Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202125001)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125001

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

5 May 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:

a.     The resident’s reports of a fly infestation and repairs to the stack pipe.

b.     The level of compensation offered as redress to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a flat. He purchased the leasehold from the freeholder in 2017. The freeholder is the landlord which is a housing association.
3. If the landlord has any vulnerabilities noted in its system, the resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
4. The resident stated the fly infestation began in 2020. He explained it is seriously affecting his family’s life and they have had to throw away a countless amount of food, including Christmas dinner due to flies contaminating the food. He explained the flies also disturb him when he is working and sleeping.

Landlord Obligations

5. The lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining all conduits and plant within the communal parts of the property, which do not serve the property exclusively.
6. The landlord’s ‘repairs: a guide for tenants’ policy (repairs policy) sets out its estimated timescales for repairs.  The policy distinguishes states:

a.     emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.

b.     routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days and by appointment.

c.      major routine repairs will be completed within three months or as part of our planned programme of works.

d.     the resident should contact the customer service centre immediately, if the resident is dissatisfied with a repair that has been completed in their home.

7. The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments (compensation policy) recognises different elements where it may be appropriate to award compensation based on whether there was a low, medium, or high failure:

a.     Failure of service: £50 to £350.

b.     Time and trouble: £50 to £350.

c.      Poor complaint handling: £0 to £150.

d.     Reimbursement costs or loss/damage to belongings: unlimited but requires advice from insurance team above £300.

e.     Missed appointments: £10 per each mixed appointments up to a maximum of 5 appointments.

Summary of events

8. On 14 May 2021, the resident hired a pest control contractor due to flies entering his property. The contractor attended and confirmed the flies were sewer flies likely coming from the wastewater pipes running through the building. The pest control contractor attended on 26 May 2021 and carried out works to remove the flies from the resident’s property. The cost was £210.
9. The resident says the flies continued to be present after the pest control contractor attended. He therefore hired a private plumbing contractor to assess whether the flies were coming from the drains. The date of this attendance is unclear as the invoice was reprinted to provide as evidence for reimbursement to the landlord, with the date of 5 January 2022. However, it can be seen from the information provided, the landlord has accepted the attendance occurred before 15 June 2021, when the resident first reported his concerns to the landlord.
10. On 15 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report a fly infestation. The resident explained he instructed a private plumbing contractor to investigate why flies were entering his property. His contractor confirmed the cause of the infestation was due to a problem with the communal stack pipe. The cost of the contractor was £50. The landlord confirmed it would reimburse the resident for the pest control and drainage inspections if they were communal issues. The resident provided the invoices on 17 June 2021.
11. On 26 August 2021, the resident formally complained to the landlord. The complaint set out he had not been reimbursed for the costs he incurred. The landlord had also not taken steps to resolve the fly infestation by repairing the stack pipe, since he provided a copy of the drainage report detailing the repairs required.
12. On 27 September 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response. In its response, it confirmed:

1. It did not uphold the complaint as it raised a work request with its own private contractor when the resident reported the issue.
2. An investigation into the cause of the infestation would be completed using a CCTV survey (where a camera is used to inspect the drain).
3. It said it would carry out the required repairs once they were identified.
4. A target date of 18 October 2021 was set by the landlord to complete any required repairs.
5. The landlord will reimburse the resident £210 for the cost of instructing his own contractor.
6. The complaint was not upheld as the landlord raised a repair works request when it received notice the fly infestation was coming from the communal stack pipe.

13. On 29 September 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended and conducted a CCTV survey of the stack pipe from the resident’s toilet. It identified a build-up of grease in the communal stack pipe which could cause the system to block in the future. The contractor recommended picote works are carried out from the flat to the whole communal stack. It set out the planned action:

a.     Attend site and set up safety barrier and signs for works to commence.

b.     Remove toilet for de-scale works to commence.

c.      Carry out full de-scale works using specialist picote cutting with a variety of attachment to restore flow to the float and stack line.

d.     Carry out HPW jetting de-scale works from manhole to the underground section to remove all loose cuttings from picote works.

e.     Leave area safe and tidy upon completion of works.

14. On 13 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord explaining he incurred additional costs as a result of the fly infestation. These were pest control products and food waste, which was contaminated by the flies.
15. The landlord issued an amended stage 1 response on 14 October 2021. This was because it reconsidered the additional costs the resident incurred following its initial response. It explained it would compensate the resident for his incurred costs. In the amended response, the landlord changed its position and upheld the resident’s complaint because from the first report of issues, it would have taken four months for the repair works to be completed, in line with the target date of 18 October 2021. It offered compensation of £530 for:

1. Service failure: £100
2. Time and trouble: £100
3. Reimbursement for pest control contractor: £210
4. Reimbursement for pest control products and wasted food: £120.

16. The landlord’s payment records show this was paid to the resident on 14 October 2021.
17. A repairs request was logged with the landlord’s contractor to attend the resident’s property on 14 October 2021. This Service has seen internal emails between colleagues at the landlord on 13 October 2021. An email between two staff members states one member noticed the description of work to be carried out to the resident’s property was not related to the stack pipe and instead said ‘clear blockage from downpipes. There is no evidence of further emails rectifying this identified issue.
18. The resident says the landlord’s contractor missed an appointment which was scheduled for 14 October 2021. This was rescheduled for 15 November 2021. The contractor attended and carried out works to clear blockage from the internal drainage pipes.
19. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 November 2021. It’s attendance report states it used a rotary machine on the toilet, sink and WSB (wash hand basin). It reported the blockage was cleared and normal flow was restored. It recommended follow up works to descale the stack serving all outlets to eliminate flies entering the property.
20. On 18 November 2021, the resident complained the fly infestation had worsened as the communal stack pipe had not been cleared. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
21. The resident says another appointment was scheduled for 22 November 2021. However, the contractor did not attend. A further appointment was scheduled for 29 November 2021. The landlord says the contractor attended and did not need to gain access from the resident to carry out this repair. However, the resident says he was told he needed to be at home on this date. The resident says he took time off work for all the missed appointments.
22. The landlord informed the resident the required repairs were carried out on 29 November 2021. The resident did not believe any work was carried out. The landlord has not provided evidence of this attendance despite being asked for this information on several occasions.
23. On 13 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It stated:

a.     It upheld the resident’s complaint as there had been delays in completing the required works.

b.     It accepted its contractor missed appointments on 14 October 2021 and 22 November 2021 and discussed these issues with its contractors to prevent a repeat occurrence.

c.      It apologised to the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused.

d.     It confirmed the outstanding work was completed on 29 November 2021.

24. The landlord offered additional compensation to the resident of £480 in recognition of the period from 14 October 2021 to 13 December 2021:

a.     Pest control treatment (reimbursement): £210

b.     Wasted food (reimbursement): £150.

c.      Missed appointments: £20.

d.     Failure of service: £50.

e.     Time and trouble: £50.

25. The resident formally complained to this Service on 12 February 2022. He explained he did not believe the compensation offered was reasonable and the repair works to the stack pipe had not been carried out as he was still experiencing a fly infestation.

Post complaints process

26. Following the resident’s complaint to this Service, the landlord senta contractor to attend the resident’s property on 18 February 2022. The attendance report describes the repair completed was a full descale to all affected parts of the system, with use of specialist mechanical cleaning equipment restoring flow to the system.
27. It was also recommended a plumber hired by the resident should attend, to repair leaks on both bath and sink waste pipes. This separate issue was confirmed as being the responsibility of the resident as it was not a communal repair.
28. The resident says the work carried out is not the correct work which was required to stop the fly infestation and it is still ongoing.
29. The resident confirmed to this Service he did not inform the landlord he is still experiencing a fly infestation following the contractor attendance on 18 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

30. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right, and.

c. Learn from outcomes.

Handling of reports of fly infestation and repairs to stack pipe

31. The resident explained flies had been entering in his home since approximately November 2020. This Service appreciates how distressing this has been and notes the resident took steps to investigate the issue himself.
32. The resident’s private contractor informed him the source of the flies was from the communal stack pipe. He then informed the landlord of the fly infestation on 15 June 2021. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the period before it became aware of the infestation.
33. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal stack pipe. The landlord handled these obligations through a reactive repairs service. It is unclear if the repair should have been classified as a 28 working days routine repair or part of its servicing repairs. However, this Service recognises the landlord did provide a target date of 18 October 2021, to complete the required repair works following its contractors CCTV survey dated 29 September 2021. This is a 13 working day timeframe. Therefore, this Service takes a view the repairs were considered as a routine repair under its repairs policy.
34. Following the report of a fly infestation from the communal stack pipe, the landlord arranged for a CCTV survey of the stack pipe. This identified about 10% of grease in the pipe. Its contractors recommended a specialist picote cutting with a variety of attachments to the stack pipe.
35. The landlord was reasonable not to immediately action the recommendations in the resident’s private contractor’s report. The landlord should certainly consider third–party recommendations, but as the freeholder, it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake further investigations to fully understand the works required to remedy the matter. The delay in arranging a CCTV survey was approximately three months from the resident’s report of concerns with the stack pipe. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord had taken steps to arrange a CCTV survey promptly or provided reasons for the delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay was unreasonable.
36. Following the CCTV survey, the landlord’s contractor first attended the resident’s property to carry out repair works on 15 November 2021, following a missed appointment which was initially expected to take place on 14 October 2021. Its attendance report said it carried out works to clear blockage from the internal drainage pipes. This was four months after the first report of the fly infestation.
37. This Service has seen internal emails between colleagues at the landlord dated 13 October 2021. An email between two staff members states the description of work to be carried out to the resident’s property, was not related to the stack pipe and instead said ‘clear blockage from downpipes.
38. The landlord was aware the requested repair works were not appropriately described to its contractor to resolve the resident’s issue. Whilst this Service recognises mistakes can happen, the landlord acted unreasonably by not rectifying its mistake and allowed incorrect repair works to be carried out, despite having until 15 November 2021 to rectify this. The landlord failed to take a proactive approach by allowing the incorrect works to take place, causing further delay to the repairs which at this time had been outstanding for four months.
39. The landlord informed the resident further repair works were required following its contractor’s attendance on 15 November 2021. The landlord’s contractor missed an appointment, and this meant the works were eventually carried out on 29 November 2021. However, the landlord has been unable to provide evidence or information about what works were required or carried out on this date, despite being asked for this information several times by this Service. As the landlord is unable to provide this information, in the Ombudsman’s opinion is that no repair works were completed on 29 November 2021.
40. The evidence seen by this Service, does not show any further repair work carried out by the landlord until 18 February 2022, after the resident complained to this Service.
41. This Service has reviewed the landlord’s contractor’s attendance report dated 18 February 2022, and the works completed match up with the recommended repairs identified by the landlord’s CCTV survey dated 29 September 2021. This means the landlord did not arrange for the recommended works to be carried out until approximately five months after it was first notified of the works required. Secondly, this is approximately eight months after the resident first reported the fly infestation coming from the stack pipe.
42. The landlord has not provided evidence to state why the delays occurred, or to show that it communicated with the resident about the delays during this time. It is evident the landlord did not act reasonably by not arranging the required repair works promptly. Neither did it adequately manage the resident’s expectations by providing him with reasons for the delays, especially if there were any issues which caused the planned repairs to take longer than expected. The landlord failed in its handling of the repairs and communication with the resident.
43. The landlord has caused significant delays to resolve the fly infestation and repair the stack pipe. It allowed incorrect repair works to take place and demonstrated poor communication with the resident until 18 February 2022. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is maladministration by the landlord.

Level of compensation offered.

44. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
45. In this case the Ombudsman recognises that in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failures with the service it provided, and the delays caused. It also apologised to the resident.
46. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at both stage one and stage two. It accepted there has been a service failure, it had missed appointments and offered compensation for the time and inconvenience to the resident. It made a further award for wasted food and cleaning products to cover two separate periods of time. It also reimbursed the resident the cost of hiring his own pest control contractor to investigate the cause of the fly infestation, where it was later confirmed to be a communal issue and the responsibility of the landlord.
47. This investigation understands the handling of the repairs caused frustration to the resident, and communication in respect of the planned repairs was unclear and unhelpful at points. This Service also recognises the resident’s frustration for the missed appointments and his wasted food. This has been accepted by the landlord.
48. The landlord confirmed to this Service, the offers of compensation at each of its complaint responses were separate offers of compensation in the sums of £530 and £480. This totals £1,010.00. The landlord says it has made payment of both sums to the resident however, the resident says he has only received one payment.
49. This Service sought to clarify the sums with the landlord, as the landlord offered £210 for the pest control contractor the resident hired to attend on 26 May 2021 at both stages of its complaint response. Despite requesting the landlord to provide further clarification on the compensation awarded, the landlord has failed to assist this Service in understanding the award further.
50. This Service has not seen evidence the resident incurred this cost twice. However, it is clear the resident has not been reimbursed for his private contractor which sought to identify the source of the fly infestation which was £50.
51. The landlord showed good practice by offering to reimburse the resident £210 for the cost of his pest control contractor. However, to consider whether the compensation offered to the resident was reasonable, the two offers need to be considered separately and without consideration of the contractor costs.
52. During the period of 15 June 2021 to 18 October 2021 (four months), the landlord offered the resident:

a.     Service failure: £100

b.     Time and trouble: £100

c.      Reimbursement for pest control products and wasted food: £120.

53. The landlord made a discretionary payment to the resident for pest control products and wasted food costs. The landlord showed good practice by offering a sum for this in recognition of the additional costs incurred by the resident.
54. The offers of £200 compensation for service failure and time and trouble recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays and lack of communication. However, it took three months for the landlord to arrange for a CCTV survey to take place from the resident’s first report of the fly infestation and stack pipe repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered for its service failure was not sufficient to compensate the resident for the delays in identifying the repairs required.
55. Whilst the offer of compensation was in line with the landlord’s policy, this Service would expect to see a higher award for such a significant delay where the ongoing issue continues to have a significant impact and detriment on the resident’s ability to enjoy his home and go about his daily activities. The compensation offered was not reasonable financial redress.  
56. During the period of 14 October 2021 to 13 December 2021 (three months) the landlord offered:

a.     Wasted food (reimbursement): £150.

b.     Missed appointments: £20.

c.      Failure of service: £50

d.     Time and trouble: £50

57. The landlord recognised the impact the missed appointments had on the resident and offered £10 in compensation for each of the missed appointments in line with its compensation policy. It also made a discretionary payment to the resident for a second time of wasted food costs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take.
58. Whilst the landlord provided compensation until December 2021, the evidence this Service has seen shows the landlord did not complete the recommended works identified by its CCTV survey until 18 February 2022.
59. Considering this second time period as a whole, the landlord demonstrated a substantial service failure given the lack of response to the resident. It also demonstrated poor communication with the resident to manage his expectations or explain reasons for the delays. There is also no evidence the landlord has learnt from its failings identified at the end of its internal complaints process about the repairs outstanding. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation made in December 2021 is not reasonable financial redress for its failings.
60. The resident says the fly infestation has not been resolved since the landlord’s contractor completed works on 18 February 2022. This Service is sorry to hear the resident is suffering as a result of the ongoing fly infestation. This Service fully appreciates how distressing it has been.

Determination (decision)

61. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation and repairs to the stack pipe.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by landlord regarding the level of compensation offered as redress to the resident.

Reasons

63. The landlord has severely delayed in its handling of the repairs to the stack pipe. There has been a delay of approximately eight months since the resident’s report of a fly infestation caused by the stack pipe, before the landlord completed works which were identified in its CCTV survey.
64. The landlord should have provided an explanation for the lengthy delays in investigating the fly infestation coming from the stack pipe and repairing it. Its communication with the resident was poor and did not manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord also identified the incorrect description of repair works and had the opportunity to rectify this, however it did not, and this led to further delays.
65. The landlord has apologised and recognised its failings. It offered financial redress and took reasonable steps to reimburse the costs the resident incurred and compensated the resident for wasted food. However, it did not learn from its failings and failed to undertake the repairs required within a reasonable time period. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and this left the resident suffering further distress and inconvenience whilst the matter remained unresolved. It should therefore have considered paying a higher level of compensation to reflect the delays and communication failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

66. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

67. Within four weeks of the date of this report, if the landlord has not already done so, pay the resident both payments of compensation agreed in the sums of £530 and £480, and add to the total:

a.     Payment of £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the significant delays in handing the repairs to the communal stack.

b.     Payment of £150 in recognition of the significant time and trouble he had incurred in pursuing his complaint.

c.      Pay the resident £50 reimbursement for the cost of hiring his own plumbing contractor.

d.     Contact the resident and to review if the matter is now fully resolved. If there are any ongoing concerns, agree an action plan and timescales for any further works required.

e.     Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

68. The landlord should:

a.     Investigate whether other residents in the block are being impacted by the same issue.