Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202011238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011238

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

16 March 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord for a missed appointment.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The landlord categorises its repairs as ‘Emergency’ (attend within 24 hours), ‘Routine’ (attend within 28 calendar days) and ‘Major Routine’ (attend within three months or as part of a planned programme of works).
4. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that is “required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety; a risk to the residents’ or others’ safety or property; serious damage to the residents’ home or adjacent building”.
5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is made, it will be acknowledged within five working days and a stage one response sent within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. A review of the complaint will then be undertaken, and a stage two response sent within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy describes the three categories where it will consider making a payment to the resident. These are:
   1. Mandatory payments. When the landlord is obligated to provide financial redress, such as under the Right to Repair scheme.
   2. Quantifiable loss. When a complainant has accrued expenses as a result of the landlord failing to meet its obligations.
   3. Discretionary payments. Considered in situations where the landlord has not provided a service it charges for, poor complaint handling, failure to meet target response times, or failure to attend an appointment.
7. In the landlord’s guidance for discretionary payments, it recommends a payment of £10 for a missed appointment up to a maximum of five appointments. In relation to loss of earnings the guidance states that it will consider this “in exceptional circumstances where the customer can demonstrate that they went unpaid”. The guidance recommends payment for loss of earnings at the hourly national living wage at the time of the complaint up to a maximum of 37.5 hours.

Summary of events

8. The landlord’s repair logs state that it was contacted by the resident about a leak in the bathroom when she used the shower. A work order was raised on 27 August 2020 and was marked as completed on 28 August 2020.
9. On 31 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to report required repairs in the bathroom. She described issues with the taps and the bath panel. The resident called the landlord again on 23 September 2020 to request an update. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident that an appointment was booked for 24 September 2020.
10. The landlord’s repair logs state that it undertook work on 24 September 2020 to replace and seal the bath panel and to remove the wall mounted shower.
11. On 5 October 2020, the resident reported a leak from the bathroom wall. The resident called again on 16 October 2020 and requested an update. An appointment was arranged. However, there is no record of the appointment on the landlord’s repair log.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 October 2020 and requested to raise a complaint as the appointment arranged by the landlord had not gone ahead.
13. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2020. It apologised for the failed appointment and explained that this was a result of an IT failure. It confirmed that it had rebooked the appointment for 29 October 2020 and offered the resident £10 compensation for the missed appointment.
14. The landlord’s repair logs state that the appointment on 29 October 2020 to investigate the source of the leak from the bathroom wall went ahead and follow-on work was arranged for 2 November 2020.
15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2020 and disputed the stage one response. She said that she did not believe that the £10 compensation offered was fair based on the poor quality of service she had experienced and that she had taken two full days of work off to be available for appointments, one of which did not go ahead.
16. The landlord replied to the resident and informed her that it had considered the request for further compensation and had awarded an additional £53.32 based on six hours of loss of earnings at the national living wage hourly rate. The landlord wrote again on 24 November 2010 to confirm the compensation had been paid.
17. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised on 26 April 2021 following a report that the shower had no hot water. An appointment was arranged for 4 May 2021.
18. The resident called the landlord to confirm the appointment on 29 April 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that the resident also informed it that she was unhappy that it had closed the complaint without her permission. The landlord advised her to raise a new complaint if she was unhappy with how it was handling the current repairs.
19. The landlord’s repair logs state that it undertook work to the shower and kitchen taps on 4 May 2021 and a further appointment was arranged for 13 May 2021 relating to the shower.
20. Following internal discussions and further correspondence with the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 14 May 2021. The Ombudsman explained that her outstanding issue to the complaint was the level of compensation it had offered. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 May 2021. It explained that it had escalated the complaint following a request from this Service.
21. It explained that it had made the compensation offer in line with its compensation policy and it was satisfied that it was a reasonable resolution to the complaint. It would therefore not offer any further redress.
22. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
23. In an email sent to this Service on 24 November 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as that repairs to the bathroom remained outstanding and that the level of compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
24. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that all outstanding repairs were completed, and she received further compensation that took into account the effect the situation has had on her health.

Assessment and findings

25. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to attend an appointment. The landlord apologised, explained the reason why the appointment failed and offered the resident £62.32 compensation for its service failure.
26. 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.
27. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It learnt from its mistake by working with the contractor to resolve the IT issue that has caused the appointment to fail and rearranged the appointment with the resident.
28. The compensation offered by the landlord (£10 for the missed appointment and £52.32 for loss of earnings) was made in line with its compensation policy and was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
29. In this case, the landlord recognised that it had not attended a scheduled appointment; apologised, explained the reason why it had not gone ahead and offered £10 compensation in line with its compensation policy. The resident informed the landlord that she did not think the level of redress was sufficient and noted that she took a day off work. The landlord then used its discretion under its compensation policy to award a further £52.32 compensation for loss of earnings.
30. The landlord would only be expected to provide compensation if appointments were cancelled without giving notice. In line with the tenancy agreement, tenants are expected to provide access to the landlord’s staff and contractors as required and the landlord would not normally be expected to compensate for this. A payment of £62.32 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances as it took into account both the failed appointment and the loss of earnings by the resident during the time period the landlord’s operatives were expected to attend.
31. When bringing her case to this Service, the resident stated that repairs to the bathroom remained outstanding and that she wanted this aspect investigated as part of the complaint. The correspondence provided by the landlord as part of its evidence shows that this was also raised by the resident during a telephone conversation held on 29 April 2021. The landlord’s call logs state that it advised the resident to raise a new complaint into the matter. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take as issues relating to outstanding repairs were not a part of the original complaint raised by the resident in October 2020.
32. As this element was not raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaint process, it cannot yet be considered by this Service. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
33. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding these matters.
34. The resident also requested to be compensated for the effect on her health that the situation had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
35. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of level of compensation offered for a missed appointment which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.