Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208175

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

28 April 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 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. Repairs to resolve a water leak in the communal area.
2. The condition of the carpet in the communal hallway following the water leak.
3. The associated complaint and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a first-floor flat in a block of flats. The building has communal hallways.
On 25 November 2021, a cleaning contractor reported to the landlord that there might have been a water leak in the communal hallway of the resident’s building, due to the wet carpets there. Following this, it arranged a cleaning inspection on 29 November 2021, and works were raised on 1 December 2021 to repair a dripping stop-cock in the communal area. A contractor then attended this on 3 December 2021, stated that a part needed to be ordered to complete the repair, and raised an appointment for a plumber to attend this on 15 December 2021 that was rearranged to 7 January 2022, while the leak had been temporarily contained.
Following his 13 and 17 December 2021 chasing calls, on 15 and 20 December 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint due to the communal carpet being damaged by the leak, which he declined to pay for. He also stated that there were ongoing issues with damp and mould in the communal hallway outside the property. The resident added that the repair was supposed to take place on 18 December 2021 but that, due to a mistake on the landlord’s part, the contractor due to attend was not a plumber which resulted in the appointment being rearranged. He was unhappy that the next available appointment would be on 12 January 2022, which would have been a month and a half after the repair was initially reported.
On 5 January 2022, a contractor attended to repair the water leak in the communal hallway outside the resident’s property. It replaced a pressure reducing valve, and it replaced the stop-cock with a lever ball valve. On 6 January 2022, the landlord raised works for the communal hallway to be cleaned following the leak.
The landlord informed the resident that it had extended its stage one complaint response timescale to him by ten working days on 11 January 2022, but it then provided its stage one response to him on 14 January 2022. It stated that the water leak repair was initially raised on 1 December 2021, and was completed on 5 January 2022. The landlord added that, following the repair being completed, it had raised an order for the carpet in the communal hallway to be cleaned, which was completed during the week commencing 10 January 2022. It offered the resident £10 compensation in view of the delay in responding to his complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 14 January 2022. He was dissatisfied that the stage one response did not address the delay in the repair being completed, that a contractor had attended without the correct parts, and that an incorrect operative had been booked to complete the job. The resident was also unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord, and he stated that the lack of cleaning in the communal area had increased the mould growth, with its temporary fix not being appropriate because this was just a bucket under the stop-cock. He was also dissatisfied with its complaint handling due to the delay in it providing a stage one response.
Due to him subsequently receiving no final stage complaint response from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service and, on 3 September 2022, we asked for it to issue its final stage complaint response.
The landlord then issued its final stage complaint response on 28 September 2022, acknowledging that it had overlooked and failed to escalate this when requested by the resident. It stated that a cleaning inspection had taken place on 17 January 2022, where a mould patch was identified, and its cleaning contractors completed a deep clean on the same day. The landlord added that, throughout the year, one cleaning inspection had been missed at the end of December 2021, which had been refunded, and that the missed communal cleaning for that month would be removed from the service charge for the last financial year.
The landlord also stated that the annual carpet clean was completed on 10 August 2022, and inspected on 17 September 2022, with no issues being found. It stated that its previous complaint handler had followed the complaints procedure correctly. The landlord added that the water leak was reported on 1 December 2021, and was repaired on 5 January 2022, and that, while there was some communication failure, this was completed within an appropriate timeframe. It therefore partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered him an increase in the £10 compensation that it had previously awarded him to a total of £95, which was broken down into £75 for its poor complaint handling, and £20 for his time and trouble.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service, as he felt that the points that he had raised in his complaint had not been addressed by the landlord. He was seeking for it to improve the way that it completed all remedial works in the building to ensure that they were to a satisfactory standard and within an appropriate timeframe, address the quality of works completed by its staff, and improve its communication. We then requested and received the above information about the resident’s case from the landlord, which awarded him £50 further compensation for its lack of a copy of his lease that we had requested from it and that it was unable to provide.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it is responsible for repairs in the communal areas of its buildings, and it categorises repairs and its response timescales for them as follows:
1. Emergency repairs required to avoid immediate danger within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs that are defects that can be deferred within 28 calendar days.
3. Major repairs necessary for the property to remain habitable, including structural repairs, site works and service installations within three months, or as part of its planned programme of works.
The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments recommends compensation of up to £50 for time and trouble experienced by residents for its failures when effort was needed by them to resolve the issue, and of up to £150 for poor complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a water leak in the communal area

As stated in the landlord’s repairs guide, it was responsible for repairs in the communal areas of the resident’s building. Therefore, when its cleaning operatives reported the water leak in the communal hallway there to it, it was appropriate for it to arrange an inspection of this. The leak was first reported to the landlord by a cleaning contractor on 25 November 2021, with works being raised on 1 December 2021, and completed on 5 January 2022, which was 41 calendar days later.
Although the landlord did not specifically define the type of repair that it had classified the water leak in the communal area as being, considering that it had stated that this was containable, it would have been reasonable to treat the leak as a routine repair, due within 28 calendar days. Therefore, the repair was not completed within its repairs guide’s timeframe, but 13 calendar days later, which would have resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident. This is because he spent time chasing the landlord to complete the repair, and he was concerned about the impact that the leak had on the carpet in the communal hallway.
The resident was also dissatisfied that, on 3 December 2021, an operative attended the property but did not have the correct parts, and was therefore unable to complete the water leak repair. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset. It was therefore not unreasonable for an operative to attend to identify the root cause of the leak, and to identify any parts which would be needed for the repair.
However, there was a delay between 23 December 2021, when the repair would have been due to have been completed within 28 calendar days of the initial water leak report, and 5 January 2022, when this was completed. It is noted that this occurred in respect of a routine repair that the landlord had recorded as having been temporarily contained, while it awaited a part that needed to be ordered to complete this and an available plumber during the holiday period. It therefore rearranged its leak repair appointment of 15 December 2021, originally to 7 January 2022, as only an operative who was not a plumber attended this.
Nevertheless, where there is a delay, the landlord would be expected to communicate this to the resident, providing the reasons for the delay, and a new date for the works to be completed. Instead, there is no evidence that it proactively did so, and it therefore failed to manage his expectations appropriately. This was evidence of poor communication on the landlord’s part, which impacted the resident as he spent time calling it to chase the repair and arrange new appointment dates, such as on 13, 15, 17 and 20 December 2021. It has therefore been recommended below to review its resident communication processes for communal repairs, to ensure that they are informed about its booking and management of these effectively.
The landlord recognised, however, that there had been some communication errors in its handling of the water leak repairs, in its final stage complaint response. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, our remedies guidance, and the landlord’s policies and procedures.
The landlord ultimately put things right in respect of the repair by resolving the leak, and it also attempted to put things right with regard to its poor communication by offering the resident £20 compensation for the time and trouble that he had spent chasing the matter. However, the offer of compensation was not proportionate when considering the extent of the poor communication, and it failed to recognise that there had been a delay in it completing the repair. Moreover, the landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments recommended up to £50 for time and trouble experienced by residents for its failures when effort was needed by them to resolve the issue, for which this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £50 for delays in doing so.
Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £50 further compensation for its delays and poor communication with him in relation to the water leak repair, which is in addition to the £20 that it previously offered him, if he has not already been paid this. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service for cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but this does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

The condition of the carpet in the communal hallway following the water leak

The landlord’s website states that communal cleaning at its buildings is completed by it, with the cost of this being covered by the service charges paid by its buildings’ residents. Its cleaning and grounds maintenance specification states that such cleaning of communal areas is to be carried out fortnightly, with annual flooring and communal area deep cleans, and its estates services KPI handbook requires it to carry out monthly inspections of the standard of the communal cleaning.
The resident reported his concerns about the communal cleaning of the carpet, damp and mould in the hallway outside the property to the landlord on 15 and 20 December 2021, as he believed that the water leak and lack of cleaning there had contributed to the damp and mould. Its final stage complaint response nevertheless confirmed that its fortnightly communal cleaning and monthly inspections of this had not been missed, apart from at the end of December 2021, for which it appropriately refunded the service charge for the missed visit and agreed to remove the communal cleaning cost for that month from the service charges for the last financial year. Moreover, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the leak to be repaired on 5 January 2022 before arranging for the area affected by this to be cleaned.
Following the water leak being repaired on 5 January 2022, the landlord’s cleaning operatives attended in the week commencing 10 January 2022 to complete a deep-clean of the carpet, and on 17 January 2022 to complete a further deep cleaning. On the latter date, its final stage complaint response stated that mould growth was identified and removed. This showed that it attended more frequently than its fortnightly cleaning and grounds maintenance specification, and that the mould identified was cleaned promptly, following the leak repair.
Furthermore, the landlord’s final stage complaint response confirmed that the annual carpet clean at the resident’s building was completed on 10 August 2022, and inspected on 17 September 2022, with no issues being found with this. It therefore demonstrated that it had also followed its cleaning and grounds maintenance specification’s requirement for it to carry out annual flooring and communal area deep cleans, which it continued to inspect the standard of monthly in line with its estates services KPI handbook.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one complaint response will be issued within ten working days, and that a final stage complaint response will be issued within 20 working days, with the resident being kept informed and new response times agreed if it is unable to do so.
In this case, the resident initially attempted to raise a stage one complaint with the landlord on 15 December 2021, but it did not do so until he contacted it again 20 December 2021, although it did not give the reason for this delay. This was inappropriate, and contrary to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code’s requirement for a landlord to accept a resident’s complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a stage one complaint at the time of the initial contact, and its failure to do so would have inconvenienced the resident, who had to call it back at a later date to raise a complaint.
The landlord subsequently issued its stage one complaint response on 14 January 2022. This was nine working days later than its complaints policy’s ten-working day response timescale after the resident’s initial stage one complaint of 15 December 2021, for which it awarded him £10 compensation. While the landlord had provided a holding response on 11 January 2022, to inform him that a further ten working days would be needed for it to complete its investigation, this was already six working days late. Although this Service recognises that delays may occur when a landlord is handling a complaint, it would have been expected to issue the holding response in a timely manner, to ensure that the resident’s expectations were being managed, and it not doing so would have been inconvenient for him.
On 14 January 2022, the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure, but he received no response to this. He therefore requested assistance from this Service and, on 3 September 2022, we requested a final stage complaint response from it. The landlord’s subsequent final stage response of 28 September 2022 acknowledged that it had overlooked and failed to escalate this when requested by the resident, which was 156 working days later than its complaints policy’s 20-working-day final stage response timescale, after he had escalated the complaint. This lengthy delay impacted the resident significantly, due to the unnecessary additional time and trouble that this would have caused him, and required him to contact this Service for a response.
In addition, while it was appropriate for the landlord to identify that the resident’s complaint was not escalated, it would have also been appropriate for it to explain how it would ensure that this mistake did not happen again. For this reason, and the reasons listed above, it has been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, to ensure that complaints are identified and accepted at the time that residents raise these, and are escalated within the appropriate timeframe. This should also include consideration of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
Nevertheless, the landlord recognised that there was a delay in it providing the resident’s final stage complaint response. It attempted to put this right by responding to the complaint once it was made aware by this Service that this had not been escalated previously. The landlord also tried to do so by offering the resident an increased award of £75 compensation for its poor complaint handling. Although it appropriately identified that it had not responded within an appropriate timeframe, the offer of compensation was not proportionate when considering the length of the delay, and the failings listed above.
This is additionally because the landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments recommended compensation of up to £150 for poor complaint handling, while this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 for such failures that adversely affected the resident. Moreover, it is of concern that it confirmed to us that it lacked a copy of his lease that we had requested from it to help us to investigate his complaint, which it was unable to provide to us. It is necessary for landlords to keep suitably comprehensive, accurate and up-to-date records for its residents in order to manage its properties appropriately, including of their occupancy agreements that outline each of the parties’ responsibilities in relation to the property.
As the landlord subsequently appropriately identified that it had not kept a copy of the resident’s lease and awarded him £50 further compensation for this, it has been ordered to pay this to him below for this reason, and for its poor complaint handling, if he has not received this already. This is in addition to the £75 compensation that it previously offered him, if he has not received this already. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its record keeping practices in relation to its residents’ occupancy agreements, in order to try and ensure that it keeps copies of these in every case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to resolve a water leak in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the condition of the carpet in the communal hallway following the water leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint and record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £195 total compensation within four weeks, which is made up of:
  1. The £95 that it previously offered him, if he has not received this already.
  2. Another £50 for the delay in completing the water leak repair, and its poor communication about this.
  3. The £50 that it subsequently offered for its poor record keeping, if he has not received this already.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, to ensure that complaints are identified and accepted at the time that residents raise these, and are escalated within the appropriate timeframe. This should include consideration of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its resident communication processes for communal repairs, to ensure that they are informed about its booking and management of these effectively.
2. Review its record keeping practices in relation to its residents’ occupancy agreements, in order to try and ensure that it keeps copies of these in every case.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.