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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202101346)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101346

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for cyclical works and maintenance to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a terraced house and the tenancy commenced in 1995.
  2. The tenancy agreement outlines the landlord’s obligations to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the structure of the building.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy advises that window replacement are major repairs normally carried out under a separate programme, outside of its normal repairs priorities. The landlord’s website confirms it aims to carry out stock condition surveys every five years to identify and programme future replacement works, which include windows. The landlord’s website adds that it is important to allow access to a property, as lack of access may mean the property will not be included in future works.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy advises that it responds to complaints at stage one within ten working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. The policy also advises that the landlord does not normally deal with complaints about incidents that occurred more than six months before the complaint was made.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 January 2021, the resident wrote to her landlord and MP to express dissatisfaction at being informed her property qualified for window replacement in 2025, when works to other properties on her estate were underway and due for completion in January and February 2021. She stated that this made no sense as her property was built at the same time and was of the same construction, and alleged she was the subject of “retribution” and “racial discrimination.” She expressed frustration about trying to contact the landlord about the issue.
  2. On 25 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint.
    1. It advised that race played no part in its decision-making and that there was no evidence to suggest the different date provided resulted from racial discrimination.
    2. It explained that when a survey was carried out across her estate in 2018/19 it had been unable to access her home, so no results were provided. Later, as confirmed with her, a survey in 2020 advised that the windows were due for renewal in 2025.
    3. It explained that due to the elapsed time, it could not confirm if access to the property was attempted; if process was followed; or if service failure occurred
    4. It explained that it would renew her windows in the April 2021 to March 2022 financial year, to align her property with her neighbours and to ensure future renewals were carried out together. It explained it was too late to add the property to the current year’s works.
    5. It apologised for a delayed response to the complaint, distress and inconvenience, and awarded £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
  3. On 26 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It restated the contents of its response to her complaint. It noted that a survey had confirmed the windows were fit for purpose but it confirmed it had brought her window renewal forward to 2021/22.
  4. On 27 January 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. She advised she believed she was right to allege victimisation, as the company contracted to survey and replace windows had informed her no contract was awarded in 2018/19 to survey the property, and they had only recently been asked to include the property in the programme.
  5. On 18 February 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint.
    1. It noted that the previous response provided an explanation for the cause of the issue and that access was not gained to review the requirement for renewal.
    2. It explained that it was unable to categorically determine that a no access protocol was followed at the time, due to insufficient notes on the system, and compensation had been awarded since it could not rule out a service failure.
    3. It confirmed that as a result of the matter being brought to its attention, the resident’s property was included in the April 2021 to March 2022 works programme. It noted that the timeframe provided was to set her expectations, as the programme was subject to change based on the needs of higher priority housing stock.
    4. It acknowledged her concerns and apologised for how she felt as a result of what happened, but explained it was unable to find evidence for racial discrimination or victimisation.
    5. It concluded that the complaint highlighted it needs to improve record keeping to retrieve information from historic incidents, and the case would be used to improve services.
  6. The resident subsequently advises this Service that the landlord should provide a proposed date for the works so that she can plan her schedule for the year. She contends that the issue was not a matter of record keeping but a failure in administration and an obligation to keep properties in full repair.

Assessment and findings

  1. Neither the landlord or the resident provide correspondence about the window renewal prior to the complaint, so this Service has specifically considered events from 15 January 2021 when the resident brought her complaint, to 18 February 2021 when the landlord issued its final response to the complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman understands the course of events has frustrated and upset the resident and understands she believes they are due to discrimination. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. 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, and does not extend to making definitive decisions on specific issues such as discrimination/racism.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
  4. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain the structure of the building, so it was appropriate that it reviewed the resident’s concerns about window renewal at her property. In its assessment of recent events, the landlord clearly considered all of the circumstances and subsequently took steps to include the resident’s property in the next available works programme. This demonstrates that the landlord was sympathetic to the resident’s situation and that it sought to achieve an outcome which would result in the resident being treated as consistently as possible with other residents on her estate.
  5. The landlord also has a responsibility to consider allegations it receives, so it was appropriate that the landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns about discrimination. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was sympathetic here to the resident’s concerns and it provided reasonable assurance that there was no evidence for discrimination. The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence for the claim, and the landlord’s explanation is consistent with its website which states a lack of access for stock condition surveys may mean a property will not be included in future works. The landlord recognised it could not confirm exact events from its records and it recognised this in its goodwill gesture.
  6. This Service notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction and understandable desire to be provided with a date for the works. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point cyclical works should be carried out, and this Service’s main consideration is whether this aspect has been handled appropriately, in the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord carries out stock surveys to identify/programme works and meet major repairs obligations, and it is not disputed that, in a survey in 2020, the resident’s windows were considered fit for purpose until 2025. This future timescale for window renewal does not suggest that the landlord has failed its repairs obligations and consequently, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is reasonable if the landlord may not be able to immediately provide specific dates for works, due to the changing priorities of its major works programme.
  7. The landlord’s overall responses in apologising for how the resident felt; offering compensation; identifying service improvements; and seeking to provide a positive outcome, demonstrate it has been customer and resolution focused and sought to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, considering all of the circumstances of the case, the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for cyclical works and maintenance to the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints sympathetically and in accordance with its policies. The landlord recognised that its records were unclear about events in 2018/19 and offered appropriate compensation in the circumstances. Its commitment to carry out the works in the next available programme demonstrate its customer and resolution focused approach to maintaining the landlord and tenant relationship. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, considering all of the circumstances of the case, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to ensure proper arrangements are in place which ensures that:
    1. all properties are surveyed.
    2. adequate records are kept so that it is clear where a property has not been surveyed and why.