Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208487

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

31 May 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 handling of:
1. The replacement of the back door.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a periodic tenancy with the landlord. The resident has given authorisation for her partner to act as her representative in this complaint. The resident’s partner lives at the property with the resident. For clarity the resident and her partner, will be referred to as ‘the residents’ in this report.
On 24 May 2021, the residents’ property was burgled. The residents reported the burglary to the police.
The residents submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2021. They said that:
1. The burglars gained entry through the backdoor. The door was mouldy and the lock on the door was an internal door lock which was weak and insecure.
2. The landlord’s out of hours repairs team attended the property to make good the door. However, the door was still not secure, and the property was at risk of being burgled again. The residents were told that it could take 6-8 weeks before the backdoor and window unit were replaced. They asked for advice on how to make the property safe and secure.
3. The residents had raised concerns that the door was unsafe and a security risk previously, in 2020.
4. There was a side passage leading to the back garden which was accessible to the public.
5. The fence in the back garden had fallen down which increased the security risk. This had been raised as a separate complaint by another resident.
6. A gate needed to be installed to ensure that only the residents could access the garden.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 7 June 2021. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. It said that:
1. A work order had been raised to renew the back door and frame. It aimed to complete the installation within 28 days.
2. Its repairs officer would inspect the back fence panels and address the fault.
The landlord’s internal records state that a works order was raised on 8 June 2021 to replace the backdoor. However, the residents said that they would prefer that the landlord carry out the work as part of its planned works programme that was due to take place later in the year. The landlord offered to secure the door, but the residents said they had secured the door temporarily until the planned works were carried out.
On or around 28 March 2022, the residents submitted a stage two complaint to the landlord. The residents said they had contacted the landlord numerous times for an update. They said that the landlord had not replaced the backdoor, nor had it installed a side gate as they had requested. Due to the security risk, the residents had installed a security gate at a cost of £700 and installed an alarm system.
The residents have informed this Service that the windows were replaced in the Summer of 2022, however, the landlord told them that the doors were not scheduled to be replaced as part of the planned works. The residents have confirmed that the landlord put the fence back up.
On 28 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused. It said that the delay had been caused by an administrative error. The landlord said it had appointed a new contractor and that works would be completed within a maximum of three months. It offered the resident £714 reimbursement for the security gate and compensation of £150 for time and trouble, £100 for service failure and £100 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord contacted this Service on 13 December 2022. It said that it had offered a further £400 in compensation and that it would install a replacement door within roughly eight weeks. The landlord said it would contact the residents to give them a specific date for the replacement of the door as soon as it had confirmation of this.
The residents complained to the Ombudsman and said that as of 27 April 2023, the back door had not been replaced. The residents said they had not heard from the landlord since receiving its stage two complaint response in August 2022 and had not been informed of the landlord’s offer of a further £400 in compensation, nor of its aim to replace the back door by mid-February 2023.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair guide states that it is responsible for repairs to external doors. It also says that it aims to carry out repairs quickly and efficiently. It includes the following service standards: “to be quick and reliable, to keep you informed, to be clear about what you can expect from us”.
The landlord’s complaints policy has two stages. At stage one, a response will be provided within 10 working days. At stage two, a response will be provided within 20 working days. If it is unable to respond within the timescales set out, the landlord will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that compensation of up to £350 can be offered where high failure has been identified.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair.

Replacement of the backdoor

The residents have provided photos of the back door which appear to show that it is in poor condition. The landlord has not disputed that the door is in poor condition and has agreed to replace it. The residents have said the condition of the door has deteriorated since they asked for it to be replaced. It is not possible to confirm this from the photographs as they capture a moment in time, so they do not in themselves show clear evidence of changes in condition over time. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the damage would get worse over the two years that the residents were waiting for the door to be replaced.
The landlord incorrectly advised the residents that they had the option to wait for the door to be replaced as part of the planned works programme.
The landlord did not address the residents’ request for a side gate to be fitted. If it was not possible for the landlord to do this, it should have explained why it was unable to do so in its complaint responses.
It was understandable that the residents decided to install an alarm system given their concerns about security. The residents asked the landlord to reimburse them for the cost of this. However, the landlord was not obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of the alarm system as its obligations were to maintain the property, not to improve it and an alarm system would be regarded as an improvement. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed to pay for the alarm system.
The landlord acted appropriately by reimbursing the residents for the cost of the security gate. Reimbursement for the gate is putting the residents back in the financial position they would have been in if the landlord had fixed the door, as it was obliged to do. However, this would not compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and additional compensation is due for this, as detailed further below.
The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging its failures in this matter. It has reimbursed the cost of the security gate and paid its initial offer of £350 compensation. However, the landlord has not contacted the residents since sending its final complaint response and has not informed the residents of its increased compensation offer of an additional £400.This was a failure in communication by the landlord as an offer of compensation is not valid if the resident is not made aware of the offer and is therefore not in a position to decide whether to accept it.
Even though the landlord has repeatedly said it will replace the back door, at the time of this report it has not yet done so. It has been over two years since the residents requested that the landlord replace the backdoor and the fact that the work remains outstanding, will have resulted in significant distress for the residents as they are understandably concerned about the security risk this may pose. The landlord has not given an adequate explanation for the continued delays. There was a short delay in June 2021, as the residents opted to have the door replaced as part of the forthcoming planned works going on in the area. However, the door was not replaced as part of the planned works, leading to further delays after 2021.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s offer of compensation is now £750. However, this offer is not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and does not fully reflect the impact that not having a secure back door for nearly two years, will have had on the residents.
The Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) states that where there is severe maladministration by a landlord, compensation of £600-£1000 should be considered. In view of the significant distress and inconvenience the residents will have suffered in this case over a prolonged period of time, in the opinion of this Service an additional £250 compensation is due. This means the total compensation would be £1000, taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £750.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint in line with the timescales listed in its complaints policy. The residents’ submitted a stage two complaint on 28 March 2022. The landlord did not respond to this until 28 August 2022. This exceeded the landlord’s timescales for issuing a stage two response, by four months. This will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience for the residents as they were waiting for longer than expected for a complaint response.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) states that landlords should respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. It also states that if landlords require more time to respond to a complaint, they should contact the resident to provide an explanation as to the reasons for this and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. The residents made multiple phone calls to the landlord to ask for an update on their complaint and their request for reimbursement. The landlord did not contact the residents until 8 July 2022, when it informed them that the delays in its response were a result of staff sickness. However, it had failed to keep the residents updated prior to that date. This would have caused further time, trouble, and inconvenience for the residents.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s errors but there may be no permanent impact from the error. In the opinion of this Service, an additional £200 compensation is due in view of the distress and inconvenience the residents experienced as a result of delays in the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the replacement of the back door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the residents for the delays in replacing the back door and delays in responding to their complaint.
2. Provide the residents with a timeframe and schedule for replacing the back door, within four weeks of the date of this report.
3. Replace the backdoor within 12 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides this Service with evidence of compliance by the same date.
4. Pay the residents an additional £250 for its failure to replace the back door within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides this Service with evidence of compliance by the same date.
5. Pay the residents £200 for its complaint handling failure within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides this Service with evidence of compliance by the same date.
6. The above sums are in addition to the £750 offered through the landlord’s complaint procedure, which should also be paid unless it has been paid already.
7. Carry out a case review setting out points of learning within 8 weeks of the date of this report and provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman and the residents by the same date.