Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202120675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120675

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. A fly infestation and its handling of associated repairs.
2. Communal door repairs.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord who is a Housing Association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor.
The property is serviced by an underground car park which has an adjoining bicycle store.
The block of flats has a main security door which allows access from outside. There is a further inner security door which allow access into the block from the ‘lobby’.
The property is a relatively new construction which was approximately one month out of the defect period at the time of the complaint.
A managing agent has been appointed for the block of flats.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord has been unable to provide this Service with a copy of the resident’s leasehold agreement. However, it has provided a copy of its leasehold template which sets out its obligations to maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and improve the following:
1. At 5.2.2, the service media cisterns and tanks and other gas electrical drainage ventilation and water apparatus and machinery under and upon the building and;
2. At 5.2.3, the common parts so far as they are the responsibility of the head landlord and/or management company under the head lease.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and a full response provided within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged and a response provided within 20 working days. At both stages, the acknowledgement should provide details of the complaint handler’s name, their contact details and a reference number. Residents should be kept informed if there is likely to be a delay in issuing a complaint response.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following repairs response times:
1. Emergency repair within 24 hours.
2. Routine repair within 28 calendar days.
3. Major routine works within 3 months or as part of planned programme of works.
The landlord’s approach to awarding compensation is set out across 3 different documents. Its guidance on awarding compensation sets out the following banding:
1. Low failure apology – £50.
2. Medium failure £51-£160.
3. High failure £161-£350.
Its ‘tariff of discretionary compensation payments’ document refers to compensation payments being as high as £5000. Its compensation policy provides further guidance on compensation payments, including a table detailing what amounts can be paid and in what circumstances.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says:
1. Section 5.6 “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
2. Section 5.7 “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.”
3. Section 6.1 “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right”. This can include acknowledging and providing an explanation where things have gone wrong, and/or taking action if there has been a delay.

Summary of events

Fly infestation and complaint handling

The resident, along with others in her block, experienced a fly infestation in the communal areas serving their properties. The main areas affected were the underground car park and inside the building itself. The first mention of the infestation in the landlord’s records is 28 June 2021 and the first recorded date of the resident’s report is May 2021.
Internal emails sent by the landlord show that a 2 part fly treatment was carried out on 5 and 16 August 2021. The treatments were planned to coincide with repairs to drainage pumps which were believed to be causing the issue. The landlord confirmed that as of 13 August 2021 the pumps were working but flies were still present. It decided that a further 2 part treatment would be necessary.
On 17 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that there were “hundreds of flies” in the underground car park and in the building itself. She said “this would have been less likely if the infestation had been addressed when it was first reported back at the end of May.” She asked when the next treatment was due to take place and whether the inside of the building would be included. The resident added that she had asked this question previously but had not received a response. She said residents had been reporting flies coming up via the lift and staircase for 12 weeks.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 August 2021 to confirm receipt of her correspondence and confirmed that it had opened a stage 1 complaint. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days. It advised the resident that she would have the option to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2021, as follows:
1. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the service the resident had received.
2. The landlord had carried out a 2 part fly treatment on 5 and 16 August 2021.
3. The fly treatment had coincided with repair to the drainage pumps which was causing the issue.
4. On 13 August the drainage pumps were in working order however flies were still present.
5. The landlord confirmed it would raise another 2 part treatment to go ahead that week.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day. She said that the issue of the flies was first raised in May 2021 and she wished to know why it had taken until August for the landlord to address it. She asked what the next steps were given that her complaint had been upheld. She also queried whether it was possible to escalate her complaint. She said the flies might not have spread to inside the building had the landlord responded sooner. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused to confirm if treatment would take place in the block as well as the underground car park. She asked if this could be included in her complaint.
The landlord’s internal emails show that on 25 August 2021 it believed that the cause of the fly infestation was a broken pump which resulted in a leak and a build-up of stagnant water. It was aware that the water provided a breeding ground for the flies and that the pump would need to be repaired to stop the breeding cycle. It stated that the repeated malfunction on the pump was reported to its repairs team on 28 June 2021 and it had taken over a month to carry out the remedial works. It confirmed that the building would be sprayed the following day and the second part of the treatment would include fogging of the car park.
The landlord relayed this information to the resident by email on 25 August 2021. It said that although it was not included in the original complaint, but as the resident had mentioned it, it could confirm that the building was included in the next course of treatment. It explained that the resident’s stage 1 complaint had been upheld, it had put further measures in place and the complaint had been closed. The landlord encouraged the resident to wait and see if the next course of treatment was effective before escalating her complaint to the next stage. It said that if she still remained dissatisfied she could provide it with her reasons for her escalation request to be reviewed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2021 to make a stage 2 complaint. She said that:
1. The landlord had failed to acknowledge that the issue was first reported on 11 June 2021 and that its response was delayed.
2. Her email was ignored for 17 days until the estate manager reported it themselves. She queried this response, particularly in the light of what she deemed to be potential health and safety concerns.
3. The landlord repeatedly ignored emails from residents and therefore, the act of upholding the complaint had not done anything for the resident.
4. Her complaint was not about the fact that further treatment was needed but that the landlord’s general response was poor.
5. She acknowledged that she had received the update about treatment. She queried why the housing officer had not told her this when she asked previously.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 September 2021 to confirm receipt of her stage 2 complaint. It said an initial response would be issued by 7 October 2021. It explained that if it could not provide a response within that time, it would contact the resident to discuss a new response time.
The landlord and managing agent exchanged emails on 20 September 2021. They noted that there had been 7 complaints about the ongoing treatment being ineffective, that flies were getting into resident’s flats and that the car park was “full of flies.” The landlord asked its pest control contractor to inspect and report back with its findings. The contractor sought confirmation that the outstanding drain works and cleaning had been carried out, saying this was necessary to resolve the infestation. If not, the numbers could only be reduced as cleaning was essential in order to fully break down the breeding cycle. The landlord confirmed there were still various small leaks in the car park area.
The pest control operative inspected the site on 21 September 2021. Its survey identified the pests as filter flies. It once again sought confirmation that works to repair and clean the drains had been completed as without this, the flies would continue to “develop and thrive” on site.
Emails sent on 22 September 2021 show that the pest control operative confirmed that due to the large number of leaks, conditions were good for continuous breeding. The landlord acknowledged the advice received that the issue would not go away unless the leaks were resolved. Photographs were shared showing evidence of flies in the underground car park. A video was also distributed showing evidence of a leak in the bike storage area.
An internal email, dated 24 September 2021, shows the landlord was investigating the leaks as a potential latent defect with the developer.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 October 2021, to say that it needed additional time to “collate all the necessary information.” It confirmed a response would be provided by 20 October.
The landlord carried out a site visit on 13 October 2021. The purpose of the visit was to investigate the fly infestation, drainage problems, and leaks in the bike storage area. The reported noted the following:
1. A single live fly and a large amount of dead flies were found in the basement car park. The dead flies were located in a place where an open pipe was discharging water directly onto the concrete floor.
2. Pipes and sump pumps had recently been repaired. No other leaks were visible. A revisit after rain would be needed to ensure rain water pipes were not leaking.
3. Pipes that came from the water tank before going through the wall were discharging onto the floor in a corner. This was the same location where a significant amount of dead flies lay on the ground.
4. No leaks were identified in the bike storage area but water was present in other areas of basement in addition to the area described above.
5. The tank room was flooded and the soffit was sweating. It said there was evidence of works having taken place as lagging had been removed from 2 pipes and had yet to be replaced.
6. There was a leak from a suspended pipe in the car park.
The landlord developed an action plan which was attached to the report. This detailed that:
1. The leak from the suspended pipe needed to be cleaned and the joint remade and tested.
2. The property was out of defects and the item could not be considered a latent defect. The work would need to be carried out by the repairs team.
3. The pipe into the tank room would need to be cut back and adapted so it discharged above the floor gully. This was to be discussed with the developer.
4. The water tank appeared to be leaking and it was important to investigate what works had been carried out and by whom in the tank room.
5. The tank room floor was not laid to fall to the gully. This needed to be discussed with the developer.
6. It would be necessary to carry out additional checks on the rainwater pipe system for leaks after a period of rain.
On 11 October 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. A copy of the correspondence has not been shared with this Service, however, it is noted that the resident had contacted her MP as she was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the MP on 18 October 2021. It confirmed that the fly infestation was due to standing water. It said multiple visits had taken place over the last 10 months to address the problem. It advised that it was now working with the development team to ensure this was resolved permanently. It said the last visit took place on 30 September 2021 with a further visit due that week. It said that following a site inspection on 14 October 2021 an action plan was put in place. It planned to address all identified leaks as well as returning periodically to inspect the area. It confirmed that the development team were aware of the leaks and were monitoring the situation.
It confirmed that the resident had received a stage 1 response and had asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It advised that the resident would have the right to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service should she remain dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint response. It said it could not see that it had failed to escalate the complaint appropriately on each occasion.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 October 2021 to advise that the stage 2 complaint response would be delayed by a further 10 days.
The landlord’s internal records show that in the meantime the leaks were persisting and getting worse.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2021. It said:
1. The development team had carried out an inspection of the car park to establish the source of flies. It had subsequently outlined an action plan to rectify issues with leaking pipes and the fly infestation.
2. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress the matter had caused. It offered compensation of £100 for ‘time and trouble’ and £75 for poor complaints handling. It confirmed that the compensation offered was in line with its compensation tariff.
3. The stage 1 complaint responder had followed the correct procedure and had done what she could to provide the resident with an appropriate outcome at the time.
4. It upheld the complaint because it had established there were several issues with the car park. Feedback had been given to relevant teams to ensure that service would be improved going forwards.
5. The resident could contact the Housing Ombudsman Service should she remain dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this Service, via her MP, to escalate her complaint on 7 December 2021. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints about the fly infestation because she:
1. Did not feel that the landlord had made any progress in resolving the complaint.
2. Had been “chasing nearly daily” but had not received any updates.
3. Said there was no no end date as to when a contractor would come and fix the faulty pump.
4. Was concerned the issue was a health and safety hazard.

Communal door repairs

The landlord’s records show that a number of residents reported faults with the communal doors from October 2021, and this included a report from the resident. The majority of the entries on the repairs log relate to issues with the door entry system malfunctioning.
In its email to the MP on 18 October 2021 the landlord said it was aware of 2 current repairs to a communal door which were with the contractor and flagged as a priority. It said it was not aware of any outstanding security issues but the resident could report any concerns.
In its Stage 2 complaint response, dated 22 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that concerns about the communal doors had been flagged with the repairs team. It said it was aware of a repair to a communal door which was with its contractor. It had been flagged as a priority and the team were working with the contractor to resolve the issues.
The resident reported that the communal door system was faulty on 26 November 2021. An appointment was logged with a target date of 10 January 2022. The report was then closed as the repair was already in hand under another job number and a quote had been requested.
On 7 December 2021 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident to query why neither of the doors had been repaired since issues were first reported on 2 November. The MP understood that a new target date of 2 December 2021 had been given to the resident. The MP said it had been 8 weeks since the problems were reported, and residents were experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block and felt vulnerable because the security doors were not working.
The resident contacted this Service, via her MP, to escalate her complaint on 7 December 2021. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints about the communal door repairs because:
1. Both front doors were wide open meaning there was no security from the general public and anybody could access the building.
2. Despite the landlord giving multiple dates when a contractor would attend, “no contractor has ever turned up and the doors remain broken.”
3. The landlord had not given an indication of when the doors would be fixed which was “unacceptable.”
4. There were single females living in the building that relied on the set of doors for safety and the landlord’s “apathy to their safety was alarming.”
The landlord replied to the email on 9 December 2021 to say that its contractor attended the site week commencing 29 November and that all jobs were showing as complete. It said it would arrange a post inspection and if the jobs were found to be outstanding, it would raise the relevant orders to be carried out as soon as possible. The repairs log shows that the landlord raised a repairs order on 10 December 2021 for a post inspection to take place by 24 December.
On 15 December 2021 the MP emailed the landlord again to say that the resident had informed him that the first door on street level remained unfixed and the door had been broken for 10 weeks, despite what the landlord’s records showed. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the email and said it would reply by 11 January 2022.
The MP sent the landlord a further email on behalf of the resident on 7 January 2022, raising the following issues:
1. Both the front doors remained broken.
2. Residents had reported theft of their post including sensitive documents and parcels.
3. People were accessing the block and using drugs.
4. The doors had been broken for 12 weeks.
The landlord emailed the MP on 11 January 2022 to confirm that it had previously given incorrect information, for which it apologised. Having post inspected it was able to confirm that the door had in fact not been repaired. It said the supplier had to order a part which was further delayed due to the Christmas break. The landlord acknowledged this was “not ideal”, particularly in light of the incidents of ASB. However, it said it had received confirmation from its contractor that all repairs were completed as of 7 January 2022. It said it would speak to the resident to confirm that this was the case and it would use this as an opportunity to discuss the ASB and offer any support if needed.
The MP emailed the landlord on 17 January 2022 to pass on information from the resident that the doors were still faulty and were not locking. She said that no one attended on 7 January and the landlord had not contacted her as it said it would.
There is an entry on the landlord’s repairs log dated 20 January 2022 in relation to quoted works for the doors. This stated that the inner door had not been fixed as the door could be opened as normal, but a faulty multi point lock needed to be replaced. The log confirmed that the lock had been replaced, had been tested and was working. It also noted that a cracked screen on the door entry panel for the outer door had been replaced.
The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 24 January 2022 to confirm that the communal front door and lobby door remained out of service. It apologised again, noting the detriment to residents given ASB exhibited by trespassers and youths accessing the block.
It said that on a previous visit the contractor left the door in working order but having attended recently there appeared to be new damage to the entrance control panel, perhaps by vandalism, which needed replacing. It said the multipoint locking mechanism of the inner lobby door was not working as expected following a previous attendance. It confirmed it had ordered parts for both doors which should arrive by 27 January 2022. It said it had already scheduled provisional appointments for both parts to be installed so the jobs should be completed at the same time and the block left secure. It said it was aware of the ASB issues and was supporting residents as best as possible until the doors were fixed.
The landlord sent an email to update the MP on 27 January 2022 to say it had received confirmation that both the communal front door and lobby door were working satisfactorily. It said it would contact the resident to ensure she was satisfied.

Events after Internal Complaints Process

The pest control contractor attended the site on 26 January 2022. It noted there were no leaks and no evidence of live or dead flies. The landlord requested that it stop treatment for now and monitor the situation.
The resident emailed this Service on 12 May 2023 to express concerns that the issues relating to the fly infestation remained unresolved 2 years on. She attached photographs, which she said had been taken that day, showing flies in the underground car park.
In an email to this Service on 15 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that it completed fly treatments on 15 December 2022. It said it had not received any further reports.
On 17 May 2022 the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to attend the site to investigate a leak in the car park which the repairs log said was “still ongoing.”
In its submission to this Service on 25 May 2022, the landlord said that it had reviewed the case and had concluded that further compensation of £200 would be appropriate. This was to be paid in addition to the £175 already offered in the stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Fly infestation and handling of associated repairs

When the resident raised her complaint in August 2021, she said that the fly infestation had been ongoing since May. When she escalated her complaint to stage 2 she said that the landlord had failed to acknowledge the issue was first reported on 11 June 2021. The landlord’s internal email of 25 August shows that it was aware of the problem by 28 June 2021 at the latest. This is because it stated that the repeated malfunction of the pump was reported to repairs on that date. However, in an email to the resident’s MP of 18 October 2021, the landlord confirmed it had carried out “multiple visits over the past 10 months.” This suggests it knew about the problem at the beginning of the year, so well before June 2021.
In its internal email of 25 August 2021, the landlord said that the malfunction on the pump was reported on 28 June 2021. It acknowledged that it had taken over a month to carry out the necessary works to resolve the issue. Records do not confirm why the repair could not be completed sooner.
The landlord’s handling of the water pump repair was delayed without good reason. Not only was this inappropriate because it exceeded the policy timescale, but it was unreasonable because the landlord suspected that the standing water was the cause of the fly infestation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed the repair without delay. There is no evidence that the landlord did so and this was inappropriate. The resolution was protracted, causing ongoing distress and frustration to the resident.
The landlord’s internal email dated 23 August 2021 shows that although the pump was fixed on 13 August, the flies were still present. Having carried out treatments on 5 and 16 August 2021 it decided to carry out 2 further treatments to include spraying of the building and fogging treatment in the car park. It was appropriate for the landlord to take this course of action at the time.
The landlord and the managing agent exchanged emails on 20 September 2021. The exchange noted that there were various small leaks in the car park area, there had been 7 complaints about the ongoing treatment being ineffective, flies were getting into residents’ flats and the car park was full of flies. During further internal email correspondence that same day, the pest control contractor was asked to inspect and report back with its findings. This was an appropriate to step to take as part of the ongoing investigation. The contractor sought confirmation that the outstanding drain works and cleaning had been carried out, as this was necessary to resolve the infestation. It said that, if not, the numbers of flies could only be reduced as cleaning was essential in order to fully break down the breeding cycle. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered undertaking a cleaning process in line with the recommendation that was made, and it is unclear why.
The landlord’s emails on 22 September 2021 show that it took part of the pest control operative’s advice into account and acknowledged that all leaks must be repaired in order to resolve the infestation. In an internal email sent 2 days later, the landlord said it would pursue the problems as a latent defect with the developer and an internal email, dated 24 September 2021, shows the landlord was investigating the leaks as a potential latent defect with the developer. Given its decision about the defect it was appropriate for the landlord to make this enquiry.
However, the evidence does not show that the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the matter. The landlord carried out a further site inspection 3 weeks later, on 13 October 2021, and noted a number of leaks in areas of the basement. While it said only one live fly was visible, it noted that an open pipe from the water tank was discharging water directly onto the concrete floor where there was a pile of dead flies.
The action plan set out a number of repairs to be carried out to remedy various leaks. Internal emails of 18 October 2021 show the landlord remained concerned whether the developer was responsible for the issue as a latent defect. The landlord was seeking further information from internal colleagues to resolve this outstanding issue.
In an email to the landlord on 13 November 2021, the pest control operative commented that the leaks appeared to be getting worse and sought an update on the repair. On 15 November the landlord’s contractor said it could not quote for repair as these were “fundamental faults within the design of the build of the tank & plant room and to rectify major works are required.” Once again the question of whether the developer should be involved was raised.
The landlord’s repair log shows that on 18 November 2021 it raised an order for an appointment regarding the foul water pipe and leak in the bike store room which were both leaking into the basement. Internal emails the following day raised concerns that the landlord did not appear to be any further forward with resolving the water ingress issues. It showed that it intended to meet the developer on site the following week.
A further internal email chain dated 30 November 2021 concerns a works order for the underground car park drains. The landlord said it was happy to authorise the works, but once again wanted to query with the developer who was responsible.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was aware of the ongoing issues with leaks and that they were the cause of the fly infestation. It has evidenced that it took appropriate steps to seek advice from its pest contractor, carry out treatments and site inspections. However, evidence does not show that the landlord considered the pest contractor’s recommendation to remedy the issues with the drains and/or carry out a clean. This was inappropriate as the landlord disregarded the opinion of the appointed qualified professional without good reason.
It is understandable that the landlord wanted to liaise with the developer on these issues given the concerns about them being a potential latent defect. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took control of the situation with a clear plan on how it would resolve the issues. There are multiple internal communications about whether the developer could be engaged. However, there is no evidence that this moved in a positive direction to provide a resolution for the resident. In the meantime, the problem persisted and affected the resident due to inaction by the landlord. This was inappropriate because the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the leaks were fixed and flies eradicated in a timely manner. The landlord was aware that the resident had complained about flies entering the building. This would have been unpleasant for the resident and the lack of action would have compounded the detriment caused to her.
The landlord’s pest control contractor emailed on 26 January 2022 to say that during its site visit there was no evidence of any leaks or live or dead flies. The landlord replied to say it would stop treatment and monitor the situation. However, there is no evidence of how the landlord planned to monitor the situation. Given the extent of the fly infestation this was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have drawn up a plan, and for this to be communicated to residents. This would have demonstrated the landlord’s ongoing commitment to supporting residents with the issue and appropriately managed their expectations going forward.
The landlord’s repairs log shows there was an ongoing leak in the car park on 17 May 2022. The resident emailed this Service on 12 May 2023 to say that the underground car park was still infested with flies. She submitted photographs of flies which she said were taken that same day. This suggests that the flies returned after the pest control operatives site visit on 26 January 2022. However, the landlord emailed this Service on 15 May 2023 and confirmed that it completed fly treatments on 15 December 2022. It also said it had not received any reports since. The evidence indicates that the fly infestation has not been continuous. However, it appears that the issue was unresolved 18 months later.
The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days and major routine works within 3 months or as part of planned program of works. This investigation acknowledges that the landlord considers significant faults with the design of the building to be the reason for the leaks. As a consequence, it is acknowledged the works are likely to sit outside of the standard repair response times. However, the landlord was responsible for fulfilling its repair obligations under the terms of the leasehold agreement. The landlord has not evidenced that it attributed sufficient priority to resolving the ongoing issues in a timely manner, be it through liaison with the developer or otherwise.
The landlord’s failures in resolving the fly infestation and associated repairs amount to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a site inspection within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord has offered the resident £200 in compensation in recognition of the delay in resolving the fly infestation. This does not reflect the significant detrimental impact on the resident taking into account inconvenience, distress, time and trouble. The landlord’s ‘tariff of discretionary compensation payments’ document refers to compensation payments being as high as £5000. An order has been made for the landlord to pay a further £300 compensation which is in line with both the landlord’s guidance and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Communal door repairs

The resident did not raise issues with the repair of the communal doors in her stage 1 complaint. The resident’s MP made the complaint on her behalf after the stage 1 complaint response was issued. Having engaged in communication on the matter, the landlord used its discretion to consider the complaint as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
The repair records do not provide conclusive evidence of what repairs led to what outcomes and when, making it challenging to put together a clear timeline of events. Furthermore, the repair logs detail a number of reports made to the landlord by other residents about the same communal doors, and a small number of entries do not say which resident reported the fault. These are examples of poor record keeping. Faults were reported by a number of residents from 5 October 2021 onwards with one noted as being logged by the resident, on 26 November 2021. The majority of the entries on the repairs log relate to issues with the door entry system malfunctioning.
The landlord was put on notice regarding the communal door repairs in early October 2021. In its email to the resident’s MP on 18 October it said that the repairs had been allocated to a contractor and had been flagged as a priority. The repair logs shows that on 15 November the landlord’s contractor attended site and confirmed the inner door was working “ok”. It noted that the main front door was on “free access due to a separate issue.” The records show that on 17 November 2021 a contractor attended the block to test the door entry system which it said “was working correctly.” Taking 18 October as the repair notification date, the landlord appears to have acted appropriately by ensuring both doors were operating correctly within its 28 days response time.
However, in its stage 2 complaint response (issued 5 days later) the landlord said again that the door repairs had been flagged as a priority and had been allocated to its contractor. An appointment was logged with a target date of 10 January 2022 in response to the resident’s report on 26 November. However, the landlord’s repairs log states that the job was closed because works were being carried out under a different job number with no further explanation provided. This is a failing because the landlord is not able to fully demonstrate its response to the repair.
The MP’s email, sent on behalf of the resident and dated 7 December 2021, said the doors were still faulty on 2 November 2021. The repairs were reported as outstanding at the time of the email. The landlord replied to say that its records showed that all jobs were complete. However, it said it would carry out a post inspection to be sure which was an appropriate response. Despite this email the resident reported that the works remained outstanding. This caused her to go to the time and trouble of asking her MP to email the landlord again on 7 January 2022 in order to chase the repairs.
The landlord emailed the MP on 11 January 2022 to confirm that it had previously given incorrect information, for which it apologised. This error is a further example of poor record keeping. It said that having post inspected works, it was able to confirm that the door had in fact not been repaired. It said it would speak to the resident to confirm that this was the case, and would use this as an opportunity to discuss the ASB and offer any support if needed. The landlord sent an email to update the MP on 27 January 2022 to say it had received confirmation that both the communal front door and lobby door were working satisfactorily. It said it would contact the resident to ensure she was satisfied.
There are no entries on the repair log for the months of December 2021 and January 2022 in relation to the two communal doors for the block. It is therefore understandable that the landlord experienced trouble in tracking the relevant repairs. Poor record keeping meant the landlord was unable to manage the repair issue effectively. This affected the resident because:
1. It failed to resolve the issue within the time frames set out in its repairs policy.
2. The communication it sent to the resident’s MP was inaccurate.
3. It caused further distress owing to a delay in the block being made secure.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident, having undertaken to do so on 11 and 27 January, which was inappropriate. This would have caused further distress to the resident and would have led to a further erosion of trust between the resident and landlord.
The failures identified in this report in relation to repairs amount to maladministration. An order for compensation has been made accordingly.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide details of the complaint handler’s name and contact details in its complaint acknowledgements. It did not do so in either the acknowledgement at stage 1 or at stage 2 of the complaints process. While this did not cause any detriment to the resident in this case, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to remind complaint handling staff of the requirements of its policy.
The stage 1 complaint response did not fully address the resident’s complaint because it did not provide the resident with a response to her question about whether the building would be included in the next course of fly treatment. The response was not compliant with the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Furthermore, in a later email discussion of 25 August 2021 on the same issue, the landlord incorrectly told the resident she had not included this in her original complaint, when she had. This caused further frustration to the resident, delaying the time taken to respond to her query.
The stage 1 complaint response did not provide the resident with details of how she could escalate her complaint should she remain dissatisfied. It did not fully address the delays in taking meaningful action to resolve the issue. It did not consider lessons learnt and how it would do better. It also failed to provide details of what monitoring would take place beyond next 2 treatments. By not doing so it missed an opportunity to provide reassurance to the resident and demonstrate the landlord’s commitment to fully resolving the issues. This would have gone some way to improving the resident/landlord relationship and would have helped to reduce distress caused to the resident.
The landlord extended the deadline for the stage 2 response by 10 days on 2 occasions in October 2021. It complied with its complaints policy which says it will notify residents if the deadline is to be extended. However, the first email notification was sent the day before the response was due and the second email notification on the day itself. This was not an appropriate way to keep the resident updated, becoming an apology for not having done something rather than a proactive notification of upcoming delay. Furthermore, despite the 2 extensions the landlord still failed to meet its deadline. It took 58 days to provide a stage 2 complaint response and therefore failed to comply with its complaints policy and address the complaint within a reasonable time. This investigation has been unable to establish any reason for this lengthy delay in issuing the complaint response. The delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response was therefore, unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not go far enough to identify what had gone wrong and what lessons it had learnt. It would have been appropriate to do so, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code). The stage 2 complaint response confirmed the landlord was satisfied that its stage 1 complaint response had followed the correct procedure. This demonstrated that it failed to reflect and recognise its own failures during the complaints handling process. Furthermore, the landlord failed to set out what steps it would take to ‘put things right’. As per the Code, the complaints process should provide landlords with an opportunity to remedy any delays in resolving issues. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 22 November 2021. In its recent contact with this Service the landlord advised that it finished treatments in December 2022, 11 months after the stage 2 complaint response was issued. There is no evidence that the complaints process expedited a resolution in this case.
The complaint relating to the communal doors was not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord used its discretion to address the issue in its Stage 2 response. Given the guidance in the Code, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to log a new complaint. The landlord could have considered asking the resident if she wished to make a fresh complaint on this issue, giving the resident the opportunity to access the full procedure, and the landlord the opportunity to utilise all stages for resolution.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for time and trouble and £75 for poor complaints handling. The offer of compensation was appropriate however, it did not break down how it had arrived at this amount and what failures, specifically, this related to. It is unclear whether the compensation for poor complaints handling related solely to the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response and/or in recognition of other complaint handling failures. Had it provided further detail, the award of compensation would have been a more meaningful offer of redress.
In accordance with its ‘guidance on awarding compensation’ a total award of £175 put the failures into the ’high failure’ bracket. Despite the financial redress tallying with a ‘high failure’ banding, the landlord failed to adequately identify what had gone wrong. Specifically, it failed to identify what would be put right to resolve and ensure mistakes were not repeated.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that “all formal complaints are recorded to enable it to analyse the data, recognise reoccurring issues and themes, make sure that learning is applied, and look to improve procedures and policies where necessary.” This investigation notes that the stage 2 complaint response said feedback had been given to relevant teams to improve service going forwards. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of what feedback it gave and what improvements it was hoping to make, which would have been appropriate.

Record Keeping

Given that the fly infestation was considered by the landlord to be linked to the faulty pumps, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recorded, retained and provided evidence of what action was taken and when. This did not happen. For example, it is not clear when the landlord first became aware of the fly infestation. The resident says it knew as early as May 2021. The landlord’s own records show it knew by 28 June 2021 at the latest but its email to the MP in October 2021 says it had known for 10 months.
If the date of 28 June 2021 is accepted as the date the landlord was put on notice about the situation, there is no evidence to show why the landlord waited until 5 August 2021 to carry out the first pest control treatment. Given the apparent scale of the infestation, and the impact it was having, it would have been appropriate to have carried this out sooner. Evidence of the decision making process relating to, and the progress of, pest control treatments and associated repairs is lacking.
There is further evidence of poor record keeping for repairs:
1. A small number of entries on the repair log do not say which resident reported issues.
2. The entries on the log do not fully evidence the landlord’s response to repairs.
3. The landlord emailed the MP on 11 January 2022 to confirm that it had previously given incorrect information, and that a communal door had in fact not been repaired.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The failures identified in this report for record keeping amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the fly infestation and handling of associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the communal door repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in taking steps to remedy fly infestation and associated repairs in a timely manner.
The landlord failed to complete the communal door repairs within the timescale set out in its repairs policy. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident which was inappropriate.
The landlord failed to comply with the requirements of its complaint policy in terms of deadlines and learning outcomes. It failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity to ‘put things right’.
The landlord failed to document the steps it took, at what time, and why in relation to the fly infestation and associated repairs. There was also evidence of poor record keeping in relation to repairs to the communal doors which impacted on the landlord’s ability to manage them effectively.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £875, comprising:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to the fly infestation identified in this report. This is to be paid in addition to the £200 the landlord has already offered.
  2. £250 for the adverse effect caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to the communal door repairs.
  3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This is to be paid in addition to the £75 the landlord has already offered.
  4. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s record keeping failures which had an adverse effect on the level of service received by the resident.
2. Contact the resident to seek an update from her in relation to the fly issue. The landlord should confirm the date and outcome of this contact within 4 weeks.
3. Carry out a site inspection to establish whether there is currently any evidence of leaks and/or flies in the underground car park. If the issue is unresolved the landlord should create an action plan which should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord should also confirm the date and outcome of the inspection to the Ombudsman and the resident, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Share details of the feedback given to the relevant teams to make service improvements, as referred to in the stage 2 complaint response. This information should be shared with both this Service and the resident. If this action was not taken, the landlord should do this within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.
2. Review the failings identified in this report which relate to complaint handling and carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and sections 5.6, 5.7 and 6.1 of the Code.
3. Review the failings identified in this complaint in relation to record keeping and consider how these failings might be avoided in future. This may include a review of current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately, or staff training. The outcome of this consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.