Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202126465)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126465

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

22 August 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s letterbox.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident moved into her home in July 2019. Both she and the landlord have stated that the landlord agreed to repair her letterbox, which was broken before the resident moved in. The resident followed up this repair in August 2019, and in response the landlord provided her with a replacement post-box.
  3. In January 2020, the resident experienced a break-in to the replacement post-box. She contacted the landlord to ask for a repair. On 5 March 2020 she raised a complaint with her landlord which included the lack of repairs to the original letterbox and its replacement. She also included a complaint about other repairs that remained outstanding since she moved in.  
  4. The landlord’s response in July 2021 acknowledged the delay to the repairs and apologised. It provided compensation to the resident of £130 (for all the issues included in the complaint),and said that the repairs to the letterbox would be completed that month. The resident later escalated her complaint in December 2020, stating that the letterbox had still not been repaired. The landlord responded to her complaint in April 2021, apologising again for the delay in repairing the letterbox and awarding further compensation of £50 for service delay and £50 for time and trouble. The landlord also stated that after investigating its complaint handling in this case, it found that it had acted appropriately.
  5. In December 2021, the resident contacted her landlord again as the letterbox had still not been repaired. The landlord forwarded her concerns to the repair team, but also informed her that she had exhausted the complaints procedure and signposted her to this Service.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in order to get the letterbox repaired, and for more compensation. She also referred to additional separate repair issues.
  7. Following our requests for information the landlord explained that it wanted to offer the resident further compensation, and that it had arranged to repair the letterbox in July 2022. It acknowledged the significant delays, which it said were in part due to the need for specialised parts, and the repair being cancelled and not rebooked.

Assessment and findings

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised additional repair issues which do not appear to have been considered by the landlord as formal complaints. As the Ombudsman can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, these further repair issues will not form part of this investigation. The landlord should consider these additional issues of complaint in the first instance, and make contact with the resident to gather the relevant details.  
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that letterboxes are the resident’s responsibility. However, both the landlord and resident have explained that she was assured by the landlord when moving into the property that it would fix her letterbox. In the event that a prospective tenant raises issues relating to the condition of the property before, or at the start of their tenancy, it is reasonable to expect that any necessary repairs and alterations should be made before the tenant moves in or soon after. As the resident was also not responsible for the breakages to the replacement postbox in January 2020, the landlord again committed to repairing it, once a crime reference was provided. This was given by the resident to the landlord in February 2020.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repair timescales for routine repairs is 28 calendar days. When the resident first reported the repair to her letterbox in August 2019, the landlord acted reasonably in its response by providing an alternative post-box. After the resident reported that the replacement post-box had been broken into in January 2020, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to either repair one of the letterboxes or to provide a replacement. However, at the time of raising the complaint to this Service in March 2022, a suitable alternative or repair had yet to be provided. This is a failing, as the outstanding repairs mean the resident will likely have been unable to safely receive her post for nearly three years.
  4. In its response to the resident’s complaint in July 2020, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience that the delay in repairs had caused her, and offered her compensation. It stated that the repairs would be carried out on 22 July 2020. The resident escalated her complaint in December 2020, as the repairs had not been completed and she was still unable to receive her mail safely. The landlord again responded by promising to fix the letterbox, apologising for the delay and awarding further compensation to the resident. While acknowledging its mistakes and apologising were positive actions, in line with the repair commitment it made, and basic good customer service, the landlord needed to endeavour to fix the issue and explain why it had occurred. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord ever properly explained why there had been such a long delay fixing the resident’s letterbox. While a delay in repairs can sometimes be unavoidable, the landlord has stated to this Service that the reason for the delay was due to its closing the repair order down and neglecting to re-open it, despite the resident following up the issue on several occasions. Overall, there would seem to be no reasonable explanation for a delay as excessive as shown in this complaint.
  5. As a member of this Service, a landlord is expected to abide by the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which details that a landlord should endeavour to put things right after a complaint. A landlord should acknowledge where things go wrong and provide an explanation, assistance, or a reason for any delays. The landlord has stated to this Service that it has now re-booked the repairs to the letterbox and ordered all the relevant parts. It has also explained that it would offer the resident further compensation. Both of these steps are appropriate, and reasonable in the circumstances. However, to address a failing a landlord needs to identify where it went wrong and take steps to ensure it does not happen again. The landlord reinvestigated this case due to the resident bringing it to this Service. This indicates that its complaint procedure did not work effectively, as the repairs to the letterbox had been through both stages of the procedure, without ensuring that it was repaired. The landlord should have offered an explanation to the resident as to why her repairs had been overlooked. It should also have taken steps to ensure that adequate measures are taken to avoid the same oversight in future. Not doing so is a further failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it will aim to provide a resolution to the customer within ten working days. If it cannot do so, it will inform the resident and agree a new response time. If a resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial response, they can escalate to stage two. The landlord will provide a resolution within 20 working days. Again, if the landlord cannot respond within that time, it undertakes to keep the resident informed and agree a new response time. The resident first raised her complaint on 11 March 2020, receiving a response on 15 July 2020. Her escalation was dated 3 December 2020, with the landlord providing its response on 7 April 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord adequately updated the resident on the progress of her complaint, or that it agreed any new timescales for its response. Four months between each complaint and response is not reasonable, and is also not in line with either the landlord’s own policy, or the Code.
  2. The landlord assessed its own complaint handling in its stage two response, concluding that the handling had been good and without fault. In these circumstances, it is difficult to understand how it reached that conclusion. The landlord failed to address the significant delays, or that it had not kept the resident informed. Landlords are expected to acknowledge where things go wrong and should explain what action they are taking to put things right. Neglecting to do so is a failing.
  3. After the complaints procedure had been completed, the resident complained again to the landlord that her letterbox had still not been fixed. She also raised complaints about different repair issues, including for bath taps and electrical sockets, which she said she had previously reported. The landlord responded that she had exhausted its complaints procedure, although it did state that it would forward her concerns to the repair team. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and unreasonable, as only the letterbox issue had exhausted the complaint’s procedure. The landlord should have accepted new complaints about the additional issues that the resident was facing as they had not been investigated.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s letterbox.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Confirm that the letterbox repairs are now complete. If they have not yet been completed, provide a reliable timeframe for completing them in the immediate future.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repair to her letterbox
    3. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of its poor complaint handling. 
    4. These payments are in addition to the £230 compensation already offered by the landlord in its two complaint responses, which should also now be paid if it hasn’t already been.
  2. Within six weeks of this report the landlord must also create an action plan to address the severe repair delays and poor complaint handling identified in this report. The action plan should demonstrate how the landlord will improve its services so that the resident’s experiences are unlikely to reoccur.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within their respective timeframes.