Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202009429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009429

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

18 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. concerns raised by the resident about planned works to his block;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder whose lease commenced on 6 August 2007. The landlord has described the property as a third floor flat. The property is sited within a four-story block of flats.
The lease agreement obliges the landlord to ‘repair redecorate renew and improve the common parts’.
The landlord has a repairs guide for leaseholders that shows:
1. it will ‘carry out planned maintenance based on a regular cycle of work and, where relevant, include this in the service charges we collect’
2. painting of walls and outside windows and doors are included as examples of planned maintenance
3. it has a duty to consult leaseholders for any works costing a single leaseholder more than £250 and that ‘each affected leaseholder will be sent a letter explaining the proposed works, including financial information’.
The landlord has a ‘consultation under section 20 policy’ that sets out how it complies with the statutory requirements to consult with leaseholders as set out in section 20 of the Housing Act (1985). It says that it is required to:
1. serve leaseholders a notice of intention that gives reasons why the work is considered necessary
2. send consultation notices to all variable service charge payers
3. allow consultees to nominate a contractor of their choice (subject to relevant criteria) which it is duty bound to include in the tendering process
4. give leaseholders a minimum of 33 calendar days in which to make comments which it should ‘give due regard to’
5. send leaseholders a notice of proposal (after tendering) giving an estimate of the works and provide them with opportunity to inspect the tender documents
6. provide residents with a summary of all observations received after the first notice and allow them 33 calendar days to make further comment
7. respond to all resident observations individually within 21 calendar days.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process of 10 working days for a stage one complaint and 20 working days for the stage two complaint.
The landlord has a compensation procedure that allows for an award to made where there has been service failure by the landlord, including where the customer has spent an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing a matter.

Summary of Events

The landlord advised the resident within an email exchange on 25 September 2019 that cyclical decoration works may be due based on feedback from cleaning contractors. That email exchange originally related to enquiries about cleaning at the block.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2019, following a telephone conversation with a member of staff. He said he had passed on concerns about the potential impact of works on service charges and noted that the member of staff had agreed to share budget options with residents in advance. He offered to be point of contact for the matter and asked the landlord to prepare different options (from low to high cost) which residents could consider and form a decision on.
The resident made a complaint on 10 October 2019, following a further telephone conversation with a member of staff that day. The complaint was on the grounds that:
1. the member of staff was aggressive and defensive in tone from the beginning of the conversation and interrupted him
2. the member of staff told him he should let another resident of the block be aware of his concerns so they could be passed on to the landlord
3. he queried this approach as he seemed not to be allowed to contact the landlord directly and the member of staff had hung up on him.
The resident advised on 23 October 2019 that he wished for someone to listen to a recording of the conversation, for the member of staff to be disciplined and for the landlord to nominate another person to take the matter of potential redecoration works forward.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 8 November 2019. It said that a recording of the call had not been made so it could not listen to it but concluded that:
1. the member of staff had been disciplined in line with policy and procedures for ‘poor attitude, behaviour and conduct’
2. the member of staff should have passed the queries on service charges for cyclical works to its planned works department
3. an apology was offered and it was added that further coaching had been put in place for managers.
The landlord advised the resident on 18 November 2019 to submit any cyclical works queries to the planned works and leasehold service charge team inboxes. The resident chased a response on 26 November 2019.
There were further emails exchanged during December 2019 to January 2020 between the landlord and resident. The landlord attempted to arrange for a relevant planned works manager to speak to the resident to answer any queries about block redecoration works. Its internal records show a message was left for the resident on 20 December 2019 and that the section 20 consultation process was explained. However, the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction and asked to escalate the complaint on 23 January 2020.
The landlord sent a complaint escalation acknowledgement to the resident on 6 February 2020. It set out that it understood the resident was not satisfied by the outcome of his conversation with the planned works manager and this was the reason for the escalation.
The landlord’s internal records show that the landlord understood during May 2020 that the resident wished for it to undertake a ‘soft consultation’ with residents as to how to improve the appearance of communal areas. It mentioned that residents were interested in considering colour choice and flooring material before committing to cyclical works. A suggestion was made that housing staff engage with residents with a view to putting the scheme forward in 2021/22.
The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed the matter on 11 June 2020 and found that it would not be able to survey the block until late July 2020, seemingly due to a lack of available surveyors.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2020. It advised that it had kept his complaint open, pending clarity on which staff member would be taking over the role that would allow it to consult with residents. It added that the planned works team was in the process of being re-organised and an apology was offered.
The landlord’s contractor produced a report on 29 July 2020, following an inspection of the block on 21 July 2020. This was with a view to assessing ‘a scope of works and budget costs estimate for the cyclical redecoration, window and door, roof and maintenance programmes’. It recorded that:
1. redecoration of ‘all previously painted surfaces, like for like in colour’ was in the notice of intention list of works
2. the scope of works included redecoration of timber fascia and soffits, a timber panel garden fence, render to external walls and internal walls and ceilings with estimated budget costs for each of these items.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 14 September 2020. It acknowledged contact from the resident in January 2020 and apologised for the delay in providing the final response. It concluded that:
1. communication challenges because of Covid-19 and a staff restructure had caused a delay in it answering the resident’s cyclical works queries for which an apology was offered
2. the resident was signposted to a member of staff for any queries concerning consultation and cyclical works
3. any training recommended because of the resident’s contact centre staff complaint was being acted upon and an apology was offered for any frustration experienced.
The landlord sent a notice of intention to the resident on 19 April 2021. It advised that the building was now due for redecoration and described the works as ‘external and internal communal area redecoration and washdown with associated minor repairs’. It invited him to provide observations and propose the name of a person from whom it should try to obtain an estimate.
The resident wrote to the landlord’s contractor (who had been appointed to manage the consultation) on 5 May 2021 and 13 May 2021. His comments were as follows:
1. he sought a telephone conversation to understand the purpose of works and share residents’ preferences
2. he asked for a long list of redecoration works quotes to be obtained from 2-3 contractors from which residents could shortlist the works based on affordability
3. he mentioned painting, new floor tiling, replacement of a swiping mat and internal door adjustments
4. he wanted residents to be able to authorise works.
The landlord’s contractor responded to the resident on 19 May 2021. It advised that:
1. a tendering exercise would follow which could include any contractors suggested by residents
2. that exercise would be based on the scope of works outlined in the notice of intention
3. a subsequent notice of estimates would show a minimum of two contractor estimates and the estimated leaseholder contribution for works
4. the detailed estimated costs breakdown could be seen at that point
5. replacement of vinyl flooring and the mat were outside of this scope of works (and could be raised with the landlord separately) but the redecorations and internal doors were included
6. leaseholders would not be able to select which items should, and should not, be undertaken but the landlord would consult with them as required and allow for further comments on the estimates.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Cyclical works concerns

The resident’s initial enquiries about potential redecoration works were made on 1 October 2019 when he raised concerns about the cost of works and asked if there was a possibility of the landlord presenting a range of options for residents to choose from. The landlord has not evidenced that it considered the resident’s suggestions. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord was not obliged to provide a range of improvement options as the resident requested but it was unreasonable that it failed to respond to his correspondence.
Following the conclusion of the stage one complaint investigation, the landlord offered for an appropriate member of staff within its planned works department to speak to the resident. The resident indicated that he spoke to a member of staff in December 2019. However, the landlord noted during January-February 2020 that the resident was still dissatisfied about the information he had been given on cyclical works and there is no evidence that it considered the matter again until May 2020. This was a period of further unnecessary delay and was unreasonable.
When the landlord considered the matter in May 2020, it defined the resident’s cyclical works concerns and noted that he sought a dialogue prior to any formal consultation so some choice on colour and flooring material could be offered. The landlord noted internally that its planned works team was unable to meet this request and suggested housing staff instead offer some engagement.
However, there is no evidence of any meaningful interaction with the resident on the substantive issue until the landlord submitted the section 20 notice of intention to him in April 2021. Again, although the landlord was not obliged to engage in consultation with residents prior to commencement of the formal section 20 process, it was unreasonable that it failed to take the opportunity to acknowledge the resident’s comments and factor them into its survey in July 2020. This will inevitably have caused frustration to the resident and a lack of clarity for him as to whether the landlord was willing to consider his suggestions or not.
A notice of intention was issued to the resident on 19 April 2021. The landlord advised what works were necessary and residents were given the opportunity to suggest their own contractors and make comments – this was in line with the landlord’s section 20 obligations and its related policy and was therefore appropriate.
The resident made comments and suggestions in response to the notice of intention during early to mid-May 2021. A response was sent to the resident within 14 calendar days of the initial comments. This response answered the resident’s suggestions as to how the consultation process would work and directly addressed the resident’s specific comments about the scope of works and what was included in them. This response demonstrated that the landlord gave ‘due regard’ to the resident’s observations in line with its ‘consultation under section 20 policy’ and was therefore appropriate.
One aspect of the resident’s concerns about the cyclical works was the potential inclusion of the replacement of flooring vinyl and an entrance mat. The notice of intention response in May 2021 advised that these were not part of the scope of works and it is accurate that the July 2020 inspection did not include flooring items. The response did inform the resident that he should report any items not included in the scope of works to the landlord but the resident has advised this Service that the landlord has failed to address them – a recommendation is made in this regard below.
In summary, the landlord has demonstrated that from April 2021 it began to consult with the resident about proposed cyclical works in accordance with its statutory obligations and it is not required to provide a range of works for the residents to choose from. However, the resident asked to discuss the potential works from October 2019 onwards, making suggestions about the consultation process and works that could be included. The landlord failed to engage with the resident on these points until the formal consultation began in April 2021 – this was unreasonable.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted his initial complaint on 10 October 2019. The focus of this complaint was a telephone conversation between him and a member of staff. The landlord was unable to obtain a copy of the call recording but investigated the resident’s concerns nonetheless, responding on 8 November 2019. Although the stage one complaint response was two weeks late, it did address each of the outcomes sought by the resident, apologising for the staff conduct and confirming that the failures would be resolved through a combination of training and disciplinary action. The landlord’s approach to the initial complaint was therefore reasonable.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 23 January 2020. The landlord was aware that this was because he was dissatisfied with the lack of contact from it regarding the cyclical works enquiries. The landlord failed to respond to the escalated complaint until 14 September 2020. This was significantly outside of the 20 working day period set out in its complaints policy and there is no evidence that the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident during this period of delay – this was inappropriate.
When the landlord did offer its final complaint response, it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s cyclical works queries, advising that this was due to Covid-19 and staff restructure. However, apart from the apology, its only remedy was to signpost the resident to another member of staff and suggest he contact them. This was unreasonable – given the delay in the complaints process and the service failure it identified in answering the cyclical works enquiries, the landlord should have taken a more pro-active approach to engage with the resident.
In summary, the landlord delayed by almost seven months in responding to the resident’s escalated complaint and failed to offer an appropriate remedy when it did respond.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. concerns raised by the resident about planned works to his block;
2. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to engage with the resident’s suggestions and enquiries regarding cyclical decoration works to his block over the course of 18 months.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s escalated complaint.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250, comprised of:
1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and unnecessary time and trouble caused to him by service failures in its handling of concerns raised by him about planned works to his block
2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by its complaint handling service failures.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to:
1. explain why the flooring works he proposed are not part of the cyclical scope of works
2. advise whether it is obliged to repair the vinyl flooring and mat (if so, it should confirm when it will do so; if not, it should explain why).

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.