The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202123080)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123080

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report about the condition of the property when it was let and outstanding repairs.
    2. Associated formal complaint and communication.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3-bedroom flat with her children. The tenancy commenced 12 July 2021.
  2. On 4 October 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property when she moved in, and outstanding repairs. She said that when viewing the property, she was promised that all repairs would be completed, and the property would be cleaned. She said she had to constantly chase the landlord for repairs and operatives never made appointments. She listed the issues as follows:
    1. The property had not been cleaned.
    2. The fridge freezer was not working and took over a week to be changed.
    3. The oven did not work and was not changed until 11 September 2021, leaving her for 2 months with no oven.
    4. The washing machine had tripped the electrics and smelt of burning. She was told that someone would attend within 4 hours, but no one came. An engineer attended in August and said it could not be fixed.
    5. The extractor fans were not working and had still not been fixed.
    6. The toilet seats were the wrong size.
    7. The balcony door lock was broken.
    8. There were electrical issues.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 3 January 2022, the landlord said that its voids team were investigating the repairs, repairs orders had been raised, and its contractor would be in touch with a date to attend. A new washing machine had been ordered and it had provided a date for delivery. It apologised for the outstanding repairs and delays and offered £300 in compensation.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and declined its offer of compensation, as it did not cover expenses she had incurred. She said that no one had contacted her about the outstanding repairs. In response, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 4 January 2022.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 June 2022 addressed repairs to the heating, balcony door and leaks. It provided explanations and dates to reinspect the issues. It acknowledged that there had been significant service failure and offered £1050 in compensation. It also said it would reimburse the resident any expenses incurred if she provided a breakdown.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, stating that it had not considered the length of time the repairs were outstanding, the inconvenience, financial loss, and stress it had caused. Her desired outcome was for the landlord to complete all of the outstanding repairs, increase the level of compensation offered and to ensure its operatives made appointments before attending.
  7. The landlord provided an update to this Service, having completed a further review of the resident’s complaint. It said the resident had experienced service failure for an extended period of time and incurred costs as a result. In addition to completing the outstanding repairs and making a formal apology, it offered a further £200 for inconvenience bringing its compensation offer to £1250.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s complaint to this Service she raised issues relating to a rent increase letter and request for the electrical safety certificate. These were not included in the original formal complaint and therefore have not been considered in this investigation. Our approach is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) and 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which:
    1. Are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
    2. Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  2. The resident may wish to make a formal complaint to the landlord on these new matters in the first instance.

Condition of the property when it was let and outstanding repairs.

  1. It is not disputed that there were delays with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, which led to distress and frustration for her. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, acknowledged a “significant failure of service”.
  2. When there are failings by a landlord, as was the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s records demonstrated that it was aware of the repairs issues in the property prior to letting it to the resident.
    1. On 21 June 2021 the landlord’s allocations officer emailed its voids team to highlight outstanding repairs in the property following viewings. Items listed included, but were not limited to, the balcony door lock not working, and the door could be pulled open. The freezer draws were missing, and the door would not close.
    2. Further emails from the officer on 5 July 2021 and 8 July 2021 highlighted the same issues.
    3. On 9 July 2021, the day after the resident signed the tenancy agreement, she reported multiple repairs including the balcony door lock, fridge freezer and oven.
    4. On 13 July 2021 the landlord’s officer again reported that it had flagged the issues in June 2021, prior to letting, and sent reminders but received no response from the voids team.
    5. The officer referred to being approached by the resident, whilst on site on 27 July 2021. She advised that the freezer had been replaced but other issues were outstanding. She was upset and had called numerous times, but no one was getting back to her. She was told constantly that the issue lay with its voids team.
    6. Further records of 5 August 2021 and 23 September 2021 referred to outstanding work at the property which included the above items. An email of 10 November 2021 mentioned that “repairs should have been picked up before the resident moved in”.
  4. There seems to have been a lack of communication between the landlord’s departments resulting in the resident moving into a property with outstanding repairs and lack of working facilities. This also suggests that the landlord’s voids process was not sufficient to ensure that the repairs required were completed and property was ready to let. She was left with no working oven or washing machine for 2 and 3 months respectively. This was unreasonable and could have been avoided had the landlord taken appropriate measures during its voids process to ensure that all goods in the property were in working order. This is concerning and the landlord should consider reviewing the effectiveness of its void process.
  5. The property was also insecure due to the balcony door lock not working. The landlord has an obligation under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) to ensure that the property is secure against unauthorised entry and maintain safety. It is concerning that the property was let with broken locks leaving the resident and her children in a vulnerable situation.
  6. It is evident that the resident continued to chase for multiple repairs over an extended period of time, with some repairs taking almost a year to complete. The landlord’s records showed that all repairs were completed by 26 May 2022.
  7. The resident also reported operatives not booking appointments to let her know when they would be attending. The landlord’s ‘repairs guide for tenants’ states that a text will be sent the day before attending. She reported receiving phone calls 10 minutes prior to the operative arriving. The landlord failed to adhere to its guide and policy where it states it will carry out repairs quickly and efficiently and provide a quality repairs service at all times. Also, to be quick and reliable and keep residents informed.
  8. This Service would have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response as it apologised, was fair in offering compensation and put things right by completing the repairs. However, it failed to compensate the resident for out-of-pocket expenses or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. It did not identify how it would improve its voids process, the communication between its departments or how it would prevent a similar situation from happening in the future. For these reasons, this Service finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
  9. The resident advised that she was unable to provide a full breakdown of her out-of-pocket expenses while the repairs were outstanding. However, she said that she had spent approximately £54 per week due to having no washing machine for 16 weeks. She also advised that she had been using her daughter’s washing machine. On that basis, compensation has been calculated at £54 for 8 weeks in the amount of £432. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to clarify any other expenses incurred to make appropriate redress on her provision of evidence.

Associated formal complaint and communication.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. This Service empathises with the resident’s frustration with the delays in completing the landlord’s complaints process and its communication. It is not disputed that it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its complaints policy timescales. It acknowledged the delays, apologised and awarded compensation of £50 in its stage 1 response and £150 in its stage 2 response. This Service has therefore assessed whether the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation made sufficient redress to the resident.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 October 2021, acknowledged by the landlord on 6 October 2021. She chased the landlord for a response on 29 November 2021. On 10 December 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay and said it was waiting for information from its voids and repairs teams. It needed to extend the complaint and would provide a response by 24 December 2021.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 January 2022, 63 days after the resident raised her complaint and 53 days over its complaints policy timescale. The delay in its stage 1 response was unreasonable. Its explanation of waiting for information from its repairs team was poor and it failed to meet its 10-day timescale and extended deadline.
  5. On 4 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 28 February 2022 it advised that it needed to extend the time to respond as it was still waiting for information from its repairs team. This was the same explanation it provided for the delay in its stage 1 response which was unreasonable. While it apologised, it said it would update her as soon as it received a response but failed to provide a timescale. This delay was not appropriate and added to the resident’s frustration.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 4 May 2022 as she had not received a stage 2 response. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 separate occasions, 4 May 2022, 30 May 2022 and 13 June 2021, requesting a stage 2 response on the resident’s behalf. The landlord said that it had been unable to provide a response due to the outstanding repairs. This was further evidenced in its records of 18 May 2022 when it emailed the resident stating that all repairs issues had been completed on 26 May 2022, and that it would start working on its formal complaint response.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 June 2022, 169 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. This was 149 days outside of its complaints policy timescale of 20 working days. It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay its response until the outstanding repairs were completed, which led to a significant failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
  8. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation in the amount of £200 for its failures in complaints handling was not proportionate to the length of time in its delays and poor communication. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint in relation to its complaint handling failures or demonstrate how it would improve its response times. Due to the need for the intervention of this Service and for the reasons above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1882 in compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £1050 for the distress, inconvenience and service failure in relation to its handling of the resident’s repairs offered in its stage 2 response (this includes the additional £200 offered in its correspondence with this Service)
    2. £432 for costs incurred by the resident due to the landlord’s repairs failings.
    3. £400 for its failings in communication and complaints handling (This includes the £200 offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses).
  2. Contact the resident to confirm if any repairs are outstanding. Should there be any outstanding repairs provide a date to the resident by when these will be completed, no later than 5 weeks of this determination.
  3. The landlord is ordered to carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The review is to include its complaint handling failures to ensure that complaints are acknowledged and responded to in line with its complaints policy.
  4. Within 5 weeks of this determination provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to clarify whether there are any additional out of pocket expenses and make appropriate redress.