Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202208587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208587

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 November 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Enforcement of its tenancy terms regarding:
  1. Dogs;
  2. Items left in communal areas;
  3. Use of the car park;
  4. Antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. Delivery of gardening services and its handling of the service charge dispute that arose from this;
3. Increase to the service charge level;
4. Response to the resident’s request that it repair the intercom and car park gates;
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are about the level of service charge. Under paragraph 42(f) we cannot consider complaints which concern matters where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would be more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or a tribunal.
The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has responsibility for decisions as to whether a service charge is reasonable and whether a resident must pay it. Details of how to apply can be found on the government’s website: https://www.gov.uk/housing-tribunals/apply-to-the-tribunal .
The resident has explained that he did not think he should have to pay for gardening services which he does not believe he received. After careful consideration, we have decided that the matter of whether the charges for the gardening were properly incurred, and whether the resident is liable for payment of them, falls outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared-owner of a flat within a block of 14, which the landlord owns and manages. His lease began in 2005. He has advised that he has anxiety and depression.
The resident has explained that he has made complaints to the landlord in the past, and he had been dissatisfied with its responses. These matters do not fall under the scope of this investigation, and will not be referenced in this report.
The resident’s lease sets out the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, repair and renew the common parts of the estate.
The landlord’s repairs policy splits repairs into four categories:
1. Emergency (where there is significant risk to safety or of significant damage), these are attended within 24 hours to be made safe;
2. Routine, which will be completed within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days). This includes repairs to intercom systems and gates that are not blocking access;
3. Non-routine, including complex repairs, which are completed within 90 days;
4. Inspections, where a repair is complicated it may send a staff member to diagnose the problem.
The landlord’s estate agreement (which it says forms part of its tenancy and lease agreements) specifies:
1. Parking bays are allocated;
2. No commercial vehicles are allowed on the estate (except for deliveries and repairs);
3. It welcomes feedback regarding service charges. The main services it delivers through the service charge are:
  1. Grounds maintenance. It will keep the estate clean and tidy, including the communal garden and landscaped areas. This includes planting, pruning, weeding and cutting.
  2. Estate lighting, power and facilities. This includes regular maintenance of equipment such as the door entry system.
4. Pets or other animals are not allowed on the estate;
5. Residents and their visitors are not allowed to commit nuisance, annoyance or harassment of their neighbours.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its approach to ASB, including the threshold for behaviour it will categorise as ASB. This includes “persistent pet and animal nuisance”. It commits to respond to reports of ASB in a “timely manner”, and to keep victims and witnesses informed of progress whilst it investigates. It says it will take action that is reasonable and proportionate, and commits to “be clear with customers on the range of interventions and solutions available”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Its policy sets out its aim to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within five working days, and respond within 10. It aims to investigate and resolve matters within 20 working days once a complaint is escalated to stage 2.

Summary of events

The resident has explained that he complained about several issues on his estate “for a number of years”, including:
1. Dogs barking in neighbours’ flats and being allowed to “do their business” in the car park;
2. Gardening work not being carried out as it should be, including the failure to carry out weed management on a fortnightly basis;
3. Bikes and scooters being stored under the stairs in his block;
4. The parking of commercial vehicles in the car park;
5. There was general disrespect for the landlord’s rules, for example his neighbours would sit and drink in his parking space, and swore at him;
6. The intercom on his block did not work;
7. The gates to the car park had frequently stopped operating.
We have seen correspondence between the resident and landlord that demonstrates he had raised issues with dogs, the use of the car park and disrespect for the rules amongst his neighbours, and the faulty car park gates between 2017 and 2018. He asked to speak to a manager due to “lack of progress” in September 2018.
In October 2019 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the standard of weed control being carried out by the gardening contractor, paid for by his service charge. He felt his money was being taken “for nothing”.
On 11 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord in response to a raise in his annual service charge. He described it as an increase of £30 per month, and “a kick in the teeth”. He explained he had been “going in circles” and wanted the landlord to take ownership of the issues he had raised. He told the landlord the intercom system for the block entrance doors had not worked properly since the previous October. The resident said he felt he was “owed some sort of compensation”.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord chased the resident for payment of his outstanding service charge. The resident told the landlord he was withholding the amount, explaining that the arrears had accrued because he was not prepared to pay the increase the landlord had applied at its last calculation, due to “ongoing issues regarding poor service”.
On 2 July 2021 the landlord sent an email in which it warned the resident it was a breach of his lease terms to stop paying his service charge, and that there was a process he needed to follow if he wanted to dispute the charge. The resident replied, and explained he had made his housing officer aware that he was withholding his service charge payment two months previously, and at the time they had told him they passed this information to the landlord’s income team. The resident advised the landlord that he had anxiety and depression, and in the past had had to take three months off work.
The same day, the landlord and resident spoke on the phone regarding his complaint, discussing his dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance, broken car park gates, items under the stairs, and dogs. It sent him an acknowledgement of his stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s internal communications demonstrate that it knew its gardening contractor had missed two scheduled visits for May 2021, and its staff discussed on 2 July 2021 that the resident should be credited for these.
On 4 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to mark his outstanding service charge balance as ‘in dispute”, to stop him being “bombarded” with texts about it. The landlord did this on 5 July 2021, and again internally discussed whether it should apply credits for the missed gardening visits to his account.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2021. It:
1. Identified that two gardening visits were missed in May 2021, and refunds would be made via the final service charge calculation for the year;
2. Explained it had reduced its inspections “during the period of Covid”, and acknowledged the weeds were not controlled to an acceptable standard, and cigarette ends were left in the car park. It would now arrange an inspection of the grounds and would then pick up any issues with its contractor;
3. Referenced work to an area with planters and wood-chip, and advised this was not paid for through the service charge. It said it would not discuss any details of recharges to other residents, due to confidentiality rules. This Service understands this to be related to making good damage that was allegedly caused by one of the resident’s neighbours;
4. Noted the resident had refused to supply the addresses of residents with dogs, and explained it had contacted any residents it was aware of to warn they were in breach of their lease or tenancy conditions. One resident that had a dog had been moved, and it was working to “remove” another resident who had a dog. It would write to all residents regarding the resident’s reports of dog fouling, and it encouraged the resident to share the addresses of dog owners that he knew of;
5. Said it was “aware” that the car park gates were broken from December 2019 to July 2020. It said its housing officer had reported this multiple times and “pushed through” the repair, and had ordered and delivered additional fobs. It noted the resident had asked for the override instruction, but it could not share this with him due to health and safety risks;
6. Referred to general antisocial behaviour (ASB) the resident had complained about, and said it would look into the incident with his parking space if it was “recent” and he provided details of who was present. It cautioned him that it was likely his neighbours would infer it was him who had complained;
7. Told the resident it found it difficult to manage the ASB issues he had raised in the past, as he had not reported these at the time they occurred and “the situation has become entrenched due to the failure to report”;
8. Explained it had exercised its discretion and given permission for one of his neighbours to leave her pushchair under the stairs, and for her visitors to leave “other items” for a short period. It was in the process of finding a different property for his neighbour to move to, and it had put a local lettings plan in place to ensure the next occupants would not have young children, which “should eliminate this issue”;
9. Advised that it had “repeatedly removed” other items from under the stairs, and would continue to do this if any further items were reported in future;
10. Referenced “past issues”, which the resident had been unhappy with the landlord’s response to. These do not fall under the scope of this investigation and no further reference to these will be made in this report;
11. Partially upheld his complaint, and offered £25 compensation for his time and trouble;
12. Advised the resident it had completed its investigation, and how to contact the complaints handler if he did not “believe” the response had resolved his complaint.
On 30 November 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2021, which covered the following points:
1. The resident had asked for the complaint escalation because grounds maintenance had not been carried out, dogs remained on the estate, items were still being left under the stairs, ASB occurred “every summertime”, the car park gate continued to break down;
2. It did not include a reference to the intercom system;
3. It had not found evidence of service failure in the handling of his stage 1 complaint, and did not uphold his complaint about this;
4. Its new gardening contractor had been visiting fortnightly since it took over the contract in September 2021;
5. In response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it had asked its cleaners to pick up cigarette ends on their weekly visits in future, and would write to all residents in the area to remind them littering was unacceptable. It was looking into installing a bin near the entrance;
6. It had not sent the planned letter to residents about dogs. It would send a letter to all residents in the area that week, to remind them that dogs were not permitted, and to request that if they did own a dog, they contact the landlord to “discuss a suitable and satisfactory resolution”;
7. Also that week, it would write to residents to warn them they must not store items in the communal areas, and it would remove and dispose of any it finds going forward. It advised it would carry out “regular and frequent” checks after the letter was sent;
8. The complaint handler had spoken with the resident on 6 December 2021, and he confirmed there was no current ASB. It advised that if any were to occur in future, he could report this and it would follow its ASB policy. If there was any criminal activity, he should call the police;
9. It had received four reports that the car park gates had broken that year, each time in the open position (rather than being stuck shut). It had raised standard appointments and repaired them each time, and carried out a service which did not identify any underlying issues. It would continue to repair, rather than replace, the gates “if and when they do break again”;
10. It partially upheld his complaint, and increased its total offer of compensation for his time and trouble to £50;
11. Its internal complaints process had been completed, and the resident could contact the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord the next day, and:
1. Pointed out he had not complained about his stage 1 complaint handler;
2. Advised the landlord it had missed the issue regarding his intercom, which was still in need of repair;
3. Explained he was “not interested” in the gardening after the new contractor took over, but rather the standard of service from its previous contractor, over the spring and summer;
4. Expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s position regarding the gate. He advised it had been broken for the last two to three weeks, and it was affecting his car insurance, which required him to leave his car in a secure car park. Further, he pointed out each time a contractor was called out for a repair, it added to his service charge;
5. Expressed his general lack of confidence that the landlord would address the other concerns he had raised around ASB, dogs, and items in the communal area. He explained he was being chased by the landlord for payment of outstanding service charges, and questioned why he should pay for services that had not, in his view, been delivered.
On 25 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord a photo of a bag of dog excrement outside the block exit door.
The landlord replaced handsets for the intercom system in early 2022, with its records showing this had been done for all flats except the resident’s by 3 February 2022. He had told the landlord he was unavailable due to work, and it asked him to advise when he would be free, so it could complete the work.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord sent a general letter to the resident and his neighbours. It reminded them:
1. Not to give their car park fob to anyone else, or to allow visitors to park in the car park;
2. Not to use the car park as a “party space”;
3. Smoking in internal areas is illegal, and cigarettes ends should not be left on the ground;
4. Dogs are not permitted, and must not be allowed to foul or run free in the car park. Dog waste bags must be disposed of in a bin;
5. Commercial vehicles are not allowed in the car park and further incidents would result in enforcement action;
6. Not to leave items in the communal areas. It would remove and dispose of any it found.
On 15 August 2022 the resident approached this Service, and also emailed the landlord setting out his ongoing dissatisfaction:
1. He explained that despite being promised a letter would be sent to his neighbours, in the responses to his complaint, he had had to chase for six months until this was done;
2. He gave the address of four flats where dogs were being kept, and the addresses of two of his neighbours who had allowed their dogs to foul in the carpark;
3. The sign the landlord had put up in April 2022, to warn residents not to leave items under the stairs, had been ripped down;
4. Someone had come out to look at his intercom two months previously, and told him he needed a new facia. He had heard nothing since.
On 4 October 2022 the resident again voiced dissatisfaction with the standard of weed control being carried out by the gardeners. He described it to the landlord as being an annual visit in September to apply weedkiller, with weeds allowed to grow in spring and summer. The details put up by the landlord on the block noticeboard said this should be done fortnightly. He was unhappy that no one had come out to see what was being done.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord advised this Service that in the process of gathering the information to provide to us, it had reviewed its responses at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process. It had decided to increase its offer of compensation by £25 for poor complaint handling and £25 for time and trouble caused to the resident, which brought its total offer to £100. It explained this was to recognise its delay in closing the complaint at stage 1, and the resident’s “attempts to resolve the estates maintenance issues”. It confirmed the resident’s intercom handset had, by then, been replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s enforcement of its policies regarding dogs

The landlord accepted that the resident was correct in his understanding that its lease and tenancy terms forbid the keeping of dogs in the flats.
The landlord advised the resident that it had moved one of his neighbours, who it had been aware had a dog. It advised it was also seeking to end the tenancy of a second neighbour with a dog. We have seen the warning issued to one of his neighbours.
The landlord asked the resident to give it details of who on the estate he knew to have dogs. He initially advised he did not know and expected the landlord to carry out its own investigations.
The landlord promised the resident that it would issue a general warning to residents until such a point that the dog owners were identified. It told the resident it would do this in its stage 1 complaint response of July 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that it sent a letter to the estate.
This represents an unreasonable delay and caused the resident additional time and trouble to chase. The landlord relied on the resident and did not show it had taken any proactive efforts to investigate who had dogs in the flats.

The landlord’s enforcement of its policies regarding items in communal areas

Again, the landlord accepted that the resident was correct that its policies forbid the leaving of belongings in communal areas.
It advised him it had exercised discretion to allow one resident to leave her buggy under the stairs, due to her personal circumstances, and that this was a temporary arrangement because it was in the process of moving her away from the block. It was right that the landlord explained the limits of the action it had assessed as reasonable or proportionate in this case, and whilst he may not have agreed with its decision, it had acted in line with its policy regarding the management of reports of nuisance.
The landlord’s policies did not clearly set out the reasons for the ban on leaving items in communal areas. Many landlords ban the leaving of items inside blocks for safety reasons, and it may have been helpful if the landlord provided context for this rule. Its letter to all residents of 6 May 2022 presented a missed opportunity to add this detail and seek to improve compliance with its request.

The landlord’s enforcement of rules regarding use of the car park and ASB

The landlord did not appear to take seriously the resident’s reports that he had been met with disrespect by the individuals using his space. Whilst it said it would take action on future reports, it dismissed the reports of previous incidents as in the past, and did not offer to investigate.
The resident had a reasonable expectation that he should be able to use his space as and when he needed, and it was reasonable that he looked to the landlord for support in relaying this message to his neighbours.
The landlord’s letter of 6 May 2022 asked its residents not to give access to visitors, to only use their allocated spaces, and not to use any space for parties, even if it was their own. This message formed a sensible first step in addressing the issues the resident had reported, and it is not acceptable that it took so long for it to do this.
The resident also objected to the parking of commercial vehicles. His concern here appeared to be more to do with a general disregard for the rules, but his complaint first arose from incidents involving a neighbour with a branded van who had used more than one parking space, and then parked in the area outside the car park gate when he was warned to move out of the car park.
The resident was correct that his lease agreement did not allow this. It is another failing of the landlord that it took so long to act on this matter, eventually sending a warning to all residents in its letter of 6 May 2022 that commercial vehicles were not allowed.

The delivery of gardening services and the landlord’s handling of the service charge dispute that arose from this

The landlord advised the resident that it had reduced its inspections of the contracted gardening work in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This is understandable in the short term, but it is also understandable that the resident expressed his frustration that its position had not changed by the time it was looking into his complaint.
The landlord appeared to accept that its previous gardening contractor had not been delivering the service to its standard, however its complaint response only addressed the performance of its current contractor. This was not an appropriate approach, given the resident had been specific about the period he was complaining about. By taking this approach, the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident, or offer reassurance that his service charge had been reasonably incurred.
The resident’s lease and estate agreement confirm the landlord’s responsibility to carry out maintenance of the communal garden and landscaped areas, keeping them clean and tidy. However, it does not give specific details of the frequency of weed control.
In its complaint responses, the landlord directed the resident to the sheets it put on the communal noticeboard, setting out what the gardeners were expected to do on their visits. The resident explained that the sheets said weed control should be carried out fortnightly, however he observed this to happen on annual basis. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took steps to address this point, which again left the resident doubting that he had received the service he had been charged for.
The landlord did acknowledge that two visits (a whole month’s worth) were missed in May 2021. It is appropriate that the landlord decided to credit the resident for this. It is notable that this month is one in which many plants (including weeds) experience rapid growth, and the landlord has not explained how this was allowed to be missed.
The landlord did not demonstrate an engagement with the resident’s core concerns about its monitoring of the standard of gardening, and did not demonstrate that it had sought to learn from the resident’s experience.

The broken intercom

Despite the resident raising the issue with the service charge team in March 2020, and again in his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, the landlord missed this from its responses at both complaint stages.
The landlord did subsequently identify that the handsets needed to be replaced, and completed this in 2022. This was a period of two and a half years, clearly well beyond the target of 20 working days for repairs. The resident was once again caused time and trouble in chasing resolution for an issue he had brought to the landlord’s attention.

The car park gates

The landlord advised the resident it could not identify a failure on its part, as it had carried out repairs each time the gates had been reported to it as broken. In its stage 2 complaint response, it confirmed this had happened four times that year.
The landlord explained that it had arranged for a service of the gates, which had not identified a fault. It planned to carry on repairing the gates each time they stopped operating in future.
The resident set out the impact of the broken gates to the landlord. He explained that his insurance required the car park to be secure, and that he was worried he might be stuck one day when he needed to get to work. He pointed out that the cost of each visit by a contractor to repair the gates was added to his service charge. The landlord’s response did nothing to address these issues.
Given this information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to examine whether there was any other reason for the multiple breakdowns of the gates.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident clearly expressed his dissatisfaction and his request to be compensated in March 2020, but the landlord did not register a complaint at this point. It is accepted that this predates the Housing Ombudsman’s more recent complaint handling code, which set out our expectation that expressions of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint, and that residents are not required to explicitly use the word “complaint” to initiate the process. It is also acknowledged that this represented a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s issues much sooner.
The landlord apologised for its delays at stage 1 of the complaint process, and offered the resident compensation for this at stage 2.
The landlord has since recognised that its stage 2 response also fell short, and offered to increase the compensation level again. It is not clear whether it has informed the resident of this offer. Its increased offer was not sufficiently proportionate to the time and effort the resident had been caused, in having to chase responses as well as the completion of promised actions.
The landlord did not take appropriate note of the resident’s disclosure that he had anxiety and depression, which in the past had led to him being unable to work for three months. Its responses to his complaint lacked empathy and added to the upset he had been caused.
The landlord’s engagement with the substance of the complaint is addressed in the assessment of each matter above. There was service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s enforcement of its tenancy terms regarding dogs, items left in communal areas, use of the car park, and ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s delivery of gardening services and its handling of the service charge dispute that arose from this.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord’s increase to the service charge level is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it repair the intercom and car park gates.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with its response to the issues he had raised in March 2020. The evidence seen by this Service supports his assertion that many of these issues had persisted for years prior to that, with records from 2017 and 2018 shared with us.
The resident felt he needed to withhold a portion of his service charge payments to produce a response from the landlord, and indeed once he did this it registered a complaint in July 2021.
Its stage 1 complaint response did not fully address his concerns, and promised that reminders would be sent to his neighbours. The resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 after this did not happen, and it is a serious failing of the landlord that it failed again to fulfil this promise within a timely window of its stage 2 response.
The letter the landlord sent to the resident’s neighbours was ten months after his stage 1 complaint was registered, and over two years after he voiced his concerns in March 2020.
The landlord did not offer adequate redress for its failure to address the intercom repair at both complaint stages.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response suggested that the car park gates may continue to break down in future. It did not recognise its responsibility to keep them in repair (not just to keep repairing them), and it did not provide reasonable reassurance that it had investigated the circumstances of the breakdowns, or looked for patterns that might explain them.
The landlord appeared to take a reactive rather than a preventative approach in its management of the estate. It should now consider whether an adaptation of its approach may result in better rates of compliance with its tenancy terms and conditions. This should include the level of explanation and updates it provides to the resident about its actions to manage issues of noncompliance that he raises.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its poor response to the matters he raised, and its subsequent failures in handling his complaint. It should provide us with a copy once completed.
Within two weeks of this report’s date, the landlord should confirm to us, and the resident, that it has applied the credits for the missed gardening visits in May 2021 to the resident’s service charge account.
Within four weeks of this report’s date, the landlord must review the complete repairs history and number of reports of breakdowns for the car park gates, and confirm to us whether it has identified any common causes or circumstances behind the breakdowns. During this time it should also ensure an inspection is carried out to ascertain the current condition of the gates. It should then decide if any further repair work or replacement is needed, and confirm the outcome to us and the resident, no later than six weeks after the date of this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should directly compensate the resident a total of £510, as follows (and confirm to us once completed):
1. £200 for the time and trouble it caused him in having to chase for the reminder to his neighbours regarding the rules on the estate;
2. £60 for the time and trouble caused by its failure to offer reassurance to the resident that his service charge had been properly incurred;
3. £150 for the failure to respond and repair the intercom and car park gates within its timescales;
4. £100 it previously offered.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord explain to the resident and his neighbours the reasons why it does not allow items to be left in the communal areas, including under the stairs. For example, this may include reasons of safety, discouraging pests, ease of access or other reasons.
It is recommended that the landlord review the current situation regarding dogs being kept at the estate, and that if issues still persist it takes appropriate action in line with its ASB policy to progress this and keep the resident updated.