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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202231577)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231577

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 April 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.
    2. The resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, a 4-bedroom house, since 2006.
  2. The landlord has advised it is aware the resident has use of a blue badge to allow him to use disabled parking bays.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 May 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He raised the following concerns:
    1. He had been in contact with the landlord since January 2022, requesting a disabled bay. Between then and 5 May 2022 he stated he had contacted the landlord 11 times regarding the issue and either left voicemail messages, been promised a call back or received no answer. He advised he had been caused stress by having to “call constantly” for something he regarded as a “basic necessity for anyone with disabilities”.
    2. He had originally contacted the local authority regarding the issue but, in January 2022, they had clarified that he needed to speak to landlord.
    3. He stated a disabled bay had been installed 2 years before for another resident who lived across the road.
    4. As a resolution to the complaint, he asked for the landlord to write and confirm what it “will do to implement a Disabled Bay in front of (his) house” and provide a timeline for resolving the issue.
    5. The resident also stated he had contacted the landlord regarding alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour knocking over his bin and later staring through his windows after parking outside his house. He had also reported that another neighbour parked their van in front of his gate which left him “little room to come in and out” of his house. He had reported these issues to the landlord but “nothing had been done” but that police had been “called regularly” because of fights caused by parking issues.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2022. It understood the complaint to be about the resident calling “multiple times requesting a disabled parking bay which remains outstanding”. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It had reviewed the complaint and correspondence with its Housing Team. It stated that “although (the Housing Team) are aware of the parking issues at this site” and the resident’s contact, a Local Housing Manager (hereafter referred to as “the LHM”) had arranged a site visit, which was due to take place that day. It stated the LHM would “continue to manage the issues and introduce measures that can be put in place”.
    2. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the fact he “had spent a great deal of (his) personal time chasing the matter”. It offered an apology for “any inconvenience that may have been caused” and offered £50 compensation. This consisted of £25 for his time and trouble and a further £25 for unspecified issues with its complaint handling.
  3. On 20 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. The LHM apologised for the “delay regarding allocating a Disabled Bay” and advised they would be meeting contractors on 23 June 2022 to “speak…about the possibility and time frame it will take to have a disabled bay marked outside (his) property”.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 to ask that his complaint be escalated as he was still waiting for a disabled parking bay to be marked out. He noted it was 2 months since he raised a complaint and 7 months since his initial request, so he did not consider the complaint had been resolved. The landlord responded the same day to advise the LHM had been asked to contact him and provide an update.
  5. After making internal enquiries regarding the status of the resident’s request, the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2022. Appearing to copy and paste some of its internal correspondence, it stated the LHM had “been speaking and emailing (him) on a regular basis” to provide updates and that he had “been made aware that the issue…is there is no Parking Management and not enough bays” for residents to park their cars. It advised the Housing team would “continue to update you” until the matter was resolved but it was otherwise “unable to offer any further assistance at this stage” of the complaint.
  6. Landlord records indicate a stage 2 complaint was later opened on 22 August 2022. It wrote to the resident to advise it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days, but it may exceed this due to “unforeseen circumstances and high volumes”, when it would keep him updated and “discuss a new response time”.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2022. It noted the resident felt his concerns had not been resolved since the stage 1 response was provided. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It had made enquiries with its Housing Operations Manager who had advised that “car parking disputes are not classed as ASB”.
    2. The LHM had conducted a site visit and “confirmed that there will be a parking consultation”. It stated it had advised the resident he could submit a request for a disabled parking bay during the consultation, although the installation of a disabled bay would “allow anyone with a blue badge to park in the bay”.
    3. It stated the LHM had emailed the resident on 27 October 2022 with “the details regarding this” and would provide the “relevant support and advice” going forward.
    4. In reviewing how the complaint was responded it, the landlord stated it was “reassuring…that…the relevant stakeholders” had been contacted during its investigation and this was evidence that the complaint co-ordinator had “followed procedure and did what was required to provide…the appropriate outcome at the time”.
    5. It stated it had “not upheld (the resident’s) request to escalate this complaint”. It reiterated that parking disputes were not classed as ASB and the LHM had “taken the appropriate action within a reasonable timeframe”. It reiterated its offer of £50 compensation and advised the resident its complaint process was now concluded.
  8. Internal landlord correspondence indicates that a purchase order had been raised on or before 9 October 2023 “to mark a disabled bay”. It noted however that “a date for this to take place has not been confirmed”. It acknowledged that the land was a shared site with another housing provider.
  9. After this Service contacted the landlord to advise the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation, it responded on 9 October 2023 to provide the requested information and to advise it had reviewed the case. It set out a number of further findings and increased its offer of compensation. The landlord made the following comments and findings:
    1. Although it was aware the resident had need of a blue badge, it was not aware of any specific vulnerabilities within his household or that any reasonable adjustments were required.
    2. It summarised how the complaint had been responded to.
    3. Having reviewed the case, it identified there had been “missed opportunities, inclusive of communication with the customer, and complaint handling”. It acknowledged that it had “not fulfilled our commitments at Stage Two (of its complaint procedure)” but had “put the following actions in place” which it hoped would resolve the resident’s concerns:
      1. It had “since learned” that it owned the site along with another housing provider, having previously believed it was owned by the local authority. It had now issued a purchase order for a disabled bay to be painted outside the resident’s home, although it stressed any holder of a blue badge would be entitled to use the space.
      2. A site visit was planned when options for parking management would be discussed. It would arrange for a consultation to be sent to residents if the visit was “successful”.
      3. Regarding the resident’s report of a neighbour tipping over his bin, it acknowledged a “deliberate act of vandalism” and that the resident had caught the incident on camera. It said it had taken no action following the report but identified it should have been “treated as low level ASB”, with the neighbour being spoken to or written to. It stated it had implemented training that reminded staff “what would be considered ASB” under its ASB policy. However, it stated that, due to the passage of time since the incident and the fact it had not received any additional reports from the resident, it had decided not to take any further action lest it “aggravate a situation which has since settled”.
      4. It was improving its record keeping by using a new CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system. This would allow it to “ensure any commitments made are actioned accordingly”. It would also be holding monthly meetings with the Complaints Team to look at complaint findings and spotlight reports issued by the Ombudsman.
    4. It had decided to increase its compensation offer to £275, consisting of £100 for its poor complaint handling (missing deadlines and failing to address all aspects of the complaint), £100 for service failure (“failure to carry out on our commitments and the time…taken…to put the appropriate actions in place” and £75 for the time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  10. There is no record of this Service passing this update and renewed compensation offer on to the resident.
  11. Prior to carrying out this investigation, the Ombudsman contacted both parties to establish whether the landlord had now installed a disabled parking bay near the resident’s property. The resident advised on 2 April 2024 that a disabled bay had been “painted a few weeks ago” and, while he was satisfied the matter had now been resolved, he advised he had not received the compensation previously offered by the landlord. The landlord did not provide any update.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay

  1. In recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised in April 2024 that work had been completed to install a disabled parking bay near his property “a few weeks ago”, which is taken to have been some time in March 2024. Therefore, while the specific date the bay was installed is not known, it is evident that from the date of the resident’s initial request, it took the landlord over 2 years to install a disabled parking bay. This is a significant length of time, and it was a clear failing that the landlord failed to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The records seen by this Service show the earliest evidenced contact the resident made with the landlord regarding parking arrangements near his property was on 27 January 2022. In the landlord’s records of a call, the resident is noted to have advised that neighbours were arguing over parking spaces and requested that bays be marked out “to say who (each bay) belongs to”. It also recorded a further call from the resident on 1 February 2022 which noted he specifically asked about “having a disabled parking space allocated to him”. Following both calls, the LHM was asked to contact him. While this investigation has not seen evidence of contact from the resident on 22 January 2022 asking for a disabled parking bay, as the landlord has not disputed this version on events in its responses and the date is only a week earlier than the recorded call of 1 February 2022, the Ombudsman will take the earlier date as the first time the landlord was made aware of the residents request.
  3. Records show the resident chased the landlord for updates on 3 occasions up to 14 March 2022 and once more after this on another undated occasion. While records show the LHM made some internal enquiries as to who may be able to progress the resident’s request, it was not until 20 June 2022 that the resident appeared to be given a proper response. He was then advised that the landlord was due to meet contractors on 23 June 2022 and it would discuss the “time frame it will take to have a disabled bay marked outside your property”. The resident would have taken this as a clear indication that his request had been approved and the issue was in the process of being resolved.
  4. However, the resident was then advised in October 2022 that the landlord could not assist as it did not own the land. This was despite the fact it had originally agreed to process the request and, following this in his original complaint in May 2022, the resident advised he had originally contacted the local authority regarding the installation of a disabled bay at the end of 2021 but had been signposted to the landlord.
  5. Further to this, once told by the landlord that it could not assist in October 2022, the resident responded promptly and forwarded the landlord an email he had previously received from the local authority. This clearly stated that the local authority’s position was “the off-street parking bays are not council owned”. It is therefore not credible that, within its later review of the case, the landlord advised it had only become aware of who owned the land in October 2023. While it is welcome that it carried out a review of the case, it is therefore of concern that its justification for the delay in resolving the issue was contradicted by information it already held. As above, the information available suggests the landlord was made aware that the local authority was not responsible for the parking on the estate since at least October 2022, and likely before.
  6. If there was confusion over who owned the land and who could decide whether parking bays could be marked out, the landlord could and should, having been given this information by the resident, have established the facts much sooner. Its failure to do so meant that, at the time of its post-complaint review and issuing a purchase order for a bay to be marked out, a full year had passed since the landlord had received the resident’s email from the local authority, confirming it did not own the land. This is an unreasonable length of time to have taken to make any progress on the issue, for which the landlord has not provided an appropriate explanation.
  7. Regarding its handling of the request itself, when responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, it was reasonable that the landlord advised it was considering setting up a consultation regarding parking. However, it was unreasonable that it stated he would need to re-submit his request to said consultation. At this time over 5 months had already passed since his initial request and it was not fair to ask him to make the request a second time, to a proposed consultation which had not yet been confirmed. It reiterated its position in its stage 2 complaint response, saying a consultation had now been agreed and the resident would need to re-submit his request.
  8. It is noted that the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any consultation taking place, or if it did, when it was carried out and what it consisted of. Regardless, the landlord’s position put an unreasonable onus on the resident to make further contact and resubmit his request. Its responses failed to consider the extra delays since its original complaint response and the additional inconvenience resubmitting his request would have caused him. The landlord’s position was therefore not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly.
  9. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay. There were initial delays in responding to his request and, after first acknowledging the delay in June 2022 and advising him the matter was being progressed, unreasonably raising the resident’s expectations in the process, it was a further 16 months before it eventually raised an order to mark out a disabled bay by his property.
  10. In its post-complaint case review, the landlord increased its compensation offer regarding its handling of the resident’s request. It offered £100 in relation to its handling of the request and £75 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble. The Ombudsman considers this still falls short of addressing the scale of the landlord’s failure, considering the significant length of time taken to install the parking bay – including a further 6 months from the time of the October 2023 review to the installation in or around March 2024. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to the resident that better reflects the distress and inconvenience he experienced and the time and trouble he spent chasing the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

  1. In his complaint, the resident advised he had previously contacted the landlord regarding an incident where his bin was knocked over by a neighbour. He advised that, since this incident, the neighbour had taken to staring “into our windows before walking off” which had left his disabled children “afraid to leave the house”. He considered this to constitute “intimidation and bullying”.
  2. This Service has not seen evidence of when the resident reported this incident to the landlord. However, there is no indication that it was responded to. During its stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord appropriately identified that this aspect of the complaint had not been addressed. However, its response was subsequently rather dismissive, simply noting it did not consider the incident to constitute ASB and that it therefore did not uphold the complaint.
  3. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports. It was also not appropriate that its complaint response failed to acknowledge its lack of action and there is no evidence it carried out any enquiries regarding why it had not responded at the time of his report. This would have left the resident likely feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. Even if the landlord did not consider the incident to amount to ASB, it should have advised the resident of its position and considered whether any other support or signposting was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. However, it was positive that the landlord’s post-complaint case review identified that no action had been taken following receipt of his report and that this “should have been treated as low level ASB”. It outlined the steps that should have been taken, such as speaking to the neighbour or issuing a written warning. It offered its assurances that training had taken place so staff were reminded “what would be considered within (its) ASB policy, and how matters outside of the process should be handled”. This was appropriate and showed the landlord had demonstrated learning from the case, although this should ideally have happened during the complaint procedure.
  5. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It is not disputed that it failed to respond to the report or take any action and it again missed the opportunity to investigate the matter and/or respond at both stages of the complaint process. However, the landlord acknowledged this failure during its case review and set out its learning from the case and the steps it had taken to ensure a similar situation did not occur again. There is additionally no evidence the resident made further reports or that there are ongoing concerns regarding ASB. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to write to the resident with an apology for its initial failure to respond to his concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 of its procedure within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. Records show it provided its initial complaint response 18 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint on 15 May 2022. This was not appropriate. However, the landlord did acknowledge unspecified issues with its complaint handling within its stage 1 response and offered the resident £25 to reflect this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it would have been preferable for the landlord to be more specific regarding what the award related to, in the absence of any other identified issues with its complaint handling at this stage, this offer amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  2. However, there were much more significant delays when escalating his complaint and providing a response at stage 2 of its procedure. Records show the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 21 July 2022, but this was not done until a month later, on 22 August 2022. This meant the landlord was already 1 day outside its stated response target by the time it registered the escalation request. This an unreasonable delay and it is not appropriate that the landlord’s final complaint response did not provide an explanation regarding this failure.
  3. Once it did register the escalation request, a further 49 working days passed before it provided its stage 2 response on 31 October 2022. This was not appropriate and there is no evidence the landlord corresponded with the resident to provide him with updates during this time. In total, the landlord’s response was 50 working days outside its stated target and yet its final response failed to recognise this or offer any form of redress. Having acknowledged a short delay at stage 1 and offered a small amount of compensation, it is unclear why it failed to make any further offer of redress for a much longer delay at stage 2. This was a service failure and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to potentially learn from its complaint handling and ‘put things right’ for the resident. It also failed to apply its own policies.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint and specifically that it offered an apology and small amount of compensation. However, its stage 2 complaint response should have acknowledged the additional delay in its consideration of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay and the added distress and inconvenience this would have caused. It is unclear why it did not do so. Having escalated the complaint, the resident would likely have been left feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously as, while the landlord stated it was satisfied it had taken appropriate actions, these had clearly not progressed or resolved the issue. This was not appropriate and was not a reasonable position for it to take.
  1. Additionally, the landlord’s final complaint response failed to appropriately address what was clearly the main aspect of the resident’s complaint. It cited actions taken thus far but failed to recognise these had failed to resolve the issue. Its stage 2 response was short and failed to provide much evidence of further investigation of the case. It also placed an unreasonable emphasis on its belief that a reported incident, referred within the resident’s complaint, would not in fact be classed as ASB. This was then used as part of its justification for not upholding his complaint (internal correspondence regarding the complaint escalation noted it was “best to get this closed on the basis that this isn’t ASB”), a position its later case review acknowledged was incorrect.
  2. This was not reasonable and suggests some staff members involved in investigating and providing the landlord’s final response had failed to fully understand the focus of the complaint, despite prior correspondence from the Complaint Team Leader correctly identifying the main outstanding issues. This was a further service failure and meant the resident would likely have felt his concerns were not being taken seriously by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s final response, which advised he would need to re-submit his request for a parking bay, should also have acknowledged it had unfairly raised the resident’s expectations within its stage 1 response, when advising him that a solution would be found following a site visit due to take place in June 2022. It should have acknowledged its apparent commitment had not been met and that the situation had not been resolved. It was unreasonable it did not do so.
  4. While it was positive that the landlord carried out a review of the case in October 2023, as noted above, it is of concern that its main explanation for the delay (uncertainty over who owned the land) was contradicted by its own records. It was also positive that, having reviewed the case, it identified issues with how it had responded to the resident’s supplementary concerns regarding an ASB incident and that it provided details of further training and processes that had been introduced. This showed transparency and that the landlord had engaged with issues it identified and showed learning from the case.
  5. It was also reasonable that it considered a higher award of compensation should have been made, although it is unclear why this was not identified within the original complaint procedure. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its final offer of £275 (£100 for complaint handling, £100 for service failure regarding the request and £75 for “time and trouble”) still failed to appropriately reflect the failings identified. Considering the delay to, and quality of, the stage 2 response and its failure to make an offer of reasonable redress during the complaints process, the Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to the resident that better reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.
    2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
    3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The length of time the landlord took to resolve the issue following the resident’s request for the installation of a disabled parking bay was significant and unreasonable. The landlord has failed to provide an appropriate explanation for why it took so long to resolve the issue following the resident’s request and there is evidence of unreasonable delays at several stages of the process, including in relation to apparent confusion over who owned relevant land. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident during this period.
  2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s ASB reports either at the time he submitted evidence, or during the complaint procedure. It failed to address the issue at stage 1 and then unreasonably focussed on the fact it did not consider the issue to constitute ASB at stage 2.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were issued outside of its stated timeframes, with a significant delay at stage 2 which was not recognised. Its stage 2 response failed to address the crux of the complaint or recognise that additional redress would have been appropriate. Its offer of compensation at the end of its complaint process was some way short of constituting reasonable redress for the delays and inconvenience the resident would have experienced.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £300 to reflect the handling of his request for a disabled parking bay.
      2. £200 to reflect the poor handling of the complaint.
      3. These awards are instead of, rather than in addition to, the landlord’ final offer of compensation (£175 in total for its service failure and the resident’s time and trouble and £100 for its poor complaint handling) and should be reduced if any compensation has already been paid.
    2. Write to the resident with an apology for its handling of his ASB reports.
    3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.