress had returned on 8 July 2020. It is noted that the landlord subsequently opened a new complaint through which these further issues are currently being dealt with. In accordance with section 39 (a) of the Scheme, this Service is unable to investigate complaints which have been brought to us prior to exhausting a member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, while information about these events will be referenced, this investigation will focus on the issues considered as part of the landlord’s Complaints process between 5 February 2019 and 24 April 2020.

 

Summary of Events

  1. On 5 February 2019, the resident complained to the landlord about its response to a leaking roof that she had first reported in December 2018.  The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 February 2019 and confirmed it was dealing with her contact via its complaints policy and a member of its team would be in contact within ten to fifteen days to discuss her case.
  2. On 12 February 2019, the landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging that its previous repair to the roof had failed to rectify the issue. It advised that it had raised a new work order and the case had been referred to its complex works team. It also said that given the complex nature of the works, it had extended the complaint response time.
  3. In its response to the resident dated 19 February 2019, the landlord advised it planned to complete the works within a maximum of three months.
  4. On 15 March 2019, the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update on the repair and the landlord replied on 21 March 2020 advising that its contractor had met with the roofer the previous day and that it would chase up the response.
  5. On 9 April 2019, the landlord advised the resident that a structural survey of the roof may be necessary in order to establish the most appropriate solution and that it would provide an update once it had heard from the ‘property team’.
  6. On 13 May 2019, the landlord advised the resident that a surveyor would carry out an inspection of the property on 15 May 2019. An inspection took place on 15 May 2019, but the landlord advised the resident that the surveyor would need to re-attend. A further inspection was arranged for 31 May 2019 however the landlord then rescheduled this appointment for 19 June 2019. The surveyor attended and the landlord subsequently provided the resident with a copy of the surveyor’s findings on 21 June 2019.
  7. On 15 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to advise she was unhappy with the lack of progress and requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its Complaints process. The landlord replied on the same day, acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, and advised it would contact her within ten to fifteen working days. It advised that the repair work to the roof had been agreed but it did not yet know when the work would commence. On 23 August 2019, the officer managing the resident’s stage two complaint contacted the resident advising she was liaising with the relevant teams to obtain a start date for the repair works.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on several occasions during September 2019 to inform her that it did not yet have a repair date. The resident then contacted this Service in early September 2019 regarding the way the landlord had dealt with the leak and its delay in escalating her stage one complaint. Following this, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking that it update the resident on her complaint.
  9. On 25 September 2019, the landlord advised that it referred the resident’s case to its complaints panel who were meeting on 27 September 2019 after which it would provide her with “a more substantial update”.  The landlord followed up on this by sending letters to all residents in the building regarding pending repairs to roof.
  10. On 11 October 2019, the landlord advised the resident that it would be proceeding with a temporary repair of the roof that week whilst the major works were agreed through the section 20 leaseholder consultation process.
  11. A temporary repair was made to the resident’s roof on 14 October 2019 however this did not resolve the issue. On 19 November 2019, the landlord confirmed to the resident that work to provide a permanent repair would commence on 28 November 2019 as it had been decided that due to the cost of these repairs, the section 20 process was not required. This work was completed in December 2019 and in January 2020, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the roof had stopped leaking.
  12. On 25 February 2020, the landlord advised it would be looking to review the resident’s complaint for closure in the near future and on 24 April 2020, the landlord sent its Stage two response. Within this response, the landlord acknowledged that the “significant delays” in resolving the issue had caused the resident a great deal of distress and inconvenience. The landlord offered the resident £950 in compensation for: poor complaints handling (£150); service failure (£400) and time and trouble (£400). The resident requested a further amount of £500.00 to cover expenses incurred, including a dehumidifier to which the landlord agreed. The landlord paid this compensation (£1450) to the resident on 8 June 2020.
  13. In July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that water ingress to the ceiling had returned. The landlord visited and arranged for diagnostics to be carried out to the roof and a patch repair was carried out in October 2020. The evidence indicates that the resident has been in communication with the landlord regarding a resolution to the issue, as a patch repair carried out to the affected areas in the roof in October 2020, failed to stop the water ingress/leaking. On 10 November 2020, the landlord opened a stage one complaint regarding the ‘new’ leak she had reported.

 

Assessment and findings 

 

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof

  1. The landlord’s repair policy for both tenants and leaseholders state major routine repairs shall be completed within three months. This was the timeframe advised by the landlord in its 12 February 2019 response to the resident following her complaint raised on 5 February 2019 regarding its response to the leaking roof that she had first reported in December 2018.
  2. However, the repair work subsequently undertaken to the roof in order to permanently fix the issue, was not completed until nearly nine months later in early December 2019. A temporary repair to the roof had been made in the meantime but this was only provided in October 2019. Therefore, the timeframe taken by the landlord to effect a repair was significantly longer than the timeframe stated in its policy and in its communication to the resident.  It is evident (from the landlord’s internal notes submitted to this Service) that because the previous repair had not resolved the issue, it was deemed a complex repair which required surveys and investigations of the roof to assess the extent of the problem and possible solutions. The landlord then had to obtain a specification of works and quotes and it is clear this process meant the landlord took significantly longer to provide the repair than it had initially advised to the resident.
  3. It is clear from the evidence, including photographs submitted by the resident, that during the nine months prior to the repair, she experienced water ingress and leaks from her ceiling causing staining and damage to the internal plastering. Further, whilst the landlord provided some updates to the resident during this timeframe, they were sometimes not as frequent as every two weeks. This is contrary to the landlord’s Complaints process that states contact will be made every two weeks at a minimum.  It is accepted the above factors would have caused the resident stress and inconvenience.
  4. Therefore, due to this and the length of time taken by the landlord to complete a permanent repair to the roof, this constitutes evidence of a service failure by the landlord.
  5. In its stage two complaint response dated 24 April 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the “significant delays” in resolving the issue had caused the resident a great deal of distress and inconvenience. It offered to pay the resident the following compensation as an apology: £400.00 for the service failure; £400.00 for “time and trouble” and £150.00 for complaint handling. It is evident that the landlord subsequently increased this overall amount offered by £500 following the resident’s request for expenses of the same amount, bringing the compensation total to £1450, which it paid to the resident on 8 June 2020.
  6. It is also acknowledged that once the resident confirmed the works had resolved the leak (in January 2020), the landlord repaired the damage (caused by the leak) to the interior of the resident’s property and also paid the resident £250.00 to cover the cost of her insurance excess to allow her to claim for damage to belongings/contents. 
  7. This Service is mindful that the compensation provided is above that suggested in our remedies guidance, which provides for awards of £700 and above in its highest tier. Compensation within this bracket is for maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. In light of the landlord’s acknowledged service failure and length of time taken to effect a successful repair, it is reasonable and proportionate that the total amount offered was a significant sum.
  8. Therefore, considering all of the evidence, this Service considers that the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaints process (and subsequently paid to the resident), is reasonable. This, together with the work carried out to make good the internal damage caused (and the payment to cover the resident’s insurance excess charge), is sufficient redress in the circumstances.

 

Complaints handling

 

  1. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s stage one complaint of 5 February 2019 to stage two of its Complaints process, until August 2019 and only after the resident requested this in her 15 August 2019 communication to the landlord. As the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two after 28 calendar days, this demonstrates a failure by the landlord to deal with the resident’s complaint in accordance with its Complaints process.
  2. It is evident that the landlord also failed to resolve the resident’s stage two complaint within the 28-day timescale stated in its Complaints process. Whilst the evidence suggests the landlord did refer the resident’s complaint to its Complaint panel in September 2019 to approve an extension to the stage two timescale (of 28 days) in accordance with its Complaint process, it is noted that it took the landlord a further seven months to complete the second stage of its complaints process (on 24 April 2020). Furthermore, as mentioned above, the landlord did not always provide sufficiently frequent updates to the resident regarding progress of repair work during its Complaints process.
  3. This Service acknowledges that the delay with providing a repair impacted on its complaint handling timescales as the repair was being dealt with through its Complaint process from 5 February 2019. However, given that the Complaints process extended over more than fourteen months during which time the resident had to sometimes chase for a response/update, the Ombudsman finds there was a clear failure by the landlord to adhere to its complaint handling obligations.
  4. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the stage two response and as mentioned above, offered £150.00 for poor complaint handling. This was reasonable in the circumstances.  It also stated that the resident’s complaint would be recorded as feedback, which would be used to improve the services it offers in future. This indicates learning by landlord from this outcome which this Service considers is good practice and is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles.

 

Determination

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The landlord failed to provide a permanent repair to the roof either within its own, timescales or within a reasonable timeframe. However, it acknowledged and apologised for the delays in resolving the issue during its Complaints process and agreed to pay the resident £1450 in total compensation. It also repaired the internal damage caused by the leaks. These remedies provided are considered reasonable and proportionate and therefore sufficiently resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. The landlord did not follow the timescales stated in its Complaints process when dealing with the resident’s complaint and its failure to do so resulted in a protracted Complaint process. This issue and other errors made whilst handling the resident’s complaint caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, during its Complaint process, the landlord offered the resident £150 for poor complaint handling (included in the above amount) and confirmed it would use the errors made in the handling of her complaint as feedback to improve its service. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and indicated a commitment to improving its services.

 

Orders and recommendations 

 

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord continues progressing the resident’s ‘new’ complaint raised regarding further leaks from the roof, through its complaints process.