Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202203806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203806

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

01 March 2023

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 the resident’s reports that there was no hot water in the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. On 19 April 2022, the resident, who is an assured tenant, experienced a loss of hot water within his property. Other residents within the building also experienced this. In response, the landlord booked an emergency repair, which was attended within 24 hours.
3. It was determined that specialist parts were required to fix the issue, and that these parts would take 10 to 15 days to be delivered. As such, the landlord made available a hot water shower, located within a vacant apartment. This was available to all residents who had experienced the loss of water. Additionally, the landlord informedresidents that the shower was cleaned several times each day. On 28 April 2022, a contractor managed to arrange a temporary fix that allowed the resident to have hot water again within his own property.
4. On 29 April 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint. He explained that due to not having hot water for 10 days, he was seeking a refund of his rent for that period of time. He also suggested that it should not have taken that amount of time for the issue to be resolved.
5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 May 2022, in which it apologised for the delay in response and the inconvenience caused. The landlord explained that it responded to the emergency repair within 24 hours as outlined in its policies. It advised that the landlord aims are to complete the repair within seven working days (where the repair cannot be completed on the initial emergency visit). It acknowledged that the resident experienced two additional days of no hot water, and therefore offered £10 compensation (£5 for service failure and £5 for time and trouble).
6. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 30 May 2022. He expressed his dissatisfaction in the landlord’s complaint handling, and at the level of compensation offered by the landlord. In an email to the resident on the same day, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £30. This was broken down to £10 for service failure, £10 for time and trouble, and £10 for poor complaint handling. However, on 28 June 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would not be escalating the resident’s complaint. It felt that the resident had not raised anything that had not been addressed in the first complaint response.
7. The resident advised this Service that he was seeking further compensation for stress, inconvenience and service failure. The resident also wanted a written apology from the landlord. Additionally, he wanted the landlord to review its processes and to give its complaints department further training on how to fulfil obligations and listen to residents’ concerns.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

8. Section 6 of the landlord’s repair responsibilities states that emergency appointments will be attended “within the first 24 hours after [the issue has] been reported”.
9. Section 9 of the landlord’s repair responsibilities indicates that no hot water, “with no alternative form of hot water for bathing is an emergency repair”.
10. Section 3.2 of the landlord’s complaints policy advises that the landlord should send an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint within five working days.
11. Section 3.2 of the complaints policy also states that a response should be provided within 10 working days. Should this not be possible, the landlord would need to keep the resident informed and “agree new response times”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that there was no hot water in the property

12. It has not been disputed that the lack of hot water itself was not the fault of the landlord. Therefore, it is the purpose of this investigation to determine whether the landlord’s response and handling of the issue was in line with its policies and obligations.
13. As noted in the landlord’s policies, a lack of hot water with no alternative for hot water bathing should be classed as an emergency. As such, the landlord would be obliged to attend within 24 hours to attempt to resolve the issue. The landlord confirmed that it followed this aspect of its repairs policies, and it has not been disputed that the property was attended within 24 hours.
14. Upon attending the property, it was determined that specialist parts were required to fix the issue. These were immediately ordered, however, they would not be available until 10 to 15 days later. In this situation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide alternative solutions for the resident. The landlord did this by making a hot water shower available in a vacant apartment.
15. This was appropriate as the lack of facilities for hot water bathing can have a serious detrimental effect on the resident. However, by making facilities available, the landlord demonstrated that the care, and quality of life of its residents was at the forefront of its service delivery.
16. It should also be noted that the landlord ensured the shower area was cleaned several times each day. This was appropriate due to the number of residents that required the use of the shower facility. By ensuring the area was regularly cleaned each day, the landlord showed that the hygiene of its resident’s was an important consideration.
17. After 10 days with no hot water, the landlord’s contractor managed to impose a temporary fix that provided hot water to its residents until the specialist parts arrived for a permanent fix. The landlord acknowledged that the repair was to be completed within seven working days, as per its repairs policy. However, the repair came into place two days over this limit. The landlord offered £20 compensation in recognition of the service failure, and the time and trouble caused to the resident.
18. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a discretionary offer of compensation for this, as it was over the given timeframe. However, the landlord was also still providing access to a hot shower for the resident. Additionally, from the correspondence provided, it is clear that the landlord was regularly chasing the provider of the specialist parts, and once aware that the parts would take such time to be delivered, it ensured that the resident had means to access hot water for showers.
19. The landlord’s reaction to the issue was quick and decisive. It demonstrated that the resident’s wellbeing was at the forefront of its concerns, and made a concerted effort to facilitate his needs. The landlord also demonstrated that it did everything within its control in order to resolve the resident’s issues. Additionally, due to the short nature, and degree of inconvenience caused over the two extra days without hot water, the apology, recognition of the resident’s discomfort, and offer of compensation was reasonable. Especially when considered alongside the temporary fix, and access to shower provided. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that there was no hot water in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

20. When handling complaints, it is the landlord’s obligation to stick to timeframes set out within its complaints policies and procedures. The guidance given in the policies and procedures is there to also ensure that residents are kept informed as to the progress of their complaints. Additionally, it allows the landlord to demonstrate to the resident that their complaint is being taken seriously, and thoroughly investigated.
21. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 29 April 2022, the landlord offered no acknowledgement of the complaint. Additionally, the landlord was required to provide a response within ten working days. However, the response was not provided until one month after the initial complaint.
22. Should a landlord not be able to provide a response within the given timeframe, it should keep the resident informed, and provide a timeframe in which it expected to have the response ready for the resident. This manages the resident’s expectations. Managing expectations is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery as it can improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
23. Additionally, the landlord should not require prompting from this Service in order to provide a response. The landlord is expected to keep on top of its complaints and to manage them accordingly. An example of this would be ensuring that operatives are available to take on the complaint should there be absences. This was a reason given by the landlord as for the delay in response.
24. The landlord was within its rights to deny the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two. The complaint did not raise new information that had not been addressed regarding the lack of hot water. However, once again, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed as to the progress of the complaint.
25. The landlord informed the resident one month after the escalation request, that it would not be granting the request. This was an unnecessary period of time, and the landlord provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in informing the resident of this. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
26. Given the delay in both responses (roughly two weeks delayed in the case of each response), it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide further compensation in recognition of this. Whilst it was positive that the landlord recognised its failing, and offered £10 in recognition of its complaint handling failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, in instances where there has been service failure, that “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident”, a payment of £50 would be reasonable.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was Service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £50 in recognition of its complaint handling failures, this is inclusive of the £10 previously offered.

Recommendations

30. The landlord is recommended to pay the £20 offered as redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water.