Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202119888)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119888

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

29 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom house, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident suffers from anxiety and depression and has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended an appointment at the property to carry out a gas safety inspection. The engineer left without completing the job and reported to the landlord that the condition of the property presented a health and safety risk. The resident telephoned the landlord to complain that the engineer had behaved oddly during the visit and had left without telling her. The landlord then wrote to the resident, attaching photographs of her property and requesting she ensure there was a clear workspace and access to and from the kitchen before booking a new appointment.
  3. On receipt of the letter the resident made a formal complaint about the engineer’s behaviour and the letter sent to her. She disputed that items in her kitchen presented a health and safety risk. The resident requested an apology, as photographs of her property had been taken without her consent. The resident felt victimised by the landlord and was distressed that it had not called to discuss the contractor’s concerns.
  4. A follow-up appointment was attended as agreed and the inspection completed. The following day, the resident received an ‘urgent notice’ warning of legal action if access was not provided to complete the property’s annual gas safety inspection. The resident then submitted a second complaint, noting that the letter was inappropriate as the inspection had been completed.
  5. At stage 1, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s first complaint, finding no service failure in its response but accepting that the engineer’s communication during the appointment could have been better. It offered £30 compensation. The stage 1 response to the second complaint explained that the letter had been sent in line with the landlord’s standard processes, as the inspection was still showing as incomplete having only taken place the previous day. The landlord apologised for any distress caused.
  6. The resident requested the escalation of her complaints. The landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted that the letters were sent in line with its policy and internal processes, acknowledging that the engineer should have asked permission before taking photographs of the resident’s property. The resident then complained that she had been informed by telephone that both her complaints would be upheld but they had subsequently been downgraded to ‘partially upheld’ in the landlord’s final written response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. Under clause 2(4) of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is required to ensure that the installations in the property for the supply of gas are in good repair and proper working order. This includes carrying out annual testing. Under clause 3(13) the resident is required to provide access to the landlord or its contractors, at reasonable times and on at least 24 hours’ notice, to assess repairs or to carry out any necessary works that the landlord is responsible for.
  2. The landlord’s Gas Safety Procedure sets out its legal obligation under Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to service the resident’s gas supply annually. Paragraph 6.4 notes that where access cannot be obtained within the required time, the landlord’s compliance team will put the gas installation ‘no access’ procedure into operation. Further details of this procedure have not been provided to this investigation, other than as explained in the stage 2 response.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and to investigate and provide a resolution within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will also be acknowledged, and a resolution provided within 20 working days.
  4. In the landlord’s compensation guidance, it acknowledges that the emotional impact on a complainant may differ according to their circumstances, for example as a result of a vulnerability. This may justify an increased award. Service failure that has had ‘some impact’ on a resident that was short in duration and that did not significantly affect the overall outcome will be awarded compensation from an apology to £50.

Handling of gas safety inspection

  1. Following the engineer’s visit, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to write to the resident to inform her of his concerns. The landlord has a duty both to ensure that the gas safety inspection is completed and to keep staff and contractors safe whilst working at their properties. As part of its response to the complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident’s concerns to its contractor, although it is noted that evidence of the landlord’s communications with its contractor has not been provided to this investigation. It also identified and acknowledged that the engineer should have been more communicative with the resident and should have asked her permission before taking photographs.
  2. An apology and the offer of £30 compensation was an appropriate means of resolving this aspect of the complaint. Although the resident was clearly very distressed by the incident, the landlord has explained the reasons why such action was taken and it has agreed to try to accommodate her request for more notice of appointments in the future.
  3. The landlord’s explanation as to why an urgent notice was sent to the resident was reasonable. It is common practice for a landlord to send out warning letters if it has been unable to gain access to complete safety inspections. It is unfortunate that the landlord’s systems were not updated in time to prevent the letter from being sent but there was not an unreasonable delay as the inspection had only taken place the previous day. There was no service failure as the landlord acted in good faith when sending the letter, on the basis of the information available at the time.
  4. The Ombudsman agrees that the letter was strongly worded and understands why this may have caused the resident alarm, however, given the serious safety risks posed by failure to carry out a gas safety inspection, the landlord must take prompt action to ensure access. Providing an apology for the distress caused was a proportionate means of addressing this aspect of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord initially failed to log and acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which was made by email on 17 July 2021. Records show that the complaint was not logged and acknowledged until 10 August 2021 following a chaser email from the resident. This was an unreasonable delay. 
  2. The landlord did not follow its complaints process, as it logged each complaint separately but only provided one stage 2 response. It is also noted that the stage 1 response to the second complaint was titled ‘Stage One Final Response’, which is confusing. It would not have been unreasonable for the landlord to provide a single stage 2 response, addressing the issues in both complaints, as the matters were related. However, this should have been clearly explained to the resident and the landlord’s failure to do so may have left her confused as to whether the second complaint had completed the process and could be referred to this service.
  3. The stage 2 response incorrectly referred to the second letter, or ‘urgent notice’, being sent by its contractor, which was not the case. The landlord must take care to ensure the accuracy of its responses, as errors such as this may increase residents’ frustrations and undermine their faith in the thoroughness of the investigation.
  4. Some correspondence referred to in the complaint responses has not been provided to this investigation. The stage 1 complaint response of 9 September 2021 refers to a complaint of 8 September 2021, which the Ombudsman has not had sight of. The stage 2 response of 4 October 2021 refers to an ‘initial complaint received on 10 August 2021’ but this correspondence is not referred to elsewhere in the documents provided by the landlord. It is also noted that there are no notes of the phone notes of the conversations stated to have taken place. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. Although the landlord acknowledges the resident’s statement that she was verbally informed that both complaints would be upheld, and her account of the events is not disputed, there is no documentary evidence to support this. The Ombudsman must base its findings on the documentary evidence provided by the parties and in the absence of this evidence it cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint.
  6. The resident has reported that she is suffering from a terminal illness and that she also experiences anxiety and depression. The landlord has informed this Service that prior to the formal complaint it was unaware of the resident’s medical conditions and vulnerabilities. In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord did ensure that an alternative engineer attended on the second visit, evidencing its willingness to adapt its practices to accommodate the resident’s needs.
  7. It is of concern that the stage 2 response stated that the landlord was unable to record the resident’s requirements resulting from her vulnerabilities on its systems. It may not always be possible or necessary to accommodate adjustments requested by a resident, but the landlord should have processes in place to record and respond to such requests.
  8. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to follow its complaints process, or to explain why it had provided a single stage 2 response. Its final response contained inaccuracies and it has not provided all records of the complaints correspondence referred to.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the gas safety inspection at the resident’s property, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, it is ordered that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation, in addition to the £30 already offered, in recognition of the failures identified in its complaints handling.
    2. Review its complaints handling processes and provide training to staff to ensure that the complaints procedure is followed and that all correspondence is accurate and clearly sets out the stage a complaint has reached.
    3. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that all complaints correspondence is recorded on its systems, including notes of telephone calls. This should include reviewing how the landlord records and responds to reports of residents’ vulnerabilities and requests for adjustments.
  2. The landlord should confirm with this Service, within the timescale above, that it has complied with these orders.