Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208362

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 December 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. Defect repairs to the resident’s property.
2. A service charge refund.
3. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord under a lease dated 3 February 2021. The property is a new build 3 bedroom semi detached house.
The property had a 12 month ‘defect period’ following handover from the developer. During this period the developer was responsible for any repairs required due to poor workmanship, quality, design or similar – often referred to as defects or snags. The landlord’s ‘Customer Care Processes’ indicate that residents should report defect issues to the landlord which then “manages the reporting and fixing of the defects with the main contractor, making sure the customer is kept updated consistently”.
At the end of the defect period, the landlord carries out a final inspection of the property and compiles a list of outstanding defect repairs to be agreed with the developer. The landlord’s ‘Customer Care Processes’ say it will then “work with the contractor until all agreed defects are closed out, keeping the customer updated.”
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its ‘Complaints Policy’ says that it will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy says that if the landlord is unable to respond within the published timeframes it will keep the complainant informed and “agree new response times”.
The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on 8 December 2021. She said that she had “found it very difficult to organise any outstanding snags to be repaired” as the landlord failed to respond to her “in a timely manner”, and within agreed timescales, meaning she was forced to repeatedly chase things up. She provided a list of outstanding defect repairs which included:
1. Front door requiring adjustment.
2. Bathroom tiles needing replacing.
3. Shed door unable to fully open due to friction with paving slabs outside it.
4. Drainage issue with the garden grass.
5. Replacement bathroom plug requiring installing.
6. Paintwork needing to be ‘made good’ after a previous leak.
The resident also raised the issue of a communal grass area to the front of the property “which is overgrown, messy and has never been cut or maintained in the past 11 months since we have been living here”. She said it was “unacceptable” that the landlord was collecting service charges for grounds maintenance of the area – which was not occurring, and asked for an explanation for this.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord visited the property to conduct the end of defect period inspection. A representative of the developer was also present. The front door, grass drainage and bathroom plug were listed in the report along with several additional items.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2021. It apologised for the “lack of response and delays” the resident had experienced and said that:
1. The developer had attended to carry out work to the front door but found that works had already been carried out – which had voided the warranty. The landlord had attempted to arrange for a handyman to address this but been “unable to arrange a convenient appointment date” so had requested the developer resolve this as part of the end of defect list.
2. The developer had experienced issues making an appointment for the bathroom tiles, but the issue had now been resolved.
3. The shed door issue had also been resolved, but it was working with the developer to get this added to the end of defect list.
4. It was “liaising with the developer” to address the garden grass as part of the end of defect list.
5. The developer had sent a replacement plug to the resident “which they believed would be an easy installation”. However, the developer would contact the resident and make an appointment to resolve this.
6. The paintwork had been added to the end of defect list.
7. It had confirmed that no grounds maintenance work had been agreed with its contractors on the site. Due to this it would refund any period that this had been charged for.
8. It upheld her complaint and had awarded her £50 compensation for time and trouble.
The resident says that between, 5 January 2022 and 16 June 2022, she contacted the landlord 8 times via email pursuing the outstanding issues. She stated that 5 of these emails were not responded to, whilst 1 received what she described as a “poor response”. The landlord has not provided this Service with copies of any of this correspondence.
On 22 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said it was “extremely frustrating” that she had been chasing issues for months without reply and that she was still awaiting repairs and a refund of the service charge. She said that the communal areas were still not being maintained despite the fact that she was paying for this.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day. On 7 July 2022 the landlord requested a 10 working day extension to provide its response.
The resident first contacted the Ombudsman on 21 July 2022. She expressed her “frustration, disappointment and upset from the incompetent service received” and a feeling of “neglect” with regards to the defect repairs. She said “I cannot begin to put into words how angry I am when I look back at the amount of time and effort, I have put in to chasing, emailing, complaining about the same reasons that could have been avoided with proper procedures and competent staff in place. This is not my duty to follow up and continually chase for replies for answers to important concerns”.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 July 2022 asking it to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 8 August 2022.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It had reviewed the way the resident’s complaint was handled at stage 1 and was satisfied with how this had been done.
2. The developer had claimed that all end of defects work had been completed in March 2022. Since finding out that this was not the case, the landlord had contacted the developer to ask that it urgently address the outstanding repairs.
3. The developer had experienced difficulty in arranging works and had attended on 3 occasions when the resident was not home to give access.
4. As there appeared to be “differing opinions on the works to be completed” the landlord would liaise with the developer to “provide a resolution and arrange any outstanding works”.
5. It apologised for the fact the resident had not yet been refunded the service charge for the grounds maintenance work and said it had asked for this to be “resolved as a priority”.
6. It had awarded the resident a further £125 compensation, made up of £25 for complaint handling, £50 for service failure and £50 for time and trouble.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 September 2022. She disputed its position that her stage 1 complaint was handled appropriately, saying that she was not kept informed or updated of any progress on the matters since then. She said that the developer had not contacted her in advance of attending the property – so she would likely have been out at work, but that she also did not have any missed notifications on her doorbell indicating they had attended. The resident said she had not received the service charge refund, nor any further contact from the landlord about when this would be paid, or the defects completed, in the month since its complaint response.
The landlord responded on 9 September 2022. It advised the resident that she had exhausted its complaints procedure and directed her to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord said it had asked the relevant departments to contact the resident and its records show that it also chased the refund of the service charge internally.
The developer inspected the property on 13 December 2022 and compiled a list of outstanding defects. This included adjusting the front door, resolving the paving issue outside of the shed door and fitting the replacement bath plug.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord made an appointment with the resident for the developer to attend on 21 February 2023 and complete all outstanding defect work.
On 15 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to inform it that the developer had been unable to complete all of the defect work on 21 February 2023. She said that the developer had adjusted the paving slabs outside the shed, but this had not resolved the issue. She also advised that the bath plug had still not been installed and she was having to make a 50 minute round trip to her parents’ house in order to bath her newborn baby.
The landlord raised this with the developer by email on 25 April 2023. The developer responded the same day to say that:
1. It had offered a maintenance technician to fit the bathroom plug but “the customer was never free”.
2. Sheds were not covered by its warranty, it had adjusted the paving as a good will gesture and would not attend again for this.
3. All other defects had been attended to on 21 February 2023.
On 31 May 2023, whilst collating information for this investigation, the landlord established that the resident had not been charged for grounds maintenance as part of her service charge in financial years 2020/21 or 2021/22.
The resident advised this service that an operative attended to fit the bathroom plug on 7 June 2023. She was unable to say whether they were sent by the developer or the landlord.
The resident also advised that she decided to have the issue with the shed door resolved privately at her own expense. She said issues with the front door had still not been addressed to her satisfaction as of 11 December 2023 despite her continuing to raise this with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Defect repairs

As set out in its ‘Customer Care Processes’, the landlord’s responsibility for defect repairs is to act as a liaison between the developer and the resident to track and manage the completion of repairs to the resident’s satisfaction.
The ‘Customer Care Processes’ also contain details of a contingency whereby the landlord may “instruct an alternative contractor to complete works and seek the recovery of costs for all works completed from the main contractor” if they fail to complete works within “the agreed timeframe”.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any of its records prior to the resident making her formal complaint on 8 December 2021. However, it is detailed in the resident’s complaint that she had experienced a lack of response from the landlord, forcing her to repeatedly chase it up. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not dispute this and offered an apology for the “lack of response and delays”.
The landlord appropriately sought information from the developer and its stage 1 complaint response provided reasonable updates on all of the repair issues raised in the resident’s complaint.
However, following this – and the end of defects inspection of 14 December 2021, the landlord has not provided evidence that it took reasonable steps to monitor the developer’s progress with the outstanding repairs or provide regular updates to the resident.
Paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ says that once a landlord has provided its complaint response “outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident”. The landlord’s own ‘Customer Care Processes’ document makes similar commitments to the resident being “updated consistently” about defect repairs and to “work with the contractor until all agreed defects are closed out, keeping the customer updated”.
The landlord’s continued failure to communicate with the resident, and the lack of progress on the defect repairs, led to her escalating her complaint to stage 2 on 22 June 2022 – having allowed 6 months since the stage 1 response for the issues to be resolved.
As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord appropriately challenged the developer after it claimed that all defect work to the resident’s property had been completed and pursued it for action on the outstanding matters.
However, again following its complaint response the landlord failed to appropriately monitor progress and provide the resident with timely updates. It has not provided any evidence that it contacted the developer again until 26 October 2022 – over 2 months after it’s stage 2 complaint response. Whilst it did continue to chase the developer following this, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it communicated this to the resident to reassure her that it was acting and her case had not been forgotten or neglected.
It was not until 24 January 2023 that the landlord has provided evidence that it was in contact with the resident and mediated between it and the developer to arrange the appointment of 21 February 2023 for defect work to be completed. This was 14 months since December 2021 when the resident had first raised her complaint and the end of defect inspection had been carried out, which represented an unreasonably long delay to complete routine remedial repairs.
The landlord failed to appropriately follow up with the resident after 21 February 2023 to ensure that all work had been completed to her satisfaction as its ‘Customer Care Process’ commits to. Due to this, it was unaware that the developer had not completed all of the agreed work until 15 April 2023 – when the resident advised it of this.
Whilst the landlord appropriately challenged the developer on this again, it took a further 2 months before the replacement bath plug was installed on 7 June 2023, despite the resident being clear that this was her priority and detailing the issues this was causing with bathing her newborn baby. This represented a total period of 18 months (from the point her complaint was first made) where the resident was unable to use the bath in the property, causing significant inconvenience.
The resident informed this Service that the defect issue with the door had still not been addressed at the time of this investigation, despite it featuring on both the landlord’s end of defects list and the developer’s own inspection report from 13 December 2022. Considering the time elapsed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to enact the contingency in its ‘Customer Care Process’ to instruct an alternative contactor to complete these works, especially as the resident had described it as a “safety issue” in her complaint escalation. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response noted that it had attempted to arrange a handyman to address the issue previously, so it is unclear why the landlord failed to return to this option in light of the extensive further delays.
The developer also took the position that it would not reattend for the issue with the paving obstructing the shed door as sheds were not covered under its warranty and it had only previously addressed this as a good will gesture. There is no evidence that it had communicated this to the resident or the landlord prior to 25 April 2023, and this repair again featured on its inspection report of 13 December 2022 – which even made mention of it raising the shed base if it could not resolve the issue by adjusting paving. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to further challenge the developer on this basis, and it has not provided any evidence that it did. This led to the resident bearing the cost of resolving the matter.
In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately monitor the progress of the resident’s defect repairs and did not communicate effectively with her or the developer to ensure work was completed to her satisfaction in a reasonable timeframe. This is not in keeping with its ‘Customer Care Processes’ and caused the resident “frustration, upset and disappointment” as well as significant distress and inconvenience in pursuing matters. This represents maladministration.

Service charge refund

As part of its stage 1 complaint investigation, the landlord established that it did not have a grounds maintenance contract in place for the communal areas adjacent to the property and so no services were being provided. In its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately stated that it would “refund” the resident any service charges that had been paid towards the grounds maintenance during this period.
It is important to note that use of the term ‘refund’ indicates a repayment of monies, as opposed to an ‘account adjustment’ or similar terminology which would indicate a credit being added to the resident’s service charge account.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it communicated further with the resident about the refund prior to her request to escalate her complaint on 22 June 2022 – which was made partly on the basis that the refund had still not been received.
Internal landlord correspondence shows that the stage 2 complaint handler attempted to obtain input from the landlord’s service charge department as part of their investigation but did not receive a response to their enquiries. As a result, the stage 2 response did not offer any new information on the matter, only an apology that the refund had not yet been received and assurance it would be “resolved as a priority”.
After the case was accepted for investigation by this Service in May 2023, the landlord established that the resident had not actually been charged for grounds maintenance during the period no contract was in place. The landlord has provided copies of the resident’s service charge ‘actuals’ for 2020/21 and 2021/22 which reflect this, with the corresponding surplus being added to her account via an adjustment.
However, it does not appear that the landlord communicated this to the resident, who still described a refund of her service charge as being ‘outstanding’ in correspondence with this Service on 11 December 2023.
In summary, although there was no failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account itself, its failure to appropriately communicate internally meant that its complaint responses unintentionally misled the resident to believe that she would receive a refund of monies which were not due as the account had already been appropriately adjusted. This will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience and constitutes service failure.

Complaint handling

After the resident made her complaint on 8 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 December 2021. This was within the 10 working day timeframe its policy allows.
The stage 1 response itself was reasonable and showed an appropriate complaint investigation had been carried out. The landlord did subsequently fail to track the outstanding complaint items and update the resident on these, but this has already been considered in the context of the substantive issues and will not be ‘double counted’ here.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 22 June 2022, which it appropriately acknowledged the same day. However, the complaint was not received by the complaint handler until 6 July 2022 – due to them being away from work. By this point 10 of the 20 working days for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response had already elapsed. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have had oversight of this and reallocate the complaint to a different member of staff who was able to immediately commence a complaint investigation and so was better placed to meet the required timescales.
The landlord requested a 10 working day extension to provide its stage 2 complaint response, which was reasonable considering the previously mentioned difficulties in obtaining information on the service charge matter, and ongoing conversations with the developer.
However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it made contact with the resident before or after the extended deadline had passed to provide an update on her complaint. This led the resident to approach this Service for assistance stating that she felt she had been left “no choice” and referring to the landlord’s complaint handling as “shocking”.
After being contacted by this Service and asked to provide the resident with its stage 2 response by 8 August 2022, the landlord also failed to meet this deadline. Its stage 2 response was dated 9 August 2022, but not emailed to the resident until the morning of 10 August 2022.
In summary, the landlord allocated the resident’s stage 2 complaint to a member of staff who was unable to begin their investigation in a timely manner. It then delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process, leading her to contact this Service for assistance. This represents service failure in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of defect repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of a service charge refund.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately monitor the progress of the resident’s defect repairs and did not communicate effectively with her or the developer to ensure work was completed to her satisfaction within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s failure to appropriately communicate internally meant that its complaint responses unintentionally misled the resident to believe that she would receive a refund of monies which was not due.
The landlord allocated the resident’s stage 2 complaint to a member of staff who was unable to begin their investigation in a timely manner. It then delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process, leading her to contact this Service for assistance.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £650 composed of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the defect repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the service charge refund.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the service failure in its complaint handling.

The total of £175 compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses may be deducted from this amount if already paid.

Write to the resident:
1. Apologising for the maladministration and service failure identified in this report.
2. Providing copies of her service charge ‘actuals’ for 2020/21 and 2021/22 and clarification on the account adjustments for grounds maintenance over this period.
Arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the resident’s front door to diagnose and carry out any remedial work required.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, as a goodwill gesture, the landlord consider reimbursing the resident for any costs she is able to evidence incurring in resolving the issue with the shed door and paving slabs.
It is further recommended that the landlord take steps to remind its staff of the importance of supporting and engaging with complaint handling staff to ensure they are able to provide clear and accurate responses to complaints.