Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202115414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115414

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

13 April 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his toilet seat to be repaired.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The landlord has advised that there were no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on his tenancy file. However, the resident has stated that he has several medical conditions which affected his ability to carry out repairs himself.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in March 2021 regarding the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete the repair to his toilet seat. He felt that the delay was unwarranted and said that it had impacted his mental health. He was also unhappy that the landlord had initially maintained that it was his responsibility to repair, despite informing it of his mitigating circumstances and his fear of personal injury. He maintained his position that the tenancy agreement did not specifically state that he would be responsible for the repair to the toilet seat and felt the issue could have been resolved sooner. To resolve his complaint, he wanted £1,200 compensation.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It also apologised to the resident for any inconvenience and frustration caused by the repair delay. It noted that the resident had asked it to reattend to repair the toilet seat but this was not completed until 17 March 2021. It noted that there was a further fault and a specialised toilet seat had now been installed. It offered £100 compensation for its initial service failure and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter. It confirmed that it had completed the second repair within a reasonable timeframe. It had no records to indicate any of the resident’s health concerns or requirements and believed it had initially given the correct advice as it would usually be the tenant’s responsibility to repair a toilet seat.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he did not feel that the compensation was adequate given that the landlord had received the repair request on 11 January 2021, and did not complete the repair until 10 May 2021. He was also disappointed that the landlord had taken so long to take responsibility for the repair. He felt that the tenancy agreement confirmed that the landlord was responsible for the repair as it did not specifically say that he would be responsible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the toilet seat repair and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his toilet seat to be repaired.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not specifically state that the resident would be responsible for the repair of the toilet seat, however, it confirms that he would be responsible for minor repairs such as those needed to replace tap washers and plugs. The landlord’s repairs handbook for tenants confirms that residents would be responsible for general upkeep of the property such as carrying out small repairs. The landlord would be responsible for repairs required to sanitary fixtures and fittings except toilet seats which would be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. The handbook also confirms that the landlord would take the vulnerabilities of its residents into consideration when carrying out repairs and encourages residents to inform the landlord of any support needs. The landlord’s website confirms that routine repairs would be completed within a maximum timescale of 28 days.
  2. Ordinarily, residents are expected to do minor repairs in their property such as changing a plug or adjusting a door handle etc. It would not be practical to list every possible repair which a resident would be responsible for in the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice or offer a legal interpretation of the tenancy agreement. If the resident requires further information about his legal responsibilities in line with the tenancy agreement he may wish to seek legal advice on this matter.
  3. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the repair to the toilet seat would be his responsibility in the first instance. This advice was in accordance with its policy which confirms that residents would be responsible for repairs to their toilet seats amongst other minor repairs. The landlord’s decision to change its position was reasonable due to the resident’s vulnerabilities which meant that he was unable to complete the repair himself. It is noted that following receipt of the resident’s email noting his vulnerabilities on 3 March 2021, the landlord arranged for the initial repair to be completed on 17 March 2021.
  4. However, the evidence shows that the resident initially emailed the landlord regarding his vulnerabilities on 18 January 2021 and sent several follow-up emails asking the landlord to reconsider completing the works. The landlord had advised that it had not received this communication despite clear evidence to show that it had been sent. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord in that it did not take steps to record the resident’s vulnerabilities in January 2021. The failure to do so at this stage was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience as he had needed to re-send this information in March 2021. This also contributed towards the delay in completing the repair at this stage. Furthermore, it is of concern that no additional vulnerabilities were listed by the landlord in its communication to this Service.
  5. Following the completion of the initial repair on 17 March 2021, the resident reported similar issues on 23 March 2021 and noted that the toilet seat had fully detached. The landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the toilet seat on 12 April 2021. It is unclear as to whether the inspection occurred on this date although a further inspection took place on 29 April 2021. This was not fully rectified until 10 May 2021 which was outside of the landlord’s published timescales for repairs by approximately 20 days. The landlord has not fully explained the delay at this stage within its complaint responses, nor did it manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the timeframe for the repair. It also failed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. It is also noted that the landlord failed to respond to many of the resident’s emails. This necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident who needed to send additional correspondence chasing responses and is likely to have caused further inconvenience.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging in the delay in carrying out the initial repair and for the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this matter. It put things right by apologising to the resident and offering £100 compensation. Given the additional service failures identified; the delay in completing work to the toilet seat following the resident’s continued report of an issue on 23 March 2021 and its lack of clear communication, this offer of compensation is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  7. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident a further £100 in compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in addition to the £100 offered by the landlord previously, through its complaints process. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may award compensation of £50 to £250 in cases where we have found service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. In this case, as set out above there were failures in the landlord’s communication and handling of the repairs but these errors were not prolonged.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the resident does not have to specifically use the word complaint for it to be treated as such. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
  2. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response within its published timescale which was reasonable. Following the resident’s email which clearly set out his reasons for dissatisfaction on 10 April 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the complaint to stage two. The stage two complaint response was not issued until 1 July 2021 which was significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescales by 36 working days. Whilst the landlord has apologised to the resident for its delayed response, it has not offered suitable redress to the resident in view of its failings.
  3. In view of this, the landlord should offer additional compensation to the resident as set out below. It is also recommended that the landlord considers carrying out training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are escalated where a resident clearly sets out their reasons for dissatisfaction. It should also ensure that resident’s are provided with an expected timeframe where there are delays in order to satisfactorily manage their expectations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for his toilet seat to be repaired.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1.  The landlord is to pay the resident the total sum of £300, comprised of:
      1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the delayed toilet seat repair and the landlord’s communication. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100 if it has not already been paid. 
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s disclosed vulnerabilities, in accordance with its processes, and updates its records accordingly. It should also confirm the types of repairs it would consider carrying out in the future in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities to manage the resident’s expectations of repair issues that he would be responsible for.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are escalated where a resident clearly sets out their reasons for dissatisfaction. It should also ensure that residents are provided with an expected timeframe where there are delays in order to satisfactorily manage their expectations.