Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202210199)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210199

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

12 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 of scaffolding which had been erected in the garden for an extended period of time.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor flat situated in a building with similar properties. The resident’s property has a private garden that can only be accessed through the resident’s property.
  2. Due to a roof repair needed to the building, the landlord’s contractors required access to the resident’s private garden in order to erect a four-storey tall scaffolding on 22 July 2021. On 8 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when the scaffolding would be removed, and informed the landlord it was impacting her use of the garden. In addition, she informed the landlord that no one had been safety checking the scaffolding.
  3. On 5 September 2021, the resident raised a complaint as the landlord had not responded to her enquiry about when the scaffolding would be removed. She was dissatisfied that she had now returned to work and had been unable to use the garden throughout the summer. In addition, she was dissatisfied that due to this, the garden had become overgrown and led to a loss of her investment into the garden, which she was seeking compensation for.
  4. Throughout September 2021, the landlord chased its contractor for a date for the scaffolding to be removed and communicated with the resident about her availability. In October 2021, the landlord informed the resident that further works were required, and the scaffolding would need to remain in place. In December 2021, the landlord asked the resident to contact it urgently to arrange a convenient appointment for the scaffolding to be removed. The resident informed the landlord that she had been in contact with the contractor directly who said it would try to arrange a weekend appointment.
  5. On 18 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the scaffolding had collapsed. The landlord investigated the incident and found that the scaffolding had collapsed due to the high winds during a storm, as it had not been installed to the industry standard. On 10 March 2022, the resident confirmed that the scaffolding had been collected.
  6. In the landlord’s final complaint response on 13 April 2022, it upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in removing the scaffolding, and that the impact of this had been exacerbated by its poor communication. In view of this, it offered the resident £375 compensation (£225 for time and trouble, £100 for service failures and £50 for poor complaint handling).
  7. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered the impact of the collapsed scaffolding, and believed the compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident was seeking £5,000 compensation in view of the distress and inconvenience, loss of natural light and use of her garden, the cost of a damaged lawn mower as she was unable to enter her garden to close the shed door, and the cost of a tumble dryer which she purchased as she was unable to dry clothes in her garden.
  8. On 31 January 2023, the landlord informed this Service that it had completed a review of the complaint, and when considering the collapsed scaffolding, it had decided that further compensation should be awarded. It increased its compensation offer to £900 (£350 for time and trouble, £350 for delays in works, and the removal of the scaffolding, £50 as a goodwill gesture for the loss of the resident’s patio) and £150 for poor complaint handling)

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘work at height’ procedure states that access equipment is inspected regularly to an agreed schedule and that suitable records are kept. It states that for fixed scaffolding, an inspection tag must be available which shows that the scaffold has been inspected by a competent person within the last seven days, or sooner in circumstances such as extreme weather.
  2. The landlord’s ‘Accident and Incident Investigation’ procedure states that all incidents reported to the landlord will be assigned to a responsible person to manage and undertake the appropriate investigation.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for roof repairs, which would be completed within three months and completed as a major routine repair or within its planned programme of works.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that in the event of the landlord causing loss or damages, losses greater than £300 would be considered by its insurance team.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of scaffolding which had been erected in the garden for an extended period of time.

  1. It is not disputed by either party that there were delays in removing the scaffolding from the resident’s property. It is also not disputed that the landlord did not complete the safety checks required, as per its policies and obligations and, moreover, the landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding had not been assembled in line with the industry standards. The landlord also acknowledged that these issues had been exacerbated by its poor communication with the resident and its subcontractors which had led to distress and inconvenience for the resident, which she spent time and trouble trying to resolve.
  2. Following the installation of the scaffolding in July 2021, the landlord carried out the roof repairs needed to the building during August and September 2021. This was a reasonable length of time for the structural repairs to take place and was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has stated within its review of the complaint that it informed the resident that further repairs were identified in October 2021, and due to this the scaffolding would need to remain in place. It also stated that these repairs were then completed in January 2022. However, at times during December 2021, the landlord tried to arrange for the scaffolding to be removed, which suggests that the works had been completed prior to January 2022, yet no records of the works were provided to this Service.
  3. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents.
  4. Similarly, the resident frequently pursued the removal of the scaffolding with the landlord, and provided her availability, as well as when she would be unavailable, to the landlord on numerous occasions. There were also times when the landlord continued to request the resident’s availability, without acknowledging her previous communications. It is not wholly clear from the evidence provided whether this was due to poor record-keeping of the resident’s communications, or ineffective communication internally. Nevertheless, it resulted in further inconvenience for the resident as she spent time and trouble pursuing the issues. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating with residents.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that the delay in scaffolding was due to a communication breakdown with its subcontractors. The poor communication between the landlord and its contractors impacted the resident and resulted in further distress, as the landlord did not appropriately manage her expectations. For example, on 5 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that an inspection of the roof works and the scaffolding would take place on 15 January 2022. The resident has stated that during this appointment, the contractor said it was unable to inspect the scaffolding as it was not within its remit. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that its staff were able to complete the inspection, before setting the resident’s expectations. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord ensures any contractors that it may hire are aware of its expectations and obligations, to avoid similar situations in the future.
  6. In addition, whilst the landlord had appropriately recognised that the resident was seeking compensation for the loss of her garden throughout this period, it is not wholly clear whether the landlord understood the full extent of her concerns. On 31 January 2023, during its review of the complaint, the landlord explained that although the scaffolding led to a partial loss of the ability for the resident to enjoy her patio area, it did not lead to a total loss of garden, as she was still able to access it.
  7. However, the resident had informed the landlord on several occasions (such as on 8 December 2021 and 11 February 2022) that she was unable to use the garden due to her concerns about the safety of the scaffolding, as the landlord had not completed safety checks as per its policy. The resident’s concerns were reasonable, especially when considering that the scaffolding ultimately collapsed. The landlord informed this Service on 31 January 2023, that the resident is able to submit a claim to its liability insurers for the loss of her entire garden and the impact this had on her lawn mower and her resulting need to purchase a tumble dryer, which resulted in additional energy costs. However, on 13 February 2023 the resident stated that she had not received the landlord’s increased offer or complaint review. Due to this, it is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with the details of its liability insurance, so that she is able to make a claim if she would like to.
  8. Although the Ombudsman is unable to determine liability for loss or damaged items, the Ombudsman can consider any resulting distress and inconvenience. The last safety check was completed by the landlord in August 2021, and no further checks were carried out until the scaffolding collapsed in February 2022. The scaffolding was later collected in March 2022. Therefore, due to the resident’s concerns about the safety of her and her family, they did not use the garden for a total of seven months. This is a significant length of time and would have led to some distress and inconvenience for the family. Although it is not clear whether the landlord understood the resident’s safety concerns, it had provided £50 for the loss of the patio, and a further £700 for delays and time and trouble which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable.
  9. Following the scaffolding collapsing on 18 February 2022, the landlord investigated the incident and completed an assessment which was in line with its ‘Accident and Incident Investigation’ procedure. The inspector reported that although there was no guarantee that adhering to the industry standard would have made a difference, the scaffolding presented a definite risk of collapse in high winds, and whilst in use. Although the weather conditions were outside of the landlord’s control, it appropriately recognised its need to improve its health and safety regulations and has informed this Service that it has implemented further health and safety audit requirements and provided further staff training. In addition, during the investigation, the landlord referred the resident and other tenants who had been impacted by the collapsed scaffolding to its liability insurers for any damage to their gardens, which was appropriate and in line with its policies.
  10. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and offering compensation of £750 in view of its failings (£350 for time and trouble, £350 for delays in works and the removal of the scaffolding and £50 as a goodwill gesture for the loss of the resident’s patio). It has also shown some learning points as it has committed to improving its health and safety processes, by providing additional training courses for its staff in relation to scaffolding, implementing further health and safety audit requirements and has stopped using the subcontractor it had hired during the scaffolding process.
  12. It is noted that the resident believes compensation of £5,000 is more appropriate as redress for the circumstances of this case. The Ombudsman’s own awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service considers a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord.
  13. Therefore, although there were significant failings, the landlord had attempted to put things right during its final review on 31 January 2023. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the £750 compensation offered, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one complaint response should be issued within 10 working days, and a stage two complaint response should be issued within 20 working days. At both stages, it stated that if it is unable to respond within the listed timeframes, it would keep the resident informed and agree a new response timeframe.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord did not initially address the resident’s concerns about the lack of safety checks, or the scaffolding collapse on 18 February 2023 within its complaint responses. In addition, it has acknowledged that there were delays in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint.
  3.  Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by increasing its offer of compensation to £150, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is reasonable when considering all the circumstances of the case.
  5. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 5 September 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the complaint within one working day. It provided holding responses on 8 September 2021 and 16 September 2021, before issuing its stage one complaint response on 29 September 2021, which was a total of 24 working days from the complaint being raised. The Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman states that at each stage, a complaint response should only be delayed by a further 10 working days. When taking this into account, the landlord’s stage one response was issued four working days outside of the appropriate timeframe as per the landlord’s complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman.
  6. On 11 February 2022, the landlord acknowledged internally that the resident’s complaint should be escalated. It acknowledged this complaint on 16 February 2022, and issued its stage two response on 13 April 2022. This was a total of 61 working days which was 41 working days outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in its policies and the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman. The resident chased a response to her complaint on several occasions such as 31 March 2022 and 11 April 2022, which led to inconvenience for the resident as she spent time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  7. The landlord informed this Service on 31 January 2023 that it had reviewed its complaint responses and believed it should have considered the scaffolding collapse and the resulting impact on the resident as part of its response. In view of this, it provided an updated compensation offer. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord could not have considered these matters at an earlier stage and, therefore, whilst the compensation offer is reasonable, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, the delayed offer which it failed to communicate to the resident constitutes a failing on the landlord’s behalf. In view of the above factors, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to handling complaints in line with its policies, and the expectations of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In addition, the landlord is to pay the £150 compensation if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of scaffolding which had been erected in the garden for an extended period of time.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord does the following:
    1. Pay the resident the £900 compensation offered as part of its complaint review if it has not already done so. This should be paid within four weeks.
    2. Provides the resident with the details of its liability insurance, so that she is able to make a claim if she would like to,
    3. Conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents,
    4. Reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating with residents,
    5. Ensures any contractors that it may hire are aware of its expectations and obligations, so that it is able to appropriately manage a resident’s expectations in relation to any appointments and,
    6. Reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to handling complaints in line with its policies and the expectations of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.