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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202213217)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213217

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

23 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of issues with external grounds maintenance.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord manages the estate and its communal outdoor space. Its contractor’s complete external grounds maintenance every 2 weeks. The housing officer for the block performs a quarterly check of the grounds.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 August 2022 to report concerns about its external grounds maintenance. She felt it had not adequately cleaned the grounds in the past 6 months.  She said the grass area opposite her home was full of animal excrement. This had caused flies to enter her home. The landlord acknowledged this report on 10 August 2022 and passed her query to the relevant team. The resident called the landlord to report further animal excrement on 18 August 2022. The landlord called the resident to discuss this on 1 September 2022. During this call, the resident confirmed that she believed the excrement was not coming from dogs but potentially from local wildlife. She reiterated to the landlord that the excrement and the flies were causing her daily issues. The resident called again on 14 September 2022, and the landlord attempted to call her back but was unable to secure contact.
  4. The resident wrote to this service on 21 September 2022 to complain about her landlord. She said she was unhappy with the upkeep of her estate and the animal excrement in the grass area outside her house. She wanted the landlord to do additional cleaning and to pave the grass area. This service informed the landlord of this on 22 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It formally apologised to the resident for failing to provide its response within its 10-working day timeline. It informed the resident that the local housing manager visited to inspect the estate and found no evidence of the issues reported. It also said it would be willing to inspect the estate as and when needed if the resident reported new issues. It also confirmed that it would not generally clear up wildlife excrement in grass or shrub elements unless it was a slip or health hazard.
  5. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage 1 response on 10 December 2022. She felt the landlord had not listened to her. She wanted the landlord to visit the estate to inspect the maintenance work. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 January 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It reiterated that the removal of excrement from grassed areas would not fall in line with grounds maintenance. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed its contractor’s evidence of work and was satisfied that it was to the desired standards. The landlord also commented on photo evidence of litter that the resident had sent, saying it had investigated this and that this was due to bins awaiting collection and the extremely windy weather. It also said the supervisor for these works would monitor this closely in the future.
  6. The resident confirmed on 17 January 2023 that she would like this service to consider her complaint. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and felt the landlord had not adequately cleaned the estate for months. She also reiterated that, throughout the summer, she had flies entering her house due to the animal excrement. To resolve her complaint, she would like the grass area removed, 6 months of service charges refunded, and the landlord to come and inspect the estate.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of issues with external grounds maintenance.

  1. The landlord’s current cleaning arrangement is that its contractors perform grounds maintenance every 2 weeks. It has said that supervisors regularly inspect the site and log these inspections, although the landlord has stated this is not a contract requirement. A member of its local housing team performs a quarterly visit to the estate to inspect the grounds. The landlord’s cleaning services policy also details the exact work that it will complete as part of its services. This includes litter removal from grassed areas and shrubs, grassed areas, weed clearance, shrub bed and hedge maintenance, and tree management.
  2. The resident raised concerns about animal excrement on the grass and bushes opposite her house. In a discussion with the landlord, she stated that she did not think this was from dogs but potentially from cats and foxes. The landlord said that its contractors would not be required to deal with animal waste unless this was either a slip or a health hazard. Clearing up animal waste is not listed as an activity as part of the external grounds maintenance programme.
  3. Despite this, the landlord visited the property and the specific area the resident had concerns about. It was unable to identify any odour or excrement during its visit. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the estate to investigate her issue. As it could not locate any odour or excrement this service would not expect it to take any further action.
  4. The landlord has provided evidence that its contractors have visited the property as required and performed grounds maintenance. The landlord has provided this service with grounds maintenance reports from 7 September 2022, 1 November 2022, 15 November 2022, and 13 December 2022. The landlord has reviewed previous grounds maintenance reports. It found that the completed work was to the expected standard. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the site. It investigated the photograph of litter and provided the resident with an adequate explanation.
  5. The landlord has also indicated if the resident has any further concerns in the future, she can contact them. It has then said that it will perform another inspection as and when needed. It also said that its supervisor would monitor the area moving forward. These are fair actions from the landlord.
  6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. The landlord fairly investigated the resident’s concerns. It has also offered continued support to her moving forward.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will provide this within 20 working days.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord failed to provide its response within 10 working days, taking 12 working days. For this, the landlord provided a formal apology to the resident. Given the length of the delay and the inconvenience this caused the resident, this is a fair resolution from the landlord.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took 23 working days to respond. Although this was slightly out of the timescales set out in its policy, this was reasonable from the landlord. The resident escalated the complaint over the Christmas and New Year period. Given the disruptions of this, the 3-day delay was reasonable from the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s responses were fair and reasonable in tone and content. It took the time to properly investigate the issue and provide the resident with detailed responses to her issues.
  5. The landlord’s apology for its stage 1 delay was reasonable redress for failing to adhere to the timescales set out in its policies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with external grounds maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.