Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202206836)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206836

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

25 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s request for a replacement front door;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a terraced house.
In or around March 2021, the resident requested that her front door be replaced. The landlord inspected the door in April 2021 and agreed to replace it during its next programme of planned works.
The resident requested updates on a number of occasions, and in September 2021, the landlord advised it would replace the door by the end of the 2021/2022 financial year. The resident expressed concern at this timeframe given that the weather was becoming colder and the condition of the current door led to increased heating bills. The resident chased a response from the landlord, but did not receive one.
On 12 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord replied on 16 October 2021 and advised it would seek a firm date for the works, however, the next day it reiterated the works would be completed within the financial year.
The resident raised a further formal complaint in December 2021. He requested that the door be replaced urgently and also noted he had previously been given the incorrect contact details to make a complaint.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 December 2021. It reiterated its timeframe for the works, but acknowledged it should have informed the resident of the timescales for the door to be replaced at the same time as its inspection, instead of only once the resident had requested an update. It also noted the resident’s concerns regarding increased heating costs and advised that as a gesture of goodwill it would consider an “offer of reimbursement” for the increased costs if the resident could demonstrate his bills had increased. It offered £300 compensation in recognition of its service failure and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 April 2022 as the landlord had not replaced the front door in the 2021/2022 financial year as agreed and he felt his complaint had been poorly handled.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 April 2022. The landlord apologised for not advising the resident of the delays to the works. It also advised that its contractor would shortly carry out a survey and then inform the resident of the date the works would commence. It offered a further £75 compensation for its poor communication. Regarding its complaints handling, the landlord disputed that its complaints handling had fallen below its standards.
The resident has advised this service that as of July 2022, the door is yet to be replaced. The resident also noted his patio doors were to be replaced, but this was also outstanding. In August 2022, the landlord advised this service that it would contact the resident to provide an update regarding the patio doors. It also advised its offer to reimburse any increased heating costs was still available and would be extended up to the date the door was replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported to this service that the landlord has not replaced either the front door or the patio doors. As the issue of the patio doors is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord (which was about the front door and did not include the patio doors) this aspect of the complaint is not something that this service will be adjudicating on at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this concern. The resident will need to contact the landlord about the patio doors, and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Front door

It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for keeping the front door in a state of good repair. Following the resident’s reports regarding the door, the landlord carried out an inspection of the door within a reasonable timeframe.
The Ombudsman notes that a landlord has limited repair budget, and has a responsibility to use its funds appropriately and proportionately. It is therefore reasonable to carry out some repairs as part of a programme of planned works where appropriate. While dilapidated, it is evident that the door continued to function as a useable front door. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to replace the door as part of its programme of planned works, which was to be within the financial year.
Having reached such a decision, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep the resident informed of its decision within a reasonable timeframe. Having carried out its inspection in April 2021, it is not evident that the landlord provided any updates to the resident until September 2021, despite requests for updates from the resident. This would have caused him frustration and to expend unnecessary time and trouble.
Following its update in September 2021, it is also evident that the resident requested the landlord call him to discuss the issue further, however, this did not occur.
Following the resident’s initial formal complaint, the landlord appropriately confirmed it would determine a firm date for the works. However, having raised the resident’s expectations of a firm date, it subsequently reverted to the timeframe that it would be completed within the financial year. This provided him with no further information and did not address the concerns in his formal complaint. The landlord’s complaints handling is discussed further below. The Ombudsman also notes that around this time the landlord enquired as to whether he had a draught excluder installed. This would have caused further frustration for the resident as he had already explained that there was a draught excluder, but that it was ineffective.
Following the resident’s further formal complaint in December 2021, the landlord appropriately apologised for not having informed the resident at the time of its initial inspection as to the timeframe for the works. It also appropriately made an offer of compensation to reflect the inconvenience this had caused.
As noted above, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to complete some repairs as part of a programme of works, and given that the door continued to function as a door, it was reasonable for the landlord to keep to its current timeframe.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns about the increased heating bill as a result of the state of repair of the current door and so it was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to consider a reimbursement of any increased costs pending evidence from the resident.
Having committed on several occasions to complete the works within the 2021/2022 financial year, it is not disputed that the landlord did not keep to this timeframe. The landlord has advised this service this was due to budget constraints and that although it always strives to uphold its commitment to the renewal years provided, sometimes it is not able to keep to that timeframe due to more severe or major works taking precedent. The Ombudsman would expect that in such circumstances the landlord would provide an update to the resident, consider any temporary measures, and provide a new indicative timeframe. The landlord did not do this, however.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage two response, and provided an additional £75 compensation to reflect this service failure.
While the landlord’s initial offer to reimburse the resident for any increased heating costs was appropriate, it missed the opportunity to reiterate this in its stage two response. Additionally, while the landlord has confirmed this offer remains open and that it will consider reimbursement up until the door is replaced, given the continued delays, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have offered an interim payment, which it did not do.
In summary, there was service failure by the landlord for its failure to initially inform the resident of the timeframe for the works following its inspection. While it initially offered appropriate compensation for this service failure, its further delay without communication added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. While an additional amount of £75 compensation was offered for this further failure, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this fell short of amounting to reasonable redress for the ongoing delays. In the circumstances, an additional amount of £75 (being £450 in total) is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman further notes that there would have been a finding of maladministration for this complaint had the landlord not taken steps to remedy the complaint by offering compensation and using its discretion to reimburse the additional heating costs.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes it may initially attempt to provide a local resolution to a complaint prior to issuing a formal response. Following the resident’s complaint in October 2021, the landlord attempted to resolve the complaint by ascertaining a firm date for the works. Having failed to do so, however, and given that the resident advised he wished to take his complaint further, the landlord should have proceeded to a stage one response at this time, which it did not do. This unreasonably delayed the escalation of the complaint, which would have caused frustration for the resident.
Following the resident’s further complaint in December 2021, the landlord also missed the opportunity to address and apologise for its earlier failure to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s failure to issue a stage one response following the initial complaint, along with its failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delays this caused amounted to service failure in the circumstances. An amount of £100 is appropriate to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a replacement front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £550, comprising:
1. £450 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to communicate a timeframe for the door works, and the subsequent delays to those works;
2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £375. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Contact the resident within four weeks and include the following:
1. the date for the door works, should these remain outstanding;
2. reiterate the offer to reimburse the resident for his increased heating bills and request copies of the bills in order to assess this.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss the replacement of the patio doors and the expected timeframe for these works, if it has not already done so.