Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202005113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005113

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

20 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in the roof.
The complaint is about the complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The lease commenced in 2016 following a deed of variation from the original lease which commenced in 2002. The property is a flat on the second floor of the building.

Repair policy

The landlord’s repair obligations are to repair, redecorate and renew the roof, foundations, the external parts including all external load bearing walls and those parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder or any other of the leaseholders.
The repair policy states that the resident is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the interior of the property, for example, internal walls, floors, ceilings, plasterwork and decoration.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, outside walls, gutters and external pipes, drains and gullies. If the repair is not clearly the responsibility of the leaseholder, the policy directs the resident to contact the landlord.
The target time for repairs range from 24 hours for emergency repairs, 28 calendar days for routine repairs or within three months as part of a planned programme of works for major routine repairs.

Complaint policy

The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. It aims to resolve complaints “quickly and effectively with local resolution”; if it cannot do this it will log a formal complaint and acknowledge this within five working days of receipt.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. The target to respond to a stage one complaint is within ten working days, or longer with notice. If the resident remains dissatisfied, then the complaint can be escalated. The target to respond to a stage two complaint is 20 working days, or longer with notice.

Scope of complaint

The resident explained that she raised a repair in 2017 due to the smell of damp in the property. According to the resident, at the time, the landlord did not address the issue and she could not locate the leak.
The landlord did not consider its response to the historic leak under its complaint investigation. It said that it considered that the leak of 2020 was separate to the historic leak.
The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the leak in 2017. The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation is from when the resident reported the leak June 2020 to the end of the complaint process.

Summary of events

The resident told the Ombudsman that in June 2020 she found a tear in the loft with dark circles around it. She said that she took photographs of this and sent it to the landlord. The resident considered that this discovery was the source of the leak in the property. She stated that this was on the bedroom side.
On 3 June 2020 the landlord raised a job in response to the resident’s report of a leak.
On 18 June 2020 it was established by the landlord’s operative that scaffolding was required to access the roof. This was in order to “make repairs to tiles and hip tiles”. The repair notes state that the information and pictures were sent onto the relevant personnel.
On 14 August 2020 there is a repair record for external scaffolding (closed on 11 September 2020). On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord with her complaint:
1. She explained that it had been two months since she complained about damp in the house (following a historic report of 2017).
2. She had not seen any attempt to deal with the situation, having found the source of the leak in the roof.
3. She was told there were delays due to Covid-19, which she did not accept as contractors attended within three weeks of her initial report.
4. She was not told the time or date of when the operatives would be attending, as a result, she could not accommodate them when they turned up. This was because she was in the middle of work, and so she could only show them the section of the house where the leak was.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint and explained that it would issue the response by 2 September 2020. It explained that there may be delays due to the pandemic.
On 20 August 2020 the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service and said that she complained to the landlord but it had not resolved the issue. The resident explained that her complaint was about the landlord’s response to her report of a leak in the loft and she further set out the impact that this had on her health and her occupation of her home. The resident explained that she was asthmatic and the smell of the damp triggered asthmatic attacks. Furthermore, she explained that she was having to sleep in another room. She expressed her request for urgency in the case. The Ombudsman directed the resident to the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (1 September 2020).
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 September 2020:
1. It provided a list of its actions it had taken, which it said informed its decision in the complaint.
2. It said scaffolding would be erected on 24 September 2020.
3. It upheld the complaint as it said that the repair should have been completed in a timely manner. It explained that delays were due to Covid-19 as staff were shielding.
4. It said that it would use the complaint for training.
5. It booked in the repair and closed the case.
6. It provided its insurance information for the resident to submit a claim for internal damages.
On the same day, it booked in the roofing team and scaffolding for 24 September 2020.
On 21 September 2020 a note stated that the operative was “awaiting scaffold to complete works”. The job was rebooked for 13 October 2020.
On 12 and 14 October 2020 the resident updated the Ombudsman about the issue. She said the landlord had closed the case. The resident explained that she was sleeping in the living room, rather than the bedroom, as it was raining constantly and the walls of the bedroom were so cold that it was taking a lot of energy from the heat. She said she was also recovering from a chest infection and taking medication for this.
On 13 October 2020 the repair records state that the landlord attempted to put up the scaffolding but was unsuccessful.
On 23 October 2020 the repair records state that the landlord completed the repair. It described this as “Leak caused damages tiles Supplied and replaced damaged tiles”.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord advised another resident that the works relating to the scaffolding had been completed and a request had been raised to strike the scaffolding.
On 20 November 2020 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, following the resident’s email of October 2020.
The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two on 23 November 2020.
On 26 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, in response to its confirmation that this was at stage two of the complaint process. The resident was dissatisfied with the pace of the complaint process as she explained that this had been outstanding for two months.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s dissatisfaction. It said that following the stage one investigation it did not receive communication from the resident about her continued dissatisfaction, but it would now consider this as a stage two investigation. The landlord then asked the resident to explain her outstanding concern, such as whether the work had been completed or if the resident wanted compensation.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord enquired internally into the post inspection or pictures taken regarding the work. An additional inspection was raised (3 December 2020). The inspection records have not been seen by the Ombudsman.
On 5 December 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s enquiry into the outstanding dispute. The resident said she made herself clear about this when she raised the complaint and asked the landlord what its understanding of the complaint was.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord replied to the resident with its understanding of her stage two complaint. It also clarified the scope of its investigation. It said:
1. The resident first raised concerns of this nature in 2017. It would not date the complaint to the beginning when issues once occurred as it has not been a continuous leak since 2017 up to now. It would only consider the recent incident.
2. The resident said had been experiencing problems with a further leak which she made the landlord aware of in June 2020.
3. The leak caused damp and damages in the property. The resident was dissatisfied with the length of time taken for anything to be done about it.
4. It said that it could only assume that the resident escalated the complaint with the Ombudsman because it closed the stage one complaint, and the agreed action that scaffolding would be erected on the 24 September 2020 and repairs completed thereafter did not occur, or the remedial work had not been forthcoming.
5. It said that it was important that the resident help it to understand the current situation (such as whether any scaffolding or repairs took place or not), so that it could then contact the relevant people.
On 16 December 2020 the landlord enquired internally about whether the works were completed, with details of the repair, as it said that the resident had not confirmed the outstanding issue to it.
The operative confirmed that the work was completed on 23 October 2020 with the comment that the leak had caused damage and that tiles were supplied and replaced the damaged tiles; there were no further works raised.
On the same date, the landlord attempted to call the resident however this was unsuccessful. It sent an email to the resident to explain that the work could not be completed on 24 September 2020, it was instead completed on 23 October 2020. It explained that the job was finished, post inspected and no follow up work had been recommended. It explained that it would be looking to close the complaint, subject to the resident informing it of the outstanding problems.
The landlord subsequently issued its stage two response on 22 December 2020. It said:
1. It recorded the resident’s escalation request on 20 November 2020. It reached out to the resident and did not hear back. It had attempted to contact the resident to establish why she remained dissatisfied and did not hear back.
2. It said that all the repairs showed as completed on its system.
3. It said the original schedule of work was due to be completed on 24 September 2020, however, not all the work could be carried out. It said that everything was finished on 23 October 2020.
4. It explained that it was not clear why the resident contacted the Ombudsman about the issue, and if she had outstanding concerns, she could report this to the landlord’s relevant team.
5. It explained that the complaint highlighted the need for it to ensure that it assigns the appropriate timescale for its operatives to complete tasks so that it can accurately manage resident expectations.
6. It offered compensation for the delay in completing the works beyond the target that it had promised (£20, which it cited as being in line with its discretionary tariff). It also offered an apology.
7. It confirmed that the complaint process had been exhausted and directed the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service or designated person if she remained dissatisfied.

After the complaint process

On 6 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and explained that she wanted it to consider the following reports:
1. The photograph evidence she provided had not changed and that part of the roof in the loft remained the same.
2. The timeframe of the repair was “unacceptable”. The resident set this out to be from June to October.
3. The smell of the damp wall made her ill and she could produce records of this.
4. She could not access the bedroom though she was making payments for this.
5. The landlord ignored the impact of the delay in responding to the incident and the complaint, the landlord had “failed to grasp” this.
On the same day, the landlord replied by email and said that it could not consider the resident’s outstanding concern, as the complaint had concluded. It suggested that the matter be considered by the Ombudsman.
On 8 March 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman that:
1. She raised a complaint in August 2020, she was sick (chest infection) and could not use the affected bedroom due to the smell, which triggered asthmatic attack.
2. The stage one response said the complaint was closed because the contractors were booked in to repair the leak; the resident disputed that the repairs were completed as suggested by the stage one complaint response.
3. She said that she had requested that the scaffolding be removed in December 2020 due to the risk this caused for the property (being vulnerable and not secure and with no security lights and empty properties during the day). She also said that some repair was completed by the landlord during that time, as the wall had begun to dry.
4. She felt that the landlord concluded the complaint and had only referred to paperwork and had not checked the actual repairs or the complaint points.
5. The £20 which it had offered for the inconvenience caused was “pitiful” and did not resolve the reason for the complaint.
6. The resident found it “upsetting” that the terms of her claim for damages from the insurer had not been met.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord responded reasonably to the repair which the resident reported in June 2020.
The leak was first reported in June 2020 and the landlord’s operative established that scaffolding was required to access the roof to address the repair on 18 June 2020. This job to put up scaffolding was raised in August, but this did not take place. The landlord acknowledged that there was a service failure due to the timeliness of its response and it upheld the complaint at stage one. At the close of the stage one investigation, it raised the order for scaffolding. This was due for September 2020. There was a further delay before the scaffolding was finally put up in October 2020, when the repair was also carried out.
The overall timescale for the repair was from June to October 2020. The landlord’s service standards set out a target response of 28 calendar days for routine repairs; the landlord went over this timescale by approximately three months. All the while, the leak was outstanding.
The landlord considered its service failure to be in its management of the resident’s expectations about the date that the scaffolding would go up. Although this was a reasonable assessment of its communication, and it offered reasonable redress for this failing, it did not go on to consider the impact of the delay and the extended timeframe that the repair was outstanding for.
The landlord did not investigate its response to the repair against its service timescale in its stage two investigation, though it had the opportunity to do so. Its offer of compensation under the stage two investigation was therefore not proportional to the additional service failure which the resident experienced. Therefore, there is a service failure in the landlord’s response to the report about the leak.
In the resident’s communication about the scaffolding, she stated that the landlord carried out some repairs in December 2020 because the wall was drying out. This lines up with the landlord’s view at the conclusion of the complaint in December 2020 about the repair and its operative’s feedback about the repairs that it completed. The landlord is entitled to rely on its operative’s assessment of the repair. At the close of the complaint, the leak was considered to be repaired.
In respect of the complaint handling, the resident raised a formal complaint on 14 August 2020. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 August 2020 and responded at stage one on 4 September 2020, two days after it proposed it would. The landlord had managed the resident’s expectations at the time of acknowledging the complaint as it explained that there may be potential delays and provided the reason for this. The stage two complaint was escalated via the Ombudsman, and the landlord explained that it was unaware of the resident’s concern as she had not communicated to it after the stage one response. There is no evidence that the resident had escalated the complaint directly with the landlord, therefore, its response to this point was reasonable.
Once it was aware that the resident was dissatisfied, the landlord contacted the resident several times before the deadline, to establish what the complaint was about, and it had to rely on its own understanding before progressing the issue. The evidence seen shows that the landlord attempted to engage in local resolution. It issued its stage two response two working days outside of its target timescale. The failure to deliver this within the timescale is mitigated by the lack of clarity the landlord had over the complaint and the attempts to contact the resident beforehand, by email and telephone, before it issued the final response. Therefore, the complaint handling was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord identified a service failure in its communication to the resident about the scaffolding, and it offered compensation for not managing her expectations. However, it failed to also consider the overall impact of the delay in carrying out the repair, which was raised in June 2020 and eventually resolved in October 2020. This was approximately three months over the expected timescale under its repair policy.
The landlord responded reasonably to the complaint. It provided an explanation to the resident about the potential delays due to the pandemic at the outset of the investigation. It subsequently attempted to engage with the resident, before issuing the final response.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

Within three weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £140 compensation for the distress and inconvenience due to the delay in its response to her report of the repair (reduced by £20 if the original £20 has already been paid).

Recommendation

Within three weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to confirm that it will consider updating its internal training or guidance for complaints about repairs; it should assess whether it responded in line with relevant policy timescales and then consider the impact of its service on the resident if it has not.