Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202000400)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000400

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

22 December 2020


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 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 response to the resident’s reports of his shower not draining correctly.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a first floor, two-bedroom flat with his father. Both occupants have physical disabilities.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms its responsibility to “maintain any installations [it provides] for… sanitation and supplying water” including “flushing systems, waste pipes”.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide also confirms that it is responsible for repairs to “sanitary fixtures and fittings”. This guide defines emergency repairs and those “required to avoid immediate danger to one’s health and safety”. Emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours whereas non-emergency routine repairs are to be completed “within 28 calendar days and by appointment”.
  4. The landlord’s complaints process provides for a two stage internal complaints process and at both stages it is to provide a resolution to the resident within 28 calendar days. Its complaints policy specifies that complaints should be acknowledged within two working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards of between £5 and £50 for failure of service involving a “minor admin error which caused a low level of discomfort or nuisance” and time and trouble where there has been a “short delay in resolving customer issues”. Awards of £10 to £150 may be made for poor complaint handling “depending on the severity of the failure”.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is represented by his relative in this complaint. Both parties will subsequently be referred to as the resident.
  2. The landlord carried out inspections to the resident’s bathroom on 17 September 2019, following a report on 5 September 2019, and on 17 February 2020, after a report on 3 February 2020. Both visits were to inspect reports of overflowing in the wet room due to the water from the shower not draining away. The repair notes from the repair report on 2 February 2020 stated that the “floor is slippery. Res had a fall from this”.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2020 to report that, since the installation of the wet room in the property, he had experienced issues with the water from the shower not draining away correctly. He reported that three people had been to inspect the shower and one had informed him that the shower tray was installed the wrong way around. The resident relayed that, due to the excess water, he had sustained a fall which caused him to break a bone in his foot.
  4. The resident stated that he had been in contact with the landlord “loads of times over the last 5 to 6 months”. This resulted in another inspection where he was informed that the shower drainage was “fine”. The resident contended that it was “clearly not fine” as he was disabled and could not use the handrails provided to prevent himself slipping.
  5. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 22 March 2020 and was informed the following day that the enquiry had not been logged as no authority had been provided for a representative to represent him. This authority was provided to the landlord on 28 March 2020 and it sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement on 30 March 2020, stating that an initial response would be provided by 13 April 2020.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 April 2020 and agreed an extension of three weeks for the complaint resolution.
  7. The resident sought the intervention of this Service on 21 April 2020 and we sent a request to the landlord to consider his complaint. It sent an acknowledgement of the complaint the following day.
  8. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 1 June 2020 in which it explained that the pump had “been installed at the opposite end of the shower”. It relayed that visits by two of its officers had found that the shower and pump had been in “good working order”. The landlord acknowledged that one of its contractors had mentioned that the shower tray had been installed the wrong way around and it apologised for the “confusion” caused by this. It clarified that the shower tray had been installed correctly.
  9. The landlord explained that the layout of the wet room had prevented it from installing the shower drain directly beneath the shower but asserted that its inspections had confirmed that the water was draining away as expected. It acknowledged that the resident had sustained a fall in the shower but could not identify any further actions it could take to prevent further risk.
  10. The landlord partially upheld the complaint on the basis that “conflicting information” had been given to the resident. It advised that feedback had been provided to its contractor to prevent future confusion. The landlord awarded £75 compensation to the resident which was broken down as:
    1. £25 for poor complaint handling
    2. £25 for the service failure in providing conflicting information
    3. £25 for his time and trouble.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 June 2019 to escalate the complaint. He contended that the inspections had not been thorough enough as the shower had only been run for “about a minute”. The resident also stated that during one inspection, the landlord’s officer had informed him that it would be liaising with social services to assess the suitability of the shower.
  12. After acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation on 8 June 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 15 June 2020. In this, it stated that it had confirmed with its repairs team that the pump was working correctly, and the shower drained “as expected” and there was nothing further it could do to improve this.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that it had contacted the social work team to assess the suitability of the shower and advised that, dependent on the recommendations of an occupational therapist, it would consider any aid or adaptions needed. It considered that its stage one complaint response acknowledged its initial service failures, the award of compensation made was fair and reasonable, and confirmed the complaint was concluded.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2020 to assert that its inspections of the shower “literally had the shower running for a few seconds” and questioned the usefulness of any adaptions in light of the nature of his disability.
  15. The landlord carried out a further inspection of the shower on 18 June 2020 and reported the findings to the resident on 22 June 2020. It relayed that the shower was tested for 15 minutes with the resident present, under the shower, to simulate actual use. The landlord found that the shower and waste pump performed correctly in removing the water. During the inspection it noted that the resident’s shower mats posed a potential trip hazard and impeded the drainage of water; these were repositioned. Additionally, the landlord observed that spilt shower gel on the shower floor could create a slip hazard.
  16. The landlord concluded that a full assessment of the suitability of the shower by an occupational therapist was required and advised it would pursue a response on this. Based on the observations from the inspection, it stated that no further action could be taken and confirmed the complaint remained closed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his shower not draining correctly

  1. It is noted that the resident reported that he had sustained an injury from a fall in the shower. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether this injury was a direct result of the landlord’s actions or lack of action. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement, above at point 2, and its repairs guide, above at point 3, confirm its responsibility to repair and maintain the shower as this constitutes one of the “sanitary fixtures and fittings” of the property. Therefore, it was a reasonable response from the landlord to inspect the shower and its drainage on 17 September 2019, 17 February and 18 June 2020. There was reference to other inspections by its officers in its stage one complaint response but the dates of these were not provided.
  3. While the resident reported sustaining an injury from using the shower, there is no evidence that the shower issue was reported as “an immediate danger to health and safety”, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to attend within 28 calendar days for a non-emergency repair.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff. While it noted in its stage one complaint response on 1 June 2020 that inconsistent information had been provided to the resident by one of its contractors, it was reasonable for it to conclude, based on its other inspections, that the shower drainage was working correctly.
  5. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 18 June 2020 after the conclusion of the complaint. This inspection was conducted under conditions which addressed the resident’s continued concerns over the thoroughness of the previous inspections, and was therefore a reasonable response to these concerns. Furthermore, its proposal, on 22 June 2020, to seek an assessment of the shower facilities by an occupational therapist was a reasonable response to the resident’s circumstances.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that “conflicting information” had been provided by one of its contractors about the installation of the shower. It offered £25 compensation for this failure, plus £25 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
  7. This compensation was reasonable, as it was consistent with its compensation procedure, above at point 5, where “a low level of… nuisance” had been caused by its actions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 7 March 2020, and this was not responded to by the landlord until 23 March 2020 following further involvement from him. This was eight working days in excess of the two working days in which complaints are to be acknowledged, as per its complaints policy, above at point 4.
  2. The landlord agreed an extension with the resident on 6 April 2020 for three weeks to provide a stage one complaint resolution. This complaint response was not provided until 1 June 2020; this was just under a week in excess of the extension agreed with him and therefore it failed to respond within the timeframe agreed.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and awarded compensation of £25 for “poor complaint handling” in its stage one complaint response on 1 June 2020.. Considering the length of the delays exhibited by the landlord in the handling of the complaint, the award of £25 was reasonable and proportionate, and was broadly in accordance with its compensation procedure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its response to his reports of his shower not draining correctly.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out multiple inspections to assess the shower drainage issue reported by the resident, which took into account his concerns over identifying the problem, and it offered a reasonable award of compensation which was proportionate to the failures exhibited and in accordance with its compensation procedure.
  2. The landlord made a reasonable award of compensation for its acknowledged poor complaint handling which was proportionate to the failing exhibited and was in accordance with its compensation procedure.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord is recommended to now pay the £75 compensation to the resident that it previously offered him.