Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202015908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015908

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

30 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 is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould issues in the resident’s property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since 2012. The resident has health vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of, and lives with her young child in the property.
The resident has stated that she initially reported issues with mould and damp in her property in 2016. The Housing Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This report will consider events dating from mid–2019 onwards as this is a reasonable period to consider in line with when the resident made reports and raised a formal complaint, and in terms of the available contemporaneous evidence.
On 25 June 2019 the resident called the landlord who noted that damp works had previously been raised with contractors to address reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property, but acknowledged that no work had been carried out. The resident was advised to provide the landlord with images of the affected areas in the property. The call notes record that it had been approximately a year prior that the landlord had spoken to the contractors to progress the work.
On the same day, 25 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord providing copies of photos of the mould and damp in the property affecting the walls and flooring, including specifically inside a cupboard. She noted that when opening the cupboard door where the mould was most concentrated there was a strong smell of damp which was unpleasant to live with. She stated that the damp and mould had destroyed several of her personal items.
The landlord’s repair records note that on 27 June 2019 a job order was raised for contractors to carry out drywall coating and damp-proofing to the property. It is noted that this was a recall job because the works were not completed when the orders were originally raised.
On 4 July 2019 the resident called the landlord who confirmed again that there were no outstanding jobs recorded on its system and again logged a recall job. It contacted the contractors who indicated that a re-quote would be needed given the original one would have expired, and this was arranged to take place in August 2019.
On 29 August 2019 the landlord wrote to its contractors asking that the property be inspected as the resident had ongoing mould issues. It noted an inspection had been booked for August but that the resident had reported this did not go ahead. It noted a number of jobs had been raised in the past but the resident said these had not been done properly. It sought an update from the contractors.
On 16 September 2019 the resident sought an update from the landlord. It called her back on 18 September 2019 noting that the damp works had been raised and its contractors would call her within 48 working hours to arrange appointments.
On 18 September 2019 the resident called the landlord to enquire as to when the damp-proofing works would be finalised. On the same day, the landlord raised a job order for its contractors to complete the damp-proofing works “as per original instruction.” The job was noted to be a recall. The same category of appointment was raised on 23 September 2019, following another call from the resident seeking an update on 20 September 2019.
At some point in September 2019 a surveyor attended the property to assess what work was required at the time, as the previous quote given in 2017 had expired.
On 4, 10 and 24 October 2019 the resident called the landlord to request an update. On 19 November 2019 the resident sought an escalated call–back and on 20 November 2019 made a subject access request for the full log of communications between the parties on the issue.
On 13 February 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident requesting that she book in for a property condition survey for 4 March 2020 when its surveyor would be in the area undertaking these at local properties.
On 22 April 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She noted that she was pregnant and due to give birth with a few weeks and had disclosed her concerns on numerous occasions prior to the pregnancy. She set out a timeline of her reports about various defects in the property and made the following comments as part of the complaint:
1. She had contacted the landlord about the same issue of damp and mould on multiple occasions and was repeatedly told that jobs had either not been logged in the system or had not been followed up by the landlord, requiring recall jobs to be logged for the contractors. The communication from the landlord had been poor, requiring her to chase updates.
2. She had experienced a significant decline in her health over previous years which had been exacerbated by her living conditions. On this basis she stated she had been unable to keep pursuing the matter with the landlord but questioned whether she should have needed to. She was highly concerned about isolating in such poor living conditions, considering she had a history of the damp and mould affecting her skin and immune system, she had needed to self-isolate for 12 weeks as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that she was pregnant.
3. She was dissatisfied that another survey needed to be undertaken in September 2019 given the previous one had expired due to the lack of work undertaken by the landlord. She also was unhappy with the need to undertake the property condition survey that she was advised of on 13 February 2020 which she considered unnecessary given the landlord had been kept updated about the conditions of the property and she felt this was an additional stress on her already impacted health.
4. The landlord had not replied to her subject access request of 20 November 2019.
On 20 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord seeking an update on the status of the complaint, noting that the landlord had been due to provide her with a response by 7 May 2020. She stated that she was nearing her due date and was concerned about the health risks to her newborn child in the property. On the same day, the landlord called the resident to discuss a possible decant. The resident expressed that this was the first she had heard in response to the complaint, and the landlord acknowledged this was unacceptable. On 21 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone. It followed this up with an email to her noting that it was looking at its available properties to see if a permanent decant could be arranged. It also stated that it had requested a timeframe from its teams for the remaining repair work to be completed. It stated it aimed to keep her updated fortnightly but would be in contact if there were new updates.
On 12 June 2020 the landlord called the resident offering to arrange a viewing for a one-bedroom property. The resident noted that it had previously been agreed with the landlord that if she was to be relocated, it would be to a two-bedroom property. The landlord apologised for offering a one-bedroom property contrary to the earlier agreement and noted it would clarify the position.
On 29 June 2020 the landlord called the resident to propose that a surveyor attend the property to see if any work could be carried out “to make the move temporary instead of permanent”. She was told the earliest available appointment was on 13 July 2020. A surveyor attended the property for three hours on this date. The resident was advised that the damp levels were slightly lower in a particular room compared to her bedroom, and therefore moved her sleeping arrangements into that room.
In early August 2020 the landlord called the resident, noting that since the surveyor’s report it may have found a solution to the repairs which would allow the resident to move back in within a matter of weeks. It told her that a particular team would contact her regarding further information on the repair “and a temporary move.” On the basis of the available evidence, it appears the repair work involved the removal of the mould from the cupboard and other secondary sources, drying out of the damp and follow-up damp proofing work on the walls and ceiling.
On 17 August 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to put sealant around the bath. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this approach, stating that given the length of time that had elapsed since the damp and mould issue had first occurred and been reported, she did not want to have workers undertaking piecemeal jobs in place of a proper resolution to the issue, especially during a pandemic.
At some point in September 2020 the resident raised a new complaint, noting she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s management of the issues since her initial complaint on 22 April 2020. She noted her dissatisfaction with the following:
1. The fact that minimal communication had been made with her and often only occurred when she reached out to the landlord. She noted having been offered the one–bedroom property on 12 June 2020, contrary to what she had previously agreed with the landlord.
2. She was aware at this stage that there were high levels of damp throughout the whole property, which was even more concerning considering she suffered from a chronic illness. Since the most recent surveyor’s visit she had moved into another room as the surveyor had advised that the damp levels were slightly lower in that particular space. She said she was confined to one area of her small flat.
3. She had not heard back from the landlord about finalising the repair or the temporary move despite being promised this communication in early August 2020. She was dissatisfied with the job to put sealant around the bath as she considered this to be another temporary and ineffectual measure.
4. The second surveyor’s attendance within the year on 13 July 2020 required her to have her newborn baby minded away from the house due to her concerns about the impact of the mould on him. The property was not suitable for a baby, which she considered to be clear from the surveyor’s report. It was exhausting for her to continually chase this up, noting it had been 22 weeks since the initial complaint. She requested a copy of the surveyor’s report.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the lack of updates. It noted that it would ensure improvements were evident going forward and would address the poor complaint-handling in its formal complaint response. It had been informed by its repairs team that following the survey, the initial works in the bathroom were to be completed first. There had been a delay in providing this confirmation which had a “knock on” effect, however it confirmed that a staff member would be visiting the property the next week to inspect the works already carried out and confirm what the next steps would be. It noted that once a timeframe was in place with all works agreed it would provide a final response to the complaint.
The evidence suggests the resident was decanted to temporary accommodation in the week following 10 November 2020. The landlord’s complex repairs team attended the property and began damp-proofing works.
On 16 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that she had been contacted by her neighbour advising that her property’s back door had been left unlocked with a key in the door for several days while work was taking place there. She expressed her dissatisfaction with this given all her kitchen appliances were still in the property which would have been insecure.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It noted the resident had initially reported mould and damp in the property in 2016, that there had been repeated issues and despite visits from multiple contractors a long–term solution had not been found. It acknowledged this had caused concern to the resident, particularly following the birth of her child. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. It had discussed the situation with its repairs and housing teams. It noted that a permanent decant had been investigated for the resident, who had expressed her preference for remaining in the property and for works to be carried out.
3. Because a suitable repair could not be identified by its day-to-day contractors, a specialist was instructed to attend and carry out a survey. Following this, its complex repairs team took ownership of the project and it understood that suitable works had been arranged and were underway. Based on its previous conversation with the resident, it understood her to be happy with the current progress and noted she had a direct number of a particular staff member to contact if she had additional concerns.
4. It acknowledged that the service she had received had not been to the required level and it had failed to provide a suitable resolution historically. Due to the length of time that had elapsed, it could not determine why the matter was not referred to a specialist previously and it was sorry that this had delayed the provision of a resolution. It noted that suitable feedback had been passed to its repairs team in an effort to prevent similar situations in future.
5. It offered the resident compensation of £1,050, consisting of:
  1. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble
  2. £500 for the acknowledged service failure
  3. £150 for poor complaint-handling (mistakenly recorded as for “missed appointment” but corrected in later correspondence)
  4. £50 for the missed appointments.
On 19 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she was not satisfied with the offer, as it was not a true reflection of what she had experienced. She also noted she was upset that it had failed to mention anything regarding her personal belongings that had been destroyed. On this basis she did not consider it acceptable that the case be closed.
On the same day, 19 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for not including reference to the damage to her personal belongings, noting that it did not recall that part of a previous conversation. It noted that it had revised its previous compensation offer to the maximum amount payable under its policy, being £1,200 consisting of:
1. £500 for the resident’s time and trouble
2. £500 for the acknowledged service failure
3. £150 for the poor complaint-handling
4. £50 for the missed appointments.
It also included details of its public liability insurance policy and instructions on how the resident could submit a claim, given it was unable to offer reimbursement for lost goods.
On 10 December 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated.
The resident later reported that she had returned home just before Christmas following the major works being completed.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. The complaint was raised on 22 April 2020 however it acknowledged that the resident had communicated with it prior to this to repeatedly report occurrences of damp and mould within the home. Following the complaint, the landlord discussed the issue with the repairs and housing teams who considered a possible decant that the resident declined. Necessary works were eventually established following a survey and attendance of the complex repairs team, and the landlord had recognised its service failure.
2. Having reviewed the complaint through the stage one process, the landlord noted that different solutions had been investigated, the resident had been offered a permanent decant and the case officer had been supportive and empathetic to the resident’s situation. It apologised again for the delays and frustration experienced by the resident, though noted that it considered its handling of the stage one complaint to be satisfactory particularly given the unprecedented situation it was in as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. It noted the second stage of its complaints process was to fully review the stage one complaint to see if any of the following could be established:
  1. The initial response was factually incorrect.
  2. The response received did not address the initial complaint.
  3. Important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered.
4. Given the resident had not provided grounds as above, the complaint would not be reinvestigated. On this basis, it confirmed the offer of compensation being £1,200.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the repairs were finalised in late March 2021.
In the resident’s subsequent communication with the Ombudsman she says that the landlord has failed to take into account her personal circumstances, including the detriment to her physical and mental health including whilst she was pregnant. She noted that the compensation offer was not enough to cover her losses, including having to move out of home for 6 weeks and the disturbance this caused.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs guide notes its service standards as including that it will be quick and reliable, keep the resident informed and be clear about what a resident can expect from it.
Repairs of the kind forming the subject matter of the complaint are not specifically mentioned in the repairs guide and therefore are not categorised as falling into a specific priority for repair. The document notes that the landlord is responsible for plumbing repairs and leaks, except in the case where the landlord is not responsible for an appliance that has caused the leak.
Routine repairs are defined as defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident, without long-term deterioration of the building. These are noted to have target times of 28 days for repair with an appointment to be arranged within this period. In contrast, emergency repairs are defined as those required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety, a risk to the residents’ or other’s safety or property, or serios damage to the residents’ home or adjacent buildings. These repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that a stage one complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within ten working days. If the latter is not possible, the landlord will agree a new response date with the resident. An escalation request will be accepted if it can be established that the initial response was factually inaccurate, does not address the initial complaint or that important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered. A response will be provided within ten working days.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to damp and mould

Part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman is about the damage caused to her personal belongings by the damp and mould, and a request has been made for a finding in which she is reimbursed for these. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of negligence or liability in regard to the damage caused to the resident’s personal belongings by the damp and mould in the property. This would be a matter for the courts as it requires a determination of causation which is more suitable for such a body to make. It can consider the actions of the landlord in responding to the resident’s reported concerns about her belongings to establish if it took an appropriate stance in response. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord directed the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance and provided instructions on how to do this in its communication of 19 November 2020. This was an appropriate step to take as it meant the resident was not required to make a claim on her own contents insurance which could have affected her premium/required her to pay the excess.
Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot make findings in relation to personal injury such as the reported impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s health and that of her child, as this would again be a matter for the courts to consider given the need to assess causation, liability and medical evidence.
This report considers events from mid-2019 onwards. The landlord’s own records demonstrated that when the resident called up to report that the issues were ongoing, job requests had previously been raised and were not actioned as a result of its own failure to progress these or to follow-up with contractors. No work was carried out over the course of late June, July or August 2019 prior to the survey inspection in September 2019 despite the resident calling multiple times during this period to request an update.
When it was communicated to the resident shortly after 4 July 2019 that a new survey would be required due to the expiry of the old one, this did not go ahead until September following an apparently missed appointment in August according to the landlord in its complaint response. Additionally, following the July 2020 surveyor’s appointment the situation became more difficult for the resident as she has stated that she moved her sleeping arrangements to a different room on the advice of the surveyor that the moisture levels were lesser compared to her bedroom.
Following the landlord’s communication with the resident that the job order for the damp-proofing works had been raised on 18 September 2019, the contractors failed to contact the resident as promised within 48 hours to arrange the appointments. After the surveyor’s appointment in late September, the resident continued to seek updates from the landlord over the course of October and November 2019, including making a Subject Access Request which she states she did not get a response to for a number of months. It is unclear why the landlord did not provide any update to the resident until February 2020 when it confirmed another survey was required which was part of a series of inspections being undertaken in the local area in March 2020 rather than in response to her specific problems. There is no evidence that it undertook any further work until after a formal complaint was raised in late April 2020.
With the damp-proofing works being finalised enough for the resident to return home in December 2020 and then actually completed in March 2021, this was a full 16 and 19 months respectively after the initial report made in June 2019. While the landlord has noted that some of the delay in carrying out the works can be attributed to the impact of Covid-19 on its staff and contractors through the government-mandated lockdowns over 2020 and 2021, this was still a significant period of delay which has not been adequately explained. In particular, the initial lockdown was not implemented until March 2020, meaning there was a period of 9 months in which two surveyor inspections went ahead with little other progress being made. The resident has provided evidence to support that she was continually seeking updates from the landlord from June 2019 onwards which were not forthcoming.
From May 2020 onwards the landlord engaged in some discussions with the resident about arranging a decant for her so the works could take place. However following another surveyor’s attendance on 13 July 2020, no progress was made to progress either the decant or the repairs for a number of months, other than minor works carried out on the bath on 17 August 2020. The decant and works did not go ahead until November 2020, while during the intervening period the resident had raised a new complaint largely based around the delays and the lack of communication from the landlord which was at a demonstrably unacceptable level. While the landlord explained that this additional period of delay was a “knock on” effect caused by internal issues and problems communicating with contractors, this does not absolve it of responsibility and contributed further to the resident’s inconvenience and distress.
There was a clear service failure by the landlord given its failure to follow-up with the commitments it made to the resident and progress the works despite the significant length of time that passed. This was aggravated by the vulnerability of the resident in terms of both her physical and mental health, her pregnancy and then the presence of her newborn child, all factors that the landlord was aware of. It made commitments to her in response to her communicated distress that it would be proactive in resolving the issues, but there were still significant delays following these communications that have not been adequately explained.
There is also evidence that the landlord handled the resident’s decant poorly, as there were significant delays prior to this going ahead and confusion as to the needs of the resident in the circumstances. The resident reported concerns with the landlord’s actions during the period of the decant which included leaving a door unlocked raising security concerns given the presence of her appliances in the unsecured property. This contributed to the already significant distress the resident had experienced.
In the circumstances, while it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to make a financial compensation offer to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that had been caused, the offer did not go far enough to provide adequate redress for its failings. In total it offered £1,050 for the resident’s time and trouble, its own service failure and the missed appointments which went some way to attempting to make the situation right given the circumstances. Considering the length of time the damp-proofing works were outstanding which meant the damp and mould continued to affect her, her child and her home for an extended period, it is appropriate that the landlord pay a larger amount of compensation to her. This also recognises the impact on the resident of needing to regularly chase updates, repeatedly make the same report of the repair issue that was in place and her vulnerability.

Complaint-handling

The resident raised a complaint within the scope of this investigation on 22 April 2020. She did not receive an update until 20 May 2021 when she called the landlord noting there had not been a response and the landlord’s policy required that she should have been contacted with an update or formal response within ten working days. While the landlord increased the frequency of its communication with her following the raising of the complaint, it nevertheless failed to provide a formal complaint response as required under its policy. Though it was still attempting to progress the substantive matter following the raising of a complaint by looking into a decant and arranging further surveyor’s appointments, this did not justify its failure to produce a formal response.
The resident was required to raise a second formal complaint in September 2020 in light of the landlord’s failure to respond to the initial one. There were further delays in the landlord responding to this complaint, as the stage one response was issued on 16 November 2020. As part of this response, the landlord noted that due to the length of time that had elapsed, it was unclear what had caused the historical delays, particularly the issue of why the work had not been referred to a specialist previously. The complaint response itself, while acknowledging various service complaints, validly acknowledged the resident’s concerns and addressed the points she raised. When she noted that no position had been taken regarding the damage to her personal belongings, it correctly signposted her towards making a claim on its public liability insurance.
The offer of compensation to the resident of £150 did not go far enough to recognise the failings in this process, given the resident had to raise two formal complaints to receive a response and that there were significant delays by the landlord over the process amounting to a number of months. The initial complaint was raised in April 2020 and a formal response was not provided until November 2020. She also was required to chase the landlord for updates, and its actions were not in line with the specific timeframes and guidelines set out in its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould issues in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure regarding the complaint about the landlord’s complaint-handling.

Reasons

There were significant delays and other failings over the course of the repair process. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s enquiries or follow-up works with its contractors despite multiple “re-call” jobs being raised, and the total length of the time the work was outstanding had a significant negative impact on the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident in recognition of its service failure however this did not go far enough to compensate for the significant delays that occurred over the process. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the works and did not provide adequate support to her given her noted vulnerabilities.
The landlord failed to provide a formal response to the resident until a second complaint was raised, maintained poor communication with the resident and did not respond in line with its complaint-handling policy timeframes. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough to provide redress for the failings in its complaints process.

Orders

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident the sum of:
1. £1,200 for the delays and failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £1,050. If this has previously been paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the remaining sum to be paid.
2. £250 for the failures in its complaint-handling process. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £150. If this has previously been paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the remaining sum to be paid.