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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202004538)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004538

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

4 February 2021


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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of a rotten patio door and damp and mould;
    2. associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about a leaking roof in some of her communications with the landlord, but there is no evidence of her raising this as part of the formal complaint under investigation here. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As a result, this matter is not considered further in this report. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident first reported to the landlord that her patio doors were rotten and that damp and mould was affecting her home, in September 2018. The landlord’s repair works history shows that it raised a works order for a damp survey to be carried out in early October 2018 and that this took place on or around 30 November 2019 (evidence of this survey has not been supplied). The landlord’s records show that it received an email (it is unclear if this was directly from the resident or from a third party enquiring on her behalf) on 23 March 2019 with regard to damp in the living room (email not provided). In a further record dated 5 April 2019, the landlord referred to a recommendation for a fan to be fitted in the bedroom glass window.
  2. The landlord’s repair works history shows that it first raised a works order for a quote to be provided for replacement patio doors on 10 May 2019. The landlord’s records indicate that, on 17 May 2019, the resident called advising that no one had attended the appointment for that day in relation to the patio doors. The landlord advised that its systems indicated that an appointment was booked in for its contractor to attend that day but that it had advised the resident that they would not be attending. The resident said she wished to make a complaint.
  3. On 20 May 2019, the resident complained via email regarding the landlord’s response to her report about rotten patio doors including its failure to attend the recent appointment for which she had taken unpaid leave from work. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 May 2019 and confirmed that it would deal with it via its complaints policy and that a member of its team would be in contact within ten to fifteen days to discuss her case.
  4. On 21 May 2019, the landlord raised a further work order for a quote to be provided for the patio doors. On 30 May 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to measure up for replacement doors but the resident was unable to find the keys to the door, prompting the contractor to leave the property and advising the resident to make another appointment.
  5. The landlord’s Customer Care officer emailed the resident that day advising that they would be investigating her complaint and that their intention was to keep her updated regarding the complaint and related repair and after the repair had been completed, to identify any service failures. They also requested that the resident confirm the last date she had any contact from its subcontractors and what had been advised to her (in order to assist with its investigation into her complaint). As the landlord did not receive a response, it tried calling the resident on 20 June 2019 (without success) and subsequently reiterated this request via an email on 20 June 2019.
  6. The resident then emailed the landlord on 27 June 2019, stating that if its contractor had not rushed when they visited on 30 May 2019, she could have found the keys to the patio doors. She said that her husband had emailed them twice but no one had replied to advise of another appointment. She also said that she had reported a leaky roof on 3 June 2019 but had heard nothing in response.
  7. The landlord’s customer contact history shows that the resident telephoned on 3  July 2019, advising that its contractors were supposed to attend that day but had not arrived and had not cancelled the appointment. She requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. The landlord logged the resident’s request for escalation to Stage Two of its Complaint Procedure at this time. Its case notes stated that appointments made for the resident’s patio doors to be replaced had been missed and that the outstanding work to resolve the complaint included renewal of patio doors. It also referred to the “water ingress, damp and mould” issue.
  8. On 9 July 2019, the contractors attended the property to measure up for the patio doors.
  9. On 22 July 2019, the landlord confirmed that the complaint would be escalated to Stage Two and explained that the purpose of the Stage Two review is to understand whether an appropriate resolution to her concerns had been provided and to look at the way it managed the Stage One complaint. It confirmed that her complaint related to dissatisfaction that the works to her patio doors remained outstanding despite being promised that this would be done in November 2018.
  10. The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed it on 18 August 2019 with regards to the repair of the leaky roof (email not provided). It replied apologising for the lack of an appointment for the roof leak repair but requesting that the resident provide further details including the exact location of the leak and further photos.
  11. On 13 September 2019, the contractor carried out a further inspection of the property for damp and mould, the report for which was sent to the landlord on 15 September 2019. Within the report it is stated “possible mould issues” were found in some rooms and damp in some areas including in the back bedroom (by door to the kitchen at ground level), in the kitchen and the sitting room. The report also noted that the fan in the bathroom did not work. It referred to the previous survey that recommended a HRU unit, but the writer of the report stated that, in their opinion, this would not resolve all the issues and might only address the mould issue in winter. The report recommended for another survey to be carried out.
  12. The landlord’s evidence indicates that, after it raised further work orders in August and October 2019, the resident’s patio doors were repaired in or around December 2019 (the exact date is not clear from evidence). The landlord’s case notes show that its contractors visited the property on three occasions to fit an extractor fan in the window (exact dates are unclear) but entry was refused by the resident.
  13. On 26 November 2019, the council (Environmental Health) called the landlord regarding the damp and mould and the landlord advised that orders had been raised but it then cancelled these as the resident had asked it to.
  14. In the landlord’s Stage Two response of 19 February 2020, it stated that, in respect of the patio doors, this issue was first reported in September 2018. Following a number of inspections by its contractors, it was decided that a repair would resolve any issues with draughts or water ingress and the repair was completed by December 2019. Regarding the report that damp and mould was affecting the property (also reported in September 2018), it stated that a specialist contractor inspected her home and their report recommended that a fan be fitted to help eliminate the moisture causing the problem. However, operatives had not been able to fit the fan as they were refused entry as the resident did not wish for a fan to be fitted.
  15. The landlord also stated that its case handler took the correct course of action in escalating the complaint to Stage Two as the patio doors had not been repaired and a considerable period of time had elapsed from when she had raised her issues as a complaint. There had also not been a resolution put in place to resolve the damp and mould in her home. It therefore upheld the complaint and offered £420 compensation, as follows: time and trouble (£100); service failure (£250); poor complaints handling (£30); and; missed appointments (£50 at £10 each, up to a maximum of 5). It also said that if the resident wished to have the fan fitted at a later date, she should contact its customer service team who would be happy to organise this.  
  16. On 18 August 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman, forwarding a copy of the landlord’s 19 February 2020 complaint response and advising that both she and her councillor had tried contacting the landlord several times since receiving this letter but there had not been any response to their emails.  

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy (a guide for tenants) states that routine repairs – described as defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, without long-term deterioration of the building – should be completed within 28 calendar days. Further, it states that in relation to replacement of major items (including window and door replacements), these works are normally completed to an agreed work programme. It also states that ‘major routine works’ should be completed within the three months as part of its planned programme of works.
  2. Stage one of the landlord’s complaints procedure states, amongst other things, that its Customer Care team (CCT) will: advise the customer which member of the team will be dealing with their complaint within two working days; investigate and liaise with the relevant teams to resolve the issue; advise customers of solutions and expected time lines and make contact every two weeks at a minimum. It also states stage one will be resolved within 28 days.
  3. Further, the landlord’s complaints procedure states that complaints will be escalated to stage two when: “28 calendar day timescale at stage 1 has been breached…The customer has requested an escalation” and that stage two complaints are closed when the resident is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved. It further states that extensions to stage two timescales (cases not resolved in 28 calendar days) will be submitted to the Complaints Panel for assessment and approval.
  4. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it will consider paying compensation when: “There has been a service failure that warrants consideration of a compensation payment e.g., Published timescales for repairs has been exceeded and an extension has not been agreed with the customer. The customer has suffered financial loss as a result of (our) actions…Our customer has spent an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing (it) because of our service failure…the customers quality of life has been affected due to severe distress and inconvenience because of its service failure”. Its document titled ‘Tariff of Discretionary Payments’ provides for: payments of between £250 and £500 for failure of service where the issue has been ongoing for over six months; payments of between £5 and £500 for “time and trouble”; payments of between £10 and £150 for poor complaint handling depending on the severity; and £10 for a missed appointment (up to a maximum of five appointments).

Assessment and findings

Patio doors, damp and mould

  1. In respect to the resident’s patio doors, it is evident that it took the landlord around 14 to 15 months to repair these (in December 2019) after the resident first reported that they were rotten in September 2018. This exceeds the three-month timeframe given in its repairs policy for replacing major items including window and door replacements. There is no evidence of the landlord having advised the resident at the outset that the repair or replacement was likely to take longer than the timeframe given in its repair policy. Therefore, this is clear evidence of the landlord failing to deal with the matter in accordance with its repair policy and amounts to a failure in service.
  2. It is acknowledged that, in its email to the resident of 22 July 2019, the landlord referred to the repair of her patio doors being promised by November 2018. It is unclear from the evidence submitted the reason for the lack of repair provided at this time and furthermore there is a lack of evidence of the landlord investigating the reported issue with the patio doors until May 2019 when it arranged for a quote to be provided for their replacement. However, it is evident that there were further delays between then and when the patio doors were finally repaired in or around December 2019. It appears that this was partly due to appointments not being kept by the contractors (the landlord’s Stage two response confirms that at least five appointments were missed) and because, after a number of inspections, the landlord decided that the doors should be repaired rather than replaced.
  3. It is acknowledged that, on one occasion (30 May 2019), a contractor attended to measure up for replacement doors but the resident was unable to find the key to the doors, prompting the contractor to leave the property and advising the resident to make another appointment. The landlord is not responsible for any delay caused by this particular incident, but the Ombudsman finds that it is responsible for all other delays up to the issue being resolved in December 2019. The length of time taken to complete the repair would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident and the contractors failing to attend appointments without prior cancellation would have cause additional stress, compounding the original issues.
  4. With regards to the presence of mould and damp within a property, it is unclear from the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s repair policies whether the landlord or resident were responsible for addressing such issues. Usually, this would depend on the cause of the damp or mould; if found to be as a result of condensation this may be due to the resident not adequately ventilating/heating the property, but mould and damp can also be caused by a lack of damp proofing or other building defects, which the landlord would be responsible for.
  5. In this case, the landlord’s evidence showed that it raised a works order for a damp survey in October 2018 and this took place on or around 30 November 2018. As mentioned above, there is no evidence of a report from this survey but the landlord’s records show that a recommendation was made for a fan to be fitted in the bedroom window. The evidence indicates however that this remedy had not been provided when the resident raised her Stage One complaint on 20 May 2019, nor when she asked to escalate her complaint to Stage Two on 3 July 2019.
  6. It is evident that the landlord arranged for a further damp survey to be undertaken and this happened on 13 September 2019. The report from this inspection states that there was mould and damp in parts of the property. It also said that the “HRU unit” (fan) previously recommended, would not resolve all the issues, and this might only resolve mould in winter. Whilst the report did not indicate either the cause of the mould/damp or identify any suitable resolution, it recommended that a further survey should be undertaken. The evidence suggests that the resident then refused entry to the contractors when they subsequently attended to fit the fan. The reason for this is unclear.
  7. Generally, where a remedy has been offered by the landlord to resolve a disrepair issue which is then refused by the resident, the landlord would no longer be responsible for addressing that particular issue.  However, the Ombudsman is mindful that, in this case, the September 2019 damp report indicated that the remedy originally recommended (a fan fitted in window) may not be sufficient to resolve the damp issue. In light of this and because there was no evidence of the landlord acting upon this latter finding, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to revisit/investigate the damp issue to determine if further action is required, subject to the resident providing access. On this basis, a recommendation reflecting this is included below.
  8. In its Stage Two response of 19 February 2020, the landlord confirmed that the issues had now been addressed (in so far as it was able) but acknowledged that there had been service shortfalls due to its failure to put in place timely resolutions to address the issues raised. It upheld the complaint and offered £420 compensation in recognition of the service failures. On balance, the Ombudsman finds that the sums offered were in line with the levels of compensation set out in the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Payments (see paragraph 23 above). Further, the overall amount was reasonable and sufficiently reflected the significant stress and inconvenience caused to the resident when handling her reports of a rotten patio door and damp and mould.
  9. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.  The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as in this case.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the Stage One complaint within one day of receiving it (on 20 May 2019) and advised that it would be dealing with her concerns via its Complaints procedure. It also advised that a member of its CCT would be contacting her within 10 to 15 days to discuss the case, which they did. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that the landlord followed its Complaints procedure here.
  2. The landlord escalated the Stage One complaint to Stage Two on or around 3 July 2019 following the resident’s request for the same. It is acknowledged that the Complaints procedure requires escalation to Stage Two within 28 days (if the matter is not resolved) and therefore the landlord’s escalation of the complaint was marginally outside this timeframe. However, the evidence shows that it had taken the resident until 27 June 2019 to respond to the landlord’s request (of 30 May 2019) for further information (which it asked for again on 20 June 2019). As such, this Service considers that this accounts for the delay by the landlord in escalating the complaint to Stage Two and as such there is insufficient evidence of any service failure here.    
  3. However, it is clear that the landlord failed to resolve the resident’s Stage Two complaint within the 28-day timescale stated in its Complaints procedure. There is also no evidence of it referring the complaint to its Complaint panel to request an extension to this timescale, as stated in its Complaints procedure. It is also noted that it took the landlord a further seven months to complete the second stage of its complaints process (on 19 February 2020). Further, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not always provide updates to the resident regarding the progress of repair work every two weeks as stipulated in its Complaints procedure. Due to these errors at Stage Two, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord did not adhere to its Complaints procedure in this respect and this constitutes evidence of service failure.
  4. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s delay in repairing the patio doors and dealing with the damp and mould issue impacted on its complaint handling timescales as these issues were being dealt with through its Complaint process from 21 May 2019. However, given that the Complaints process extended over nearly ten months during which time the resident was not always kept up to date with the progress of her complaint or related repair, this does not affect the above finding that the landlord failed to deal with the complaint in line with its Complaints procedure. 
  5. In its Stage Two response, the landlord stated that it sent its “sincere apologies” for any distress and inconvenience caused and acknowledged that its service had not been up to the required standard.  As mentioned above, it offered the resident £420 in total compensation, £30 of which was for complaints handling. This Service is satisfied that this sum was in line with its compensation policy and that the overall amount was appropriate. Furthermore, the landlord advised that it took all feedback seriously and used this to improve its future service delivery. This indicates learning from outcomes by the landlord which in is in line with the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles.
  6. Therefore, in light of the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress which sufficiently resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the formal complaint. However, as it is unclear from the evidence as to whether the landlord has paid the resident the compensation offered in its Complaint process, a recommendation has been added below for it to pay the resident the compensation amount previously offered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports concerning the condition of her patio doors and damp and mould;
    2. associated formal complaint

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to address the disrepair issues in line with its repair policy as it did not effect repairs within its stated timescales, missing numerous appointments it had made with the resident.  However, it ultimately repaired the patio doors and offered to fit a fan to help eliminate mould. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in resolving the issues during its complaints process and offered £420 compensation in recognition of its service shortfalls when handling the case. The above remedies are considered reasonable and proportionate and therefore the Ombudsman finds that they sufficiently resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  2. The landlord did not follow the timescales stated in its Complaints process when handling the Stage Two complaint and its failure to do so resulted in a lengthy and extended Complaint process. This issue and other errors made whilst dealing with the complaint caused distress and inconvenience. However, during its Complaint process, the landlord offered the resident £30 for poor complaint handling (included in the compensation amount stated above). It also confirmed that it would use the resident’s complaint feedback to improve its future service indicating a commitment to learning. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. revisit/investigate the damp issue to determine if further action is required, subject to the resident allowing access;
    2. pay the resident the £420 compensation offered during the Complaints process, if it has not already done so, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.