Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202005143)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005143

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

19 August 2022


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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. 
  2. The resident first reported a leak into his property in 2017. On 4 September 2019, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing and had affected the electrics within the property. Following inspection, the landlord determined that scaffolding was required to access the roof and the resident was told this would take 6 – 8 weeks to arrange.
  3. On 29 January 2020 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to take action to address the leak. In response to the complaint the landlord carried out another inspection and raised an order to erect scaffolding, however, all non-emergency works were subsequently put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Scaffolding was then erected, and ivy removed from the building, on 25 August 2020. 
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint on 28 August 2020. It acknowledged the delays in arranging works to address the leak since the ongoing issues were brought to its attention in September 2019. It offered the resident £350 compensation.
  5. In September 2020 the resident reported that the recent works had not resolved the leak and the landlord escalated the complaint. In its final complaint response of 8 December 2020, the landlord stated that additional scaffolding was required to carry out further works, which would require access to neighbouring properties that did not belong to the landlord. The landlord completed some temporary works in November 2020, which the resident reported had been successful. It had also sought advice from its legal team as it had been unable to contact the owners of the neighbouring properties. The landlord warned of further delays due to the access issues and offered the resident a temporary decant, which he refused. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £600.
  6. The resident states that the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs since he first reported them in 2017 has affected his health and wellbeing. The resident wants the landlord to complete the repairs to the roof of his property to prevent further water ingress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, which will usually be within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident first reported issues with a roof leak in 2017. It is not known what action the landlord took at that time and there is no evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak prior to the complaint of 29 January 2020. As it would not now be possible to conduct a meaningful investigation into the events that took place in 2017, this investigation will focus on the action the landlord took following the resident’s report of an ongoing leak on 4 September 2019. Information about events pre-dating the formal complaint is included for context.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to address leak

  1. Under clause 2(3) of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof, outside walls and any drains, gutters, and external pipes. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that when a repair is reported, it may need to attend to inspect and it will aim to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 working days, and major routine repairs within 3 months.
  2. The landlord has provided minimal evidence to this investigation, other than extracts from its repairs log. The landlord has provided very limited correspondence with the resident or other parties about the issues raised, and few system notes evidencing the action taken and the outcome of any inspections. The only survey report provided to this investigation is dated 16 August 2021, 8 months after the final complaint response.
  3. According to the landlord’s chronology of events, it was aware of the need to remove ivy from the roof of the resident’s building in 2018. A tree surgeon had identified in August 2018 that the ivy was growing into the building’s roof tiles, and scaffolding would be required to remove it. There is no evidence that any further action was taken at that time, although the landlord did note that the resident chased progress in February 2019.
  4. The landlord’s repairs log shows that when the resident reported an ongoing leak on 4 September 2019, it attended within 24 hours to make safe the electrics. The landlord acted reasonably by raising an emergency repair and the job was completed within the landlord’s emergency repairs timeframe, however, there are no notes recording the extent of the damage and whether the leak was “live”.
  5. The parties agree that inspections took place on 16 September 2019 and 26 November 2019 to identify what works were required to address the underlying leak. There are no records of these inspection or their outcome. In the absence of survey reports or inspection notes, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the action the landlord took was reasonable and whether it acted in a timely manner. The landlord did attend to inspect the leak within 9 working days, although the resident complained that he then had to chase a follow-up appointment. Again, no records of contact between the parties have been provided to this Service.
  6. The resident stated in his formal complaint that he received a letter on 27 November 2019, informing him that scaffolding would be required to access the roof, which would take 6 – 8 weeks. A copy of this letter has not been provided to this investigation. As roof repairs would be classed as “major repairs” under the landlord’s Repairs Policy, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to advise that scaffolding could take up to 8 weeks to install. As with any major works, delays may occur and the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated, to manage its contractor appropriately and to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the works proceeded within its target timeframes.
  7. The landlord identified in its stage 1 response that no works order for scaffolding was raised following the landlord’s inspection on 26 November 2019. The resident should have been informed of this when he telephoned for an update on 22 January 2020 and received an apology. When the resident called to chase progress, a works order was raised the following day, although the landlord did not provide any subsequent updates and there is no evidence it informed the resident that the works had been postponed in March 2020 due to the pandemic. The landlord’s failure to be proactive and to keep the resident informed was inappropriate.
  8. Once non-emergency works resumed, the landlord did erect scaffolding within a reasonable time, and it carried out works to remove ivy from the building on 25 August 2020. The landlord’s final complaint response stated that when the resident reported in September 2020 that he was still experiencing water ingress, its contractor identified further works and additional scaffolding were required. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s approach to its contractor’s recommendations, as no contemporaneous records have been provided of its discussions either internally or with third parties.
  9. The landlord attended the property again in October 2020 to make safe the lighting and inspect the ceiling following what was described as “severe water damage” in the landlord’s system notes. There is no further information about the extent of the leak or damage, or records of the action taken to temporarily address the leak in November 2020, as described in the landlord’s final response.
  10. Where there has been extensive damage to a property following a leak, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to assess whether it would be appropriate to arrange a temporary decant whilst works were completed.  In its final complaint response, the landlord did offer the resident a decant, although this was only offered 15 months after the ongoing leak was reported in September 2019. Again, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether this was reasonable in the absence of records evidencing the extent of the damage and whether this worsened over time.
  11. The Ombudsman acknowledges, on the basis of the limited information available, that the landlord has had difficulty in establishing the exact source of the leak and that it has encountered access issues that have caused further delays. However, as the landlord was aware that repairs were required as early as August 2018, and there is no evidence that it carried out the recommended works until August 2020, the Ombudsman must conclude that there was a significant and unreasonable delay in addressing the leak.
  12. The landlord’s lack of contemporaneous records is very concerning, and this has limited the Ombudsman’s investigation somewhat. It has also meant that the Ombudsman has been unable to determine whether the action taken by the landlord, and the level of compensation offered in response, was reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a leak, as it has failed to evidence that it kept clear and accurate records of its interactions with the resident and third parties, and has provided no explanation for the delay. Although the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been unreasonable delays and attempted to manage the resident’s expectations about further delays, the Ombudsman considers that an additional award of compensation would be appropriate to reflect its poor record keeping.
  14. Since the date of the landlord’s final response the resident has instructed solicitors, who wrote to the landlord on 1 June 2021, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims. The resident described to his representatives that the hallway ceiling was visibly damp with cracks to the walls, the bedroom ceiling and walls were stained, and the walls were wet to touch. Given that there is no evidence that the landlord has progressed the repairs since the final complaint response, and that the resident has described internal damage not evidenced in the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman makes additional orders to ensure that the landlord establishes the extent of the works outstanding and the timeframe for completing the repairs.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it is unable to do so, it will keep the resident updated. At stage 2, the landlord will seek to provide a resolution within 20 working days and if unable to do so, will contact the customer to agree an extended response time.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided seven months after the complaint was made, and the stage 2 response more than 3 months after the complaint was escalated. These delays were unreasonable, and the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of his complaint, in accordance with the requirements of its Complaints Policy.
  3. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling. The maximum amount available under the landlord’s Compensation Policy is £150. Given the length of the delays at both stages of the complaints process, the Ombudsman considers that the maximum amount should have been awarded and so an order is made that the landlord provide an additional £50 compensation.
  4. The Ombudsman also reminds the landlord that in compliance with paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), a complaint response should be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, and not when any actions required to address the issues are completed. If possible, the landlord should have provided its complaint response within the timeframes specified in its Complaints Policy, rather than waiting until works had been completed.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following orders to:
    1. Pay the resident £250, in addition to the compensation offered in the final complaint response, in recognition of the failings identified in the landlord’s record keeping and its impact on the Ombudsman’s investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £50, in addition to the compensation offered in the final complaint response, in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaints handling.
    3. Inspect the resident’s property and write to this Service and to the resident confirming whether the leak has been resolved. The landlord should set out in its correspondence, if it is found that the issue remains, the extent of any internal damage, the condition of the roof, and the timeline for these repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping processes to ensure full and accurate notes of all customer interactions and repairs appointments are logged on its system, in a format easily accessible and available to be provided to the Ombudsman’s investigations.
  2. The landlord should also consider its complaint handling approach, in line with the comments made within this report and the Code.