Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202122318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122318

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

26 September 2023

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

Complaint One

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
2. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Complaint Two

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
2. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bed flat on the 15th floor of a 16 storey block. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the household at the time of complaint.
The residents assured tenancy agreement was not provided to this service but the landlord provided a copy of the presumed agreement terms. Within these, additional conditions state the resident must not “use any radio or television set or musical instrument amplifier loudspeaker or electric tool”, “in such a way to become a nuisance or annoyance to the lessee or occupier of any other flat”.
The tenancy agreement, section 2.1 states the landlord will “maintain any installations that it provided for space heating, water heating, and supplying water”, this includes central heating installations.
The landlord’s repairs policy advises that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days and by appointment and emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as: “Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. This policy gives examples of behaviour which would be treated as ASB, this includes, “extreme noise that is persistent”.
The landlord’s ASB guide says mediation “should be considered in cases of nuisance and neighbour disputes”.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage 1. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and requests escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure, the landlord aims to complete a stage 2 review of the complaint, within 20 working days thereafter, if it needs an extension, it will agree this with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy and guidance documents set out circumstances in which compensation may be offered and guideline amounts, depending on the individual situation and severity of impact. The guidance states an apology or financial compensation of up to £50 is appropriate for low level failure, £51-£160 for medium level failure and £161-£350 for high level failure.

Summary of events

Complaint One

This service has seen evidence of diary sheets kept by the resident between August 2020 and January 2021 which detail the noise the resident recorded. On average a daily record was made between August 2020 and January 2021 noting sporadic noise from above, which the resident detailed as “typically lasting throughout the day”. This included but was not limited to:
1. “Stomping and jumping.
2. Exercise machine noise”.
An ASB action plan was provided which stated “case received” on 10 September 2020. This action plan notes that the noise started in May 2020, however, was not passed on to the relevant team until the end of August 2020. It referenced the cause of delay to possibly be related to the covid pandemic and stated it had “been explained”. Notes included on this action plan stated, the noise “started off as heavy footsteps at times throughout the day and someone exercising with weights or equipment across main living room area and bedroom”. Furthermore, it referenced action to be taken as the alleged perpetrator would use headphones thereafter and it “was agreed mutually between both parties around the 1st of October 2020”, any exercise weight equipment would not be used. The landlord recorded it would replace the carpet in the main living room and both parties had agreed mutually to mediation.
The resident’s employer wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2020, it stated the problems to have been occurring “for some 16 weeks” and they had heard the noises over a zoom call.
The resident completed an online form to “make a formal complaint” about the noise nuisance she had reported and was still experiencing. The evidence provided of this complaint form submission has a handwritten date of 14 October 2020.
The landlord sent the alleged perpetrator a warning letter on 23 November 2020, this letter clearly stated it was a warning related to an alleged breach of the tenancy and requested the alleged perpetrator to stop using the property to “weight lift and train”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 November 2020 and gave a brief description of her situation with the noise nuisance from above, within this email she stated:
1. She had to take time off work due to stress and her employer wrote to the landlord but got no response.
2. She had not received a response to her formal complaint submission on 14 October 2020.
3. The problem had occurred for over 6 months and is still not resolved.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord issued a further tenancy warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. It also sent an additional letter on this day with details of an arranged phone call with the alleged perpetrator for 14 December 2020.
The landlord referred the ASB case for mediation on 18 December 2020.
The resident emailed this service on 24 December 2020 stating she had been having a noise nuisance problem for over 6 months. She had complained to the landlord on 14 October 2020 but the situation had not been addressed properly and consistently so the case remained unresolved.
This service contacted the landlord on 4 January 2021 requesting it provide a response to the residents complaint. The landlord confirmed on 8 January 2021 that the issue had not been investigated as a complaint therefore it opened a stage 1 complaint on this day.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 8 January 2021, it said the resident could expect a response within 10 working days. If it could not provide a response within this time, it would contact her to discuss a new response time.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 February 2021. Within its response it acknowledged the delay in the response and apologized. It confirmed the correct process had been followed, visits were made through the covid restrictions and its housing team reviewed the case each fortnight up until 18 December 2020, at which time the case was referred for mediation. It apologized for the time it took and acknowledged the situation had caused “upset and concerns over your mental health”. It advised the resident to continue to use the noise app and keep diary sheets. The landlord concluded by saying it found no service failure in the handling of the ASB but it recognized that its communication through its complaint process was not to the required standard. It offered £25 compensation for this.
The landlord called the resident on 5 February 2021 as she had emailed to advise she was unhappy with the response provided as it did not fully address all her concerns. It followed up this telephone call with an email on the same day where it acknowledged that its communication during the ASB investigation did not meet its expected standard. It advised it should have “taken extra steps” to ensure the resident understood “why no progress had been made”. The landlord apologised for this. It continued to advise that the perpetrator had been sent written warnings but it could not enforce anything as the evidence provided was not “substantial enough”. It advised based on the circumstances that mediation was perceived as the best option to resolve the dispute. It advised when a case is at this stage its housing team cannot be involved, but once the mediation report is received, if the issue persisted, it would discuss options with the resident. It advised of an option to install noise equipment; however, this could not be done while covid restrictions were in place. The landlord stated the resident met the criteria for compensation and offered £100, £75 for time and trouble and £25 for its poor complaint handling. It concluded by acknowledging the resident would wait until the mediation process had concluded before determining her next steps so the complaint was not escalated.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021 confirming a telephone call and the actions agreed, these included but were not limited to:
1. She had been complaining for over a year now about the noise, gyms were back open, the landlord would contact her back with a plan of action.
2. Her boiler had been dismantled since 7 April 2021, the landlord would chase this up and call the resident back to arrange the repair.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2021 advising her to continue to submit noise app recordings.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2021 to escalate her complaint, within this email she highlights it has been over a year since she first reported noise form the flat above and to date it remained unresolved. The resident said the situation had affected her work, personal time, sleep and mental wellbeing. She also stated she found it “extremely frustrating to communicate” with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the residents escalation request on 29 July 2021, it advised the resident would receive a response by 26 August 2021, if it could not meet this it would contact the resident to discuss a new response time.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2021 to say it had started its investigation and would update her in due course.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 August 2021 stating it aimed to provide a response within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 September 2021, 12 working days outside of its policy target. It advised in this response that the Covid restrictions were the reason noise equipment had not been installed. It advised that the noise app had not picked up any “disproportionate sounds” and it had “struggled “to capture evidence of excessive noise”. It advised that the covid restrictions had eased therefore it would be requesting the local authority install noise equipment in the residents flat. It confirmed it was also looking into options of installing carpet into some parts of the flat above to see if this would reduce the noise transmission between the flats. It confirmed that it could not enforce further action if the noise was not “excessive”. It concluded it found no service failure and therefore did not uphold the residents complaint. It did, however, apologise for the delay in its complaint response.
On approaching this service, the resident stated that the landlord had never come up with a clear plan of action and then followed through to tackle the issue. She had been told she was on the waiting list for noise equipment but it never materialized, she had submitted over 130 logs of noise yet the landlord cannot take it further. She would like the landlord to come up with a plan to resolve the issue.
Further communications have been provided to this service following the landlords internal complaints process regarding the ASB where it was stated the mediator confirmed the noise levels not to be excessive and the ASB case would be closed.

Complaint two

The resident made a complaint on 27 July 2021 about multiple repairs to her boiler. Within this complaint she advised, “despite numerous phone calls, emails and various engineer visits” the fault on her boiler remained unresolved since she reported it through on 7 April 2021. She also advised of increased water consumption due to the issue with the boiler and requested to be reimbursed.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint the next day, 28 July 2021 and said she can expect a response within 10 working days.
The landlords internal notes show the resident confirmed on 6 August 2021, the repair to the boiler had been carried out and the landlord would be reimbursing the additional cost she had incurred.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 August 2021. Within its response:
1. It clarified the resident was not happy with the repeated faults and reoccurring repair visits she had experienced in response to the faulty boiler.
2. It explained the fault with the system had resulted in an £81 increase in the residents water bill which she requested to be reimbursed for.
3. The landlord apologised for any delays or inconvenience it caused.
4. It confirmed the fault had now been fixed and agreed to reimburse the resident the £81.
The landlord provided emails and repair logs that showed its contractor attended the property on 30 September, its notes state that “all other radiators are working ok”.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2021 over the telephone with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this in an email the next day, 22 October 2021. Within this, it confirmed it had offered to deliver a temporary heater and offered to reimburse the cost, unto £30 if the resident purchased one herself. It clarified it could not update on the delivery date for the part required to fix the heating but it had been ordered.
Further dates it attended were 22 October, where there was no heating or hot water at the property. It attended further on 23 October and 25 October 2021. It confirmed on the 25 October that the heating was working as it should although a part was required to complete the repair fully.
Internal notes provided by the landlord dated 26 October 2021, confirm the resident was without heating for a period of 4 weeks. The landlord emailed the resident on this day to confirm the heating had been restored and acknowledge it would respond in full to her complaint once it had gathered all the information required to understand the delays behind the repair.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 November 2021, within this response the landlord:
1. confirmed the delay in the repair was due to a miscommunication internally when ordering the required parts,
2. the landlord apologised for this and advised any training needs identified would be acted upon.
3. the landlord upheld the residents complaint, apologised and offered £181 compensation.
4. It confirmed the previous offer of £81 had already been paid therefore it was offering a further £100, £50 for the time and trouble experienced and £50 for the service failure.
The resident approached this service on 7 January 2022 with her complaint about the heating system. She stated she had experienced an increase in water consumption due to a faulty HIU, some of which had been refunded by the landlord. She stated to have been without heating from 30 September to 25 October and spent hours on the phone trying to arrange the repair. She stated the landlords contractor had attended about 10 times over the summer and listed a further 7 dates yet the landlord had failed to complete the repair. She had submitted a complaint about this on 27 July 2021 but this was not responded to, a further complaint was made on 12 October 2021. The resident would like an apology for how the repair had been managed and for all the inconvenience, stress and time of work she had to take.
Emails seen by this service following the landlords internal complaints process show that the system incurred further faults, was attended to in February 2022 and was confirmed as working on 5 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

Complaint one

The resident has said she considers that the situation with the noise nuisance complaint has directly impacted her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.

The landlord acknowledged a delay in the case being passed to the relevant team in information on its ASB action plan, it also referenced the nuisance ongoing for some months before a case being actioned. Although the information states this was explained, it is not clear who this was to and when. No details of a phone call to the resident to discuss this action plan have been provided, nor were any details of a telephone call to the alleged perpetrator.
From the information provided it would be reasonable to conclude that, as the noise nuisance started in May 2020 and was referenced as heavy footsteps and someone exercising, that the national lockdown due to the covid pandemic heightened the neighbour dispute somewhat. Although it is not clear what the resident was advised before the ASB case was opened, the landlord has not provided evidence that a discussion around domestic noise and the options available to the landlord in such cases was discussed with the resident. Therefore, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate it managed the residents expectations from the start of her ASB reports.
The landlord was not timely in responding to the residents reports of ASB. Mediation, if used early in a neighbour dispute can have effective results, however the landlord did not refer this case to mediation until December 2020, some 4 months after the case was raised. It also did not send the alleged perpetrator a warning letter until November 2020, and even though a follow up was sent in December, this was at the time it referred the case to mediation.
Although the landlord acknowledged its communication within the ASB investigation was not up to expected standards in its stage 1 response, this was 9 months after the ASB had first been reported. This avoidable prolonged period of time, where the resident was submitting continual noise app recordings and keeping diary logs with no action being taken or communication from the landlord about what action it would or would not take was not acceptable and caused the resident unnecessary mounting distress.
No evidence has been seen by this service of any telephone calls made to either the resident or the perpetrator in relation to the ASB case. Although internal emails have been seen from the landlord where it requested updates from the external mediator and asked the concierge of the building to check the relevant floor at night for noise. It would be reasonable to expect clear and concise notes to be held for cases of nuisance between neighbouring properties under the same landlord. Not only would this demonstrate the landlord followed its policy or procedure correctly but should the nuisance persist, it could rely on its notes to decide on future actions.
By the time the landlord provided its stage 2 response, covid restrictions had eased and it said it would request noise equipment be installed. The resident has however stated this did not materialise and a recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
It was positive that the landlord assessed the noise transference between the properties as being a potential barrier to resolving the dispute and offering to carpet some of the property above. Focussing on prevention of the noise transference is often the key issue in such cases which are usually forced through the ASB policy.
Further notes provided showed that the mediation failed to reach a resolution, although this seems to have been hindered by the non-engagement of the alleged perpetrator. A recommendation has also been made if the issues are still ongoing that the landlord should discuss alternative solutions such as an acceptable behaviour contract.
In conclusion a finding of service failure has been found, due to the poor records provided to this service and the poor communication to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in October, failed to acknowledge the chase up of said complaint in November and it was not until this service contacted the landlord in January 2021 was a formal complaint raised. Following this it acknowledged the complaint and advised a response could be expected in 10 working days as per its policy, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 8 February 2021, 12 working days outside of its target timescale. The landlords stage 2 response was also delayed, the resident escalated her complaint on 27 July 2021, which the landlord acknowledged on 29 July 2021, in which it stated a response would be expected on 26 August 2021. Although it then advised the resident on 24 August 2021 it aimed to respond in a further 5working days it did not issue its response until 13 September 2021, 13 working days after this date. Although these delays are not significant the delay caused the resident further frustration as she had said communicating with the landlord was “extremely frustrating”.
Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge and therefore investigate why the residents emails in October and November where not acted upon and a complaint raised. By not providing a thorough investigation it missed the opportunity to explore what went wrong and hence, failed to identify any potential improvements and learning how to avoid similar situations in future. This is a failure by the landlord and a relevant order has been made in this respect.

Complaint two

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement. From the evidence provided the landlord fulfilled its obligations in this respect by recording the repairs once it was aware of them and aiming to complete them within its target timeframes. Although the number of repairs would have caused the resident rising frustration, the landlord attended the repairs within its target timeframes at the time of the resident’s complaint.
In an update to this service the resident claimed to be without heating between 30 September 2021 and 25 October 2021, internal notes have been provided by the landlord which confirm the resident was without heating for 4 weeks. Although the landlord offered temporary heaters to the resident, which would be expected, it is not clear when these were offered, it is also not clear from its records if the resident was indeed without heating from 30 September 2021. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on the repair records to offer clarity and it would be expected that these are sufficiently detailed to show what repairs took place and when.
In summary the landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to fulfil its obligations in carrying out the reported repairs to the property. Although it is recognised the reoccurrence of repairs required would have caused the resident time and trouble to allow access for these to take place, a prolonged amount of time without heating over the winter months would have caused some level of distress. A finding of service failure has been found due to the poor records surrounding the time the resident was without heating, therefore the landlord could not demonstrate what clear action it took at this time.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord had a resolution focus to the repair in the handling of the resident’s complaint. This was good practise of the landlord and demonstrated it was committed to putting it right inline with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It gave timely responses at each stage and acknowledged its service failures and offered redress for this also again which was reasonable action to take.
However, the landlord did fail to acknowledge and therefore investigate the claims the resident made in her complaint about numerous phone calls, emails and visits. This meant it could not truly understand the detriment caused to the resident. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord in its stage 2 response to acknowledge and detail the time the resident spent without heating and what its action was in response to this, offering temporary heaters for example. This amount of time without heating toward the start of the winter period would have caused further detriment to the resident. It is for this reason that this service therefore sees its offer of redress as inadequate and a relevant order has been made in that respect.

Determination (decision)

Complaint One

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Complaint Two

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Complaint One

A finding of service failure has been found for how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, due to the poor records provided to this service and the poor communication to the resident throughout the time of her reporting the noise nuisance.
Although the delays in responding to the resident were not significant, this would have exacerbated the frustration experienced by the resident. By not providing a thorough investigation the landlord missed the opportunity to explore what went wrong and hence, failed to identify any potential improvements and learning how to avoid similar situations in future.

Complaint Two

The landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to fulfil its obligations in carrying out the reported repairs to the property. A finding of service failure has been found due to the poor records surrounding the time the resident was without heating, therefore the landlord could not demonstrate what clear action it took at this time.
The landlord failed to acknowledge and therefore investigate the claims the resident made in her complaint about numerous phone calls, emails and visits she had experienced. This meant it could not truly understand the detriment caused to the resident when providing its complaint response. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord in its stage 2 response to acknowledge and detail the time the resident spent without heating and its actions in response to this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
3. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor complaint handling identified within this determination.
4. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing her heating system, leaving her without heating for a period of 4 weeks.
5. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offers of £181 and £100 for compensation related to these complaints.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) with particular focus on noise nuisance records.
2. Its intention to ensure all complaints received are acknowledged and responded to appropriately in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman Code.

Recommendations

It is recommended if the issue with noise nuisance is still ongoing:
1. The landlord expediates the residents request for noise equipment to be installed.
2. The landlord pursues the recarpeting offer to the flat above.
3. The landlord seeks to work with both parties to promote a refreshed relationship amongst its residents to achieve a level of reasonable tolerance.
The landlord should advise this service of its intentions for the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.