Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202228710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228710

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 February 2024 (amended at review)

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The renewal of the resident’s kitchen.
2. The renewal of the resident’s bathroom and WC.
3. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a 1 bed ground floor flat in a converted house. She moved to this property following a mutual exchange in September 2013.
The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s legal obligations are to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is also required to keep in repair and working order the installation for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation, space heating and heating water.
The Regulator of Social Housing requires that social housing providers meet the standard set out in the Government’s Decent Homes Guidance. The guidance states that social housing should be:
1. Free from Category 1 Hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) such as damp and mould, excess heat and cold, risk of falls and electrical hazards.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities (in particular, kitchen and bathrooms) and.
4. Offer a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
In its planned investment policy, the landlord commits to providing a high quality, well managed planned and cyclical maintenance service that meets resident’s expectations, makes best use of resources, and ensures they meet legal, regulatory, and statutory objectives. It states that renewals of kitchens, bathroom, windows, roofs, boilers etc are completed based on stock condition surveys and life cycles of the components.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy. However, its repairs handbook states that planned works are normally completed to an agreed work programme. Some repairs involving large-scale replacement or improvement works may be scheduled outside the major routine repairs priorities and are carried out under a separate programme as annual planned works or major repairs. It also includes guidance as to which repairs are the resident’s responsibility and the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. Complaints at stage 1 will be responded to within 10 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, it can request that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 in the following circumstances:
1. The response received at Stage 1 is factually incorrect (details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the resident)
2. The response received does not address the initial complaint.
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered.
4. Actions agreed at Stage 1 have not been completed as agreed.
The landlord must respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that redress of between £50 and £350 can be awarded depending on the impact of the landlord’s service failure on the resident. Guidance is included with the policy in relation to tariff ranges.

Summary of events

The landlord confirmed with the resident in 2021 that her kitchen and bathroom were to be renewed. In July 2021, she was asked to decide on a colour scheme for the new kitchen. The resident was unable to decide on a colour for the kitchen units and this delayed the kitchen installation. The resident chose a colour in or around November 2021 and informed the landlord. However, she changed her mind in December and asked the landlord to change the order. The landlord declined to do this as the order had been placed with the suppliers.
On 9 February 2022, the resident was offered a date of 22 February 2022 for the kitchen installation. She wrote to contractors on 10 February 2022 asking that the kitchen unit colour be changed.
There was a discussion between the resident and the landlord on 11 February 2022, regarding the installation of the kitchen. This Service has not been provided with a record of the conversation. The resident followed this telephone call up with an email on the same day expressing her dissatisfaction with the colour of the kitchen units.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to report that the contractors had cancelled the appointment to start the bathroom works on 22 February. The appointment was rescheduled for the 15 March 2023 and email confirmation was sent to the resident. Unfortunately, this email was not picked up by the resident as she did monitor her emails regularly. When contractors arrived to start the works on 15 March, the resident was unaware of the appointment so it was agreed that they would return the following day. The kitchen was installed and works to the bathroom were undertaken over the following weeks. Copies of the handover forms were provided to this Service showing that the landlord’s surveyor had undertaken a post-inspection on 30 March 2023 and again on 4 April 2023, and had verified that the works were undertaken to a satisfactory standard.
On 24 April 2022, the resident complained about the kitchen installation. She said that she was unhappy with its layout and design. A unit was fitted too close to the kitchen door which she considered to be a health and safety risk. She was also dissatisfied that the cooker was fitted between units, which she said could be problematic when the oven was hot.
The resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord on or around 27 April 2022 about the bathroom and WC renewal. She said that:
1. There was an issue with the hot water and the bath taps. Two operatives had investigated and had said that a part was needed. She was having to take a shower rather than using the bath.
2. She was unhappy with the standard of workmanship in the bathroom including paintwork finishing. She said that it now took longer for the toilet cistern to fill between flushes.
3. There was a crack in the plaster surrounding one of the wall aerial sockets in her bedroom and a small crack in the paintwork which she believed to have been caused by the contractors during the installation of the bathroom. She also reported a broken window vent in the bathroom which she said was not there prior to the works.
The landlord arranged a further inspection of the property with the resident on 27 April 2022. On the day, the resident raised several issues with the kitchen and bathroom installation that she was unhappy with. The landlord has not provided evidence of the outcome of this inspection; however, the resident later wrote to the landlord to express that she felt dismissed during the inspection and that her concerns were not acknowledged.
On 30 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to request that she provide evidence of the works she was unhappy with, and it would arrange for the contractor to attend to rectify it.
Between 3 and 17 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord several times to chase the snagging jobs she had reported. The landlord had recorded that the resident requested that the works be done as soon as possible as she would not have availability over the following six months. It also noted that the resident did not want to engage with named officers.
The contractors contacted the resident in early May 2022 to make an appointment to complete any snagging works.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response regarding the installation of the resident’s kitchen. It concluded that the complaint was not upheld. It stated that:
1. The kitchen had been installed correctly and as per its specification.
2. It was a legislative requirement that on all new kitchen fits, the landlord must install worktops either side of the cooker and there were no issues with the existing layout.
3. The design had been carried out by a competent person on behalf of the kitchen installers, who did so taking into account health and safety requirements.
4. No health and safety risks had been identified as a result of a unit being fitted close to the kitchen door. The width of the kitchen door was accessible to enter and leave the kitchen as per the plan. Prior to the base unit being installed there had been a fridge freezer in the same space.
On 17 May 2022, the landlord’s internal correspondence records that attempts had been made to arrange an appointment with the resident on 10 May 2022. It noted that the resident had refused access on the basis that she had made a complaint, and she said that the works team would need to liaise with the complaints team.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord issued its complaint response regarding the installation of the bathroom in which it stated that:
1. The resident’s complaint was regarding the temperature of water from the bath taps, the sealing of the bath panel, the standard of paintwork under the sink in the WC.
2. there had been an inspection of the property by the landlord and the contractor on 27 April 2022 when it went through the snagging list the resident had provided. The resident was advised on this date what the landlord would and would not do.
3. The contractor contacted the resident to book in works for the 10 May 2022, but she declined the appointment and advised that the contractor must communicate with the complaints team. The landlord said that there was no requirement for repairs or inspections to be raised through the complaints team.
4. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as no service failure had been identified. It was proposed that another appointment would be made for the contractor to attend to the snagging works. The contractor would contact her by 10 June 2022 to schedule a date.
The documents provided to this Service do not evidence that the resident was contacted before 10 June 2022. On 28 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up snagging works. In response, the landlord contacted the contractor to ask that they update the resident as soon as possible.
On 26 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the snagging had not been completed. She reported that the temperature of the water from her bath taps remained lukewarm. She had reported this to the landlord, and it had referred the matter to the contractor, but they had not yet resolved this. She asked that her letter be treated as a formal complaint.
On 26 January 2023, the resident raised a second formal complaint with the landlord. She said that:
1. She had sent numerous emails and made telephone calls to the landlord, but the works remained outstanding.
2. There were delays with the works starting in March 2022 because there were issues with the drainpipe in her garden and damp in her bedroom. It took several visits before the drainpipe was repaired.
3. The works started on 15 March 2022, but she had not been informed in advance, although the landlord and contractor had said that she had been contacted.
4. She was unhappy with the design, colour and height of the kitchen and she wanted it to be replaced.
The landlord recorded that a repair to the kitchen cupboard had been completed on 31 January 2023.
On 1 February 2023, the resident resubmitted her complaint sent on 26 January 2023.
On 1 February 2023, the landlord recorded that the resident had asked that the taps in her bathroom to be inspected and asked that an appointment be raised.
On 7 February 2023, the contractors contacted the resident to repair the resident’s bath tap. They attended the following day to inspect the bath tap, but the resident advised that the snagging was not looked at during this visit. A follow up appointment was arranged for 17 February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 asking for an update on her complaint. The complaints team replied that it did not have an open complaint registered for her and that she must make a new complaint. The resident said that she had resubmitted her complaint on 1 February 2023 via the link that the complaints section had provided.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord attended to inspect the issue reported with the water and bath taps.
On 21 February 2023, the resident wrote to the complaints team to report that the landlord had attended with the contractor on 17 February 2023. The resident said that she felt that her concerns about the standard of bathroom works were dismissed. She said, during the inspection she told the contractors that she believed they had fitted a rusty shower rail in the bathroom. When the contractor denied this and showed the resident a picture of the shower rail from the post works inspection showing no rust, the resident said that the picture could have been from another property. She also said that the landlord had not refitted a towel rail in her bathroom.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2023 to request that a response to the resident’s complaint be provided within 20 working days if it was to be treated as a stage 2 complaint.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that:
1. It had received the resident’s complaint on 31 January and 1 February 2023.
2. It was satisfied that the correct procedure had been followed.
3. An inspection was completed on 17 February 2023 and the items that were highlighted by the resident on that day were not snagging items but instead wear and tear and therefore the landlord was not obliged to undertake remedial works.
4. As the criteria for a stage 2 review had not been met, as no service failure had been identified, the complaint was not upheld and would be closed.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s investigation has been hindered, in part, due to the incomplete records provided by the landlord. The landlord has notified this Service that several of the discussions with the resident happened in person and were either not confirmed in writing or the discussion was not recorded. Repair records have not been provided and neither has there been a clear record of contact between the contractor and resident. It has therefore not been possible to obtain a clear picture of what happened in relation to some aspects of the complaint. There have been no records provided between May 2022 and December 2022 detailing the landlord’s response to the reported issue with the bath water temperature and bath taps. In the absence of these records, this Service must conclude that no action was taken by the landlord or its contractors between these dates.
Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident that it took all reasonable steps when handling a repair. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
The lack of a clear record of inspections and what was agreed with the resident, is likely to have been a barrier to an early resolution in this matter. Further, the resident has been put to time and trouble in pursuing a resolution. The Ombudsman therefore orders that the landlord pay the resident an amount of £70 in compensation to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint. It is noted that the landlord has recently undertaken a review of its record-keeping in line with the recommendations outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) in which it has said that changes are being implemented to improve its record-keeping.

The landlord’s handling of the renewal of the resident’s bathroom

The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of workmanship following the renewal of her bathroom. In cases such as this, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to attempt to assess the standard of workmanship; rather it is to assess whether the landlord followed its process in respect of planned works, considering its legal and regulatory obligations. We will also consider whether the landlord’s response of the resident’s reports, dissatisfaction, and complaint were reasonable.
This Service has seen photographs of the bathroom, WC, and kitchen, taken on the completion of the installation works. While these have been considered, it is not for the Ombudsman to decide on the standard of installation works based on photographic evidence. Further, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location or circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not place significant reliance on photographs in our investigation.
It is also important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.
The landlord informed this Service that the “the snags identified at the final inspection on 30 March 2022 were missing caulk from the socket spur and the boiler housing was incorrect. Both issues were resolved on the day. The final sign off was completed on 4 April.”
When the resident raised with the landlord that she was unhappy with the works undertaken in the bathroom, the landlord met with her at the property on 27 April 2022 and confirmed with her what it would and would not agree to do. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take. However, this Service has not been provided with evidence of what had been agreed following the inspection on 27 April 2022. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it would arrange for its contractor to attend to revisit any concerns the resident had raised.
No records have been provided to this Service detailing what attempts the contractor had made with the resident to arrange for a further inspection at this time. It is noted that the resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2022 to chase this up, and the landlord subsequently requested that the contractor contacted the resident.
It is further acknowledged that the contractor had said that there were difficulties in contacting the resident at this time. However, the only records provided show that the landlord had arranged to meet with the resident on 12 December 2022 and that this appointment was to be rearranged.
At this time, the resident raised a further complaint and stated that the landlord had not replaced her towel rail and that her shower curtain rail was rusty. In response to enquiries as part of the complaint process, the contractors stated that they had not removed a towel rail in the bathroom as part of the works and that a new shower rail had been provided. In the absence of any contemporaneous records, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding in relation to this aspect of the complaint. The landlord has informed this Service that it had concluded that other items listed by the resident were wear and tear and would not have been covered as snagging works. It stated that the resident had been informed of this face-to-face.
However, it is noted that the issue with the bath taps and temperature of the water was not resolved in a timely manner. This was first raised in April 2022 and the resident raised the issue again in December and January 2023. The resident had said that a plumber had inspected the taps at some points between April 2022 and December 2023, and said that it required a part. The landlord attended to address this on 17 February 2022. It is unclear from the records what the issue was, what the landlord had done to attempt to resolve this, and what the outcome was. In the absence of records, this Service concludes that there has been service failure. The resident said that she experienced distress and inconvenience as, while she had access to hot water from the shower during this period, she was unable to have a hot bath and was put to time and trouble in chasing this up with the landlord.
Further, the Ombudsman has identified a service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with a clear direction by confirming in writing what it had agreed and not agreed to do post-works and the reasons for this. This would also have assisted with the landlord’s internal communications, as the necessary staff would have had access to this information, to respond to the resident. Consequently, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations which prolonged the issue unnecessarily.
In view of the service failures identified, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint and orders that the landlord pay the resident an amount of £100.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen installation

The resident complained that the kitchen works were delayed unnecessarily. It is noted that the works were initially postponed because the resident had been unable to decide on the colour scheme for her kitchen. She stated that the works were delayed again because of an issue with a drainpipe that would need to be repaired before the kitchen installation could commence. No records have been provided by the landlord regarding the repair to the pipe, however it would be reasonable for the landlord to undertake these works ahead of a kitchen installation if it were concerned about access through the kitchen to the garden while the works were ongoing. It is also noted that planned works do not follow the same timescales as responsive repairs. No service failure has therefore been identified in relation to this issue.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was frustrated that she could not change the colour scheme of her kitchen. However, while it is good practice to provide residents with choice where possible, which the landlord did do, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to reorder different coloured units and worktops for the resident’s kitchen on aesthetic grounds. The landlord is required only to ensure that the kitchen is in good repair and fit for purpose. Social landlords have limited resources which they are expected to manage effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord was entitled to conclude that it would not be cost effective to reorder the resident’s kitchen.
While the resident had concerns about the installation and design of the kitchen in terms of location of units and use of space, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional views of its staff who had inspected the works post installation and determined that they were completed to an appropriate standard. While the design and installation of the kitchen may not have met with the resident’s expectations, the kitchen was functional and had been installed in accordance with legislative requirements and therefore the landlord had complied with its obligations. Further, unless the resident had any specific needs, relating to health or disability where adaptations were recommended, the landlord was only obliged to fit a standard kitchen in the property.
While the resident had said that the landlord had gone back on its agreement to undertake repairs to wall sockets and boxing, in the absence of contemporaneous correspondence detailing what parties had agreed, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of service failure in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
At review stage of the Ombudsman’s procedure, the resident provided photographs which indicated gaps around some of the sockets in the kitchen.
While it is not possible to say whether the landlord stated it would correct this as part of the snagging works (due to its failings in record keeping, which has been determined); it is reasonable to determine that electrical sockets should not be left with visible gaps. There are clear potential health and safety concerns with leaving gaps around sockets which may make them vulnerable to water penetration, for example. The landlord has clear legal obligations as set out in the Housing Act 2004 (and detailed further within accompanying HHSRS Guidance) to ensure properties are suitable and safe. This includes that landlords should ensure that:
1. The installation, i.e. supply/meters/fuses/wiring/sockets/light fittings/switches are maintained in good repair;
2. There should be facility for food cupboard/larder and refrigerator and freezer with appropriate sockets.
In light of the evidence I have reviewed which suggests these sockets may not have been ‘appropriate’ (and as such, safe) as per the definition within the HHSRS, and are likely to have constituted snagging which the landlord should have addressed; it is appropriate to make a determination of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen installation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s kitchen complaint 5 working days outside of its target response timescales in its complaints policy, which would not have been unduly detrimental to the resident. The resident did not ask to escalate her complaints and raised new complaints about these issues in early 2023, 8 months after her stage one response. Although it was not obliged to do so, the landlord exercised its discretion to consider the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on both issues.
The landlord acted in accordance with its complaints procedure by declining to reinvestigate the complaint, applying the criteria outlined in its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s bathroom installation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord had failed to keep a clear written record of what had been agreed with the resident in its post inspections and it had not provided this service with full repair records and details of contact between the contractors and the resident. Gaps in the information have hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation and the lack of records would have led to a delay in this matter being resolved.
The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures in relation to the installation of the resident’s kitchen. It undertook appropriate post inspection checks and completed remedial works where identified.
There was a period between April 2022 and February 2023 when the issue the resident had raised about her bathroom taps was not addressed satisfactorily, on the evidence provided. Further, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or communicate effectively with her regarding what it considered to be post-installation snags.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures in its complaints handling. It acted fairly in exercising its discretion to escalate the resident’s complaint 8 months after it had responded at stage one.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
Pay the resident the amount £270, comprised of:
1. £100 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble due to service failures identified in relation to the installation of her bathroom.
2. £100 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble due to service failures identified in relation to the installation of her kitchen.
3. £70 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble due to the landlord’s ineffective record keeping.
Confirm with this Service once payment has been made.
The landlord must also take the following actions within four weeks of the date of the determination:
Inspect the resident’s bath taps again, to see if the issue with lukewarm water persists. It must do this and complete any identified repairs within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Complete a further inspection of the work it has completed in the kitchen, including the boiler boxing, sockets and the kitchen unit door. It must then assess if further works are required and complete these within four weeks.
Review the record keeping failures identified in this case and assess why there were significant failings in terms of the records the landlord created/recorded. As part of this review, it must detail any improvements it has made to ensure these failures are not repeated going forward.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider also re-inspecting the shower rail in the bathroom when it conducts its inspections of the kitchen, and confirm to the resident if this requires replacement