Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202122002)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122002

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

15 December 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system and the subsequent offer of compensation;
    2. Customer service.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: The landlord’s customer service.
  3. One of the concerns raised by the resident when he first approached this Service was that he was informed by the landlord’s officers that he could only make contact, or make a complaint, online. This issue was part of the information we passed to the landlord when we asked it to investigate the resident’s complaints. We also included an additional concern from the resident that he had not received a phone call he had been promised.
  4. The landlord did not respond to either of these customer service issues in its first complaint response. It is not apparent why it did not do so. However, there is no evidence that the resident included the matter when he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. His request for escalation appears to be centred on the level of compensation. Because of that, the matter was not considered by the landlord, which, in line with paragraph 42(a), it would need to do so before the Ombudsman could potentially investigate this particular element of the resident’s complaints. Accordingly, it is not considered in this investigation.
  5. However, it should be noted that the landlord’s complaints policy sets out that complaints can be made by calls, letters, emails, social media, the landlord’s website and the councillor or member enquiries. Accordingly, the resident would be free to make a complaint by any of the listed channels.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 22 December 2021 the communal heating system at the block of flats where the resident lives was shut down to allow repairs on a leak. The landlord has said that the heating contractor attended the following day, and completed the necessary repairs. In the evening of 24 December the resident reported to the landlord that he had no hot water, he made the same report again the next day. The landlord’s records do not show what it did in response. The resident has explained that he was told on both occasions that he would receive emergency visits, but nobody came. It is not apparent from the evidence whether the loss of hot water experienced and reported on 24 December was connected to the issues on 22 December.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 4 January 2022. He explained that he had reported having no hot water to the landlord on 24 and 25 December 2021, and that repair emergency visits had been scheduled but not attended. He said that he had a disability which meant he needed to bathe every day, which had been impacted by the loss of hot water. He also explained that he had been told by the landlord that all contact must be by email. He sought compensation of £50 for each day he was without hot water: £350 in total. We passed the resident’s concerns on to the landlord and asked it to respond to his complaint.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord referred to the actions taken with the communal heating system on 22 December 2021, explaining that they were resolved by the next day. It apologised for the inconveniences caused and offered £70 compensation. The resident subsequently requested an escalation of his stage one complaint as he was dissatisfied with the initial offer of compensation. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident brought his complaint to this Service. He said the final offer of compensation did not reflect the suffering and distress he experienced during the week when he did not have access to hot water.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states the merits and circumstances of each case must be taken into account to include the severity, length of time, customer’s vulnerability and the time and trouble spent. The amount considered for payments for a failure of service, or issues ongoing for up to six weeks, are around £5-£50. For time and trouble, the amount considered is between £5-£50 for short delays. For poor complaint handling, the compensation amount considered will be between £10 and £150. Finally, missed appointments by contractors will deserve £10 per missed appointment.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system and the subsequent offer of compensation

  1. The resident reported to the landlord his lack of hot water on the evening of 24 December 2021. The landlord’s repairs information does not list such an issue as an emergency (normally requiring a response within 24 hours). Nonetheless, the right to repair scheme (a legal repair process requirement for local authorities, but which provides broadly useful guidance on appropriate repair timeframes for social landlords generally), states that hot water loss in winter should be responded to within one working day. The timing of the report, on Christmas eve, meant that the next working day was 29 December. There are no records of what the landlord told the resident when he rang on 24 and 25 December, and he has explained that he was told he would receive emergency responses. The landlord had therefore taken on an obligation to respond accordingly, and it subsequently acknowledged that its contractors failed to attend on both occasions. It apologised, and offered compensation in line with its policy for missed appointments (£10×2), plus a further £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  2. The redress offered by the landlord would usually be considered reasonable in most cases. However, in this case the landlord was aware when it responded to the complaint, that the resident had a need for hot water due to his health situation, which meant he had been impacted further than might typically be the case. The landlord’s complaint response explained that the compensation was intended for the impact of its failings on the resident, but it is not clear if this was also intended to recognise the additional impact in the resident’s particular case.
  3. In its response to our request for information, the landlord told us that it had not been aware of the resident’s health situation prior to his complaint, and that, after further review, it felt that additional compensation of £100 was appropriate, if he could provide evidence of his vulnerability. While the landlord demonstrated good practice in now addressing something which was missing from its formal complaint responses, the fact that this offer was not made to the resident at the time of his complaint is counter to basic good practice. It was also not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. It was a failing. Accordingly, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, which has not been fully remedied by the landlord.
  4. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the resident’s water heating systems. This includes any necessary repairs. However, the tenancy agreement does not guarantee an uninterrupted supply of hot water. That means that when such a system stops working, a landlord would usually only be expected to offer compensation if its own actions or inaction caused the breakdown, or if its subsequent actions to repair it were proven to be lacking in some way. Because of that, the failing by the landlord in this case was in its subsequent handling of the matter, not the original breakdown itself.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system and the subsequent offer of compensation.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £275. This amount is inclusive of the £70 already offered, and of the additional £100 suggested by the landlord. The payment must be made within four weeks, and evidence provided to this Service.