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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202207267)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207267

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 February 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked sink.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal door.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one bedroom studio apartment on the 16th floor. The resident is recorded as having mental health vulnerabilities and has requested that the landlord ensures that a female is present during repair appointments.
  2. The resident first reported that her kitchen sink was blocked on 11 May 2022. The landlord attended the following day to jet wash the drains. The resident reported the issue continued and a further appointment was arranged for 30 May 2022. The landlord failed to attend because there was no female available for the appointment. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 1 June 2022 and said she wanted compensation for the missed appointment. She also said there was an ongoing issue with the communal front door, where it had not been functioning properly for approximately 4 months. She said having to go downstairs to let her visitors in over that time had caused her physical and emotional distress.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 20 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It compensated her for the missed appointment and explained that further descaling works needed to take place, but it needed access in order to do so. It advised there had been a recent change in contractors responsible for fixing the communal door. It said it would not compensate her for these delays as they related to communal issues, but had raised a new repair job.
  5. The resident said she wanted the amount of compensation the landlord offered to be reviewed. The landlord responded to the resident on 5 July 2022 at stage 2 of its complaint process. It referred her to its compensation policy and informed her if she was unhappy she could contact the Ombudsman.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman later in July 2022. She said that she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered and felt it had not considered the impact on her mental health. She also stated she was unhappy that the landlord sent a male operative to attend the property when she had safeguarding requirements.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the repairs has impacted her mental health. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked sink

  1. The landlord is responsible for the supply of water to the property and this would include the drains. Its repair policy states that residents are responsible for blockages in the first instance. When repairs are required to drains in flats, the landlord has “various” response times from urgent to routine, depending upon the specific issue that has been reported. In this case, the landlord attended promptly, within 24 hours of the first report the resident made on 11 May 2022.
  2. During the visit, the sink was unblocked with a high pressure jet wash and no further recommendations were made by the contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to have assumed that the issue had been resolved. When the resident informed the landlord that the problem had returned, it arranged for further investigations to take place on 30 May 2022. The appointment was arranged within a reasonable time frame and the resident was duly notified of the time. The landlord had also recorded on the repair notes that a female needed to be in attendance.
  3. It is understood that the landlord struggled to source a female operative to attend the repair. However, it failed to communicate this to the resident within good time and she waited in for the appointment, causing her evident frustration. The landlord apologised, and made an appropriate offer of compensation in line with its policy for the missed visit within its stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord arranged for prompt reattendance to investigate the cause of the leak. Records show that contractors attended on three occasions throughout June 2022 to investigate the issue. Drainage reports demonstrated that it conducted further jet washing and removal of blockages with a rotary machine, before concluding that full descaling was required. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed the reports sent by its contractors and it is clear it tried a number of interventions to tackle the problem.
  5. On 13 June 2022 the landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property to complete the descaling process. It descaled the drains as best it could from a manhole located outside the property, but the accompanying drainage report noted that it was likely that the descaling would still need to take place from within the resident’s flat. Its attempts try to resolve the issue by working as best it could outside the property was proactive. The resident was updated of the outcome of the appointment within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that she would need to arrange a convenient appointment to allow access for works to be completed.
  6. In escalating her complaint, the resident said that there were two missed appointments and her sink was still blocked. From evidence seen, there was only one missed appointment for the drain on 30 May 2022 which the resident was appropriately compensated for. No further correspondence was seen between the landlord and the resident between June and July 2022 about the issue, but on 9 August 2022 the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the works had been completed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord completed the repair within a reasonable time once it was able to gain access to the property.
  7. Aspects of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman relate to the landlord’s decision to send lone male operatives to her home. Records show that each drainage report specifically recorded the requirement to have a female present, as per the resident’s request. No evidence was provided by either party which suggested that the landlord had sent a lone male operative to the drainage appointments. On the contrary, the explanation the landlord gave for the missed appointment was to avoid this scenario. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord was understanding of the resident’s request and took appropriate steps to safeguard her.
  8. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. Overall, whilst the landlord failed to communicate with the resident about the missed appointment on 30 May 2022, it provided a reasonable explanation for this. It apologised and made an appropriate offer of compensation in line with its policy. The Ombudsman considers this sufficient to put matters right for the resident, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal door.

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident advised that she had tried to report an issue with the communal door not working “at some point” in May 2022. She said the landlord “refused” to log the repair because it had already been reported by someone else. Despite requests for evidence, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy if its communal repair logs. It is therefore difficult to establish how the landlord recorded and monitored repairs required to the communal door. An order has been made that the landlord review its repairs process.
  2. The resident reported that she experienced “emotional and physical stress” by having to go downstairs to allow visitors into the building. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s concerns prior to issuing a stage 1 complaint response. Had it done so, it could have gained a better understanding of the impact the situation had on the resident, particularly given that she lived on the 16th floor. 
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, repairs to the communal door entry system will be treated as “routine” and therefore residents can expect them to be completed within 20 working days. The landlord did not dispute that there were significant delays in completing the repair which was not completed for approximately 4 months. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that a change in contractors had contributed to the delay in fixing the door, it failed to identify any learning to ensure that it did not happen again.
  4. It is acknowledged that the monetary value of compensation is not the only remedy a landlord can offer to put matters right. However in this case, the landlord incorrectly informed the resident it was unable to consider a discretionary offer of compensation because it “does not compensate for communal issues” within its policy. This information was incorrect. There is no clause within the landlord’s compensation policy which refers to excluding communal issues from its consideration of compensation. Failure in service could still have been considered as a discretionary payment.
  5. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that there had been a failure to complete the repair within timescale due to a change of contractors, it failed to elaborate on what it would do in the future to ensure that it did not happen again. It also failed to consider the impact the delay on remedial works had on the resident or appropriately apply its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked sink prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £125 in compensation. The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £50 it offered at stage 1 of its complaint process on 20 June 2022, if not already paid.
    2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the handling of repairs to the communal door.
  3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of its staff guidance “supported document for guidance on awarding compensation”, within 6 weeks.
  4. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of its repairs process, within 6 weeks. The review should include but is not limited to:
    1. Ensuring it maintains oversight of outstanding repairs in the event there is a change in contractor. In doing so it must evidence that it has considered how to communicate with residents and minimise the impact on service delivery.
    2. Ensuring it has appropriate mechanisms in place for recording communal repairs. In doing so, it should have due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedure against the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which will become a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.