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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202126055)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126055

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

7 March 2023


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:
    1. The resident’s report of damage, damp and mould to the internal decoration of her property from an external rain water pipe.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat situated in a building of similar properties. The building has a shared drainage system, and the rain water pipe referenced in this case is external to the resident’s bedroom wall. At the time of the complaint the resident was pregnant, which the landlord was aware of.
  2. On 15 February 2021, the resident reported blockages in the external rain water pipe which had caused mould in her property and led the walls to be damp. The resident informed the landlord that the pipes were located to the walls behind her bed. The landlord attended the estate on 16 February 2021 and flushed the piping and on 10 March 2021 attended the resident’s property and advised that the pipes had been unblocked. After a visual inspection of the internal damage to the resident’s property, an appointment for plastering was arranged and attended on 8 April 2021. The landlord also scheduled for stain blocking and painting to be completed on 28 April 2021. However, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that she had employed a private contractor to complete the stain blocking, as she had concerns about hers and her new-born child’s health.
  3. On 16 April 2021 the resident attempted to open a complaint about the blocked rain water pipes, explaining that this had led to damp and mould in her property which caused her concerns due to the imminent birth of her child, but this was not acknowledged by the landlord. On 17 June 2021, the resident submitted a further complaint about the above matters. As a resolution the resident requested for the pipes to be removed or regularly checked as the water ingress occurred quite often when it rained and to be compensated the £50 she paid for the private stain blocking, which she had contacted a private handyman about on 9 April 2021, and for her time and trouble and the inconvenience caused. The resident maintained the same position when she escalated her complaint on 22 July 2021.
  4. In its final response of 2 August 2021, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It stated that it understood how distressing the events would have been to the resident, especially during her pregnancy. However, after reviewing the repairs log it found that there had not been excessive repairs raised in regard to the blocked pipe and subsequent repairs. It also informed the resident that it was assured that the pipes had been unblocked and, as such, the repair was fully completed. It further acknowledged that it had delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint for which it apologised for. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for its complaint handling, £25 for time and trouble and £50 for the service failure. It further apologised that no remedial works were picked up after the resident had arranged for private stain blocking. The landlord stated that if the resident provided it with a copy of the costs for the private stain blocking and a receipt of the decorating supplies which the resident had purchased to decorate the wall, it would reimburse her for this.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 August 2021, to inform it that she was satisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and accepted the compensation offered. However, the resident contacted the landlord again on 18 February 2022 to inform it that mould had reappeared in her bedroom and the wall was in a “bad state”. The landlord subsequently referred the resident to this Service due to its complaint process having been exhausted for this matter.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in February 2022 as she remained unhappy with the solution provided by the landlord as she did not believe it to be sufficient. As a resolution to her complaint the resident would like to the landlord to remove or reposition the rain water pipe, repair the brickwork and increase the offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should attend routine repairs within 28 days of being reported.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that an acknowledgement of a complaint should be provided within five working days, a stage one response should be provided within ten working days and a stage two response within 20 working days

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs and remedy the mould sooner has impacted her and her child’s health and caused hospitalisations. Whilst this Service understands how distressing a leak in the property can be, and the resident’s concern for her child, it is beyond the remit of this service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is because assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the Ombudsman is unable to provide. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports as well as its response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her and her child. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or that of her child has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. It is acknowledged that in her complaint the resident referenced there having been historical issues surrounding the rain water pipe in 2018, where stain blocking, painting and plastering work had to be completed owing to mould growing as a result of the pipes being blocked. However, this Service may not consider complaints which were not bought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, whilst this provides historical context to the issues raised, we will not be considering this in our investigation.
  3. The resident has also requested that the landlord repair brickwork in her property and re-raised the blockage and mould in February 2022. However, there is no evidence that these aspects of the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and as such are not matters that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond.

The resident’s report of damage, damp and mould to the internal decoration of her property from an external rain water pipe.

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. The resident reported the blockages on 15 February 2021, and the landlord promptly attended the property on 16 February 2021 to flush the pipe. However, the landlord did not attend the property within a reasonable period of time to carry out an internal inspection, not doing so until the 10 March 2021. It did then did not arrange for the plastering to be carried out until 8 April 2021, at which point 52 calendar days had passed. The landlord also did not then arranged for stain blocking to be completed until 28 April 2021, a further 21 calendar days later, by which time the repair would have taken 73 calendar days, approximately 2.5 months to complete.
  2. This was an unreasonably long time for the resident to have to wait for the repairs to be carried out, most especially as the resident was pregnant and was concerned about having the works completed before her baby was born. Whilst some delays would be expected to allow for plaster to dry before any stain blocking or painting work could take place, three weeks does seem an excessively long time to allow the plaster to dry and the landlord has not provided any explanation as to why, overall, it took so long to address the repairs.
  3. Given the length of time the resident knew she would have to wait for the works to be completed by the landlord and given her concerns about the imminent birth of her child, whilst she was not obliged to do so, it was understandable that she might seek to complete the repairs privately, which did on 9 April 2021.
  4. The reasons for the resident choosing to do so, and the costs she incurred were acknowledged by the landlord in its response to the complaint, as was the fact that no remedial works were picked up following the completion of the stain blocking, for which it apologised. To redress this the landlord offered to reimburse the £50 the resident said she had incurred arranging for the private stain blocking and that if she could provide a receipt it would also look into reimbursing her the cost of the decorating supplies she purchased. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and appropriately compensated her for the costs she incurred.
  5. However, the additional £75 compensation offered by the landlord, made up of £25 for the resident’s time and trouble and £50 for its service failure was not proportionate its overall failures in this case. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident a further £200 for its maladministration with regards to the unreasonable delay in arranging for the necessary internal works to be carried out plus a further £175 for the resident’s time and trouble. This brings the total compensation payable to the resident to £450, made up of £250 for service failures and £200 for time and trouble. This compensation is in-line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
  6. The landlord is also ordered to reimburse the £50 the resident said she had incurred arranging for the private stain blocking and on production of  relevant receipts the cost of the decorating supplies she purchased, if this has not already been done.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident attempted to raise a complaint on 16 April 2021, in accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint by 23 April 2021 and responded by 30 April 2021. However, this did not occur and no response was provided until 17 June 2021. This was 39 working days outside of its policy timeframes and as such, was a failure in its service.
  2. Furthermore, it also inconvenienced the resident as she had to raise a further complaint on 17 June 2021, due to the lack of acknowledgement of her first complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed the resident complaint response; however, it stated that the first complaint was raised on 12 May 2021 which was not consistent with the evidence seen by this service. The landlord’s failure to appropriately handle the initial complaint in April 2021 and its failure to record that complaint led to incorrect information being included in its stage one response.
  3. Moreover, the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not address some of the outcomes being sought by the resident such as the removal, relocation or frequent checks of the waste pipe causing understandable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s responses were also not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) which sets out guidance for landlords on how to address complaints. The Code states that each response must confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions it made, the landlord did not complete this at any stage and the landlord’s position remained unclear throughout the complaints process, in regard to if the repositioning or frequent checks of the waste pipe could be completed.
  5. In light of its complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation, inclusive of the £25 offered if this has not already been paid. This compensation is in-line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
  6. Whilst not considered as part of this investigation, it has also been noted that when the resident contacted the landlord again in February 2022 informing it that the mould had reappeared in her property and required remedying, the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that the issue raised had previously exhausted its internal complaint procedure and would need to be referred to this Service. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s contact as a new service request, and taken action to address the reports she made at that time. Its failure to do so not only lead to an unnecessary delay in it actioning her report but also caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident in having to contact this service for something that the landlord should have been actioning.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of damage, damp and mould to the internal decoration of her property from an external rain water pipe.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation for its failures with regards to  the external rain water pipe and damage to the resident’s property. This is made up of £200 for the unreasonable delay in arranging for the necessary internal works to be carried out plus a further £175 for the resident’s time and trouble. This figure also includes the £75 compensation previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
    2. Reimburse the £50 the resident said she had incurred arranging for the private stain blocking and on production of  relevant receipts the cost of the decorating supplies she purchased, if this has not already been done.
    3. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £25 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
    4. Contact the resident and explain if the external rain water pipe can be relocated or frequently checked. The landlord should provide the resident with a written explanation for its decision and evidence that it has sought to achieve a permanent solution to the concerns raised by the resident.
    5. Confirm compliance with the above orders.