Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202009065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009065

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:-

a. Repairs to fix damp issues in the resident’s property.

b. Cyclical maintenance, repairs and decoration to the doors, windows, guttering and communal areas of the building the resident’s property is situated in.

c. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s property is a basement flat in a set of two attached buildings. He has been the tenant there for 35 years. Whilst the resident’s current complaint centres around damp issues to his kitchen and the main front entrance door to the building, he reports to this Service a much longer and more detailed history of problems.
The resident has concerns that the building his property is situated in is being neglected and there is a ‘patch up and make do’ approach by his landlord rather than any actual attempts to properly resolve issues. He considers repairs are carried out to a poor standard and that the landlord fails to ‘police’ this work and so does not recognise the situation. He reports the landlord’s procedures for dealing with repairs to be inadequate with poor communication being a significant issue.
The resident’s understanding is that the landlord is bound to carry out seven yearly maintenance and redecoration works to the communal and external areas of the buildings, but he reports that these have not been carried out since 2006, which is 14/15 years ago.
The resident also reports having made a number of complaints over the years and states promises are made, complaints are closed, but then the remedy is not followed through and he (and other tenants of the buildings) have no recourse because of that closure. He considers this action removes the tenants’ leverage and prevents complaints from completing the landlord’s internal complaints procedure – thus preventing the opportunity for further scrutiny via this Service. The resident suspects this is a deliberate ploy on the landlord’s part and that the landlord is dismissive of tenants who try to drive improvements.
To demonstrate the ongoing nature of the issues he complains about, the resident has provided copies of letters sent by him to the landlord dating back to 21 August 2000, 18 May 2002 and 8 April 2003 referring to the problem with the entrance to the building and water ingress to his kitchen. He has also provided a letter from the landlord in response dated 27 August 2002 acknowledging his report and stating it had been referred to an appropriate staff member to deal with.
In addition the resident has produced some evidence that he complained about water ingress to his kitchen in May 2013 – as a separate complaint to the one currently being considered.
Finally, the resident has provided a copy of the landlord’s newsletter dated November 2014 which states “Complaints – you said you didn’t like complaints to be closed until we’d completed all the tasks we agreed to undertake. We now have a process in place so your assigned member of staff gets in touch with you to make sure we’ve done what we said we would before we close the complaint”.
With regard to the current complaint, the resident states the landlord has been aware of issues with damp in his kitchen since at least 1998. His view is this was caused after steps leading to the front door of the building were not, in his view, installed correctly. He states “the steps were poured with no damp proof membrane between the steps and the reinforced concrete lintel that is above the window of the kitchen. The window in the kitchen is situated forward of the frame and front door to the building. The landing area of the steps slopes towards the building and not away from it, as it should. The result of which is water not only gets into the entrance area under the front door but also under the doorframe and wooden sill. This water ends up in my kitchen causing damp, black mold and damage to the tiling, kitchen work surface and cupboards under the window area. I have been arguing with (the landlord) and trying to get the issue fixed once and for all for decades. All they do is the minimum they can get away with. For years they would just send someone round who would squirt silicone around the frame. This would perish after a few months and the problems would start again.”
He also states “it got so bad with water pooling around the base of the doorframe that the frame began to rot. It was only after many complaints by me, and the fact that the frame began to grow fungus that it was replaced.”
On 7 March 2016 the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO) regarding his attempts to get a complaint progressed through its complaints procedure. Since 2011 a number of inspections had taken place at his flat to deal with the damp issues including in the kitchen and the bedroom. He had raised the issue about the front door. He stated “as I explained in my original complaint, this most recent attempt on my part to get the issue with the front entrance causing damp in my kitchen fixed dates back to 2011. I have documents showing my attempts to get the issue fixed dating back to 1998”. A works order had been raised in 2013 but nothing was being done and now he had had notice of another in a series of inspections but with no action being taken.
The resident reported to the CEO that he had made a fresh complaint (a copy of which is not contained in the evidence seen by this service) and that the landlord had written to him on 9 February 2016 stating a full response would be given by 22 February. However this had not happened, the resident had written again on 24 February asking that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure as a result, but again nothing further had been heard by him. He requested that escalation take place.
On 2 May 2017 a survey report and proposal was prepared by the landlord’s contractors who had been instructed in April 2017. The report detailed that there were visible signs of dampness in the property in the bedroom, supported by moisture meter readings. It concluded this appeared to be due to failure/deterioration of the existing damp proof course. Areas of internal plastering were noted to be in poor condition.
On 19 December 2017, the landlord provided a stage two complaint response. It thanked the resident for his complaint of 6 September 2016. It confirmed that its contractor had carried out damp proofing and plastering works in October 2017. It acknowledged that the resident was not totally satisfied with the quality of the repairs and a weatherboard had had to be fitted to the front door. The landlord had inspected the work and considered it was satisfactory although there were still some further repairs to be made to the kitchen which would be carried out early in the new year.
The landlord offered £965 in compensation which it had calculated based upon “103 weeks of repair delays, poor complaints handling, distress and inconvenience and missed appointments”. Finally, the landlord confirmed that it had now closed the complaint.
The resident replied on 28 December 2017, expressing surprise that his level two complaint had now been closed despite the works having not been completed. He disputed the front door had been properly tested to make sure it was now watertight and reported the problem persisted. The resident accused the landlord of “downplaying” the delays and the reasons behind them and questioned how it had calculated the 103 weeks of delays, given he had been experiencing problems getting the repairs done dating much further back.
Further, the resident stated the landlord was in breach of its own complaints procedure by closing the complaint before the work was finished and to his satisfaction and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage.
In addition, the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer. He stated he had asked for his complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure in early 2016 and it had taken significant effort on his part to get it escalated to stage two. He complained about the case being closed as he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
On 20 January 2018, the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had been visited and it was agreed that further work to the main front door needed to be done and completed before the kitchen repair was finished.
On 25 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident, conscious of the fact his complaint about planned works/maintenance was outstanding and their ability to carry out works was being impacted by the pandemic and the restrictions surrounding it. The landlord advised the resident it would proceed to plan its work in the meantime. In July 2020 it emailed the resident again to advise it was starting to be able to “mobilise contractors again” and would provide a further update in due course. The landlord then updated the resident again on 31 July 2020 regarding the obtaining of quotations for replacing the windows in the building and doing other cyclical works.
In the meantime, on 23 June 2020 an extensive inspection of the two adjacent buildings the flat is situated in was carried out at the landlord’s request. It covered the replacement of windows; cyclical internal/external repairs and redecoration; clearing guttering and downpipes; cleaning paving area; replacing/redecorating the main entrance doors; making any roof repairs; repointing; and so on. The total works were estimated to cost in excess of £112,000, a significant portion of this being for scaffolding and window replacement.
On 21 August 2020, the landlord updated the resident that it had now submitted a planning application in respect of the replacement windows which would probably take 8 – 12 weeks to resolve. Further updates were given on 10 and 15 September 2020 – planning permission was required to change the windows but not the doors. The landlord then set out a schedule of works to be done in and around the buildings. The landlord reported it was conscious that it had not provided a final answer to the complaint and asked whether, now the plans were in place to complete the necessary work, it could provide that final response.
On 15 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He confirmed the front door now just needed painting. He provided the landlord with an update of what he considered was outstanding regarding the buildings the flats were situated in, including individual flats and also communal areas. He confirmed he was not content for his complaint to be closed until after all works had been completed. This was because he was complaining about the complaints process itself, and he had had previous complaints in the past closed on the promise of work being done moving forward but then it had not been done. He confirmed that in the end, he had undertaken the work in the kitchen at his own expense.
An internal record dated 30 September 2020 shows the landlord was expecting the planning approval for the window replacement by end November 2020; the tendering process was due to start at end of October; works were anticipated to commence January/February 2021 subject to weather conditions.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage three complaint response, referring to an escalation request dated 24 August 2018. The complaint was in respect of damp and also relating to the length of time it was taking the landlord to deliver cyclical maintenance works. It commented as follows:

Repairs: The landlord noted that the resident had agreed to undertake the work in the kitchen himself if the landlord reimbursed him for the cost. That had now been resolved and the landlord was waiting for the necessary costings to arrange payment. In the meantime it accepted that its communication over the works and in delivering them fell below the standard it aimed for. It confirmed it had made improvements internally to improve service delivery.

b. Delivery of planned works: The landlord confirmed a programme of works was to be undertaken at the site over the next year. The landlord accepted the issues had been reported to it around eight years previously but had never been actioned. It accepted its historic approach to such works had not been efficient and it had formed a new team to oversee planned programmes to drive improvements.

c. Complaints Management: The landlord acknowledged that its complaints management had not been to an acceptable standard, particularly with regard to the length of time it had taken to deal with the complaint. It confirmed it was reorganising its staff members and working with this Service to improve its complaints policies and procedures.

d. Compensation : The landlord offered compensation to the resident of £500 for his time and trouble (including his distress and inconvenience); it further offered £500 to address its service failure in prolonged delays; finally it offered £150 for its poor complaints handling – making a total offer of £1,150. In addition it confirmed it would stand by its offer to pay for the works the resident had completed.

e. Finally, the landlord confirmed it had closed the resident’s complaint.

The resident sent a reply, dated 15 November 2020. He commented as follows:

He was unhappy about his complaint being closed, particularly as the landlord had previously recognised, in a newsletter in 2014, that tenants were unhappy with this happening before repairs were carried out and that it had decided from then onwards that it would seek to complete promised repairs before closing complaints. He stated he had complained three times previously and each time his complaint had been closed on the promise of work which then did not materialise.

b. He did not consider the compensation offered adequately reflected the problems he had faced and the inconvenience he had been put to in trying to effect a solution. He reiterated that he had been experiencing damp problems in his flat for at least the 24 years of the landlord’s management and not the eight admitted to by the landlord and that he had had to chase matters on numerous occasions rather than the few times implied by the landlord. Damp to his bedroom and the front door had been dealt with (2017) but other damp problems persisted in his kitchen.

c. The resident set out the impact to him of this problem, namely that patches of damp would multiply around the kitchen window frame, until water would drip inside his property. He would have to place receptacles to catch it and on a rainy day would have to empty them “more than once”. He reported that if he was out at work, he would return to find water all over the kitchen worktop, down the cupboards and all over the floor. He stated the metal edging strips in the window surround would eventually rust and swell up, tiles would fall off the wall, the worktop and cupboards would get damaged and black mould would start to grow around the window.

d. The resident considered the landlord would then take temporary measures to deal with the aftermath, rather than treating the cause itself and a few months later it would start all over again. The resident confirmed that he had undertaken some remedial works himself. However, he reported that the front door was still letting in water and until this was corrected, the problem would persist. He also reported that the work to the front door which had been undertaken was of poor quality and had not solved anything.

e. He suggested that during the upcoming cyclical/maintenance works, the landlord make sure one of its surveyors was in attendance to check the quality of the work being carried out.

f. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation as he considered it did not reflect the impact upon him of its failings. He wanted the landlord to acknowledge the issue had been ongoing for the whole 24 years of its management of the building; that it had been 16 years since it had carried out cyclical maintenance; that his “most recent attempts” to get the matter resolved began in 2011, nine years ago; and that compensation should be offered accordingly.

Agreements, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord provides for it to keep the outside doors, windows and communal areas in reasonable repair and condition. It also states repairs for which the landlord is responsible should be carried out “within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs”.
The landlord has a tenants’ guide to repairs which sets out that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. It cautions that inspections may be needed before what is necessary is settled upon, and that it aims to inspect a percentage of the works done to make sure its suppliers are offering a quality service that is value for money. The document classifies planned maintenance as major works to be completed within three months or as part of a planned programme of works.
A Complaints Procedure is operated by the landlord. There are three stages to it.

Stage One : The landlord aims to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and offer a response within 10 working days. Paragraph 6.1.3 states: “If actions are agreed as part of the resolution of the complaint, (the landlord) will liaise with the customer to ensure the actions are complete prior to closure of the complaint”.

b. Stage Two : the resident can request escalation if they consider their complaint has not been properly addressed and an acknowledgment and full response should be sent in 2 and 10 working days respectively.

c. Stage Three : If the complaint is still not resolved or the landlord does not complete the actions agreed at stage two, the landlord will arrange a review or a panel hearing or offer a meeting/telephone call. The panel’s findings must be reported to the resident within 10 working days of the hearing.

The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Policy establishes that it will consider making financial redress when service standards are not met and a resident has suffered expense or distress and inconvenience as a result.
Its Compensation Procedure then sets out how such claims will be approached. It confirms that compensation should be considered where there has been a service failure; where the resident has suffered a financial loss as a result of its actions; and where the resident’s quality of life has been affected due to distress and inconvenience.
The landlord commits to consider each case on its merits and to take account of the severity of the service failure; the length of time it continued over; and the amount of time and trouble the resident was put to in dealing with the matter.
A tariff of payments is set out as follows and states that all payments are cumulative, and that time and trouble will only be paid in addition to service failure in exceptional circumstances.

Service failure:

Low	Minor admin/ low level of discomfort	Issue up to 6 weeks	£5 – £50
Medium	Repeated errors/ outstanding repairs	Issue ongoing for up to 6 months	£50 – £250
High	Customer has chased for over six months	Issue ongoing for over 6 months	£250 – £500

b. Time and Trouble:

Low	Short delay to resolve	£5 – £50
Medium	Longer delay, customer chasing several times	£50 – £250
High	Difficult to resolve, serious failures; customer severely affected	£250 – £500

c. Poor complaint handling: Amount to be considered £10 – £150 depending on the severity of the failure.

According to the procedure the landlord can also award compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. Awards are divided into three categories : minor/modest (less than £250); moderate (£251 – £500); significant (£501 – £1,000). The procedure anticipates such awards will normally be for under £250 and would only exceed £1,000 in exceptional circumstances.

Assessment and findings

The resident has referred to a long history of issues affecting his property and has provided some evidence to demonstrate the timescale. Whilst this has offered context to the situation, it is now historic, and this Service’s assessment will focus on events since this complaint was raised in 2016.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to fix damp issues

The evidence shows that the damp affecting the resident’s kitchen window is not so much caused by an outstanding repair, but rather because there is an inherent problem with the fabric of the building. The resident’s view is it lies with the installation of the steps rising to the main front door to the building and there is no evidence of the landlord contradicting his understanding. The situation has then been exacerbated by outstanding repairs to that door, but it does appear that this structural element to the issue makes it harder to resolve than if it were a ‘straightforward repair’. This is no consolation to the resident who has to live with the consequences of the issue on a recurring basis.
There is some evidence that the landlord has taken steps to try to ameliorate the fault but not of any sustained or determined attempt to find a longer term solution. Given the period over which the resident has been reporting the issue, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to try to take a longer term view – especially as it is reasonable to conclude that the cost of the repeat works required to deal with the aftermath have and will continue to mount up if it is not resolved. Indeed, it might outweigh the cost of resolving the structural problem, or may already have done so.
It is of course possible that the problem cannot actually be remedied. No evidence has been provided to show what would be required to solve the issue or what it would cost, and this Service cannot offer an ‘expert’ opinion on the root cause.
Irrespective of where the solution lies, the landlord’s response to date has been extremely slow and disappointing to the resident. The landlord acknowledges this in its stage three complaint response, agreeing it had not met the standard it had set for itself, both in terms of its communications and in delivering the repairs more swiftly.
The service provided by the landlord in resolving this issue has been poor, according to the evidence. Given the length of time this has been going on for, that neglect goes beyond service failure to become maladministration. The resident’s communications demonstrate his distress, frustration, annoyance and resignation as a result. They also suggest he has had to invest a great deal of his time in trying to drive an adequate response. The ‘repair’ is currently concluded, the resident having undertaken work himself to the kitchen and work having been undertaken to the main door. Whether it will remain ‘concluded’ will only become apparent over time.
The landlord has agreed to cover the cost of the work the resident did himself, which was an appropriate offer to make. In addition, the landlord has offered compensation which will be considered below. However, it will be noted that that offer did not, in the opinion of this Service, represent reasonable redress – and an alternative order for compensation has been made.
In terms of the problem itself, this Service considers it would help the resident if the landlord could set out, in writing, its view of what is causing the issue to recur, the options it considers are available to it, and what it is prepared to explore, moving forward, to find a long term solution. A recommendation will be made to this effect.

Cyclical maintenance, repairs and decoration to the doors, windows, guttering and communal areas of the building

The full history of the resident’s complaint has not been evidenced here, including production of the complaint itself. The documentation that is available shows that between 2016 and 2020 the resident’s concerns mainly centred around damp issues in his property and the main front door of the building but by the time the landlord updated the resident in March 2020 the question of cyclical works, and so on, had come to be the dominating issue.
The resident considers works are required every seven years, but this is not evident from the policies, procedures, and so on, produced by the landlord.
The landlord has now committed to spending a considerable sum of money on maintenance of the two buildings in which the property is situated. On a positive view this demonstrates a serious commitment to the premises, and on a negative view is suggestive of a lack of earlier investment – as asserted by the resident.
This Service cannot offer an ‘expert’ opinion as to what works are required and when they might have become apparent and therefore needed to be planned for (as would be required to make findings on these issues). The evidence shows the landlord had the situation in mind in March 2020, the pandemic hampered matters but an expert report from a surveyor was available in late June. An application for planning permission was submitted in a reasonable period of time thereafter and a tendering process instigated. The works have been scheduled.
However, whilst this timeframe suggests the landlord’s handling of these issues has been reasonable, the comments it made in its stage three response show it actually considers itself at fault. It stated, “I note you reported these issues to us around eight years ago, but the works have subsequently never been delivered” and “our approach to delivering planned works has historically not been to the standard we would have liked”.
Given these admissions and the time taken for this timetable to be established, the landlord’s action (or lack of) go beyond service failure into maladministration. The compensation offered by the landlord was a global figure which reflected the situation as a whole. As stated above, this does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offer reasonable redress and is discussed further below.

The resident’s complaint.

It is difficult to identify any real correlation between the landlord’s stated Complaints Procedure and its handling of the resident’s complaint as the two differ so significantly. This is in terms of the time taken to progress through each stage; the way in which each stage was conducted; and the fact the complaint is stated to be “closed” after each response where action is outstanding and the time for the resident to request escalation has not expired. The stage three “review panel” in particular has been treated completely differently to the stated policy.
A complaint is, by definition, something that occurs after the event – after something has gone wrong. Once a resolution has been identified, the complaint itself has been dealt with. Any action going forward is capable of forming the subject of a fresh complaint and a landlord is entitled to have the opportunity to get something right, before it is told it has got something wrong. However, in this case, it is the landlord’s stated policy that it will not close complaints until the resident is satisfied an agreed resolution has been actioned. According to the evidence this was adopted by the landlord as policy as a result of feedback from its customers.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has been a very long, drawn out process which did not comply with its policy. This was inappropriate and represents a failing on its behalf which, once again goes beyond service failure to become maladministration. The resident was left in the dark as to the landlord’s stance or what it proposed to do to put the situation right for a prolonged period of time.
The compensation the landlord offered on this issue of £150 is the maximum it aims to offer according to its Compensation Procedure for poor complaints handling. However, the handling of the resident’s complaint was so inappropriate overall, that that maximum does not fairly reflect the impact this maladministration caused. The offer does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offer reasonable redress and a suitable remedy is discussed further below.
The landlord offered a global figure in respect of compensation for the repairs/communal works of £1000 which it separated into two sums of £500 each, one for time and trouble, and one for service failure. Its Compensation Procedure suggests that payment under both categories should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and it was an appropriate application of its policy to recognise that that was the case here.
However, that procedure does allow for the landlord to make a separate payment for distress and inconvenience, in addition to these two categories. The landlord’s complaint response shows it included that element of the impact on the resident with its offer for time and trouble, but without setting out how much each element should attract.
The time and effort the resident was put to, means that a maximum payment under this category is appropriate, namely £500. That means, however that no element for distress and inconvenience can consider to have been included. The resident has had to live with this situation for many years and a “significant” award is considered appropriate. A figure of £500 would be fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly a global compensation figure of £1,500 will be ordered with regard to the repairs/communal works.
As set out above, the landlord offered the maximum compensation in respect of its complaints handling. However, given its failings in handling this complaint, the Landlord might reasonably have been expected to recognise that more was required to offer a fair resolution. It might reasonably have been expected to use its discretion to exceed this limit in the exceptional circumstances of this complaint. The sum of £250 would be fair and reasonable and will be ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix damp issues in the resident’s property
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of cyclical maintenance, repairs and decoration to the doors, windows, guttering and communal areas of the building the resident’s property is situated in.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The resident has experienced damp issues in his property for a prolonged period of time and the landlord has been slow and ineffective at providing a solution to the matter. It has accepted that there has been a considerable delay in carrying out communal maintenance, repair and decoration to the building the property is situated in. The resident has had to work hard to engage the landlord in trying to find solutions and his complaints were not addressed in any meaningful way for a considerable period of time. The landlord has offered compensation, but the amount was not considered to adequately reflect the impact on the resident of its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay a total amount of compensation of £1,750 to the resident (£1,500 repairs/communal works + £250 complaints handling).
This should be paid within four weeks of the receiving the Ombudsman’s determination and confirmed with this Service upon completion.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident for the cost of the repairs he undertook himself, as it has promised to do.
The landlord to write to the resident setting out its opinion as to what has caused the recurring water ingress into his kitchen; the options open to it; the possible costs of each; and what its stance will be if there is a recurrence.
The landlord should review its staff’s training needs in relation to its complaints handling failures and with regard to implementation of its Compensation Procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of the issues raised by this complaint.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.