Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202012142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012142

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

21 September 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and resulting mould in the bathroom of his property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident reported leaks affecting the bathroom ceiling on 30 May, 8 October, 19 October and 30 October 2019.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord raised jobs to carry out mould-washing and stain-blocking to the resident’s bathroom.
The resident made further reports of a leak affecting the bathroom ceiling on 13 July, 9 and 12 November, 1 and 8 December 2020, and 9 February 2021.
The resident made reports of his bathroom extractor fan not working on 12 December 2019, 10 August 2020 and 3 March 2021.
All of the above repairs were recorded as completed on the landlord’s records.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2021 to say that he had been dealing with a bathroom leak for over two years where the water would leak and drip from the ceiling. He recalled that it had sent “more than 20 different people” who had not spent sufficient time inspecting the issue and he had recently received four visits in a single month; these visits did not resolve the issue. The resident informed the landlord that the situation had been stressful for him and his household and he wanted it to act “seriously and promptly”.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 January 2021 and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 February 2021 to request that the landlord log a formal complaint about its handling of his reports of a leak and mould in the property.
After acknowledging the resident’s complaint on 5 February 2021, it issued a stage one complaint response to him on 15 February 2021. In this, it noted that he had initially reported a leak on 30 May 2019, mould in the property on 11 December 2019 and it had not yet resolved these issues. The landlord confirmed that scaffolding would be erected on 26 February 2021 and its roofing contractor would attend on 3 March 2021 to carry out repairs.
The landlord explained that there had been a “breakdown in [its] management of follow-on repairs” which had led to the delay in addressing the resident’s reports of a leak and mould. It also said that it had experienced difficulty in tracing the source of the leak but hoped the works on 3 March 2021 would resolve the issue. The landlord also acknowledged that the matter should have been raised a as a complaint sooner and therefore considered that it had not handled the complaint correctly.
The landlord offered a total of £650 compensation to the resident, broken down as:
1. £300 for its failure to complete remedial works promptly.
2. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble.
3. £50 for not raising the matter as a complaint sooner.
The resident informed this Service on 11 March 2021 that the landlord did not carry out the repairs as specified in its stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman wrote to it later that day to escalate the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord’s records on 12 March 2021 recorded that it had completed work to the resident’s roof and had found no issues. It was suggested that, if the leak occurred around the bathroom fan, then this was the result of condensation. Further internal correspondence on 19 March 2021 stated that the resident had advised that there was no leak coming from the roof.
After a report from the resident on 22 March 2021 to the landlord that the extractor fan had broken, it carried out an inspection on 25 March 2021. During the inspection it arranged for the replacement of the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord produced a schedule of remedial work on 31 March 2021 which included:
1. renewal of boxing and skirting in the WC
2. renewal of kitchen ceiling fan
3. mould-washing bathroom walls and ceiling
4. renewing the bathroom floor covering
5. a recall job for the newly installed bathroom extractor fan.
The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 1 April 2021 in which it confirmed that, since his complaint was escalated, it had established that the origin of the leak was not the roof but the bathroom extractor fan. It explained that the fan was not powerful enough to completely draw all the moisture away and therefore this allowed moisture to return into the bathroom. The landlord noted that the bathroom extractor fan was replaced on 30 March 2021, and it would carry out a post inspection on 5 April 2021 to confirm if the leak had halted. It relayed to the resident the schedule of remedial works it had raised following its inspection and advised him that it would contact him to arrange appointments for these.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that it had historically not addressed his repair reports within a reasonable period. It asserted, however, that it had not demonstrated any failures in its handling of the repair to the bathroom extractor fan or its handling of the stage one complaint. The landlord, therefore, confirmed that it would not be increasing the offer of compensation offered in its stage one complaint response.
The landlord’s records on 30 June 2021 showed that the following works had been completed:
1. Renewal of boxing skirting behind the WC was completed on 10 June 2021.
2. Renewal of the kitchen ceiling fan was refused by the resident due to the size of the new fan.
3. Mould-washing of the bathroom walls and ceiling was completed on 16 April 2021 with ‘biocheck’ paint applied on 27 April 2021.
4. The bathroom vinyl flooring was renewed on 28 May 2021.
The landlord’s records also indicated that it had been unable to carry out a post inspection of the completed work due to difficulty in contacting the resident.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation provides for payments of up to £50 for instances of low failure, where a failure had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for them. This document also provides for compensation offers of between £161 to £350 for instances of high failure which had a severe long-term impact on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint internal process defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”. This process provides for a two-stage complaint procedure, with responses to be provided within ten days at stage one of the procedure and within 20 days at the final stage of the procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and resulting mould in the bathroom of his property

The resident has informed this Service that the mould resulting from the recurrent leak in his bathroom has had a health impact on members of his household. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, and any subsequent effect on his household’s health. If the resident considers that his or a family member’s health has been negatively impacted by the landlord’s actions or lack of action, he may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman has considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and his family experienced as a result of the situation affecting his property.
As confirmed by the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair of the leaks affecting the resident’s bathroom ceiling as this was part of the structure of the property. It is noted that it completed work on each occasion in response to his reports, and it was reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff in considering what repairs were required in the first instance. However, considering that the same defect was reported ten times in the period between 30 May 2019 and 9 February 2021, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not identify the cause of the recurrent leaks sooner. When a landlord carries out a repair, this should remedy the issue for a reasonable period. If a specific repair is reported repeatedly, it should identify that it has not addressed the issue fully and further investigation is required.
The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 February 2021, that it had not resolved the leak reported by the resident originally on 30 May 2019 and the mould recorded on 11 December 2019 and it had difficulty in tracing the source of the leak. It was reasonable therefore, for it to acknowledge that it had failed to manage historical follow-on repairs effectively and offer compensation to the resident in view of this.
The compensation offer of £300 the landlord made to the resident for its handling of repairs to the bathroom leak, and its offer of £300 for his resulting distress and inconvenience, was in accordance with its supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation, as the amounts offered reflect the high degree of failure over a long period.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) provides for awards of between £250 and £700 where the Ombudsman has found “considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. This may include a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.
Therefore, the total amount of £600 compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the leak and mould, and resultant inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident, was reasonable as it was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord failed to carry out a permanent lasting repair to the leak over approximately 20 months which would have caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident. However, there is evidence that the landlord has since completed the repairs meaning there may be no lasting effect on the resident.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 1 April 2021 acknowledged again its historical failure to carry out a lasting repair to the leak but held that it had not exhibited any failures since the resident raised his stage one complaint with it. It carried out roofing work on 12 March 2021, subsequently carried out an inspection on 25 March 2021, once it identified the source of the leak, and produced a schedule of remedial work to address the leak and the effects of the mould on 30 March 2021. Although, it is unclear why the roofing work occurred on 12 March instead of 3 March 2021, as specified in the landlord’s stage one response, this was not a long delay and there was no evidence of significant inconvenience to the resident as a result. These were reasonable actions by the landlord in the intervening time between the stage one and final complaint responses, and there was no evidence of a failure during this period.
In conclusion, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging that it had historically failed to address the resident’s report of a leak effectively and it offered an amount of compensation which was reasonable and in accordance with its supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation, and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. It subsequently responded reasonably by carrying out remedial work which appears to have been completed. It is noted that the landlord has yet to post-inspect these works and it will be recommended to arrange this with the resident to ensure that the issue is resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response on 15 February 2021, that it had not dealt with the resident’s complaint correctly and awarded £50 compensation for this. It recorded his informing it of his dissatisfaction with its handling of the leak on 4 January 2021, however, there was no evidence that it logged this as a complaint. As confirmed by the landlord’s complaint internal process, it should have recognised this as a complaint sooner as it was an expression of dissatisfaction with the service it had provided to the resident.
The resident needed to be involved further in progressing his complaint by seeking the intervention of this Service before the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 5 February 2021. Therefore, there was a failure by the landlord to recognise his complaint sooner, which it recognised in its complaint responses.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for this complaint handling failure which was in accordance with its supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation, as the failure was of short duration and the complaint was subsequently raised after the Ombudsman’s involvement.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance provides for compensation awards of between £50 and £250 where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. The offer of £50 made by the landlord to resident for its handling of the complaint was broadly in accordance with this guidance for the same reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph and, therefore, the £50 compensation offer was a reasonable offer of redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and resulting mould in the bathroom of his property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its historical failure to effectively manage repairs to the leak in the resident bathroom. It offered a reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with both its and the Ombudsman’s guidance in recognition of this and carried out reasonable actions to remedy the issue.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not recognise the resident’s initial complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with both its and the Ombudsman’s guidance in recognition of this.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay to the resident the amount of £650 in compensation it offered him in its stage one complaint response if it has not already done so.
2. Contact the resident to arrange a post-inspection of the remedial works to ensure that the leak is permanently resolved.
3. Review its repairs management processes to ensure that in future it can recognise when recurrent repair reports indicate that more work is required to identify the correct source of an issue.