Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202009464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009464

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

28 July 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 concerns how the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The resident took on the tenancy of the property in July 2020.
The landlord categorises its repairs as ‘Emergency’ (attended within 24 hours), ‘Routine’ (attended within 28 calendar days) and ‘Major Routine’ (attend within three months or as part of a planned programme of works).
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”.
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.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that if it is unable to provide a response within its timescales, it will contact the complainant to agree a new response time.

Summary of events

On 8 July 2020 the resident called landlord to report a leak in the kitchen. The landlord’s repair logs state that an emergency repair was raised, and an operative attended on the same day. The operative’s notes state that the issue was an uncontainable leak from the kitchen sink waste pipe. The pipe was replaced, and the job was marked as completed on 8 July 2020.
On 4 August 2020 the resident called the landlord to raise a complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it of her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property and the outstanding repairs requested since she had moved in.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2020. It confirmed that it had opened a complaint and that it aimed to provide a response by 18 August 2020. The landlord also informed the resident that, due to the restrictions placed on its service due to the Covid-19 pandemic, delays could be possible, and it would update her if there was a delay in progressing the complaint.
On 8 September 2020 an inspection of the property was arranged. Following the inspection, work orders were raised on 22 September 2020 to repair the edging of the worktop surface, renew screws in the shower sheet, repair the flex lamp holder in the kitchen and change the stopcock location. An internal email was also sent regarding the date when the kitchen would be due to be replaced and it was noted that the kitchen cupboard and worktops required renewing.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 29 September 2020. The landlord informed the resident that it had not upheld the complaint on the grounds that it had responded to her repair requests within its service standards. It also informed the resident that further work had been raised to resolve the outstanding issues and that it aimed to complete repairs by 20 October 2020.
An appointment was arranged for 22 September 2020 to complete repairs. The landlord repair logs state that during this appointment, the kitchen cupboard was repaired, the worktops and flex light holder were replaced, and the strip light renewed.
The repair logs also noted a leak from a joint on the copper pipework beneath the kitchen sink and the stopcock would have to be moved to allow access. An inspection by a supervisor was recommended.
The inspection was arranged for 23 October 2020. Following the inspection, an internal landlord email sent on 26 October 2020 stated that the copper pipework beneath the sink was connected to a water meter and it would therefore not be possible for its contractor to remove the pipework in order to relocate the stopcock.
The resident called the landlord on 26 October 2020. The landlord call logs state that the resident informed it that she would contact her utility provider and seek permission for the landlord to move the pipework.
The resident called this Service on 27 November 2020 to express her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had progressed her complaint. The resident stated that she has had two leaks in the kitchen, one of which had yet to resolved and she had yet to receive a formal complaint response from the landlord. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord replace the kitchen. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who then escalated the complaint to stage two of its internal process.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 5 January 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. After the leak was fixed on 8 July 2020, the landlord had received no further information to indicate that the leak had returned.
2. The resident then raised several concerns relating to the condition of the kitchen. An inspection of the kitchen was arranged where no repairs were identified. However, the landlord agreed to undertake certain works as a goodwill gesture. The kitchen would be considered for renewal in 2023 as part of its planned programme of works.
3. The 8 July 2020 leak was not addressed in the stage one response as it was not raised by the resident when she made the complaint. The landlord apologised for this oversight and for the poor communication throughout the complaint process.
As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
The resident called the landlord on 7 January 2021 and disputed the landlord’s version of events as described in its stage two response. The resident and landlord also discussed the different options available to the resident to renew the kitchen.
As a result of this telephone call, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident and its contractor at her property on 14 January 2021, and then sent a revised stage two complaint response on 15 January 2021. The revised response informed the resident that:
1. It had previously advised that it was unable to undertake any work to the pipework underneath the sink as it was connected to the water meter. The landlord confirmed that as the resident had received written permission from the utility provider, the work could now go ahead.
2. Following the visit on 14 January 2020, the landlord accepted that the kitchen unit below the sink was not replaced although it had previously agreed to do this and that that minor repairs were required to the front of other units and drawers. The landlord noted that minor repairs of that type would not usually be repaired when a kitchen was due a full renewal shortly.
3. It confirmed that following discussions with the resident, it had agreed to replace the unit below the sink, replace the fronts of the other units and install handles more suitable for the resident’s needs. It also noted that in had informed the resident prior to the agreement that this work would make it unlikely that the kitchen would be approved for a full renewal in 2023.
4. It had not met its timescales in providing the stage one complaint response and there was also a delay in escalating the complaint to stage two when it received correspondence from this Service. The landlord apologised to the resident for the way the complaint had been handled and offered a revised compensation award of £175, which it broke down as:
  1. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £75 for time and trouble.
  3. £50 for failure of service.
The landlord ordered the necessary parts to complete the work to the kitchen on 25 January 2021. Delivery of the parts was confirmed on 8 February 2021 and the landlord booked an appointment to complete the repair work on 19 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord broadly followed its repair policy during this case. When the resident reported an uncontainable leak from the kitchen sink, an emergency repair was raised, and the sink was repaired within 24 hours. Following this repair, the landlord raised further work to the kitchen which was completed within its 28-calendar day timescale for routine repairs.
However, the landlord recognised that it should have replaced the kitchen unit beneath the sink as it was no longer fit for purpose. Following a further inspection, it agreed with the resident to replace the unit and make further repairs to other units in the kitchen on the understanding that this would likely cause the kitchen not to be renewed in 2023. It also raised a work order to change the pipework under the sink once permission had been given by the resident’s utility provider. The landlord needed the permission of the utility provider before it could make alterations to this pipework and therefore the delay caused in waiting for permission was unavoidable.
The landlord also recognised that that had not followed its complaints policy and there was poor communication during the process. As a resolution the case, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation as well as agreeing to complete the further work to the kitchen.
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.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by visiting the resident at her home with its contractor in order to agree what work it would undertake to bring the kitchen up to an acceptable standard to the resident, and in awarding £175 compensation.
The compensation award was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which recommends payments of £50 for ‘Low Failure’ (short delays and/or minor inconvenience to a customer) and payments of £51-150 for ‘Medium Failure’ (several errors had been made, multiple attempts to resolve issue and/or impact in customer’s living conditions).
The payment was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250 for service failure where the resident had experienced delays and inconvenience, but the outcome of the complaint was not significantly affected.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

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 repairs to the property’s kitchen, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by not meeting its target response times during the complaint process, poor communication, and not replacing the kitchen unit under the sink in a timely manner.
The landlord apologised, agreed to a plan of work in the kitchen with the resident and awarded compensation which was proportionate to the service failures it had identified.