Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208034)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208034

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

21 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:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of windows at his property;
2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
The landlord operates a planned investment policy. The policy notes that the landlord will collaborate with residents when undertaking planned and cyclical works.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of a complaint, a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of an acknowledgement, and a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of an escalation.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that in late 2020, the landlord began the process for planned works at the block in which the resident’s property was located. These works included replacing the windows, some external and internal doors, and other minor repairs as needed.
The resident requested updates about these works in December 2020. It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it sought details from its surveyor about the works at this time. However, it is not evident that it followed this up with the resident.
The resident made a further request for an update in March 2021. On 10 March 2021, the landlord replied that it had begun the statutorily required neighbour consultation process regarding the works, which was due to run until 31 March 2021. This process allowed residents of the block to raise any concerns or ask any questions.
Around this time, the resident requested copies of the plans and noted that the windows at his property were a two-pane casement. He also asked for information about when the works would begin. It is not evident that the landlord provided a timeframe.
It is evident that between March 2021 and August 2021, the resident made several requests for updates about the works and when the next stage would begin. It is not evident that he received an answer. He subsequently raised a formal complaint on 23 August 2021, about the lack of communication and updates. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 September 2021, and apologised that it had not acknowledged it earlier.
The resident chased an update on 23 September 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 October 2021, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay to its response.
2. It confirmed that planning permission for the works had been granted in April 2021. It advised that it was awaiting quotes from its contractor and that it would send out a formal notification to all residents once this was received.
3. It acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that it had failed to respond to the resident’s requests for information, for which it apologised.
4. It advised that it would raise this with its staff and address any training needs to ensure this did not happen again.
The resident subsequently enquired as to why there was such a delay in obtaining quotes. On 13 October 2021, the landlord replied that the delays had been due to the contractor being “tardy.” It advised that it now had the quotes and that the necessary Section 20 notices would be sent out next week to all residents.
The landlord issued formal notice of the works on 27 October 2021. The resident subsequently highlighted that the quote appeared to have been based on old plans which were incorrect. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this.
In December 2021, the resident requested a copy of the scope of works, which the landlord subsequently provided. The resident then raised concerns about the lack of detail in the scope of works. He also requested a breakdown of the costs.
Around this time, the resident reported his concerns to this service. This service then requested that the landlord provide an update to the resident. The landlord provided a formal response on 7 January 2022, which it referred to as a “Stage One Final Response.” It advised that it was awaiting further information about his query, which is why it had delayed in responding. It apologised for this delay.
On 18 January 2022, the resident repeated his concerns that the quotes had been based on incorrect plans. He requested further updates on several occasions through to March 2022. On each occasion, the landlord replied it was still waiting.
It is evident that in March 2022, the resident enquired about paying extra for upgraded laminated windows to be installed in his property to address sound insulation. On 29 March 2022, the landlord advised that due to the trickle vents in the windows, the sound insulation might not be improved, but that it would make enquiries about his request.
The resident sought an update about this request in April 2022, and on 13 May 2022, the landlord advised it was still chasing quotes. The landlord’s internal communications show that it received a quote in May 2022. Its staff subsequently concluded that this would constitute an improvement, which it was not willing to offer given that it would be unable to recuperate the costs through the service charge. It does not appear those involved in this discussion were aware the resident had offered to pay for the improvement himself, nor did the landlord reach out to the resident at this time to discuss it with him.
It is not evident that any further correspondence or updates were issued by the landlord. This led to the resident chasing updates on several occasions throughout June 2022. On 1 July 2022, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated given the lack of communication, despite the landlord’s previous promise to improve. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this request, which led the resident to seek assistance from this service. The landlord subsequently advised on 22 August 2022, that it would provide its stage two response by 13 September 2022.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 September 2022, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay to its response.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had made multiple requests for updates, which it had failed to respond to.
3. It also acknowledged that it had failed to improve its communication following its stage one response.
4. Regarding his requests for updates, it advised that it considered the request for the window upgrades to have been raised after the Section 20 consultation period had ended. It advised that the windows had therefore been manufactured to the specifications as set out during the consultation period. It additionally advised that the upgrades would not have had the benefit the resident was seeking and that they may have also caused issues in relation to planning permission. It acknowledged that it did not effectively communicate its position.
5. It apologised for its service failure and offered £600 compensation (being £150 for poor service, £350 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £100 for its poor complaints handling).
Given the landlord’s position on the upgrades, the resident requested on 13 September 2022, for the landlord to proceed with installing the standard windows. The landlord acknowledged this on the same date. However, no further communication was made, which led the resident to have to chase updates through to 18 October 2022, at which point the landlord advised it was still chasing updates.
In or around November 2022, the landlord advised that the windows had in fact not been manufactured due to the possible changes. The manufacturing had not been restarted after the landlord had determined it would not change the design. It blamed this on a “miscommunication” between itself and its contractor. It offered a further £500 compensation for the additional delay.
The resident has advised this service that the windows were subsequently installed in or around February 2023, but that subsequently there were a number of issues relating to the quality of the windows and the works carried out. The resident has advised that he sought to raise these new concerns as a formal complaint, but that the landlord has declined to accept a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

Windows

While the landlord’s internal documents note that the existing windows at the building were worn, it is not disputed that they were broadly functional. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to seek to update the windows as part of a planned programme of works across a number of properties.
The Ombudsman understands that a planned programme of works can take an extended time to complete. The process involves resident consultations, tendering for contractors, assessing quotes, gaining planning permission, arranging for access, and manufacturing, all of which can cause unforeseen delays. While such delays may be reasonable, the Ombudsman expects a high level of communication with residents to keep them informed and measure their expectations.
In this case, it is evident that the landlord discussed with the resident as far back as 2018 (if not before) that it intended to renew the windows at the building (along with some doors and other minor repairs) in or around 2020/2021. It is evident that this process began in late 2020. Around this time, the resident made requests for further information about the works on a number of occasions. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged these requests or otherwise kept him updated. This would have been frustrating for the resident and would have damaged his confidence in the landlord’s handling of the works.
Over a period of five months between March and August 2021, the resident’s requests for updates and further information went unanswered. While it may have been the case that the information he was seeking had not been finalised or was otherwise unavailable, the landlord nevertheless missed the opportunity to advise as such or to otherwise have measured his expectations about the works. This lack of communication once again would have been considerably frustrating for the resident and further weakened the landlord/tenant relationship.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord’s formal response appropriately provided an update about the works and provided an explanation for the delay, i.e. that there had been delays in obtaining quotes. It also appropriately acknowledged failings in its service delivery in relation to its communication. The landlord appropriately apologised and committed to improve its service going forward. Had it done so, its apology at this stage may have amounted to reasonable redress.
It is evident, however, that issues with communication continued. As part of the Section 20 process, the resident highlighted that the quotes received were based on incorrect plans. The resident repeated these concerns in a number of subsequent communications. While the landlord at times alluded to quotes being based on a rough assessment due to the difficulty in surveying in detail the large amount of properties the works would cover, it never specifically addressed the resident’s concerns. Given that a quote on an incorrect plan could conceivably lead to further delays and that the resident was ultimately financially liable for the works, his concerns were understandable. The landlord’s repeated failure to address these, despite its commitment to improve communication, would have caused considerable distress.
The Ombudsman notes that in early 2022, a number of the landlord’s communications were to advise that it was still waiting on updates. It was appropriate that, at this time, it was at least acknowledging the resident’s communications, but it would have been helpful to have provided more detail about the cause of the delays.
It is not disputed that in or around March 2022, the resident enquired about paying extra for upgraded laminated windows to be installed in his property to address sound insulation. While this would be considered an improvement for which the landlord would not be responsible, it was nevertheless reasonable for the resident to seek permission for such an improvement. Despite it being evident that the resident was willing to cover the costs of any improvement, it is clear that this was not known to all the landlord’s staff. The landlord’s internal communications indicate it was unwilling to pursue the improved windows on the basis that it did not want to be liable for the cost. This both demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s record keeping regarding the details of the resident’s request but also shows a failing due to the landlord not involving the resident in its decision, despite this being a requirement in its policy.
Despite the resident chasing updates about his request, the landlord did not respond, which led to the resident having to escalate his complaint. In its stage two response, the landlord advised that one of the considerations for denying the resident’s request had been that it had been made after the Section 20 consultation process had ended. Whether this was the case or not, the landlord had still raised his expectations after this time and had advised it was seeking quotes. This demonstrated that its approach was inconstant and led to further considerable frustration for the resident. It may well have been the case that the upgraded windows would not have had the desired effect the resident was hoping to achieve (namely, to reduce noise); however, its failure to include him in the decision making process unreasonably denied him the opportunity to consider this for himself.
The landlord also asserted that the upgraded windows were no longer possible due to the manufacturing process being underway. It later transpired, however, that this was not the case, as manufacturing had been put on hold pending a decision about the upgrades. This once again demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s record keeping which not only denied the resident the opportunity to reiterate his request for upgrades but also unreasonably delayed the installation of the standard windows.
In summary, there were numerous instances throughout the period of the complaint where the landlord failed to communicate with the resident or provide information in a timely manner. This was despite its promise to improve its service following its stage one response. It is also clear that its record keeping and internal communication was insufficient, which led to incorrect information being given, adding to the delays.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged its communication had been poor, which had led to the resident having to expend time and trouble chasing updates. It offered £500 compensation in relation to these issues. Having identified further manufacturing delays, it offered an additional £500 compensation, making a total of £1,000 in relation to the this element of the complaint.
While the Ombudsman welcomes a landlord acknowledging its service delivery failures and seeking to put things right, in this instance, the compensation offered was not sufficient to reflect the impact caused to the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord’s poor communication, poor record keeping, failure to improve its service despite promises to do so, and unreasonable delays amounted to maladministration. An order for £1,500 compensation has been ordered, being £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication, £500 for the unreasonable delays, and £500 for the resident’s time and trouble in having to chase updates. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
Additionally, while the landlord has previously identified a need for further staff training, it is evident that there has been some staff turnover during the period of the complaint. Therefore, an order for further staff training in relation to communication with residents has been made. The landlord should use this case to guide what additional training is required.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of a complaint, a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of an acknowledgement, and a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of an escalation.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 August 2021. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 September 2021. This was eight working days after the complaint. While this was outside of the timeframes of the landlord’s policy, it appropriately acknowledged this delay, for which it apologised.
10 working days from the date of the landlord’s acknowledgement is 16 September 2021. This is when the resident would have expected the landlord to have provided its stage one response. However, no response was provided, which led him to expend time and trouble chasing an update. The stage one response did not come until 1 October 2021, which was 21 workdays after the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint. It is not evident that the landlord measured the resident’s expectation about a delay at any time, which would have caused distress. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage one response, it is not evident that it considered any compensation at this time to reflect the impact of the delay.
The Ombudsman notes that following intervention from this service, the landlord provided an update on 7 January 2022, which it referred to as a “Stage One Final Response.” The landlord noted the resident could seek further information about the response, but it was not clear whether this was intended to be a final response on the matter or whether the resident had the option to escalate the complaint. This would have caused confusion and frustration.
Given the ongoing issues, the resident requested an update on his complaint on 1 July 2022. The landlord has advised that it usually only accepts an escalation of a complaint within six months of its stage one response. However, given the issues identified in the stage one response were still ongoing and the communication measures the landlord had advised it would put in place hadn’t been followed, it was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion to allow for the escalation.
Following the escalation, the landlord should have provided its stage two response by 29 July 2022. However, the landlord did not provide its response until 12 September 2022, which was 51 working days after the escalation. And even then, it only provided its response following intervention from this service. While the landlord did provide an update on 22 August 2022, this was still outside of the window where its response should have been provided. This delay caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and unreasonably delayed the resident from being able to refer the complaint to this service.
While the landlord acknowledged the delays to both responses, apologised, and offered £100 compensation, this was not proportionate to the impact caused by the delays.
In the circumstances, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaints handling. An amount of £300 compensation has been ordered, being £100 for the stage one delays and £200 for the stage two delays. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has raised concerns about issues arising during the installation of the windows in 2023. The resident has advised that he has attempted to raise these issues as a new complaint, but that the landlord has declined to accept a new complaint. As these issues happened after the landlord’s final response and are a significant deviation from the concerns addressed in that response, it is appropriate for the landlord to carry out a new investigation. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident to enquire as to whether he still wishes to raise a formal complaint on these issues and to subsequently open a new complaint if he does.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of windows at his property;
2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Windows

Throughout the period of the complaint, there were repeated instances where the landlord failed to communicate with the resident or provide information in a timely manner. This was despite its promise to improve its service following its stage one response. It is also clear that its record keeping and internal communication was insufficient, which led to incorrect information being given, adding to the delays. While the landlord acknowledged these delays and offered some compensation, this was insufficient to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Complaints handling

The landlord failed to follow the timeframes for acknowledgements and responses as per its policy, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident and often necessitating the intervention of this service. While it acknowledged these delays, its offer of compensation was not sufficient in the circumstances.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,800, comprising:
1. £1,500 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor service delivery in relation to the window works;
2. £300 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,100. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Identify further staff training in relation to communication with residents. The landlord should use this case to guide what additional training is required. The landlord must advise this service what training it has identified and when it will be completed.
2. Contact the resident and enquire as to whether he still wishes to raise a formal complaint on the issues around the installation of the windows in 2023. It is to subsequently open a new complaint if he does.