Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202211158)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211158

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

01 August 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the car park gate.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme.
The resident first reported maintenance issues with the front communal door in January 2019, and again in October 2020 and May 2021. Further maintenance issues with the communal door were reported by other residents between 2016 and December 2021.
The repair records show that there were six reports to the landlord, of the car park gates being broken from 2015 to May 2021.
The resident submitted a Stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 May 2022. She complained about the recurring issues with the front communal door and that the landlord had previously advised it would replace the door, that there had been regular frequent issues with the lock and door and requested a new door and lock. She also complained about other residents breaking the communal electric car park gates when they could not gain entry. She asked for all residents to be issued fobs for the communal gate and that they be fined if they break the gate. She also asked for compensation for the management fee and any repair work.
In its Stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised there had been a communication issue regarding the replacement of the communal front door and that this had not been booked in. It apologised to the resident and advised it would pass the issue on to its specialist team to carry out a survey and arrange the next steps. In respect of the car park gates, the landlord advised the resident it had been unaware of any recent issues, but it had sent out a letter to all residents so that they could easily order new fobs for the gate. It also reminded the resident that she had been given a new fob on 27 May 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2022 as she wanted the actions she brought up to be completed. She reiterated that she already had a fob for the car park gates and her complaint concerned misuse by other residents, who broke the gates attempting access. She clarified that this had originally been brought to the landlord’s attention in 2018, during a meeting with landlord staff and residents. She asked the landlord for a compliance plan and for her complaint to be re-opened.
In its stage 2 final complaint response of 23 September 2022, the landlord advised the resident that its contractor had inspected the communal door in August 2022 and had removed the lock and found missing screws, a broken part, and the system bent out of shape. Repairs had been carried out and the door was left in working order. In respect of the car park gates, the landlord informed the resident it could not identify who may be forcing the car park gates as there was no CCTV. It advised that it had reminded residents that they could also order fobs via the landlord portal and that residents’ visitors could use the free access gate to gain entry. It also apologised to the resident and offered her £50 for its complaint handling.
Subsequent to the landlord’s final response, there have been four reports of problems with the communal front door, between 13 October 2022 and 23 December 2022.
The resident complained to this Service on 3 November 2022. She complained about the landlord’s refusal to change the communal front door and that problems were still ongoing, and that there were still residents who did not have fobs and were breaking the car park gate.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord advised this Service that it had reviewed the complaint and wished to increase its compensation offer to £250. It said it would await this Service’s determination before making the offer to the resident.
As an outcome to the complaint, the resident would like the car park gates issue to be resolved and the communal front door and locking system to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her complaint, the resident mentions the situation with the communal front door and car park gates dates back several years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Accordingly, there are limits to how far back an investigation by the Ombudsman can go. While the historical reports provide background for the complaint, this investigation focusses on events from May 2021, one year prior to the resident raising her complaint with the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities confirms that where a repair is more complicated, the landlord may decide to have a member of the landlord team complete an inspection at the property before repairs are made. This would help them diagnose the right works needed to complete the repair.
The guide goes on to state that the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal and shared spaces and facilities and that it is responsible for hard wired communal entry systems. It states that it can apply various timelines in the case of communal door entry systems, but that communal door issues will be attended as an emergency if they are preventing residents or neighbours from entering or exiting the building.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door

The landlord’s repair records show that issues with the communal door were reported on at least 5 occasions between May 2021 and September 2022. The available evidence shows that the door lock has been repaired and replaced on at least three of these occasions.
It is acknowledged that the door appeared to be in working order at the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response and that its surveyor had recently attended and confirmed that the door did not need replacing. However, taking into account the repair history, it was clear by this point that there had been repeated issues with the door lock and a failure to effect a permanent repair early on. The repair records show that residents were sometimes locked in or out of the building and that the block was insecure, therefore the issues with the door would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records also show that there was confusion from the landlord regarding the replacement of the communal door and locking system. The notes show that in February 2022, the landlord had enquired with its regional repairs and planned works team to see if a survey could be carried out in regard to fitting a new door system but never received a response from the team. The records go on to show that there were communication issues between landlord departments, resulting in lack of clarity as to whether the door and locking system was going to be repaired or replaced. This may have caused additional delays in effecting a permanent repair.
The landlord failed to put things right in its complaint responses. While it acknowledged that it failed to carry out a survey of the door entry system in early 2022, it failed to offer any compensation for its failure to fully resolve the issue with the door. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is made along with orders for redress.
Furthermore, the issues with the door have continued since the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The lock was reported as not working again on 23 November 2022, only two months later, and then again on 23 December 2022. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to take steps to ensure that the issue with the door is fully resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the car park gate

As stated above, the landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities states that it is responsible for hard wired communal entry systems. The guide goes on to state that residents must “prevent damage caused by neglect or misuse” and advises that “where this happens you may be charged”.
The resident complained to the landlord about this matter on 16 May 2022. She complained that many residents did not have fobs for the electric gates and that they had been breaking into the gates, which was causing damage to them. She asked for residents to be issued with fobs and that they be fined for any breakages to the gates.
In its Stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised that it could find no recent contact regarding issues with the car park gates and the last contact had been in July 2018. However, the landlord’s repair records show that issues with the car park gates were reported on 3 September 2020, 9 October 2020 and 28 May 2021, although there is no evidence on file of the resident reporting concerns about other residents breaking the gates due to not having fobs.
The landlord also advised the resident that it had, nevertheless, written to all residents to advise them on how to order a new fob. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns at this time. The landlord also advised the resident that she herself had been given a fob on 27 May 2022. However, the resident did not complain about not having a fob herself so there was a misunderstanding on the part of the landlord in this regard.
The resident reiterated her concerns in her Stage 2 complaint of 6 June 2022. She advised that she had witnessed residents breaking the gate to gain entry on three occasions that week and that the issue had been ongoing since 2018. She also advised that residents had had a meeting with a landlord representative in 2018 to discuss these issues. She maintained that one letter to residents was not enough and asked the landlord for a compliance plan.
In its Stage 2 response of 23 September 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was difficult to identify who may be forcing the car park gate due to the fact that there was no CCTV in the area. It stated that it had reminded residents to alert anyone visiting the site to use the free access gate and that it had circulated a reminder to residents that they no longer needed to visit the office to obtain an access fob for the gates.
This Service has not seen evidence of the reminder the landlord says it circulated to residents. Overall, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it took adequate steps to remind residents of their responsibilities in ensuring they did not cause damage to any property. Although the landlord is under no obligation to install CCTV, it would be appropriate for the landlord to put in some means of monitoring the car park, such as regular visits by housing officers. Although the landlord did go some way to address the issues with the car park gates, it did not go far enough and the resident advises the issues are still occurring. As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy;
1. Stage 1 – where the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days
2. Stage 2 – where the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that landlords must respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The resident submitted her Stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 6 June 2022. She did not receive a response until 23 September 2022. This is 77 working days and significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales and not compliant with the complaint handling code. Although during its complaints process the landlord did ask the resident for several extensions to respond, it is not reasonable for the resident to have waited so long for a final response. This would have caused her additional time, trouble and frustration.
The complaint handling code states that when “putting things right” any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £50 for the delay in issuing its complaint response. It later increased this offer to a total of £250 (in recognition of the delays in resolving the issue with the communal door and car park gates, and for delays with its complaints procedure).
The revised offer of compensation was made some months after the landlord’s Stage 2 response and was therefore not compliant with the complaint handling code. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the complaint responses of any learning from the complaint and that action has been taken to improve the landlord’s complaint handling going forward. Accordingly, a finding of service failure is made for the landlord’s complaint handling, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its response to the resident’s concerns about the car park gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following:
1. Pay the resident £400 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s offer and is broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for its handling of the communal door repairs.
  2. £100 for its handling of the reports about the gate.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling.
2. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to survey the door and locking system and propose a permanent solution.
3. Draft an action plan setting out how it will resolve the issue with the car park gates. This should include ensuring that all residents have fobs to gain entry to the gates and the situation is monitored going forward.
4. Review the complaint handling failures in this case and write to this Service with a service improvement plan.
The landlord to provide compliance with the above orders within four weeks of this report.