MHS Homes Ltd (202002691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002691

MHS Homes Ltd

4 April 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 level of compensation the landlord has offered in response to the resident’s complaint about the delay in carrying out repairs to her bathroom.
the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a three-bedroom house that the resident moved into in 2015.
The landlord installed a new bathroom in the property in October 2019.

Summary of events

On 18 December 2019 the resident first reported issues with the bath not draining. The landlord’s operatives visited the same day to pressure-jet the drain.
On 27 December 2019 the resident again reported that water was slow to drain away in the bathroom, including from the bath, shower and sink. Operatives attended on 3 January 2020 to try and resolve the issue by clearing a blockage in the waste fitting, pipe and trap, flushing out and testing.
On 25 February 2020 the resident reported that the shower and bath needed to be unblocked again. Operatives attended on 4 March 2020 to try and resolve the problem by again pressure jetting the drain, flushing out and testing.
The operatives recommended that a descale or replacement of the pipework be carried out as there was a smell and black stuff coming into the bath from the plug. Therefore, on 23 June 2020 contractors carried out a six hour visit in which they removed the bath panel and shower tray to access the pipework.
On 23 June 2020 the resident complained to the landlord. She said there had been problems since the new bathroom had been fitted with water coming back up the bath plug and even back up through the shower. The issue then became that the water coming back up was dirty green and black which smelt unbearably. She said that the workman that had attended that day had still not been able to fix the problem. The bathroom had not been fit for use for nine months and that she had had to pay other people for the electric for using their shower. The property had become damaged, with a cracked ceiling and water marks because they had to use the bathroom during lockdown and the water had come out of the ceiling, resulting in her having to have an electric light taken out. The resident explained that she had one child under the care of the hospital and needed the matter to be addressed. She also felt that compensation should be payable for the damages, smell and the time taken so far.
The landlord has a record of the work being completed on 26 June 2020.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord responded by saying that it upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered her £50 for her proven financial loss and said that this would be applied to her rent account as the resident was in arrears. The landlord said that, as discussed, works had been agreed for floor and ceiling repairs.
The resident responded that she was not happy with the compensation offered as she felt it undervalued the level of inconvenience that the ongoing issue had caused. The landlord then advised that the resident could have her complaint reviewed if she so wished. The resident responded on 29 July 2020 to confirm that she did want the complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord stated on 9 September 2020 that it had reviewed the case and thought the offer of £50 was fair as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the issue.
On 15 September 2020 the resident told the landlord that she was still not happy with the offer of £50 as it had taken 9/10 months to get a near fully working bathroom and that there were still leaks. The landlord responded the next day to confirm that £50 fairly covered the costs the resident had evidenced of using friends’ bathrooms and that it was its final offer. The landlord confirmed that its complaints process had now been exhausted and explained who the resident needed to contact to escalate her complaint further.
This Service made contact with the landlord on 18 September 2020 to request a copy of its final response. The landlord responded that its stage 2 process had been completed and that the resident had told it that she would be escalating the complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 27 October 2020 this Service contacted the landlord again saying that the resident had provided a copy of what appeared to be a final response letter but that it did not include details of how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy and asked again for a copy of the final response letter. The landlord responded by saying that its stage 2 response (of 9 September 2020) had not been adequate, hence why it was followed up with an additional email on 16 September 2020.
The landlord also said that it had commenced a service improvement exercise on its appeals process, along with running several training sessions for all managers who were likely to be asked to conduct appeals. As part of this, it had introduced a template final response email for both its initial investigators and for its appeal outcomes.
On 22 October 2021 the resident re-confirmed to this Service that she wished to continue her complaint. She mentioned some additional repairs issues since the main problem had been remedied (which do not form part of this complaint) and talked about the distress caused by the foul water backing up, the smell, leaks through the ceiling and having to use family and friends’ washing facilities. She also mentioned that her younger child, who has medical difficulties, was not able to have her bathing needs met in her own home. In addition, her adult son also had health problems and struggled with changes to his routine. The resident asked for a reasonable level of compensation to be awarded that reflected the gravity of the distress caused.
Following further liaison with this Service, on 1 March 2022 the landlord offered to refund the £50 expenses incurred by the resident plus an additional £100 as a gesture of goodwill for the delays to repairs. The landlord told the resident that, whilst its repair schedules were restricted from March 2020 due to the Covid lockdown, it recognised that there were delays in completing the repair. The landlord said that it was once again sorry that the resident did not receive the service she would have expected from it.
The resident’s response was that calling it a ‘goodwill gesture’ trivialized the significant impact that the issue had on their family life. She said it would be more appropriate to consider compensation as a way forward. The resident explained that she was not experienced in such matters and so was finding it difficult to say how much compensation would be appropriate.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord increased its offer to £225, being £50 for the reimbursement of costs and £175 compensation for stress and inconvenience. It said that the amount was determined by the impact on the resident and her family and the landlord’s level of responsibility as determined by its compensation policy. The resident rejected this offer on the same day.
The landlord has provided this Service with its assessment of the situation. It said that it should have sent its drainage contractor to the property earlier to establish what was causing the water to back up. The multiple visits to the property should have been highlighted and its Asset Team should have reacted and investigated further in a quicker response time. The landlord said that these were all things that it had looked at when considering the compensation offer. It said that the issue had been significantly impacted by the Covid lockdown with responsive repairs being suspended apart from emergency make safe appointments. It had not received reports that the bath or shower could not be used at all, so it was not deemed an emergency. When restrictions were eased in June 2020, despite a backlog, it made the resident a priority due to the length of time she had been waiting. It said that it had received no further reports of issues with the bath and shower.
The landlord said that its learning from the complaint was that it had identified that its Customer and Asset Team, when logging complaints, was not checking the history to identify trends. A process improvement was being planned to help identify if multiple repairs were being raised and to involve other teams where necessary. In terms of the complaints process, the landlord was going to quality monitor complaints to ensure correct information was given to customers and that they would understand how to escalate their complaints. There would be improved communication through the first stage of the complaints process, with training provided to investigators identified through quality monitoring. Finally, a compensation policy was being introduced with significantly more guidance on when to offer compensation and how much.

Assessment and findings

Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint of water not draining in the bathroom and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
The resident has described the impact the issues raised in the complaint have had on the health of her children. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on the health impact of landlords’ actions on residents. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim as this is the appropriate means of escalating this aspect of her complaint.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides 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’.
Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the errors by the landlord, based on our assessment of the issues.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints (the resolve stage) within seven working days. It aims to respond at stage 2 (the appeals stage) within 15 working days.
The complaints policy further states that, if compensation is agreed above and beyond covering any costs incurred, this will be applied to the rent account if there are arrears.
The landlord’s recently drafted compensation policy includes a table of tariffs to allow its staff to more easily calculate the level of compensation it should offer.

Compensation for delay in carrying out repairs

The repairs were successfully completed on 24 June 2020. The landlord says it has received no reports of the issue re-occurring. The resident has mentioned some further repairs issues to this Service. However, as they did not form part of the original complaint, they have not been dealt with as part of this report. The resident will need to make a new complaint to the landlord if she remains unhappy with these further issues.
Due to Covid restrictions, the landlord was unable to attend the property from March until towards the end of June 2020, which is understandable. The problem was rectified reasonably quickly once the landlord was able to resume non-emergency appointments at that time. However, as the resident made multiple reports of problems from December 2019, the landlord has accepted that it should have identified the significant nature of the works required at a much earlier point.
In initially offering the resident £50, the landlord had only considered the costs incurred by the resident and had not thought about any distress and inconvenience caused. Clearly the situation would have been very difficult for the resident and her children, which was not fully acknowledged by the landlord to begin with.
The landlord has explained the changes it is making to its repairs process. This Service considers that this approach by the landlord, in response to the complaint, is reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles of ‘learning from outcomes’.
The landlord has apologised to the resident for the failings that occurred. However, the main complaint is about how much compensation the resident should receive. The landlord did not have a separate compensation policy at the point when it was first looking at the complaint and its complaints policy provides no particular guidance on calculating compensation amounts. The landlord has subsequently drafted a new compensation policy which informed its decision to make its final offer of £175 plus a £50 refund for costs incurred.
The draft compensation document sets out a tariff based on the level of the landlord’s responsibility coupled with the impact to the customer for things that have gone wrong. £175 is the amount for situations where the landlord has partial responsibility, with a medium level of impact.
If the blocked drainage had been the result of something that had developed over time, for example due to wear and tear, then the Ombudsman would conclude that the landlord was partially responsible – because it would not be responsible for the issue occurring in the first place but only for the delays in remedying the problem. However, in this case the issue was the result of the bathroom being poorly installed in October 2019. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was fully responsible for the problems that occurred.
As such, the landlord has not followed its own compensation policy to offer an appropriate amount. The landlord’s compensation tariff puts a figure of £250 on a scenario where the landlord is fully responsible, resulting in medium impact to the customer. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers this to be an appropriate amount of compensation for the failings that occurred, in addition to a refund of £50 for the resident’s known costs.
Although the resident has requested that any compensation is paid direct to her and not to her rent account, the landlord’s complaints policy sets out its entitlement to assign any compensation to the rent account if there are arrears. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the £50 reimbursement of costs to be paid directly to the resident. However, all or part of the compensation amount can be applied to the rent account, if necessary, dependent on the level of any arrears.

Complaint handling

The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2020, which was responded to on 24 July 2020. The resident made her request for a stage 2 appeal on 29 July 2020, which was responded to by the landlord on 16 September 2020. Therefore, in both cases, the landlord failed to respond to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The responses from the landlord were very brief and did not make it clear that they were the formal complaint responses. The response on 24 July 2020 did not set out how the resident could escalate her complaint and it was only when the resident said that she was unhappy with the compensation amount that she was told that she could appeal. The appeal was responded to on 9 September 2020, but it failed to explain that it was the landlord’s final response and again failed to give any referral rights. The landlord itself recognised that this response was inadequate and therefore followed up with an email to the resident on 16 September 2020 that did explain what next steps the resident could take.
The landlord has explained the changes it has made to its process, in response to this complaint. Once again, this Service considers that this approach by the landlord is reasonable as a means of improving its services but has not provided redress to the resident for the identified failings in its handling of the formal complaint.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay an additional amount of compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint, which included contacting this Service to chase up the landlord on her behalf.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to:

the level of compensation offered by the landlord in response to the complaint about delay in carrying out repairs.
the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord offered an apology and has undertaken learning from the complaint, its compensation offer does not reflect that it was fully responsible for the problems with the bathroom drainage.
The landlord failed to follow its own policy in terms of timeliness in responding to the complaint. Furthermore, it has acknowledged that its complaint handling in this instance was inadequate in terms of the quality of responses provided to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident the total sum of £350 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, as follows:
1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience experienced. This can be fully or partially applied to the resident’s rent account as appropriate.
2. £50 for time and trouble in having to make the complaint. This can be fully or partially applied to the resident’s rent account as appropriate.
3. Reimbursement of £50 for her known costs in using the washing facilities of friends and family.