Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202304013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304013

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting her property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord has explained that it has a head lease from the freeholder and manages the whole property on the freeholder’s behalf. The landlord told this Service that its role includes management of its sub-lessees, and “housing management functions”. The resident therefore is a sub-lessee of the landlord.
The landlord explains that the flat above the resident’s (‘Flat A’) is leased to a private company (‘Property Company A’), which has leased it to a local authority that has in turn rented it to tenants. Flat A is the source of the leak affecting the resident’s property. Property Company A is a sub-lessee of the landlord.
The resident made 2 complaints to the landlord around the same time. Both were brought to the Ombudsman and related to issues originating from Flat A. This investigation relates to the resident’s reports of the leak affecting her property. Case 202211458, determined by this Service in April 2023, related to noise emanating from Flat A. There was confusion between the complaints which led to a complaint being closed and then reopened. There was also some cross–over of the complaints. The landlord referred to the leak in its stage 1 response dealing with the noise issues. However, this was before the resident had made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the leak. While that particular response is not part of this complaint, it has been listed below at paragraph 7 for context.
The resident states that she has been experiencing a leak into her property from Flat A since 2009 and consistently reported this to the landlord. She contacted the landlord on 30 May 2022 and again on 1 June 2022 to report an ongoing leak affecting her property. The call handler contacted Property Company A to inform them of the resident’s report. A representative from Property Company A visited the same day and reported that they could not find a leak from Flat A affecting the resident’s property.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022. They explained that the resident had become increasingly concerned about the leak into her property. The fire service had attended and identified the source of the leak as Flat A. The resident wanted the damage to her property repaired and compensation for the ongoing issues with the leak.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s other complaint in relation to the noise from Flat A. In the response it said that it could not offer repairs associated with the leak as the resident was a leaseholder. It advised that she should contact the insurance company as it offered a leak tracing service to identify and address leaks. The landlord said there had been no service failure on its part and did not uphold the complaint.
On 19 September 2022, the resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She listed the following points:
1. She felt that her right to the quiet enjoyment of her property was being impacted upon by the occupants of Flat A.
2. A leak from Flat A had been affecting her intermittently since 2009 and included the following dates:
  1. On 2, 24 and 26 April 2010, water from Flat A had come through the ceiling into her small bedroom. Property Company A had undertaken repairs.
  2. On 4 June 2017, water from Flat A leaked into her bedroom causing significant damage. She had notified Property Company A and the landlord at that time.
  3. On 16 and 28 February 2022, water from Flat A leaked through the ceiling and onto the wardrobe. She had notified the landlord and Property Company A at that time.
  4. On 27 and 28 May 2022, water from Flat A leaked through into her property. She contacted the fire service which attended and traced the leak back to Flat A. She sent Property Company A and the landlord correspondence and photographs of the leak.
  5. On 21 July 2022 there was a further leak from Flat A into her property.
3. She had reviewed her lease and believed that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the leaseholder of Flat A fulfilled their obligations as required by their own lease. She asked that the landlord contact Property Company A and inform it of the nuisance she was experiencing as a result of the leak.
4. She wanted the landlord to reassure her that the leak would be resolved and to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered over the years.
5. She felt that it was unreasonable for the landlord and Property Company A to expect her to claim off her insurance every time there had been a leak. This would have had cost implications for her insurance premiums through no fault of her own.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2022. It said it had reviewed the form she had submitted on 19 September 2022. It understood her frustration with the leaks. However, it had not been provided with evidence to suggest the leaks had been caused by negligence of the resident of Flat A. It explained that the flat was managed by a local authority as temporary accommodation. It would try to keep a closer eye on the property as the owner should be aware of their responsibility. As a leaseholder, the resident could take action against the leaseholder of Flat A for the damage to her property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 September 2022 to escalate her complaint and requested a response within 20 working days. She listed the following points:
1. She had experienced an ongoing leak from Flat A. Neither the landlord nor Property Company A were taking responsibility for addressing the problem.
2. The landlord had not addressed any of the concerns raised in her complaint.
3. The leaks were impacting on her right to the quiet enjoyment of her property.
4. The layout of Flat A was poor. The kitchen in the property was directly above her bedroom. She asked for the landlord to investigate this.
5. She was aware she could take action against the leaseholder of Flat A. However, she had been clear in her complaint what action she expected the landlord to take and was unclear why it had not fulfilled its obligations.
6. She asked why the landlord was not being proactive in the matter.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022. They advised the resident was still waiting for a response to her complaint escalation about the leak affecting her property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. It confirmed the following points:
1. The resident had escalated her complaint because she had experienced intermittent leaks into her property from Flat A since 2009.
2. In line with its complaints policy, it was unable to consider issues that had occurred more than 6 months prior to a complaint being made. It was therefore unable to consider the historical leaks.
3. It was aware of 2 leaks between May and July 2022.
4. It was not the freeholder of the building or the headlease for Flat A. It was therefore unable to take any action against the occupant of Flat A. It said it would contact the freeholder and request it contact the leaseholder of Flat A to address the issues.
5. It was unable to assist with the resident’s request to have Flat A complete the repairs to her property.
6. It partially upheld the complaint due to the time it had taken to provide a stage 2 response.
7. It understood that she had contacted it several times about the leak and had been left confused about who was responsible. It acknowledged that it could have provided the correct information sooner and apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
8. It offered £50 compensation comprised of:
  1. £35 for time and trouble.
  2. £15 for poor complaint handling.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The landlord emailed the freeholder of the block on 24 March 2023. It advised of the leaks being experienced by its resident. It advised it had attempted to contact Property Company A but it had not responded, and asked that the freeholder investigate the issue. The landlord said it was willing to work alongside the freeholder to resolve the matter. On 28 March 2023, the freeholder responded and informed the landlord that it (the landlord) held the property on a long lease until 2073 and was responsible for the “full management of the estate”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2023. She acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 response and said:
1. Her complaint had been submitted in September 2022 and not January 2023 as stated in the response.
2. She had experienced 6 leaks during 2022, not 2 as stated in the response.
3. The landlord had told her that it had received updated legal advice surrounding the lease and freeholder of the building. She asked if it could share this advice with her in the spirit of clarity and transparency.
4. She asked the landlord to provide contact details for the freeholder of the block.
In an internal email on 28 March 2023, the landlord confirmed it had provided incorrect information in its stage 2 response in relation to the responsibilities of the organisation associated with the freehold and leases for Flat A. It said it was likely that it would have to involve its legal services team and issue a complaint directly with the landlord of Flat A.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord had a meeting with Property Company A, with the following outcomes:
1. Property Company A was the leaseholder of flat A. It had a contract with the local authority which used Flat A for temporary accommodation. The current resident had been in occupation since 2011.
2. Property Company A believed the resident of Flat A may have “outgrown” the property. However, the local authority had not been responsive to its reports on the matter.
3. At the meeting it was agreed that both organisations would manage the communications going forward. Any issues raised by the resident would be logged by the landlord and communicated to Property Company A for action.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 2 May 2023. She said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to apologise for its failure to understand its own responsibilities. She also sought compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord sent an internal email. It said it managed the estate on behalf of the freeholder. The management responsibilities included repairs, estate maintenance, cyclical decorations and housing management functions. The landlord owned the lease, which had been sold to Property Company A. Property Company A was bound by the terms of the original lease. The landlord had the power to serve a breach of lease letter on Property Company A to undertake repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the focus of this investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from May 2022 onwards. This is because, under paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to a member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. However, all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting her property

The landlord’s repairs policy advises leaseholders to refer to their lease for information surrounding the responsibilities for repairs.
The resident’s lease states that the landlord has powers to require other leaseholders in the block to comply with the requirements of the clauses similar to those in her own lease. Namely, it can take action to ensure that a leaseholder does not permit or allow something to take place which may become a nuisance, or cause damage, inconvenience or annoyance to other leaseholders or owner–occupiers.
When the resident reported the leak on 1 June 2022, the call handler originally told her that she would have to contact her own tradesperson, and the occupant of Flat A, to resolve the matter. After the call, the staff member realised they had given incorrect advice. The electronic notes state that usually where issues involve 2 leaseholders it is up to those leaseholders themselves to resolve them. The notes go on to say, “to my horror I realised the flat had a managing agent”. The staff member then called Property Company A and reported the leak. This was a positive step by the call handler and resulted in a representative of Property Company A visiting both properties. There are no notes on the file to show the call handler contacted the resident and informed her of the error, which should have happened.
However, it is concerning that the general advice to leaseholders complaining about other leasehold properties was that it was up to the individuals to resolve the matter themselves. This would not always be the case. An investigation of the issue being complained about and the clauses in the lease would need to be carried out before this advice could be confidently provided. Also of concern were the comments made by the representative of Property Company A to the call handler. They said, “The leaseholder would not want to spend any money on this property (Flat A) until the current tenants moved out.” This comment may have indicated that Property Company A was not intending to fulfill its obligations and should have been flagged to one of the landlord’s managers. We would then have expected the landlord to have addressed these comments directly with Property Company A to ensure the resident’s property was not at risk because of poor property management practices.
The landlord then provided incorrect information in its stage 2 complaint response that was contrary to previous actions it had taken in 2014. In that instance, it had instructed the leaseholder of Flat A to install carpet due to noise nuisance. The information conveyed in the complaint responses left the resident feeling concerned and worried that the landlord was stepping away from its responsibilities, which it had previously accepted. This led to her obtaining the services of a law firm to interpret the lease on her behalf, which cost £480. It was unfortunate that the resident felt the need to follow this course of action and incur this expense.
The resident has informed us that she would like the landlord to refund the sum outlaid. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance does allow for the reimbursement of costs incurred as a direct result of maladministration. However, excluded from this consideration are the legal costs associated with solicitors, which are seen as an option rather than a requirement in a resident’s pursuit of a complaint. For this reason, we are not able to order the reimbursement of the resident’s legal expenses, but we have made orders for compensation related to other areas of the complaint. The compensation ordered takes account of the overall impact on the resident, including her time and trouble as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
We acknowledge that the landlord changed its position on its responsibilities detailed in the stage 2 complaint response. It has subsequently recognised that it has a responsibility to ensure Property Company A and other leaseholders fulfil the requirements of their individual leases. We also acknowledge that the landlord met with Property Company A and assisted the resident to trace the leak and have the damage repaired. This included arranging 2 leak detection visits, which confirmed the source as Flat A, and covering the cost of her insurance excess. These were positive steps on the part of the landlord and indicated a willingness to learn from its mistakes and put things right for the resident.
While we appreciate the landlord coming to this conclusion, it is a concern that it was unaware of its responsibilities and had to be informed of those responsibilities by the freeholder. Further to this, the landlord did not appear to have a copy of the original lease, which outlined its responsibilities. As part of this investigation, we asked for a copy of the original lease. However, the landlord provided a copy of the title register and referred to the updated lease it had already supplied. The updated lease referred to the original lease and the fact that the clauses in that lease remained in force. This was evidence of poor record keeping and unreasonably put the onus on the resident to provide copies of documents the landlord should have been in possession of. There is also evidence that staff did not know where to locate records. In an internal email on 19 May 2023 the landlord said, “… in 2022, I had new staff to the role and the area who were unaware where to find information”. Clear and comprehensive record keeping is a core function of a landlord’s services, as it is essential for evidence based practice and informed decision making. There were other communications in the landlord’s evidence that alluded to poor record keeping within the organisation.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f that included record keeping and complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order. We have therefore not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.
The leak continued intermittently from May 2022 until it was resolved in December 2023, 18 months later. It was approximately 1 year after the resident reported the leak in May 2022 before the landlord realised that it had a responsibility to assist the resident and could in fact require Property Company A to take appropriate action to stop the leak. These delays were significant. Throughout the period the resident had to deal with ongoing water ingress and damage to her property, regular visits from contractors, and the related disruption to her work and homelife.
Had the landlord been aware of its responsibilities and taken timely action, it is likely the leak would have been traced and resolved much sooner. This may have negated the requirement for the resident to involve her insurance company. We therefore consider it was right that the landlord covered the insurance excess. However, covering the excess, along with the £35 offered in the stage 2 response for time and trouble, did not adequately compensate the resident for the ongoing frustration, worry and inconvenience she experienced over the 18–month period. We have therefore made an order for additional compensation below.
Overall, for the reasons outlined above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting her property.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2–stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It says it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints, although the procedure does not indicate a timeframe for a stage 2 acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. If there is a delay at either stage of the process, the landlord states that it will contact the complainant and agree new response times.
The evidence provided by both parties shows that the resident made her stage 1 complaint about the leak on 19 September 2022. Having not received a response, she contacted the landlord again on 26 September 2022. On 27 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged it had received the form she had submitted on 19 September 2022. However, it did not acknowledge the resident had made a complaint or provide a formal complaint response. This was unsatisfactory.
As previously mentioned, there was confusion in the complaint responses as there were 2 complaints made at the same time in relation to the same property. In such instances the onus is on the landlord to ensure effective administration of each complaint so that it is clear which particular complaint is being responded to. Not providing a stage 1 response was a failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) and the landlord’s published procedure. Further, it was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest stage. This caused ongoing frustration for the resident as well as additional time and trouble taking her complaint to the next stage.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2022. Having not received a response, her MP contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 24 March 2023, an unreasonable 103 working days outside its target response time of 20 working days. This was an additional failure to comply with the requirements of its own procedure and the Code. The landlord did not tell the resident the response would be delayed or request more time to respond, which was unacceptable and further undermined the landlord and resident relationship. It then offered what we consider to be an inadequate amount of £15 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The landlords compensation policy equates a sum of £15 with low service failure, including short delays and minor inconvenience. It is our opinion that the failures in complaint handling significantly exceed this description.
We have already outlined that the landlord admitted to this Service that it had provided incorrect information in its stage 2 response surrounding the substantive element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 April 2023 to advise it had made a mistake. However, this was only after the resident sent 2 emails pursuing the matter, causing her further time, trouble and frustration. The landlord did not clarify exactly what the errors were, other than to say it was looking further into the matter and would get back to her. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord did get back to the resident to clarify its position, which was unreasonable. While we understand it could not issue a second stage 2 response, it could have formally written to the resident to answer the points in her stage 2 escalation, clarified its position on the responsibilities in relation to the leak, and offered compensation appropriate to the identified failures. Not doing so left the resident feeling unheard, unsupported and worried about future incidents that may arise.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It did not provide a stage 1 response and its stage 2 response was significantly outside the target time. As well as the errors around the main subject of the complaint, the stage 2 response contained errors regarding the number of leaks that occurred in 2022 as well as an incorrect complaint escalation date. Instead of resolving the resident’s complaint, the process caused additional frustration and uncertainty. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s view that the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration.
On 7 February 2024, the landlord advised us that it was willing to offer the resident an additional £300 to recognise its poor complaint handling throughout the case. It said that it would honour this commitment even if we felt the case was within our jurisdiction. While recognising the offer was a positive step by the landlord it would have been beneficial to the relationship between the parties had it paid the sum immediately, instead of waiting for a decision in relation to our investigation. We consider the amount offered appropriate and have made an order below for the landlord to pay the £300. However, this has not prevented a finding of maladministration because the offer was not actually made to the resident and therefore had no bearing on her experience, and it came after she had brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting her property.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of her reports of a leak affecting her property.
  2. £300 it offered in February 2024 for its poor complaint handling.

If it has already paid the resident the £50 it offered at stage 2 (comprising £35 for the leak and £15 for complaint handling), this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £600 is now due.

Write to the resident and inform her what its responsibilities are in relation to situations which may cause her or her property to suffer damage, nuisance, inconvenience or annoyance. It should also confirm what actions it can take to support her as a leaseholder.

The landlord must confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the time limits specified.