Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202122062)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122062

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

31 May 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 the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows in his property.
    2. Communication with the resident about the replacement windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats located within a conservation area.
  2. In September 2020, the resident confirmed receipt of a letter regarding the landlord’s proposed cyclical works programme to the block of flats including replacement of his windows. He highlighted the importance of work needed to the windows of his property and described their condition as “rotting and falling apart”. The resident explained that since he had purchased the flat some windows were unable to open and he feared they could fall apart. He said that with winter approaching, the windows did not provide insulation and would cause expense. He raised concern about the potential security risk and void on the property insurance. Between February and March 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response questioning when the windows would be replaced.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 March 2021 stating that he had not received a response from the landlord, and that the issue was “getting out of hand”. He explained that his windows were in “dire conditions, with cracks and holes everywhere” and that venomous spiders (pests) had entered through a hole in his kitchen window. The resident said that he believed it was the landlord’s responsibility, however his external windows were in poor condition and had not been cleaned since he moved in a year ago. The resident listed the service charge fees he paid, including: external cleaning, maintenance, pest control gardening and ground maintenance and noted that he had not seen the works he was charged for carried out since he had lived in the property. He suggested the landlord arrange to visit the exterior of his property and provide a timescale as to when the windows would be replaced.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident in late March explaining that it was only responsible for cleaning the communal windows. It advised that it would schedule its repair officer to inspect the external condition of his windows to carry out necessary remedial works. The landlord’s repair records show that a survey was conducted to the resident’s windows on 7 April 2021, and its repairs officer reported that the rear bedroom window was “rotten and repressed” and in need of a replacement.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 April 2021 and apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused. It advised that as per the resident’s lease agreement, he was responsible for cleaning his own windows. It recalled that it arranged for its repair officer to inspect his windows on 7 April 2021 and that following the visit the officer had raised proofing works to the external windows which it aimed to complete within 28 days. The landlord advised that its repair officer forwarded the resident’s window renewal request to its planned maintenance team with the intention of renewing the windows within the financial year. However, according to the landlord’s records, in June 2021 the Local Authority refused the proposal to replace the resident’s windows, due to loss of existing positive historical architectural features alteration to the pattern of fenestration (the arrangement of windows in a building) would result in harm to the character and appearance of the building.
  6. The resident conveyed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service in June 2021. He said his complaint had been ongoing for over two months and it had been 3 weeks since it issued a response. He said it had been over 2 months since he had an inspection which he believed indicated that works needed to be done. The resident advised that the time planned by the landlord was insufficient for the repairs to be completed and stated he was informed that within a couple of weeks the repair officer would return to fix the problem. He said that had not occurred.
  7. The landlord’s records showed that it scheduled a work order for 28 July 2021, to renew the kitchen window. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 21 July 2021 and apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its response. The landlord recalled that its officer had inspected his windows in April 2021, that its contractor had attended on 20 April 2021 and identified that the rail was rotten and beyond repair. The landlord confirmed that the renewal of the resident’s kitchen box sash window (rail) was completed on 15 July 2021, and advised that the repair officer would contact him about the post inspection appointment to check the quality of the workmanship. The landlord advised that the resident’s complaint was upheld because following the initial inspection it had failed to identify that the window needed a replacement and not repair as initially reported. It said that it resulted in further delays in resolving the matter and noted that it had informed the repairs team so that it did not continue, and to improve its service in the future. The landlord offered £125.00 compensation for its service failure and provided details for this Service if he was dissatisfied with its complaint response.
  8. The resident passed his complaint to this Service as he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint. He raised similar issues as in his formal complaint on March 2021, and said that there had not been any other action taken on his other windows or confirmation on when works would commence.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows in his property

  1. The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the main structure of the building including maintenance, repairs, renewal and redecoration of all external windows and window frames. However, because the property is part of a listed building, any major works to the windows would require planning permission from the Local Authority. In this case the landlord appropriately applied for planning permission from the Local Authority on 31 March 2021 to replace the resident’s external windows. In its correspondence to the resident in April it advised that its repair officer had forwarded the “window renewal request to [its] planned maintenance team with the intention of renewing the windows within [the] financial year”. Even if there were delays in obtaining planning permission, or if there were delays in receiving a response from the Local Authority following an application, the landlord would be expected to carry out repairs where possible while awaiting permission from the Local Authority.
  2. In this case, the landlord’s repair records showed that its repairs officer surveyed the windows in April 2021 and completed a report thereafter. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take as it needed an expert opinion on the condition of the windows, and the possibility of repairs or replacement. The repair officer concluded that one of the windows was rotting, repressed and needed replacing. The landlord was entitled to rely upon its officer’s report. However, as it would be unable to carry out any window replacement until it obtained planning permission from the Local authority, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange repairs to the windows the repair officer identified.
  3. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it explained that after surveying and proofing of the resident’s external windows in April, his kitchen window was completed on 15 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged that following its initial inspection it had failed to identify that the window required replacing instead of repairing, which resulted in further delays in arranging to resolve the matter. This is of particular concern as the landlord had already stated itself earlier in the year that the windows were rotting and needed replacing. Therefore it was not just that the landlord had completed a repair and missed that replacement was required. It had overlooked its own, earlier conclusion.
  4. The landlord’s response also did not address the September 2020 to March 2021 period. The resident reported rotting windows in September 2020. This report would go on to be confirmed by the landlord’s inspection in April 2021. However this was only after further chasing (and inconvenience) from the resident.
  5. Therefore the landlord’s offer of compensation did not provide adequate redress for the service failures identified.

Communication with the resident about the replacement windows

  1. When the resident reported the poor condition of the windows, it would be expected that the landlord was transparent about the situation, providing clear and definitive expectations. The landlord advised that its repair officer forwarded the resident’s window renewal request to its planned maintenance team with the intention of renewing the windows within the financial year. However, according to the landlord’s records in June 2021 the Local Authority refused its proposal to replace the resident’s windows, due to loss of existing positive historical architectural features.
  2. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the replacement windows was not reasonable. It was not open or transparent with the resident about what was happening with the window replacement. The landlord should have informed the resident about the Local Authority’s refusal. It is evident from the information provided that the landlord did not inform the resident of the situation, explain the position regarding the windows needing planning permission or managing the resident’s expectations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s communication about the replacement windows.

Orders and recommendations

  1. As a result of the determination above, the landlord has been ordered to (in addition to any compensation already offered) within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience of having to chase the window repair from September 2020 until April 2021.
    2. Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delayed intermediate repair, and the error in then not progressing the replacement.
    3. Pay the resident £50 to acknowledge the distress caused by its failure to adequately explain the window replacement and the associated complications.
    4. Provide an update on any replacement works if the windows have not yet been replaced. This should include an explanation as to why the replacement has not yet happened, and consideration of whether any additional redress is required from the date of the final response in this case until the replacement.