Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202211216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211216

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

2 January 2024

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 the resident’s request for:
1. Reasonable adjustments in relation to repairs appointments.
2. A compensation payment.
3. Adaptations to the property.
4. Support from the ‘Connect Team’.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s response to her request for adaptations to the property and support from the ‘Connect Team’ fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The evidence demonstrates that the resident communicated with the landlord between February and July 2022 regarding delivery drivers parking in the spaces outside her property, the possibility of the landlord installing a bollard, and potentially obtaining a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for the works. Whilst the resident has advised the Ombudsman that she was not happy with the landlord’s handling of this matter, there is no evidence of her raising these issues around adaptations with the landlord as a formal complaint.
The resident has also said she asked for support between January and April 2022 from the landlord’s ‘Connect Team’ (which offers 1-2-1 support to vulnerable tenants) in relation to the DFG. Whilst she was dissatisfied with the service she received, there is also no evidence of the resident raising this issue as a formal complaint with the landlord.
As a result, both of these matters fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are not considered further in this report. If the resident remains dissatisfied and wishes to pursue the matters further, she may wish to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord in that regard.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 3 bedroom house, since 2018. She is autistic and requires the support of a personal assistant (PA) when operatives attend her property. The PA also helps her with other day to day activities and they attend for 2 hours at a time, either once or twice a week.

Summary of Events

On 27 January 2022, the resident reported repairs that were needed at her property. She explained she was disabled and had a PA that attended for 2 hours on certain days, and needed them to be present at the appointment. She was told this could be accommodated.
The resident was then advised on 31 January 2022, that her appointment had been changed to a day when she did not have support, and with a time slot of 1pm – 5pm. When her PA attended the following day, they enquired with the landlord about the appointment change and were told a shorter time slot could not be guaranteed. However, the repair was rescheduled for 3 February 2022 between 1pm – 3pm when the PA was present. However, the operative arrived at 2.55pm and the PA had to leave almost immediately for a prior arrangement.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2022. She said:
1. She had been discriminated against due to her disabilities because she had been dismissed or misled when she tried to book repairs. She explained she is autistic and has physical needs, and she was a survivor of domestic violence. She needed reasonable adjustments in order to have a support worker with her when operatives attended.
2. She was told adjustments could be made but then told by other staff they could not, and she was denied the option of making a complaint.
3. Repairs were scheduled for 3 February 2022 1pm – 3pm, but operatives arrived at 3pm as the PA was leaving. Other repairs were rescheduled to 7 February 2022 without her knowing.
4. Repairs were recorded as cancelled and not rescheduled.
A repairs appointment went ahead on 17 February 2022, but 1 of the 2 scheduled operatives did not attend and only some of the required works were completed.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 February 2022, it summarised her complaint about discrimination and difficulties with getting repairs completed and listed the repairs and their respective appointment dates. It confirmed that all outstanding repairs were booked for 8 March 2022 between 9am – 11am, so her PA would be available. It offered £200 compensation for time and trouble and advised that she needed to complete the acceptance form and payment would then be made within 5 weeks.
On 8 March 2022, the PA called the landlord and explained not all repairs had been completed that day. The landlord recorded that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and this was confirmed by email to the resident with a target response time of 20 working days. If more time was needed, she would be contacted to discuss a new response time.
The repairs were ultimately completed in April 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 May 2022, it summarised the complaint about the incomplete repairs appointment on 8 March 2022 and discrimination by, and a lack of contact from, landlord staff. It upheld the complaint, and:
1. Acknowledged the resident had a PA for only 2 hours a week, so the remaining repairs were scheduled for 21 April 2022. These were completed successfully.
2. Said lessons would be learned from what happened.
3. Explained there was a new local housing manager who did knock her door when they were in the area, but there was no answer. However, in the future they would text or email initially and then arrange a phone call or visit if requested. The previous local housing manager made a note that they had attempted to contact the resident twice.
4. Noted she had asked that the surveyor that attended should not visit again as she and her PA found it difficult to communicate with him. It had passed that feedback on and asked for this to be picked up with the surveyor. It apologised for any inconvenience.
5. Appreciated the resident wanted the Property Desk to have a policy where reasonable adjustments were made for residents with communication needs and or are disabled. In the future she could email requesting a fixed appointment for any repairs, except emergencies.
6. Increased its offer of compensation to £275 (£200 for time and trouble, £50 for a failure in service and £25 for poor complaints handling).
The resident told the landlord on 20 June 2022, that her preferred method of contact was email, as she did not answer unexpected calls. She wanted to know why the secure link for payment to be made did not work. The landlord replied the same day and said it could call her to confirm data protection and bank details. A cheque could be sent, but it would take 6-8 weeks.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord explained to the resident that in order to send her compensation electronically by a secure link, she needed to confirm her bank details. It offered to speak with her if she did not want to send them by email. The resident replied on 23 June 2022 and asked for payment of her compensation by cheque. The landlord responded the same day and explained it no longer issued cheques so it could pay the compensation by bank transfer or as a rent credit. The resident told the landlord on 28 June 2022 that she was concerned about giving her bank details in order for it to pay her compensation and she again asked if a cheque could be sent instead.
In the landlord’s email to the resident of 31 January 2023, it explained that the Ombudsman had contacted it asking it to resolve the issues around the payment of the compensation. The resident confirmed the same day that the payment remained outstanding.
On 1 February 2023, in a letter to the Ombudsman, the landlord explained that, in its stage 2 response, it had suggested the resident report routine repairs by contacting its repairs team directly and that it could then arrange a 2 hour slot when the resident was available. However, the matter had since been discussed at director level, and it found this approach could not be offered, as many different contractors were used and not all could accommodate a 2 hour slot.
In addition, some repairs may take longer than 2 hours, and could not be left unfinished. However, the resident could still request a day that would work best for her, along with a morning or afternoon slot. To recognise that incorrect information was given to the resident at stage 2, it offered to increase the compensation by £50 to £325. This was also relayed to the resident the same day, and the landlord reiterated that it could send her a payment link or credit her rent account, but could not issue a cheque.
On 3 February 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she wanted the money paid in to her account. She said she had initially been told she could be sent a cheque, but later told that was not possible. She explained she did not want to email her bank details for security reasons, and suggested the money was transferred via a secure link. The landlord sent the resident a secure link on 10 February 2023 but, on 20 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord advising that she was still having difficulties receiving the payment and suggesting various ways of resolving the issue.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Additional Customer Requirements Policy says it considers an individual’s circumstances when assessing the service adjustment or additional requirement. “The standard repairs timeframe will not apply to certain households in care and support where, as part of the assessment it shows any delay to a service adjustment or additional requirement will negatively impact or make worse the customer’s well-being. We will respond quicker to a standard service timeframe, in particular property services”. It also says it will ensure staff have the necessary skills, knowledge, and guidance to deal effectively with the many aspects of vulnerability.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” At stage 1 the complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 10 days of acknowledging the complaint. If more time is required, it should agree a new response time with the resident. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2, it will be acknowledged and a response issued within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says depending on whether there had been a low, medium or high failure, it may consider compensation for a failure in service, time and trouble and poor complaint handling. A low failure would start with an apology, a medium failure would start from £51 compensation, and a high failure would start from £151 compensation. It says it pays compensation using the BACS process and it aims to credit within 28 working days of a resident providing their final response to the compensation value.
A supporting document for guidance on awarding compensation says, where there has been a high failure, compensation of between £161 and £350 may be appropriate. That, “remedy/compensation in this range of amounts are used in recognition of severe lack of ownership and accountability – normally when a department does not want to own the issue. This usually has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.”

Assessment and findings

Reasonable adjustments in relation to repairs appointments.

Having reported repairs were needed in January 2022, an appointment was made at a time that suited the resident. However, the appointment was changed to a time when the resident did not have support, which led to her having to rearrange the appointment.
While it is understandable that the resident was frustrated at the appointment being changed, the fact this happened is not in itself poor service, as appointments may need to be rearranged for a variety of reasons. The resident made it clear she did not want unexpected telephone calls so it was appropriate for the landlord to rearrange the appointment and rely on the resident letting it know if it was not convenient. That is what happened here, and another appointment was agreed at a time that was convenient to the resident.
When the operative did attend, they came at the end of the 2 hour slot, and as the PA could not stay, the appointment had to be rearranged again. This would have understandably caused the resident frustration. Although the operative did arrive within the timeslot allocated, they did not have enough time to complete the work with the PA present. Attending but being unable to complete the work in the allocated time clearly disappointed the resident and she was also inconvenienced by having waited in, and then having to rearrange the appointment. This could have been avoided if the landlord had made it clear to the operative what time the work needed to be completed by so, if they were running late, they could have contacted the resident and tried to rearrange things earlier.
After that, further appointments were needed to complete the repairs, but this was because the operatives needed either additional parts or more time to complete the work. This does not make the landlord’s service unreasonable because it is not always possible to know exactly how long a job will take, or what parts will be needed until the repair is assessed.
The landlord did then say in its stage 2 response that the resident could request 2 hour time slots and these would be accommodated in the future. However, it later explained it could not commit to that because it used different contractors. This led to the resident feeling misled by the landlord and discriminated against.
The resident’s strength of feeling over what happened has been noted, but the Ombudsman cannot make findings of discrimination. Such a finding can only be made by a court of law. It can though, consider whether the landlord went far enough to consider the individual needs of the resident and, in this case, we find that it did. It attempted to accommodate her request for repair appointments to be made in a 2 hour slot when she had support from a PA. Therefore, it complied with its Additional Customer Requirements Policy.
There were some minor service failings which meant the resident was inconvenienced by having to rearrange appointments but the landlord appropriately acknowledged these in its complaint responses. It initially offered £200 compensation, increased that offer at stage 2, and increased it again once it realised it could not always commit to a 2 hour slot. The amount offered is based on there having been a ‘high failure’, according to the landlord’s guidance on awarding compensation, which shows the landlord gave full consideration to the effect the poor service had on the resident.
However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to agree at stage 2 for the resident to request specific appointment times going forward if it could not adhere to that and this meant her expectations were not effectively managed. The resident can ask for specific times for appointments going forward and the landlord may be able to accommodate that. In reality, it may not always be possible to complete every repair within a 2 hour time slot, as some repairs may need to be carried out over a number of different appointments. That does not then mean the landlord will have acted unreasonably if it attempted to make adjustments to the resident’s needs.
Ultimately, the repairs were completed but to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation. For time and trouble, a failure in its service and providing incorrect information at stage 2, the landlord has offered compensation of £300. It has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Ultimately, the landlord has offered an appropriate amount of financial redress to recognise the failings in relation to the repairs service. However, this was not done until after the end of the complaints process, and after the complaint had been brought to this Service. As a result, a finding of maladministration is made. However, as there was no serious or permanent detriment to the resident, and to recognise the steps taken by the landlord to put things right, the awarded level of compensation (£300) remains the same.

A compensation payment.

Having offered compensation at stage 2 of its complaint process, an issue arose in terms of paying the resident, who explained she had had a problem with a secure link that had been sent to her. The landlord did offer to obtain her bank details over the telephone if she was concerned about putting them in an email, which was considerate, and was evidently aimed at helping the resident feel more secure.
The landlord also offered to send a cheque but withdrew the offer 3 days later, when it explained that it no longer offered this option. While this may have frustrated the resident, the landlord did clarify its position promptly and explained that it would instead need to make a bank transfer, which was in line with its Compensation Policy.
Despite having been told it could not send a cheque, the resident asked for one again on 28 June 2022. Although the landlord had explained it could not facilitate this, it should still have responded to the resident to reiterate its position and there is no evidence it did. There is also no evidence of it following up with the resident after this, despite its Compensation Policy saying it aims to pay compensation within 28 days. Instead, it took this Service to bring to its attention in January 2023 that the resident had still not been paid.
The fact the landlord failed to monitor the complaint to ensure the compensation was paid, and had to be chased after 7 months, amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord had made it clear it needed to do a bank transfer and the onus was on the resident to decide how to provide that information. However, particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have followed up with her more promptly if it had no response and it could have offered to apply a credit to her rent account at an earlier stage.
This Service cannot know whether, if the landlord had acted more swiftly, the payment would have been made much sooner. This is because there are limited options available to the resident, all of which pose their own difficulties for her: a bank transfer; completing a secure link; or applying a credit to the rent. The landlord has now tried every option and offered to take down bank details both in writing and over the telephone. Therefore, there is little more it can do without further input from the resident.
Overall, there was a shortfall in the landlord’s service. There has been significant delay in paying the compensation and it should have considered increasing the payment to acknowledge this. However, the effect was modest, as the landlord had tried different options. Therefore, although the landlord has its own Compensation Policy, the amounts referred to are relatively low. In the Ombudsman’s view, compensation of £150 would be reasonable recompense in the circumstances. In order for any compensation to be paid, the resident will need to ensure she provides the landlord with the information it needs, to carry out the transfer.

Complaint Handling.

The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 3 days later than it should have been, and it failed to acknowledge it had not adhered to its Complaints Policy at that time. Its stage 2 response was then sent 51 working days after the complaint had been escalated, indicating it had not learnt from its mistake at stage 1. The landlord continued to not comply with its obligations and failed to consider the cumulative effect the delay in dealing with the complaint had on the resident. It then failed to consider a reasonable level of compensation to recognise the overall impact its poor service had on the resident.
The landlord offered £25 compensation for its poor complaint handling, which according to its Compensation Policy indicates that it considered the impact on the resident to be very low. If the delay in dealing with the complaint had been limited to stage 1, this sum may have been appropriate. However, there was a significant delay responding at stage 2, with no evidence the resident was notified of the delay or provided with a revised timescale for receiving a response.
This shows not only a lack of learning from stage 1, but that it also did not comply with its Complaints Policy. Therefore, although there is no long term detriment to the resident, a more reasonable amount of compensation to reflect the time things took would be £150.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for:
1. Reasonable adjustments in relation to repairs appointments.
2. A compensation payment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for:
1. Adaptations to the property
2. Support from the ‘Connect Team’

are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord did consider the individual needs of the resident in terms of making appointments for repairs, but it mismanaged her expectations and caused inconvenience having to rearrange appointments.
The landlord had to be reminded after 7 months, that it had not paid the compensation to the resident.
There were delays responding to the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2.
The complaints about the landlord not dealing with the resident’s request for adaptations to the property and support from its ‘Connect Team’, do not fall within the remit of this Service, as it has not been considered under the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for time and trouble, a failure in its service and providing incorrect information at stage 2 in relation to carrying out repairs (if not paid already).
  2. £150 for the delay in sending the compensation payment.
  3. £150 for the delay in its complaint handling (inclusive of the £25 already offered, if not paid already)
3. Carry out a review of its complaint handling and Compensation policy and put a procedure in place to ensure, all future complaints are actively monitored until fully resolved, and that paying compensation is not overlooked.