The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202215542)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215542

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of reports of defects to windows.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property since March 2020. The property is a new-build, second floor 3-bedroom flat. The resident has a shared ownership agreement with the landlord. The property developer is the freeholder.
  2. At the time the resident took ownership of the property, he told the landlord’s available homes team that there were defects with the windows. The landlord informed the property developer about the reported defects, and the developer arranged an inspection, but no work was done. On 30 June 2020, the resident asked the landlord when the windows would be fixed.
  3. Following further contact from the resident on 13 August 2020, the landlord arranged for its own contractor to inspect the windows. The contractor carried out the inspection on 3 September 2020 and told the landlord that adjusting the windows would not fix the problem. The landlord asked the contractor to adjust the windows, and this was done on 9 September 2020. On 22 September 2020, the resident told the landlord the defective windows had not been fixed.
  4. The landlord asked the developer on 11 June 2021, whether repairs to the windows had been carried out. The developer told the landlord it would inspect the windows on 23 July 2021.
  5. The resident complained on 11 August 2021, that the windows were still defective. The landlord responded on 7 September 2021, and said the developer had reported that 1 window was in perfect working order and a second window needed to be adjusted. The window was adjusted on 24 February 2022.
  6. On 15 March 2022, the resident followed up the complaint he made on 11 August 2021. He said he wanted an explanation for the delays, and compensation for not being able to use the bedrooms because of the window defects. He also complained about communication, the number of appointments when he had to take time off work, no follow up to the complaint made in March 2020, and emotional distress caused.
  7. On 12 May 2022, as part of the complaint investigation, the landlord’s contractor told the landlord the windows had been installed “off square”. It said very little could be done to adjust the windows and a complete reinstallation of the window frames would be required to resolve the defect.
  8. In its complaint response on 16 May 2022, the landlord said it had no reports that the bedrooms were not usable. It said the contractor had confirmed windows could be opened and closed. It apologised for delays, frustration and inconvenience and offered £25 for poor complaint handling, £200 for time and trouble caused, and £200 for service failure due to delays.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2022. He said he made his initial complaint in March 2020 and the landlord had not acknowledged the number of times he chased a resolution. He said he wanted an investigation, and the compensation was not sufficient.
  10. In its final response on 27 May 2022, the landlord said the resident had not given valid reasons to investigate the complaint. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He wanted an explanation of why it took 2 years for the landlord to acknowledge his complaint. He wanted compensation for distress, time taken off work, and not being able to use the bedrooms. He also wanted the landlord to learn lessons from his experience.
  11. After the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the complaint, it told the Ombudsman it had reviewed the outcome and would offer an additional £150 for poor complaint handling. It said it was satisfied it dealt with the defects appropriately. The resident told the Ombudsman in February 2024 that the windows were still defective.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that he did not receive a complaint response from the property developer. Under section 34a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate actions or omissions which relate to a member of the Scheme. Because of this, complaints about third parties, such as the property developer, are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of reports of defects to the windows

  1. The landlord has a customer care process, which sets out how it will deal with reports of defects. The process says a resident can report defects within their liability period. These will be triaged by the customer care surveyor, who will manage reports of defects with the main contractor. The process says the surveyor will make sure the resident is updated.
  2. The defect liability period is the timeframe following the completion of a construction project, when the developer or contractor is responsible for rectifying any defects that arise in workmanship, materials, or design.
  3. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the agreement which sets out the defect liability period. However, the resident raised defects with the windows during the property exchange. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume the defects were originally identified within the liability period.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show its available homes team was made aware of defective windows during the property exchange on 12 March 2020. The landlord then reported the windows to the developer, who was responsible for repairing defects. When the resident told the landlord on 30 June 2020 that the windows had not been fixed, records show the landlord raised concerns 3 times with the developer in early July about the windows and asked whether an appointment had been made with the resident. For example, on 9 July 2020, the landlord told the developer, that the windows were a “health and safety issue due to poor installation” and the resident was unable to open the bedroom windows.
  5. Following the communications from the landlord, the developer responded on 15 July 2020, and said it had arranged to visit the resident’s property the following week. On 13 August 2020, the resident told the landlord he had no updates since the developer’s visit. The landlord then contacted the developer again and asked for an urgent update on when work would commence.
  6. Records show the landlord also asked its own contractor to attend the property to advise on what the defects were. Following its inspection, the landlord’s contractor reported on 3 September 2020 that adjusting the windows would not fix the installation problem. Despite this, the landlord asked its contractor to adjust the windows. Work was carried out on 9 September 2020, and on 29 September 2020, the resident told the landlord that the adjustments had not resolved the problem.
  7. The Ombudsman has found that between March and September 2020, there were reasonable attempts by the landlord to respond to reports of defective windows. The landlord promptly reported the defects to the developer and there is evidence that the landlord regularly asked the developer to resolve the problem. When no progress was being made, the landlord went beyond its obligations and arranged for its own contractor to inspect the windows and attempt to carry out repairs. The records show that the developer did not always respond to the landlord’s emails, and an internal email dated 21 April 2022, said the developer had been hard to communicate with. The Ombudsman has also noted that the initial period coincided with the first Covid-19 lockdown, which made the delivery of services difficult.
  8. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not ensure the resident was kept informed, as set out in its customer care process, and this was a service failure.
  9. After the resident reported the defects had not been resolved in September 2020, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of any communications until 11 June 2021, when the landlord asked the developer for an update on the windows. The Ombudsman cannot make a determination on what happened during this period due to the lack of evidence, but it is of concern to the Ombudsman that there appears to have been no progress in resolving the defects with the windows during this period.
  10. In response to the landlord’s enquiry on 11 June 2021, the developer said it had arranged for a technician to attend the resident’s property on 23 July 2021. On 7 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that the developer had said the master bedroom window was “in perfect working order” and the second bedroom window needed to be adjusted. It said none of the windows were letting in water.
  11. The resident disputed this finding and said 3 windows were defective. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property in November 2021. The surveyor found that 1 window was catching and would benefit from a minor adjustment. He said this window was opening and shutting, and the other 2 windows were working satisfactorily. Records show the landlord’s contractor attended in February 2022 to adjust the windows. On 15 March 2022, the resident told the landlord that following this work he could close all windows with no issues for the first time in 2 years.
  12. While investigating the complaint in April 2022, the landlord sought information about the condition of the windows from its surveyor and window contractor. The landlord’s surveyor said one window was slightly out of alignment, but it opened and closed, and he said he demonstrated this to the resident. The landlord’s contractor said it had lubricated the window locks to ease the operation and made a slight adjustment. However, it went on to say the window installation “is off square”, and the type of window has very little adjustment. It said this meant “not a lot can be done”, and where a similar problem had occurred in another flat in the block, a complete reinstallation of window frames was required. It said the same applied to the resident’s windows.
  13. The Ombudsman has noted that the position of the landlord’s surveyor conflicts with the landlord’s view in April 2020, when it told the developer the windows had not been properly installed and were a health and safety concern. They also conflict with the window contractor’s view that adjustments would not resolve the defect. In February 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that there were still problems with the windows. Because of the conflicting information, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should arrange an independent inspection of the windows to determine their condition and should act accordingly based on the findings of the inspection.
  14. In his complaint on 15 March 2022, the resident said he wanted compensation as his family had not been able to use 2 of the bedrooms because of the defects. He told the Ombudsman in February 2024, that 1 room was too hot and another too cold because the windows would either not open or close, and this had a significant effect on his family’s sleeping arrangements and wellbeing. He also said that rainwater came in through a window.
  15. Before the resident complained on 15 March 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident raised a concern that bedrooms were unusable. The landlord’s records dated May 2022, which have been provided to the Ombudsman, say there was nothing that prevented the resident from using the bedrooms. For example, on 12 May 2022, an internal email said, “during my many conversations…I don’t remember him mentioning not being able to use any rooms in his property”. Because of the conflicting positions and lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to make a determination on whether the resident should be compensated for the loss of rooms.
  16. The Ombudsman has found that there were failings by the landlord in the handling of reports of defects to the windows, as the landlord did not follow its customer care process. Although the landlord acted reasonably when the defects were first reported, it took 2 years before the defects were resolved and the landlord did not keep the resident updated. In mitigation, the Ombudsman accepts that the work was delayed because the landlord had to work with the developer to resolve the defects, and records show that communication with the developer was difficult.
  17. However, records also show that the resident spent a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord over a 2-year period to try to get the defects resolved. The Ombudsman has found that although the landlord sent emails to the resident, there is no evidence that it engaged in a more meaningful way with the developer to attempt to resolve the defects.
  18. The resident told the landlord and Ombudsman that moving into his home was meant to be a positive experience. Instead, he said the delays affected the enjoyment of his home and caused significant distress and inconvenience to him and his family. In its final response, the landlord offered £200 compensation for time and trouble, and £200 for service failure. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this is insufficient in the circumstances. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s failure amounts to maladministration, and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 for time and trouble and an additional £300 for failure to resolve the defects in a reasonable time.
  19. The Ombudsman has noted the complex relationships involved in this case, which involved a property developer and contractors. Although the landlord sought to engage with the property developer, there was a limited response from the developer, and the resident was caught in the middle. It is the Ombudsman’s view that there were opportunities to escalate the matter sooner, which may have shortened the delay. The landlord has provided no information on what it has learnt from this complaint or how it will avoid future occurrences. Because of this, it is ordered that the landlord reviews how it dealt with the reports of defects. It should pay specific attention to how it communicated with the resident and developer.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and will provide a response within 10 working days. It says if it cannot respond within 10 working days, it will keep the resident informed and agree a response time. It says when the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, it will send a response within 20 working days of the date the resident escalated their complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident said he first complained about defective windows in March 2020 when he took possession of the property. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the initial report of defects was a service request, and the landlord should have had an opportunity to put things right, in line with its customer care policy.
  3. Based on records provided, the first complaint was made on 11 August 2021, when the resident complained that the windows were still defective. Although the landlord responded to the resident, it did not acknowledge his complaint. When the resident complained again on 15 March 2022, it took the landlord 2 months to send a response. The landlord did keep the resident informed about the delay, but the Ombudsman has found that this delay, combined with the failure to acknowledge the complaint in August 2021, was maladministration. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for its failure to deal with the complaint in line with its policy. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient in the circumstances.
  4. When the resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2022, the landlord responded on 27 May 2022, and said the resident’s reasons for escalating his complaint had not met any of its “four valid reasons to further investigate”. It said it stood by its decision at stage 1.
  5. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident wanted his complaint escalated because he said the landlord’s first response was factually incorrect, it did not take account of the time he had spent chasing resolution and the effect this had on his living conditions and emotional stress. He said he wanted an explanation for the delay and wanted to know what lessons the landlord had learnt. Although there may be valid reasons for a landlord to not further investigate a complaint, the Ombudsman has found in this case that the resident made reasonable grounds for escalation and the landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint was maladministration.
  6. After the resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed the complaint and suggested a further £150 compensation for complaint handling failure. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this amount is reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. However, while the landlord ultimately offered increased compensation for its complaint handling, this was after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints policy and following the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process and offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of maladministration as the landlord did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. its handling of reports of defects to the windows.
    2. its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £975. This is inclusive of the £425 offered in the first complaint response. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £300 in recognition of time and trouble caused, inclusive of the £200 previously offered.
    2. £500 in recognition of the failure to resolve the defects in a reasonable time, inclusive of the £200 previously offered.
    3. £175 in recognition of the failure to respond to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code. This is the £150 offered by the landlord after its final response and in addition to the £25 previously offered.
    4. The landlord should provide proof of this payment to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to arrange an independent inspection of the windows to determine their condition and should act accordingly based on the findings of the inspection.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review how it dealt with the reports of defects. It should pay specific attention to how it communicated with the resident and developer.
  4. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this complaint to identify opportunities to prevent a recurrence of the failures identified in this report.
  5. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 6 weeks of this report.