Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202014736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014736

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

26 August 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 resident complained about the landlord’s response to her complaint about her service charge for 2018/19 and in particular its failure to explain the basis for a particular item charged.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat in a property of which the landlord is the freeholder, and to which she pays an annual service charge.
3. As the Ombudsman understands it, at some point in 2018/19 the landlord partially installed then later removed a new fire alarm system in the building as it was considered not fit for purpose (eventually replacing it in February – April 2019).
4. On 9 February 2018 the landlord notified the resident of her estimated monthly service charge of £132.07 for 1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019.
5. On 24 September 2019 the landlord sent the resident her finalised service charge statement for 2018/19. This included a sum for ‘Statutory Testing and Servicing’ (ST&S).
6. Pre-complaint enquiry: On 29 September 2019 the resident emailed the landlord and specifically queried the charge for ST&S on the grounds that there had been no alarm systems in the building to test prior to the end of February 2019. She therefore questioned the accuracy of the 2018/19 charge for this item.
7. Stage 1 complaint: Having heard nothing from the landlord other than an acknowledgement, on 27 October 2019 the resident raised her query as a formal complaint. [Under its complaints procedure at the time the landlord aimed to respond within 28 days calendar days.]
8. The landlord then provided the resident with a list of the items included in her service charge and on 6 November 2019 she emailed the landlord, explaining she was concerned that the ST&S charges related to the previously removed alarm system, querying the reference under this heading to “FRA-Remedial Work”. She was concerned this was for making good after the removal of the previous system.  She also requested a copy of a number of documents, including specific invoices.
9. On 30 January 2020 the officer dealing with the complaint emailed the resident to apologise for his lack of response, said her complaint had been reassigned and that a new officer would contact her.
10. Stage 1 response: There was then no further contact from the landlord until 12 May 2020 when it provided its complaint response. It apologised for the delay, the communication failures of its previous officer, and for not having been in contact with an update. [Its complaints procedure at that time was for fortnightly updates.] In summary the landlord:
    1. Provided the requested invoices which gave the 2018/19 cost of fire safety testing for all the properties in the block, not just the resident’s.
    2. Provided a breakdown from its fire safety team of the ST&S charge for the year which comprised: fire risk assessment; accumulated cost of several non-technical fire safety checks; monthly fire doors checks; monthly visual inspection of block; testing of equipment; and remedial work following fire risk assessment. It gave the cost of the individual items.
    3. Explained that the total of ST&S items equalled the total shown on the service charge statement and included no charge for installation/removal of the previous system.
    4. Advised that the remedial work to which it had referred was for replacement of faulty or failing equipment following tests during the year, which could include buttons, coverings, lights and switches.
    5. Acknowledged its annual service charge summary could have been clearer and its lack of response to her enquiry understandably resulted in her complaint which ought not to have been necessary.
    6. Said the officer who had been dealing with the complaint left in January 2020 and the case “regrettably fell through the cracks”.
    7. Said her complaint had highlighted areas for improvement.
    8. It offered her compensation of £350, comprising £150 for poor complaint handling and £200 for its earlier failure to respond to her enquiry.[The resident did not accept the offer.]
11. Stage 2 request: On 24 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, unhappy with its reply, asking that her complaint be escalated for review. [Under its complaints procedure at that time the landlord undertook to respond within 28 calendar days and with fortnightly updates.] The resident asked the landlord what and when were the tests being referred to at (iv) above and explained that its confirmation that she had not been charged for the installation/removal of the previous system did not reassure her that she had not been charged for making good after the installation.  The landlord acknowledged her request and undertook to respond by 9 July 2020, noting a possible delay on account of Covid.
12. In September – October 2020 the resident chased for updates and the landlord requested information from its fire safety team.
13. Stage 2 response: On 1 December 2020 the landlord provided the resident with the outcome of its complaint review, in summary finding as follows:
    1. Enquiries of its service charge manager and fire safety team confirmed the cost of installation and removal of the previous fire safety system had not been charged to leaseholders.
    2. In response to her post Stage 1 additional queries it had confirmed that the charges and other items had not been charged to her and saw no need to look into it further.
    3. Stage 1 complaint handling – it apologised for failing to update her between February and May 2019 and renewed its offer of £350.
14. During the course of the Ombudsman’s investigation the landlord identified two elements of the ST&S charge that it ought to have removed from the resident’s account as a result of her complaint but had not done so. These specifically related to the ‘Accumulated cost of several Non-Technical Fire Safety Checks’ (fire risk assessment – survey); and ‘Remedial Work following Fire Risk Assessment’ (FRA – Remedial Work).
15. On 6 August 2021 the landlord revised the resident’s 2018/19 service charge account accordingly, crediting back payment of the above.  It sent her the revised statement.

Assessment and findings

16. In both her enquiry and subsequent complaint to the landlord the resident made clear she was seeking a detailed assurance, in answer to her specific questions, that she was not being charged for any work undertaken as a result of the previously installed fire safety system. To that end she made a pointed enquiry followed by a formal complaint when her enquiry failed to elicit any response from the landlord. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident ought to have been charged for these particular items or how much she ought to have been charged but whether, in response to her complaint, the landlord’s response was a fair and reasonable one.
17. The landlord’s Stage 1 response was significantly delayed – taking seven months rather than 28 days – which it has acknowledged and put squarely down to staff error, about which it was frank and open with the resident. During this time the landlord had also failed to update the resident as required by its complaints procedure, despite her chasing a response.  Both these failures, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, would have compounded its initial omission in failing to answer her enquiry. These failures together not only inconvenienced the resident but would have understandably undermined her confidence that it was giving her complaint due consideration.
18. Delay aside, the landlord’s Stage 1 response appeared at least to be a detailed attempt to answer the resident’s concerns that she was being charged for any work associated with the previous fire safety system. It sought to explain the basis of the ST&S charges, confirmed that remedial work done was not to remedy or make good after the previous installation, and provided the invoices referenced in its earlier breakdown of charges. Importantly, however, it failed sufficiently to engage with the substance of the resident’s query so as to identify the fact – now identified by the landlord – that two elements of the ST&S charge ought not to have been included in the resident’s account for 2018/19. That was a failure which inevitably resulted in the resident’s further escalation of her complaint, and so further inconvenience and delay in seeking its resolution.
19. In requesting escalation of her complaint for review the resident took the opportunity, at the landlord’s invitation, to explain in more detail the precise nature of the information she was seeking by way of assurance that she had not been charged for any costs associated with the previous fire safety system, ie she wanted to know that she had not paid for making good after the system’s removal and had not paid for the testing of the system. Having made these additional queries clear, the resident had an understandable expectation that the landlord’s Stage 2 response would engage with the substance of her query and identify any items that had been incorrectly charged.
20. It is unclear when the landlord identified that items had been included in the ST&S charge that ought not to have been, and other than the explanation given at paragraph 14 it is also unclear precisely the nature of the items which have now been removed. But it was not until the Ombudsman made enquiries in the course of its investigation that the landlord realised its error. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the landlord has now taken steps to remove those items and adjusted the resident’s account accordingly, but it ought not to have taken nearly two years of the resident pursuing a formal complaint for the landlord to identify and correct this.
21. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord once again missed the opportunity at Stage 2 to engage sufficiently with the detail of the resident’s enquiry in order to identify that items had been incorrectly charged and not only remove them but also provide the resident with an explanation of precisely what those items were. By this stage the resident had made clear she was seeking information to reassure her beyond the fact that she had not been charged for the installation and removal of the previous system. She was seeking reassurance that she was also not being charged for any costs associated with the previous system. In its Stage 2 response the landlord referred to her enquiries but simply said that as she had not been charged “for these works” it did not see the need to look at it further.
22. As the Ombudsman sees it, this was a misinterpretation of the resident’s dissatisfaction at Stage 2 and the landlord’s failure to engage with the detail of what the resident was asking was a service failure, as was the time it took to respond which – even with the Covid situation – was unduly protracted. Both service failures inevitably caused the resident further inconvenience and frustration as she then sought to get the matter addressed through her complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. The Ombudsman notes the resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation and, in the Ombudsman’s view, has yet to be provided with adequate recognition of the landlord’s failure to respond in a timely and effective manner to her enquiry and subsequent complaint. During the two years it took the landlord to respond to her enquiry and complaint, identify its error and correct it, the resident has been put to a fair degree of inconvenience in having to pursue a complaint which, by the landlord’s admission ought not to have been necessary had it responded to her enquiry. She has then had to wait a considerable amount of time at each stage, despite her chasing for updates. And even when the landlord identified its error it failed to ensure it corrected the service charge accordingly.
24. The overall cumulative affect of this mishandling caused the resident not only inconvenience but increasing frustration, disappointment and erosion of confidence that the landlord was giving the issue due consideration. In the Ombudsman’s view, the £350 offered by the landlord falls short of the tangible recognition warranted by its service failures in responding to the resident’s enquiry and complaint.
25. 25. Finally, with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the landlord has now revised its complaints procedure to better reflect the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, particularly with regard to reducing timescales for its Stage 1 and 2 responses (to 10 and 20 working days respectively). However while it has said it has learnt from the complaint it has not explained the ways in which it has done so. The Ombudsman considers the resident is entitled to an explanation of any improvements made by the landlord as a result of her complaint as this should go some way to restoring her confidence in its commitment to dealing effectively with complaints.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about her service charge for 2018/19 and in particular its failure to explain the basis for a particular item charged.

Reasons

27. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was unreasonably delayed, failed to provide the explanation she sought of specific items in the service charge, failed to identify at the earliest opportunity that items had been incorrectly included and failed then to remove them and adjust the account until prompted to do so by this Service’s enquiries. In taking steps to now remedy this, including its offer of some compensation, the landlord has yet to provide the resident with adequate and reasonable redress for the failures in its complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered:
    1. To pay the resident £700 compensation in place of the £350 previously offered (but not accepted by the resident).
    2. To write to the resident and explain what work was done but has not now been charged for 2018/19 under the headings: ‘Accumulated cost of several Non-Technical Fire Safety Checks’ (fire risk assessment – survey); and ‘Remedial Work following Fire Risk Assessment’ (FRA – Remedial Work).
    3. To write to the resident to explain what lessons have been learnt/improvements made as a result of her complaint, and to provide a copy of that explanation to this Service.

Recommendation

29. It is recommended that the landlord check its records to ensure no other leaseholder was similarly incorrectly charged and to take action to correct this.