Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202213519)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213519

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

6 September 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 the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his garage gate.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a flat with a garage, and the landlord is the freeholder.
Following its previous garage gate shutter attendances and repairs in March and April 2022, on 5 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report a problem with a garage gate mechanism at the property. On 11 May 2022, the landlord responded to say it would look into the issue and contact the resident once it had an update, noting on 13 May 2022 that the shutter needed parts.
On 17 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to say he had contacted it for an update on the garage gate repairs on 16 May 2022, but he had not received an acknowledgment or a response. He said that this was unacceptable, as “drug addicts” were now using the garage and making other residents feel unsafe. Additionally, he requested an urgent timetable for the repairs. On 18 May 2022, the landlord replied to confirm that its housing manager was dealing with the problem, and it noted on 27 May 2022 that it had completed works to replace the garage gate shutter motors and photo cells.
The landlord noted on 11 June 2022 that the garage gate sensor was not working, and was stuck open as a result. The resident then chased the landlord for an update on 16 June 2022, and on 17 June 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord. He said that he had repeatedly asked for the garage gate to be fixed, but the landlord had not acknowledged or responded to his requests. He explained that the garage was being used by “drug dealers”, resulting in ASB. He wanted the landlord to repair the garage gate and an explanation for why his emails were not being responded to.
After it noted that it assigned a job to its repairs team on 23 June 2022 for the resident’s garage gate not opening or closing, on 27 June 2022 the landlord’s engineer checked the garage gate, and noted that this was not operating correctly due to damage to the controls.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It confirmed that a specialist repair for the garage gate had been raised with its contractor on 23 June 2022, and that they aimed to complete the repairs by 21 July 2022. It explained its property advisor had gone “above and beyond” in resolving the resident’s problem, and had replied to him on 18 May 2022, advising him his concerns had been passed to its local housing manager, who was dealing with them. It also said that its local housing manager had tried to contact him on 19 May 2022, but had been unable to do so, although it had confirmed that a repair had been raised.
Additionally, the landlord confirmed it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint, but in future asked that he directed his concerns to the correct channels, rather than specific individuals, to ensure a quick response. It also confirmed it had asked its local housing manager to provide him with updates where possible.
The landlord then noted that it raised and approved the repair to the garage gate on 27 and 28 July 2022, respectively, but that the parts that it had ordered for the repair subsequently had a “huge” delay and were then lost in transportation, and had to be ordered again. On 25 September 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to explain that the garage gate was still broken, and that he had received no response from the landlord to his queries, including his reports on 11, 18, 19 and 20 May and 17 June 2022, and his further complaint on 24 August 2022. Subsequently, on 17 October 2022, the Ombudsman sent a letter to the landlord requesting it escalate the resident’s formal complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, and send its response to the resident by 14 November 2022, which it acknowledged on 21 October 2022 and aimed to respond to within 20 working days. The resident also made a fresh complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2022 about both the garage gate repair still being outstanding, and its lack of response to his ASB reports, as there were now 5 people living in the garage so that he could not park his car there and had told the police. He wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and offer compensation.
On 31 October 2022, a contractor attended the property to carry out repairs to the garage gate, but they were unable to gain access and carry out the necessary work, as the shutters were locked closed. The contractor then re-attended on 11 November 2022 and carried out some repairs, but discovered that the garage gate’s wireless sensor needed new batteries. They returned for a third time on 22 November 2022, and completed the repairs.
On 2 December 2022, the Ombudsman sent a follow up letter to the landlord, as the resident confirmed he had not yet received its stage 2 response. We therefore asked the landlord to send one to the resident by 9 December 2022.
On 7 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident, apologising for the delay in doing so. It acknowledged that the garage gate had not been repaired within its service level agreement timescales, and said this was due to a change in its contractor and delays in getting necessary parts for the repairs. It confirmed that the work was completed, and due to the delays and poor communication, it had absorbed the cost of the works.
Additionally, regarding the resident’s concerns of ASB, the landlord noted that the police had been informed of this but could not take further action or commit to regular patrols, as these would not have prevented the issues. It also stated that these were not raised through the appropriate channels, meaning a formal ASB report had not been logged. It said that this was not its fault, and gave the resident contact details for its ASB team. Finally, it confirmed there were failings in its complaint handling, and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise this.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, and asked the Ombudsman to investigate the issues not being dealt with properly, problems with complaint handling, and the landlord’s conduct regarding his many months of repair and ASB reports, and its delays and lack of responses to them and his further complaints. He sought a working fault response system, an explanation for the lack of responses to him, and compensation for poor and missing service that he was charged for.
On 23 June 2023, the landlord conducted a review of the resident’s complaint. Following the review, it increased the compensation originally offered in its stage 2 response from £50 to £450. This was to recognise his reports of ASB not being recorded formally, poor complaint handling, and for the resident’s time and trouble, with £150 each. The landlord also confirmed that it had learnt lessons from the resident’s case, so that it had projects and closer communication between its teams and contractors to efficiently track, update residents on, and complete repairs for “mini-critical incidents” including gates. It additionally acknowledged that raising an ASB case would have helped, and so its local team had put steps in place to follow its ASB process and communicate consistently with residents in such cases.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to garage gate

The landlord’s repair responsibilities guide states that, for emergency repairs, contractors will attend within 24 hours. For routine repairs it says 28 calendar days, and for non-routine repairs it says it can take 90 days. Additionally, the guide states that the priority for damaged gates depends on whether the issue is causing a safety problem.
Following the resident’s report of a problem with the garage gate mechanism on 5 May 2022, the landlord noted on 13 May 2022 that the shutter needed parts, and on 27 May 2022 that it had completed works to replace the shutter motors and photo cells. It therefore appropriately did so within its repair responsibilities guide’s 28-calendar-day timescale for routine repairs.
The landlord’s records nevertheless show, in relation to the garage gate sensor repair it then noted 11 June 2022 that meant that this was stuck open, that it did not meet its service level agreement for a quote submission, and that there was a “huge” delay in getting the parts required to complete repairs. Additionally, when the parts were received, they were subsequently lost in transportation to its contractor. This means that, although a work order was raised with the contractor on 23 June 2022, they did not attend the property to carry out repairs until 31 October 2022, despite confirming to the resident in its stage 1 response that it would aim to complete the repair by 21 July 2022.
Additionally, when the contractor attended on 31 October 2022, they reported they were unable to gain access to the garage gate to repair this. However, they then did not re-attend until 11 November 2022, and there is no explanation as to why there was another delay in completing repairs.
When the contractor attended on 11 November 2022, further delays were caused when they discovered that they needed more parts, specifically batteries, for the garage’s door sensor. This delayed repairs further, until they were completed on 22 November 2022, outside the terms of its repair responsibilities guide’s timescales of 90 and 28 calendar days and 24 hours for non-routine, routine and emergency repairs, respectively. This was a failure by the landlord, as it took 153 calendar days from 11 June 2022 to repair the sensor.
The repair may have been considered as routine initially by the landlord, but when the resident reported that people had started using the area for unlawful purposes, the priority should have been changed. In any event, the landlord did not meet its own timescales for emergency, routine, or non-routine repairs.
Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with its own repair responsibilities guide. There were unnecessary delays in the repair work, which the landlord has recognised in its stage 2 response to the resident, and in its subsequent review of his complaint. This led to a potentially unsafe environment, and left the resident unable to use the garage as intended. The landlord had also noted that the police were aware of the situation, but could not take any action due to a lack of resources. It is unclear why the landlord did not make the repair a priority given the circumstances. Additionally, the landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident to confirm when the repair work would be completed.
The resident has requested that the landlord compensate him for poor and missing services paid for by his service charge due to the delayed repairs, and that it have a working fault response system. In its stage 2 response to the resident, the landlord confirmed that because of the delays and poor communication regarding the gate repairs, it would absorb the cost of the repair works instead of passing this on to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this, given the circumstances of the complaint, because as a leaseholder, the resident would otherwise have been liable for the costs.
The landlord has also confirmed to the Ombudsman in its June 2023 complaint review, that it has since awarded the resident £150 compensation for the time and trouble that he experienced from its handling of his garage gate repairs. This was in line with both its compensation policy’s recommendation of up to £150 compensation for a medium level of residents’ unnecessary effort in communicating with it and taking action to resolve the issue from its failure, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of over £100 compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident.
The landlord also put measures in place to improve its repairs process going forwards, with projects and closer communication between its teams and contractors to efficiently track, update residents on, and complete repairs for “mini-critical incidents” including gates, which was appropriate. However, it ought to have done so, and to have compensated the resident for this, during its complaints procedure and before he complained to the Ombudsman, but it did not do so until a much later date, and so a failing has been found on its part as a result of this. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the further compensation that it has awarded him, as well as recommended below to implement its learning from this complaint.

ASB reports

The landlord’s ASB policy states that, when it first receives a report of ASB, an initial assessment will be carried out to determine the priority of the case. The resident’s concerns about ASB were received by the landlord from 17 May 2022 onwards, but because the resident had not made an ASB report to its ASB team, the landlord did not treat the resident’s concerns as an ASB report, which was inappropriate. This is because the policy required it to ensure that its service for reporting ASB was available and accessible, and defined ASB as including drug abuse, vandalism and damage to property, but it took no action for his reports of drug abuse preventing him from accessing his garage.
The landlord has recognised that it did not signpost the resident to the correct team, record his complaint as ASB, or follow its whole ASB process. Although it only did so after its stage 2 complaint response unreasonably criticised the resident for not raising his ASB reports through the appropriate channels, and said that this meant that it was not its fault that it had not opened an ASB case, while continuing to tell him to contact its ASB team directly when it had already received his ASB reports.
Additionally, the landlord has confirmed that following internal meetings about the issue, no ASB case was logged because the police were aware of the situation, and the practical solution was to repair the garage gate to stop intruders. This information had been communicated to a “resident lead”, but not directly to the resident.
It is unclear as to whether the landlord had liaised with the police about the situation, as it would typically be expected to, following reports of ASB involving unlawful behaviour. This was required by its ASB policy that committed to working in partnership and sharing information with the police.
In June 2023, the landlord carried out a further review of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It informed the Ombudsman that it intended to offer the resident £150 for his ASB report not being raised formally. Additionally, it confirmed that it had put steps in place to ensure that the ASB process would be followed more effectively going forward, including staff training for its local team to follow its ASB process and communicate consistently with residents about this, which was appropriate. It also accepted that the resident could have been signposted to the correct ASB team at the time.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay up to £150 for cases where there was a medium level of failure by it that meant that the resident received a poor service from it. While its guidance on awarding compensation recommended a similar level of compensation for “considerable service failure”. This includes instances where it may have failed over a considerable period to respond to ASB. Its decision to award compensation in line with, and at the higher end of, its own compensation policy, although done retrospectively, was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation award was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s for over £100 compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident. Although it was inappropriate that it took until its June 2023 case review, long after he had completed its complaints procedure and complained to us to do so, and to confirm that it has put measures in place to improve its implementation of its ASB policy, to avoid similar failings in future. The landlord was therefore responsible for a failing in respect of this, and it has been ordered below to pay the resident the further compensation that it has awarded him, as well as recommended below to implement its learning from this complaint.

Communication and complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord that he had emailed various members of its staff, and they had ignored him, including on 11, 16, 18, 19 and 20 May and 17 June 2022. He wanted an explanation as to why. The landlord explained that one of its advisors responded to the resident to confirm a local housing manager was dealing with his concerns.
Additionally, the landlord said that the resident had continued to email its individual employees directly, one of whom had switched job roles. It said that despite this, the employee signposted the resident to the correct contact. It also provided the resident with guidance on how to manage items such as repairs and ASB via its online portal.
While the landlord has confirmed that some emails were missed, it has highlighted the fact that the individual employees contacted had forwarded the resident’s concerns on to the relevant department. This should have been communicated clearly to the resident, and he should have been directed to the appropriate contacts going forward, but it did not do so and this was a failing on its part.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2-stage complaints process. It states that stage 1 formal complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2022, and the landlord provided its response on 4 July 2022. This was almost in line with its complaints policy, being 11 working days later.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Following its stage 1 response in July 2022, the resident raised further concerns to the landlord on 24 August 2022. He did not receive a response. After he contacted the Ombudsman, we contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022, and asked it to provide the resident with its stage 2 response by 14 November 2022.
Subsequently, the landlord contacted the resident on 21 October 2022 to confirm it had been contacted by the Ombudsman, and would aim to send its stage 2 response within 20 working days. When the resident confirmed to us that a response had not been received by that date, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 2 December 2022, and asked it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident by 9 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2022, 53 working days outside of its own complaints policy’s 20-working day timescale, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This was an additional failure by the landlord, which offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
Following its case review in June 2023, the landlord has offered the resident £150 for its poor complaint handling in not recognising its failures in its stage 2 complaint response. This is in line with its tariff of discretionary compensation payments’ recommendation of up to £150 compensation for this, including not meeting the timeframes set out in the policy, poor communication, and failure to respond to correspondence.

However, while the revised offer of compensation given by the landlord to the Ombudsman in June 2023 was reasonable, they were made 6 months after the resident brought his complaint to us. The Ombudsman expects landlords to make appropriate and proportionate awards to resolve complaints within a reasonable timescale. This was not the case here, and this was an additional failure by the landlord.

The landlord has also failed to recognise and offer compensation for its delayed stage 2 response, and it has not indicated how it will prevent its complaint handling failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future. Therefore, it is ordered below to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation to recognise the delay in resolving his complaint and offering him further compensation. This is in addition to the further compensation award of £150 referenced in its June 2023 complaint review to the resident, which it has also been ordered to pay below, if it has not already done so. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his garage gate.
2. Its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
3. Its communication and complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the revised compensation totalling £550 within 4 weeks, if it has not already done so. This is broken down into:
1. £150 that it awarded for the resident’s ASB report not being raised formally.
2. £150 that it awarded for poor complaint handling.
3. £150 that it awarded for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing responses for his garage gate repairs.
4. £100 additional compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and further compensation awards to the resident.
It is recommended that, in addition to any improvements it has already put in place, the landlord:
1. Implement its learning regarding its handling of the resident’s ASB case.
2. Implement its learning regarding its handling of the resident’s garage gate repairs case.
3. Review its staff’s training needs in regard to their implementation of its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.