Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202105708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105708

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

10 March 2022

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 reports of a leak at the property.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, which is a three–bedroom flat.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 days of acknowledging the complaint at stage one. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and requests escalation to stage two of the complaints procedure, the landlord aims to complete a stage two review of the complaint, within 20 working days thereafter.
The landlord’s compensation policy and guidance documents set out circumstances in which compensation may be offered and guideline amounts, depending on the individual situation and severity of impact. The guidance states an apology or financial compensation of up to £50 is appropriate for low level failure, £51-£160 for medium level failure and £161-£360 for high level failure.
Having to repeatedly chase the landlord, failure to act in accordance with policy over a considerable period, being passed between staff and teams and significant complaint handling failures are examples of types of medium level failures by this same policy.

Summary of events

In August 2020, a new bathroom was installed at the property. The resident has said that she has experienced continuous leaks since, which has resulted in mould growth and leak damage downstairs.
On 15 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its response to requested repairs at the property, specifically in respect of her front door and leak in the bathroom, both of which she said had been previously notified to the landlord. The resident said that she was given different information depending on who she spoke to and was fed up with chasing issues and getting nowhere. On 17 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, advising that it had referred her case to the repairs team. She responded asking to be contacted “soonish”, due to there being a “major problem” with the stack, which had been going on for “weeks/months”, which runs from upstairs, down to the bathroom. The resident later sent photographs of the damage to the landlord.
On 6 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord, advising that a plumber had attended that morning who confirmed there was a leak at the property above hers and that the issue had been resolved. The resident enquired as to what would happen about the decoration damaged by the leak.
On 8 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, advising there remained a leak and the works had been unsuccessful and again on 10 February 2021, where she reiterated that there remained water leaking through the ceiling and said that having taken the bath panel off, she had found it to also be soaking wet under the bath, indicating a serious problem.
Internal correspondence shows the landlord determining that the leak which had been attended on 6 February 2021 had been resolved and that the reported leak was therefore to be treated as a new issue.
On 24 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord, advising she had not yet had an appointment to inspect the repair work that had been carried out and assess the situation. The following day, the landlord responded, apologising and advising that its repairs team would be in touch.
On 26 February 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2021, at stage one of its complaints procedure, apologising for its delay in doing so. It also apologised for any inconvenience caused in respect of the service she had received and empathised with the frustration she may have felt as a result. The complaint was upheld.
The landlord advised that it had spoken to its repairs officers and asked for the resident to be contacted about the outstanding repair. It advised that the contractor had said the works had been completed but no post-inspection carried out and so an appointment had been agreed for this to take place on 3 March 2021. The landlord explained that if reinstatement works were required thereafter, it would raise them and advise the resident of the next steps.
Compensation was offered by the landlord, totalling £155, which was comprised of £75 for service failure regarding its communication with the resident regarding the leak and her needs, £50 for the resident’s time and trouble and £30 for poor complaint handling. The landlord said it would learn from the complaint. The letter advised the resident to let it know if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
On 3 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, advising that the leak remained and expressing her frustration and exasperation at having to keep contacting it about the issue which remained unresolved. The resident explained that she had had a number of plumbers out, including a plumber who had put the overflow pipe on the wrong way around. The resident said she still had water leaking down the wall and into the downstairs toilet and that every time the bath was used, she could hear water hitting the floor.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident, asking if she accepted the compensation and if so, to provide her bank details. The resident responded, advising she did accept the compensation, however had still not been contacted to arrange a date for the repairs to be carried out and that there remained a leak.
On 30 March 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and left a voicemail but her call was not returned. She contacted it again on 3 April 2021, stating that she still had not heard and asked for the repairs to be carried out before 16 April 2021 as she would be off work until this time and reiterated that there remained a leak.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging her dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint at stage one and advised that it aimed to provide a stage two response by 6 May 2021 and if this was not possible, it would be in touch to advise this.
The landlord has said that it telephoned the resident on 20 and 28 April 2021 regarding the outstanding repairs, but was unable to reach the resident and left voicemails asking her to call back but she did not.
On 26 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, asking it to respond to the emails she had been sending to it. The landlord emailed the resident, apologising for the delay, explaining that this was due to members of staff being on leave. The repairs team manager had been contacted to advise that the repair remained outstanding.
On the same date, a stage two complaints response was sent to the resident, in reference to her complaint of 30 March 2021. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologising for “any added delays” it had caused the resident. It said it would carry out the works on 5 May 2021 [incorrectly dated, as the letter postdates this date] and that its repairs team would remain in touch about this. The landlord offered a further £50 compensation, comprised of £20 for service failure, £20 for the resident’s time and trouble and £10 for delays in its complaints response.

Post complaint

On 7 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, having still not heard from it regarding the outstanding repair, despite having “rung a few times and left messages”.
The following day, the landlord emailed the resident a link to this Service. The resident confirmed to this Service on that same day, 8 June 2021, that the bathroom now had mould and there was leak damage downstairs. She also said there was an issue with the front door having not been fitted properly.
The landlord’s records show that works were raised on 9 June 2021 but later cancelled – there is no information as to why these works were cancelled or by whom.
On 28 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, asking it to confirm when works would be completed.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident enquiring about the leak, explaining that if there remained a leak, it would follow this up.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord advised this Service that the leak had been resolved but remedial works not yet completed, although an inspection was due to go ahead the following morning.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.

Once on notice, the landlord is obliged to carry out repairs it is responsible for, within a reasonable period of time. What this Service considers to be reasonable in this context will depend on the terms of the tenancy agreement, the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy, and the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident has said that she had ongoing issues with leaks following the installation of a new bathroom in August 2020, although evidence of issues with leaks from prior to her complaint of 15 December 2020 has not been provided; as an evidenced based service, we can consider only matters evidenced. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the resident’s repeated contact – and supporting photographs of the damage – that there has been a serious issue with a leak at the property, which went unresolved for a considerable period of time.
Having made a formal complaint about the unresolved repair on 15 December 2020, it took the landlord until 6 February 2021 to attend the property to inspect and repair it; a repair which was unsuccessful. The length of time it took for the visit was inappropriate; its policy states that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 days and this was not the case here, with a repair appointment taking two months to happen. Moreover, the repair was very quickly noted as unsuccessful, with the resident reporting significant ongoing issues just two days later, which remained unresolved for a number of months thereafter, despite the resident chasing the issue.
In December 2021, almost one year after the resident’s report and complaint, the landlord advised this Service that the repair had been carried out, although there is no information as to when the repair took place; it had not yet happened by June 2021, which is more than six months since the December 2020 combined report and complaint. Even on this basis, the length of time is unacceptable and no reason has been given as to why it took so long for the repair to take place.
The documentation in this case indicates a disconnect between departments or teams at the landlord, specifically, its complaints team and repairs team, as well as between its repairs team and repairs contractors. The information provided to this investigation indicates a lack of response and proactivity from the landlord regarding the issues and repair, the repair being recorded as having been completed when it was unsuccessful and the works being closed, with no explanation as to why, for instance.
The repair was not successfully completed on 6 February 2021 and was reported as such on 8 February 2021. It is subsequently unclear why the landlord considered this to be a new issue, without first inspecting the matter and confirming this to be the case. In any event, whether this was deemed a new issue or not, upon bringing the matter to the landlord’s attention this should have been responded to within 28 days. It is noted that this timescale was not adhered to.
There were communication failures on the part of the landlord; there is no explanation as to why the leak took so long to attend to and then resolve. There is no explanation, similarly, as to why the complaints process took so long. There were also issues with overseeing the matter of a leak at the property and doing what it said it would do.
Additionally, there is no information indicating that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations in respect of the decoration works, and it is unclear why as the landlord confirmed in its contact with this Service in December 2021, the remedial works / decorations still remain outstanding. Given the length of time that has passed, nevertheless, this is inappropriate.
For completeness, the resident complained also, about a repair issue with the door in her initial complaint of 15 December 2020, although the landlord did not comment on this. As this matter was not re-raised, it appeared from the absence of correspondence that this had been addressed. This Service has noted, however, that on 8 June 2021, she again indicated that there was an issue with the front door, although it is unclear if this remains the same issue as originally raised. In the absence of information, the Ombudsman has been unable to comment on the landlord’s approach to this. A recommendation has been made in respect of any outstanding works required to the front door, however.

The landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the concerns raised and a chance to put things right. The landlord was empathic in its stage one response, recognising the frustration and inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of its failings in responding to the reports of issues with the leak, which was appropriate.
The complaint response at stage one, however, was significantly delayed, being delivered substantially outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy and although it recognised and apologised for this, it did not explain the reasons for its delay. Providing an explanation is important, as it indicates that the landlord understands what went wrong and why and the transparency of doing so, seeks to preserve trust and integrity in the landlord-resident relationship.
Although the landlord said it would learn from its failings and offered £30 compensation in recognition of its complaints handling failures at stage one, this was inadequate because it did not indicate an understanding itself of what went wrong or why, learning or indeed, a change in its operations going forwards. This latter point is evidenced in its stage two response, which was also delivered significantly late and after having first incorrectly advised the resident that she had exhausted the complaints process, which she had not and referencing an incorrect complaint date.
The landlord’s complaints responses at both stages one and two of the complaints procedure, failed to investigate and review the complaint. There is no evidence of investigation, but rather, a setting out of what it will do going forwards, which it did not do on either occasion. The landlord upholds the complaint on both occasion, yet does not take any steps to change things.
Upholding a complaint and offering compensation, whilst appropriate in circumstances where there is a recognition of service failures, does not go far enough in putting things right. Neither does stating that someone will be in touch regarding works alone. To do so amounts to an update, rather than indication of investigation into what went wrong, why, and ensuring that matters are seen through until put right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the reported leak at the property, insofar as it did not carry out the repair within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the issue, including failing to stay in touch, manage expectations and did not always respond to her contact.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its associated handling of the complaint, insofar as it failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy and provided no explanation for the delay or learn from earlier failings in this respect.
The landlord did not carry out an investigation into the complaint as it should have done, nor did it demonstrate that it had learned from its identified failings, it continued in the same manner thereafter. It did not oversee the issue until completion, instead offering a small amount of compensation and saying it would be in touch and resolve issues, which it did not do.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident to ascertain whether there are any outstanding repairs to be completed with respect of the leak. If so, the landlord should make arrangements to complete this work and should set out when the redecorations will be completed (if they have not been done already). This should include addressing any mould in the bathroom which would have likely resulted from the landlord’s protracted response. The landlord should ensure that all works are completed within 8 weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation, comprised of:
1. £350 in recognition of the maladministration in respect of its handling of reports of the leak.
2. £100 in recognition of the maladministration in respect of its associated handling of the complaint.
3. £75 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience to the resident, and;
4. £75 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the landlord and bringing the complaint.
The compensation ordered above should replace the landlord’s original offer and should be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The landlord should clarify with the resident whether there are any outstanding repairs in respect of the front door. If a repair requirement is confirmed, the landlord should attend to this within 28 days of receiving confirmation, as per its policy.