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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208162)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208162

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

7 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 the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to external doors
    2. response to leaks and damage caused by leaks.
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since 1999. The property is a 3-bedroomed house.
  2. The resident first complained about the external doors, the condition of her kitchen, and a leak affecting the living room ceiling on 8 July 2021. She said she had been in contact with the repairs team on several occasions about these issues.
  3. On 21 September 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about the condition of the kitchen and outstanding repairs. The landlord wrote to the MP on 13 October 2021, and said the kitchen would be replaced in the following financial year and it would attend to assess the outstanding repairs.
  4. On 14 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had called numerous times about the outstanding repairs and was still waiting for a call back.
  5. In July 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she had not received a response to her complaint. She said she had reported a leak several times, but no investigations had been made by the landlord. She said when the leak got worse, the landlord did an emergency repair, but by this time her sofa and carpet were damaged. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the leak repaired permanently, the damaged ceiling fixed, and compensation for her damaged property.
  6. On the 8 August 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident about the complaint. The resident raised the previously reported issues with external doors and damage caused by the leak.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 15 August 2022, the landlord said it had dealt with the report of a leak in a timely manner. However, it said it would inspect the leak damage and the external doors to identify what work was required. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because the repair work following the leak remained outstanding. It offered compensation of £250. This comprised of £150 for failure to repair leak damage and £100 for time the resident had spent chasing the repairs. The landlord provided the resident with information on how to make an insurance claim for her damaged furniture and carpet.
  8. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 16 August 2022, and then told the resident what work it would do. It said it would redecorate the parts of walls and ceilings that had been damaged and would replace the rear door. It said the front door could be repaired. On 23 August 2022, the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the work the landlord proposed. The resident wanted both doors replaced and more extensive redecoration.
  9. In its final response on 12 September 2022, the landlord repeated that the rear door would be replaced but the front door could be repaired. It apologised that the resident had been previously told the front door would be replaced. It said there was no evidence of damp in the property, and it would carry out limited redecoration. It reoffered £250 compensation.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, as she wanted the landlord to replace the front door and carry out more extensive redecoration. She did not feel £250 compensated her, as she had been chasing the repairs for over a year and wanted £2,500 for damage to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident wanted the landlord to compensate her for damage to her personal belongings. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the complaint for damages. This is because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
  2. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to external doors

  1. The landlord’s planned property investment policy sets out its commitment to providing a cyclical maintenance service that makes best use of resources, and ensures it meets its statutory obligations. The policy says the landlord will comply with the Government’s Decent Homes Standard. It says it will use the recommended maximum component lifecycles when planning the maintenance of properties. Components include external doors. The Ombudsman agrees that it is reasonable for the landlord to take account of the Decent Homes Standard when replacing external doors.
  2. The Decent Home Standard says external doors on houses have a lifecycle of 40 years. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the resident’s door has a 30-year lifecycle.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide says it aims to carry out repairs quickly and efficiently. It says routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  4. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with details of repairs to the doors, but records show the resident first complained about repairs to front and rear doors on 8 July 2021. In her complaint she referred to a draught from the front door. She also said the landlord had repaired the lock on the back door the previous year and this created a gap which let in a draught.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident about the external doors on 8 August 2022, when it discussed a complaint she had made about a leak. During the conversation, the resident said she had been advised the rear door would be replaced. On 9 August 2022, the landlord said it did not know who had advised the door would be replaced, but its records showed the door was replaced in 2005 and it was not due to be replaced until 2035. However, it said it would arrange an inspection of the front and rear doors.
  6. In its first complaint response on 15 August 2022, the landlord said a gap around the front door was reported on 18 July 2022 and it attended on 26 July 2022. The Ombudsman has noted that it has not been provided with a record of these events. At that time, the landlord identified a new front door was needed and measurements were taken. The landlord apologised this had not progressed.
  7. An inspection took place on 16 August 2022. This identified the rear door needed replacing due to damage. However, the inspection found the front door did not need replacing, as it was in a reasonable standard and the draught could be resolved by repairs.
  8. In its final response on 12 September 2022, the landlord confirmed the outcome of the inspection and said the front door would not be replaced until 2035. The landlord acknowledged the resident had been previously told the front door would be replaced and apologised for this.
  9. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not follow its repairs policy as there was a considerable delay between the resident complaining about the doors on 8 July 2021 and the landlord attending the property a year later, on 26 July 2022. The landlord has provided no evidence of communication with the resident about the doors until after the Ombudsman made enquiries in July 2022. Because of this, the resident was inconvenienced as she had to chase the landlord to get the repairs done and lived with draughts from the doors for a lengthy period. The failure to follow its repairs policy by the landlord was maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £300 for the failure to follow its repairs policy.
  10. After the landlord discussed the doors with the resident in July 2022, it acted reasonably by arranging an inspection. The inspection identified that the rear door needed replacing and the front door could be repaired. The landlord apologised for previously telling the resident that the front door would be replaced. The Ombudsman has found that it was reasonable for the landlord to take this course of action.
  11. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the rear door has now been replaced but the front door is the same door as when she moved to the property in 1999. The landlord told the Ombudsman that its records show the door was replaced in 2005. However, it has acknowledged that it is possible that the renewal year “is not 100% accurate as the last renewal year is from legacy data”.
  12. If the front door was replaced in 2005, under the landlord’s policy it would not be due for replacement until 2035. This means the offer to carry out repairs would be reasonable in the circumstances. However, because of the landlord’s lack of clarity on when the door was replaced, the Ombudsman has found that it should reinspect the front door to assess its condition. It should then write to the resident to confirm the condition of the door, whether any repairs are required, and confirm when the door will be replaced.

The landlord’s response to leaks and damage caused by leaks

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide says it aims to carry out repairs quickly and efficiently. It says routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  2.  Records show the resident first complained about a leak damaging the living room ceiling on 8 July 2021. In her complaint she referred to a previous inspection by the landlord where she was told the ceiling would “eventually fall in”. She said the matter still needed resolving and she wanted the landlord to inspect her property.
  3. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about the leak until 8 August 2022, when following Ombudsman enquiries, it spoke with her about her complaint. It said it would arrange an inspection.
  4. In its first complaint response on 15 August 2022, the landlord said following a report of a leak from the bathroom on 31 July 2022, it had carried out an emergency repair within 24 hours. It said there was also a leak from the boiler in January 2022, which it repaired in a timely manner.
  5. The landlord said there was no service failure in responding to leaks and it had followed up damage from the boiler leak in February 2022. However, it did not have details of damage following the leak from the bathroom and it said it would carry out an inspection to assess outstanding repair works. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because work to repair leak damage had not been completed. It offered £250 compensation. It reasonably provided information on how to make a public liability claim for damage to the furniture and carpet. However, the resident has told the Ombudsman that because of her dyslexia she finds it difficult to complete forms. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers what adjustments it can offer to support the resident to make a claim.
  6. The inspection on 16 August 2022, identified evidence of historic leak damage but no evidence of damp. During the inspection, the resident said she wanted several areas redecorated because of leak damage.
  7. In its final response on 12 September 2022, the landlord said it would redecorate the meter cupboard. It said damage to the hallway, stairs and landing was not severe enough for it to redecorate the entire area, but it would repaint damaged areas. It said the inspection confirmed that the living room ceiling had been redecorated and there was no staining. The landlord said there had been no service failure. However, the Ombudsman has been told by the resident that leak damage to the living room ceiling has not been decorated. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carry out a reinspection of the living room ceiling to identify any outstanding work.
  8. The Ombudsman has found that after the landlord discussed the leaks with the resident in July 2022, it acted reasonably by arranging an inspection. The inspection identified there were areas of damage which required redecoration. The resident wanted other areas redecorated but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to repair only those areas that were damaged.
  9. The Ombudsman has found there was a considerable delay between the resident first complaining about a leak in July 2021 and the landlord carrying out an inspection on 16 August 2022. The landlord has provided no evidence of communication with the resident about the leak damage until after the Ombudsman made enquiries in July 2022. Because of this, the resident was inconvenienced as she had to chase the landlord to get the repairs done and there was a failure by the landlord to follow its repairs policy.
  10. The resident told the Ombudsman that she wanted £2,500 compensation for the time taken chasing the repairs and damage caused to her furniture and carpet, which she said was caused by the leak. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord provided the resident with information on how to make a public liability claim. In addition, the landlord offered £250 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak damage. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  11. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident has said that she has not received the £250 payment. Because of this, it is recommended the landlord provide evidence of payment to the resident, and if this is unavailable arrange to pay £250.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and will provide a response within 10 working days. It says if it cannot respond within 10 working days, it will keep the resident informed and agree a response time. It says when the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, it will send a response within 20 working days of the date the resident escalated their complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident first complained about the external doors and a leak on 8 July 2021. Records show that on 20 July and 18 October 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the complaint.
  3. On 20 July 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to say she had had no response to her complaint. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2022 to discuss her complaint. It sent its first response on 15 August 2022. When the resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2022, the landlord sent its final response on 12 September 2022.
  4. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord dealt with the complaint in line with its policy after it had been contacted by the Ombudsman. However, it took over a year for the landlord to respond to the initial complaint, and this only happened after Ombudsman involvement.
  5. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. In her communications with the landlord during 2021, the resident told the landlord that the delays with the repairs were causing her stress, and this was added to by having to chase a response to the complaint. In addition, the failure to respond to the complaint meant the landlord did not follow up the outstanding repairs sooner. The failure to follow its complaints policy was maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the failure to follow its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. its handling of repairs to external doors.
    2. its complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to leaks and damage caused by leaks.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £450 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow its repairs policy when carrying out repairs to external doors.
    2. £150 in recognition of the failure to respond to the original complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
    3. The landlord should provide proof of this payment to the Ombudsman within 4weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to reinspect the front door to assess its condition, and then write to the resident to confirm the condition of the door, whether any repairs are required, and to confirm when the door will be replaced.
  3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this complaint to identify opportunities to prevent a recurrence of the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffer to arrange, at a reasonable time convenient to the resident, to inspect and carry out any outstanding repair and redecoration to resolve damage caused by leaks.
  2. If it has not already been paid, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the compensation of £250 made in its complaint response for the delay in repairing leak damage.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers what adjustments it can offer to support the resident to make a public liability claim.