Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202105544)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105544

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

3 November 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
   2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident reported that she had no heating on 16 October 2020, although she had hot water at that time.
4. An engineer attended on 4 November 2020 and adjusted the heating. It was reported to be working following this visit.
5. The resident reported the complete absence of heating and hot water in the property to the landlord on 6 December 2020. (some of the landlord’s correspondence, provided to the Ombudsman suggests this was on 4 December).
6. The repair was not attended that day (6 December), which led to the customer making two follow–up calls the following day. An engineer attended on 7 December 2020, but he was unable to complete the repair on that visit and therefore booked a further repair job.
7. The landlord’s records say its contractor delivered fan heaters to the resident on 8 December 2020.
8. The contractor visited again on 10 December 2020 and the resident has said they advised her that there were “several issues” with the boiler and that it would either have to be repaired by somebody else or replaced. The contractor told her that she would be contacted soon to confirm the next steps.
9. The resident rang the contractor on 15 December 2020 to chase for an update. The resident has said the contractor told her that the matter would be chased and that they were waiting for the landlord to confirm the repair.
10. The resident has said that she rang the landlord again on 16 December 2020 as she had still not been contacted, although she was informed that the repair was showing as complete on the landlord’s records.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2020 to complain about the delays and lack of updates regarding the boiler repair. She said that she had made it clear to everyone she had spoken to that this fault should be regarded as an emergency and consequently she had decided to move out of her property temporarily causing ‘significant disruption’.
12. The resident made further calls to the landlord on 22 and 23 December 2020 to chase the repairs. The resident has said that during these conversations, she confirmed that she had temporarily moved out of the property because she regarded it as uninhabitable due to the lack of heating and hot water.
13. On 27 December 2020 the resident called the landlord and the landlord advised her that the repair had been passed for authorisation.
14. According to the landlord’s records, the repair was completed on 14 January 2021 and the boiler was left in full working order.
15. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 January 2021 as she was unhappy with the length of time it had taken to repair the boiler. She reiterated that she had temporarily moved out of the property because she regarded it as uninhabitable due to the lack of heating and hot water. The resident requested compensation of £1038, which she calculated was the rent payable for the period she was not living in the property.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 January 2021. It responded to the complaint on 25 February 2021 and;
    1. Upheld her complaint and acknowledged that there was a considerable delay in fitting the part required to the boiler.
    2. Declined her request for a rent refund, as she did not discuss her intention to move out with the landlord beforehand, preventing it from being able to consider any alternative solutions. The resident was further advised that temporary moves had to be authorised by the landlord before the move could go ahead.
    3. Offered compensation of £275.00:
       1. £200.00 Time and Trouble
       2. £50.00 Failure of service
       3. £25.00 Poor complaints handling
    4. Offered to use the resident’s experience as a case study to prevent a recurrence of such failures in the future.
17. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process on 15 March 2021. She disputed that all the repair appointments were carried out in within the published timescales. She said there was an unjustified delay in carrying out the repair and that the compensation offer did not reflect the inconvenience and stress caused. She repeated her request for a refund of rent for the period that she was not living in rather at the property.
18. The landlord confirmed receipt of the escalation request to the final stage of its internal complaints process on 15 March 2021.
19. The landlord issued a final response to the complaint on 9 April 2021 advising that her escalation was not upheld on the grounds that the redress offered in the stage one response was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s current compensation policy. It also explained that a rent refund could not be considered as the resident moved out of the property without consulting the landlord beforehand and denying it the opportunity to explore other solutions.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

20. The tenancy agreement states:
    1.  the landlord will maintain any installations provided for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water. This includes water storage facilities and water heaters, fireplaces, and central heating installations.
    2.  moving out of the property would only be considered when repair works “which cannot reasonably be carried out whilst you remain in occupation of the property” are in progress”.
21. The landlord’s repairs policy specifies that emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours and confirms that this includes a total loss of heating. Where replacement parts need to be ordered and fitted, the repair may take a further seven days.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage process:
    1. stage one complaints shall be acknowledged within 5 days and responded to with 10 days after the acknowledgement.
    2. stage two complaints to be responded to within 20 days of the landlord receiving the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments for low, medium, and high failure with a maximum award of £350.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.

24. It is acknowledged that there was a delay in repairing the fault to the resident’s boiler leaving her without hot water and heating from 6 December 2020 until 14 January 2021.
25. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord would be obliged to complete an emergency repair (which includes total loss of heating) within 24 hours (or seven days if a replacement part has to be ordered and fitted). The resident reported the fault at 5pm on 6 December 2020 and the engineer did not call until nearly midnight on 7 December 2020. Therefore, the landlord failed to respond within the timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs, given in its repairs policy.
26. It was not possible for the fault to be repaired on the 7 December 2020 visit and a further engineer visited on 10 December 2020 and confirmed that a replacement part needed to be ordered and fitted. Even in the case of emergency repairs, It is not always possible to complete a repair during the first visit and further appointments may be required, particularly if replacement parts are required which need to be ordered from a supplier. Therefore, the landlord was not at fault for being unable to complete the repair on 7 December 2020 and it was reasonable for there to be some delay in completing the repair while the landlord waited for the replacement part to arrive. However, there were further delays caused by miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor. These delays could have been avoided and were unreasonable.
27. The landlord also failed to keep the customer informed of progress causing the resident to make several phone calls in December 2020 to chase for updates. The landlord provided updates in response to contact from the resident but it should have been more pro-active in keeping her informed.
28. The resident temporarily moved out of the property on 19 December 2020. The tenancy agreement only allows tenants to temporarily move out when the landlord is carrying out repairs which cannot safely be carried out while the tenant is in occupation. The tenancy agreement makes no provision for tenants moving out without consulting the landlord first. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for wanting to temporarily move out, but the landlord was not obliged to offer alternative accommodation in this situation. Therefore, it would not be obliged to compensate the resident for the rent she had to pay for the period when she was not living in the property.
29. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord provided temporary heating, the resident was also without hot water and the landlord did not make any provision to help with this, such as supplying extra kettles to produce hot water. It would have been inconvenient for the resident to be without hot water for an extended period of time and she would be entitled to compensation for this. The landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the boiler repairs and has offered £275 compensation for the inconvenience and distress these errors caused the resident. This offer was in line with the landlord’s internal compensation policy which recommends awards of up to between £151 and £350 for issues resulting in a high level of service failure which causes a high volume of customer contact to resolve the issue and repeated service failure resulting in a high impact to the resident.
30. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance (published on our website) suggests awards between £250 and £700 compensation for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples of awards in this range include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant and/or the landlord’s failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £275 is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance therefore this offer represents reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.
31. The landlord has also demonstrated that it is willing to learn from this complaint by committing to carrying out a case review to prevent similar errors occurring in the future, As set out below, it is recommended that this case review includes a review of procedures for managing communication between the landlord and its contractors and residents regarding repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

32. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 January 2021, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint, within the five–day timeframe specified in its complaints policy, as mentioned above.
33. The landlord responded to the complaint on 25 February 2021, which was outside the landlord’s commitment of closing a complaint within 10 working days of acknowledging receipt as specified in its complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal process on 15 March 2021. The landlord issued a stage two response to the complaint on 9 April 2021, which was within its published timescale of 20 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation request. Although there was a delay in responding to the stage one complaint, the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was reasonable as it responded to the points the resident had raised, apologised for the errors it had identified and offered appropriate redress.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

36. There were significant delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler. However, the landlord has acted reasonably in apologising for its errors, offering appropriate compensation and committing to carry out a case review to learn from this complaint. The landlord would not be obliged to offer a rent refund for the period when the resident moved out of the property temporarily. This is because it is generally possible for residents to stay in a property without heating and hot water if temporary heaters are provided, as they were in this case.
37. Although there was a delay in the landlord’s initial response to the complaint, it had acknowledged the complaint on time and its stage two response was issued in line with its published timescale. Therefore, the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £275 to the resident unless this has already been paid.
39. The landlord should review its procedures for communication with residents and contractors to ensure that repairs are progressed promptly, in line with the timescales given in the repairs policy, and residents are kept updated throughout.