Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202111044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111044

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

09 December 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak affecting the communal car park.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in an apartment building comprised of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder.
3. On 19 October 2020, the resident reported that the roof of the property’s communal basement carpark was leaking. She explained that the water was coming through the ceiling and passing through a light fixture, which was leaking fluid onto her car. The landlord has stated that it raised a repair on 27 October 2020 to make safe the light and to find and repair the source of the leak. Repairs relating to this issue were raised again on 17 February 2021 and on 22 February 2021. The landlord located the source of the leak on 18 March 2021.
4. The resident has stated that she made a complaint on 15 March 2021. However, the landlord made no record of this complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2021, reiterating that her complaint concerned the continuing leak above her car parking space (as well as other issues not included in this investigation).
5. The landlord responded on 16 April 2021. It agreed that the repairs had not been addressed within a reasonable time, and apologised for the inconvenience. It re-raised the repairs to rectify the carpark’s ceiling and offered the resident £50 for service failure, £50 time and trouble and £100 reimbursement for a separate issue not considered in this investigation. The resident escalated her complaint, although evidence of this has not been provided to this Service. The landlord has stated that the resident’s reasons for escalation were due to being dissatisfied that repairs to the car park ceiling remained outstanding.  
6. On 4 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm what works needed completing. The resident confirmed that the leak had been rectified, but that the landlord had not finished the works to the ceiling. She explained that the landlord’s operatives had left exposed floorboards above her parking space, which had resulted in her being unable to use the space.
7. The landlord sent its final response on 5 July 2021. It acknowledged that the ceiling had been in a state of disrepair since October 2020. It explained that it had encountered difficulties in replacing the ceiling, as a specialist was required due to fire safety regulations. It confirmed that it had obtained quotes and was hoping to provide an appointment date soon. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident a further £100 compensation for her time and trouble, and £25 in recognition of the initial error in its complaint handling.
8. The resident has complained to this Service about the time it has taken to complete the repairs to the ceiling. She has stated that as an outcome she would like the repairs to be completed, and to be provided with additional compensation for the inconvenience caused. She would also like compensation for the damage sustained to her car. 

Assessment

Scope of investigation

9. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident’s request for compensation for damage sustained to her vehicle does not appear to have completed the landlord complaint’s procedure. Consequently, this is not something that we can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. It is however possible that the resident will be asked to make a claim on her car insurance for the accidental damage.
10. The resident’s complaint concerned multiple issues, some of which have not been brought to this Service to assess. For clarity, in this investigation we will  only be considering the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak in the resident’s basement carpark, and the amount of compensation offered to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak affecting the communal car park

11. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for the external structure and communal areas of the leaseholder’s home. Its repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. The same policy defines routine repairs as defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, without long-term deterioration of the building. 
12. The landlord has not disputed that it failed to complete the resident’s repairs within the timescales stated above. The resident first raised the issue of the leak in October 2020. Despite the landlord attending the site on several occasions, the leak was not found until 18 March 2021. Although the landlord has stated that it struggled to identify the source of the leak, it has not fully explained why there was such a delay in resolving the issue.
13. Although the landlord rectified the leak in March 2021, it failed to continue with the full extent of repairs to the ceiling. In May 2021, the resident was required to chase the landlord to inform it that the repairs had not been completed. This was not appropriate, as the landlord should have been acting in line with general good customer service and managed its repair responsibilities effectively.  It also should have been aiming to complete the repairs within the timescales stated above, or at least have communicated to the resident why this may not be possible.
14. Once informed that the repairs were not completed, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for its mistake. It sent a surveyor to the site, who concluded that a specialist was required to replace the ceiling due to regulations pertaining to fire safety. The landlord communicated effectively with the resident, contacting her on 9 June 2021 to explain that it was arranging for a specialist to undertake the works. Whilst it worked on resolving the repairs, the landlord behaved reasonably by providing an alternative space for the resident to park in.
15. Due to the specialist nature of the repairs, it was not unreasonable that the repairs subsequently took longer to arrange and complete. The landlord also acted reasonably by keeping the resident updated on her repairs. It managed her expectations effectively by stating that the works would not be completed within 28 days, and fully explained the reasons for this delay. The landlord also reduced the impact on the resident by providing alternate parking facilities.
16. In its complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that there was evidence to suggest that the resident raised concerns about the repairs, but that appropriate action was not taken. The landlord acted in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, as it proposed to learn from its mistakes by using this case as a case study to identify areas of its service that needed improvement. It also explained that it had fed back to the relevant teams involved, in order to prevent a similar occurrence happening in the future.
17. In recognition of the failings it identified, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident. It also offered compensation in recognition of the impact the delays had on the resident. The landlord offered £200 initially, (although £100 of this was for a separate issue that has not been included in this investigation). It subsequently offered an additional £100 for time and trouble and £25 for poor complaint handling.
18. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of compensation offered provided adequate redress for the service failures identified. This amount is in-line with our Service’s remedies guidance, as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. Although the resident experienced inconvenience through the landlord’s service failure, the landlord recognised its failings, looked to mitigate them through the provision of an alternate parking space and has endeavoured to learn from the outcome and ultimately completed the repair. These steps correspond with our dispute resolution principles (to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and resolve this complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

20. The landlord should consider keeping a more comprehensive record of residents’ complaints and escalation requests.