Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202400585)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400585

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

24 September 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a faulty boiler in a decant property.
   2. The resident’s reports that water damaged the electrics in the decant property.
   3. A delayed decant payment.
2. This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives with her 3 children in a 3 bed house that is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement as a permanent decant in April 2024. However the resident had previously lived in a 2 bed ground floor property under a secure tenancy since 2004. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. During the course of this complaint the resident was decanted into a temporary property between 27 December 2023 and 18 April 2024. She was also decanted into hotel accommodation between 12 January 2024 and 13 February 2024 while repairs to the temporary property were completed. It is evident that the resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about damp and mould at her previous permanent property. In responding to that complaint the landlord also addressed its decision to decant the resident and issue decant payments. That separate complaint is being investigated  by this Service under complaint reference 202333658.
5. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 January 2024. The resident said that she had been experiencing boiler issues since 27 December 2023 in a decant property she had moved into. She said she had received 4 visits from engineers who had not resolved the heating fault nor a leak from the boiler when it was switched on. She reported that the engineers had released the boiler pressure but there appeared to be a bigger issue that was affecting her and her 2 young children who were unwell. The resident asked the landlord to place her in a “dry well maintained suitable home that is safe for me and my family.”
6. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 11 March 2024. The landlord provided a timeline of actions it had taken to respond to the boiler repair in which it said that it had recorded 2 no access visits. It apologised for the inconvenience the matter had caused. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered the resident £100 for the time and trouble the matters had caused to the resident and £100 for its delay in issuing a response to the complaint. The landlord said that it would credit the compensation to the resident’s rent account and advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied with the response.
7. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 11 March 2024 which the landlord received the following day. The resident said:
   1. She had been unable to speak to the landlord about the impact the lack of sufficient heating and hot water had caused her and her family.
   2. She had been ignored when she had reported a leak from the boiler during the first visit which had saturated her carpets and led to an electrical fault that caused her tumble dryer to blow.
   3. She had had to stay in a hotel which cost her money for food and travel and had left her struggling financially.
   4. The engineers had visited the property and had allowed water to leak which was visible in 3 rooms.
   5. She had never denied access to the property.
   6. She had been told the repair would not be fixed until February 2024, but when she had contacted more senior staff it was repaired immediately.
   7. The leak could have been fixed on the first visit, but the engineers did not want to fix the boiler.
8. The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 13 March 2024. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 7 June 2024. In addition to the points it made in the stage 1 response the landlord said:
   1. The timeline it had provided in its previous response was accurate.
   2. The contractor had attended within 24 hours of the report which was in keeping with its emergency repair policy timescale.
   3. The 2 instances of no access were recorded, and the contractor had made telephone calls to the resident from the property.
   4. It had sought to bring the appointments forward as it had a cancellation which was its usual process. It had remedied the leak as soon as possible after learning that the leak had not been caused by its repairs contractor after a further missed appointment that had occurred on 22 February 2024.
   5. It had agreed to extend the resident’s stay in hotel accommodation following her rejection of a further offer of alternative decant accommodation.
   6. It had located suitable permanent accommodation which had been delayed while grounds maintenance works were completed but that the resident had moved into the property on 18 April 2024.
   7. It had provided updates where possible, had replaced her tumble dryer and had issued her with outstanding decant payments.
   8. It had been unable to find any service failures in its handling of the repairs which were completed in line with its emergency and routine repair timescales.
   9. Its provision of a replacement dryer was not something it would usually undertake. It decision to replace the dryer was a gesture of goodwill but as it was not a service it usually provided it has been excluded from the complaint response.
   10. It had not addressed the resident’s request for alternative accommodation in its stage 1 response and therefore upheld this part of the complaint.
   11. It had found that it had delayed the provision of decant payments and therefore upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
   12. It offered the resident £50 as compensation for its delayed decant payments, £150 for time and trouble and distress the matters had caused  and £250 for its complaint handling failings.
   13. The landlord advised that it would credit the compensation to the resident’s rent account and said that the resident could escalate the complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the response.
9. This Service wrote to the resident on 9 July 2024 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler in a decant property.

10. The landlord capped the boiler in the empty decant property on an undisclosed date in keeping with it voids and lettings procedures. The landlord uncapped and recommissioned the boiler in the decant property on 23 December 2023 when the resident took up occupation of the property. This Service has not seen the landlord’s letting procedures. However, uncapping the boiler was in keeping with standard lettings practices so as to ensure that the boiler was working and could be connected to a gas supply.
11. The resident reported a heating and hot water fault in the decant property to the landlord on 28 December 2023. In responding to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler in the decant property the landlord:
    1. Attended the property on 29 December 2023 to inspect and repair the boiler. The landlord’s response was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it will respond to heating faults reported between October and March as an emergency appointment within 24 hours.
    2. Attended the property again on 30 December 2023 to top up the boiler pressure and order replacement parts. It was reasonable for the landlord to have reattended the property to reinstate the heating while it was waiting for parts.
    3. Attended the property on 2 January 2024 to repressurise the boiler and complete a further temporary fix while it was waiting for parts. This was reasonable under the circumstances given the landlord did not have the parts it had ordered 3 days previously.
    4. Attended the property on 3 January 2024 during which it located a leak within the boxing in the hallway. It subsequently arranged for an alternative contractor to attended the property the next day to access the leak and repair the pipework. It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a suitably qualified contractor to attend to repair the fault. Further for this to have been arranged as an emergency appointment within 24 hours.
    5. Attended the property on 10 and 11 January 2024 but recorded that it had been unable to access the property on both occasions.
    6. Attended the property on 12 January 2024 during which it installed replacement boiler parts and reinstated the heating and hot water in the property.
    7. Inspected the electrics in the property on 12 January 2024 following the completion of the boiler repair so as to assess whether the property was safe to occupy. The landlord’s electrical inspection resulted in the requirement to further decant the resident while the property dried out.
    8. Inspected the decant property on 14 February 2024 when the resident took up occupation of the property during which it verified that the boiler, heating, and hot water was functional.
12. However the landlord:
    1. Failed to repair the boiler when it attended the property on 29 December 2023. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had occupied the property without functional heating.
    2. Failed to identify a leak from the boiler pipework when it attended the property on 29 December 2023, despite the resident drawing attention to the matter during the visit. The landlord’s failure to respond to the leak caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who experienced subsequent damage to her belongings. Furthermore it adversely affected her confidence in the landlord’s repairs service which could have been avoided.
    3. Experienced a technical fault with a handheld device when it visited the property on 29 December 2023 and therefore did not progress the order for  replacement boiler parts until 30 December 2023, 24 hours later.
    4. Took 11 working days to complete the repairs to the faulty boiler during which time it attended the property 5 times thereby incurring inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
13. Following its inspection and diagnosis of the boiler repair, the landlord was reliant on the provision of boiler parts it had subsequently ordered to provide a lasting remedy. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience the heating repair caused the resident during this time. It therefore sought to reduce the detriment by reattending the property to repressurise the boiler and complete temporary fixes. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
14. The landlord addressed its handling of the boiler repair in its stage 1 complaint response in which it provided a timeline of the actions it had taken to address the matter and upheld the complaint. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and an award of compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord offered the resident a compensation award of £100 in its stage 1 response for the time and detriment the resident experienced when seeking a response to the boiler repair. The landlord subsequently reviewed and increased its offer to £150 in its final complaint response. The revised award was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation procedure which suggests awards up to £150 for a medium service failure where several errors have been made or a service/repair is repeatedly not resolved. Furthermore this award is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for situations where there has been an identified failure that has adversely affected the resident, for which the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made an attempt to put things right.
16. Consequently taking all matters into account this Service finds the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its recognised failings in responding to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler in a decant property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that water damaged the electrics in the decant property.

17. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 11 March 2024 she reported that water from the leaking boiler had caused an electrical fault in the property which had caused her tumble dryer to blow. There is no evidence to confirm what specific actions the landlord took to rectify the electrical fault in the property. However it is evident that the resident was decanted to a hotel while the landlord repaired the boiler, leaks, and the electrics in the property. Further that she was moved back into the temporary decant property on 13 February 2024 after the landlord had completed the repairs.
18. The landlord inspected the decant property on 14 February 2024 and noted that all lights were working. However, it subsequently raised a repair to test any fuse board light breakers that had been switched off and for an electrical safety certificate to be provided. It was appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for an electrical safety test to be completed after the property had dried out, to ensure that it met the required electrical safety standards. This was also appropriate to ensure the landlord met its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) which says it is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of electricity.
19. The landlord discussed the damage that had been caused to the resident’s tumble dryer with her on 15 January 2024. It further addressed the matter again on 16 April 2024 when it said it would replace the tumble dryer in recognition of the damage and inconvenience its handling of boiler repairs had caused. The landlord sought information about the dryer from the resident on 29 April 2024 so as to provide a like-for-like replacement.
20. The landlord’s decision to provide a replacement dryer so as to put right the damage that had been caused was reasonable under the circumstances. The landlord explained in its final complaint response that this was not something it would ordinarily replace or repair. Its decision to provide a replacement dryer evidenced that it had sought a resolution focussed approach to the matter. Further it was proportionate compensation for the inconvenience its repair handling failings had caused the resident. Consequently and taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that water damaged the electrics in the decant property.

The landlord’s handling of a delayed decant payment.

21. As previously explained the landlord has addressed its handling of the decant and the amount of the decant payments it awarded the resident within a separate complaint. Consequently this will be addressed under a separate investigation report. However in her stage 2 escalation request of 11 March 2024 the resident explained that she had been left struggling financially to cover costs while she resided in hotel accommodation. The landlord addressed this matter in its stage 2 complaint response.
22. The resident told the landlord that she had been required to make payments out of her own pocket during a conversation she held with it on 13 January 2024. She explained that this was because a food credit it had previously provided to her was void. The landlord emailed the resident 2 days later to apologise for the difficulties she had experienced over the weekend. It agreed to address an issue with the provision of breakfast with the hotel. It further said that it would contact her about subsistence payments for food while she stayed in the hotel. It was reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the resident promptly and to have reassured her that it would address her concerns. Further for it to have indicated it would provide her with subsistence payments so as to reduce any distress and inconvenience the decant had caused her.
23. The resident requested an update from the landlord about the provision of support payments for meals again on 8 February 2024. The landlord emailed the resident the following day in which it said it would bring any outstanding payments up to date. However there is no evidence that it did so in keeping with the commitments it had made.
24. It is evident that the resident contacted the landlord about the outstanding payments again on 16 April 2024. The landlord referenced an outstanding expenditure of £261.32 on the same day. It subsequently raised a payment request for £2,050 to be paid to the resident as a food allowance on 24 April 2024. However this payment was not actioned until Mid-May which was 4 months after the resident had taken up occupation at the hotel. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have reimbursed the resident for the expenditure she had incurred sooner in keeping with the commitments it had made. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had been required to source the funds herself.
25. The landlord referenced its handling of the decant payments in its stage 2 complaint of 7 June 2024 in which it recognised the delay in issuing the payment as a failing. It also offered the resident a £50 award of compensation for its handling of the matter. It was appropriate for the landlord to have recognised its failings and for it to have apologised to the resident. Further for it to have sought to put the matter right by offering an award of compensation in keeping with its compensation procedure. However, the award the landlord provided was not proportionate the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble the resident had incurred while waiting for the payment of the subsistence payments she was entitled to. Consequently taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a delayed decant payment.
26. The landlord’s delay in issuing the decant payment had no permanent impact on the resident. However it had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience it had caused to the resident. An increased award of £150 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

27. There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
    2. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 1 January 2024 until 11 March 2024 which was 39 working days later than the landlord’s 10 working day policy target timescale.
    3. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint such as by addressing her request to be rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    4. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 12 March 2024 until 7 June 2024 which was 40 working days later that its 20 day complaint policy target timescale.
    5. Said it had received the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 March 2024 instead of 12 March 2024.
    6. Said that the resident had resided in a hotel over the Christmas period in its stage 2 response. This was not accurate as she was not moved from the decant property into a hotel until 12 January 2024.
28. The landlord offered the resident £100 as compensation for its complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response. It also recognised that it had not fully addressed the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response and increased the compensation offer to £250. This amount was above that set out in the  landlord’s compensation procedure which suggests awards of up to £150 for complaint handling failures. The amount is within the range of amounts set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations where the landlord’s failings had no permanent impact on the resident but caused time, trouble, and inconvenience in getting matters resolved. Consequently the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a delayed decant payment.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler in the decant property.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports that water damaged the electrics in the decant property.
    3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the delayed decant payment. This is to be paid directly to her and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
32. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.