Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202216051)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216051

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The bathroom repair works carried out by the landlord’s contractor and the conduct of its operative.
2. The associated complaint.
3. Reported damage to flooring caused by the contractor’s operative.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of reported damage to flooring caused by the landlord’s operative.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
If she has not done so already, the resident would need to log a complaint with the landlord about the above issue as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to bring the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has been through the landlord’s complaints process.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and lives in a house.
On 23 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord because she was unhappy with the bathroom repair works that had been carried out. The resident was also unhappy with the conduct of the operative who had carried out the works. The resident had previously reported some staining of the grout and ceiling in the bathroom and holes in the bathroom wall. The resident stated she had asked the operative not to paint her bathroom wall because the operative did not have the right colour paint that matched the original wall colour. She advised the operative did not listen to her and used the different colour paint on the wall. The operative had also used yellow colour grouting when the original colour was white. The resident stated she was told to speak to the operative’s manager when she had asked the operative why her request was not followed. The resident stated she had previously complained about the same operative after her flooring had previously been damaged. She advised the operative had carried out a poor quality of works, had a poor attitude and did not care. As a resolution the resident wanted the bathroom wall to be repainted with the correct paint colour and the grouting to be redone in white.
The resident repeated her complaint to the landlord on 24 August 2022. She said she felt the landlord was ignoring her real issues. The landlord responded to the resident on the same date. The landlord suggested that the best way forward was maybe for the resident to purchase the paint, which the landlord would reimburse the cost for, and the resident could paint the bathroom herself. As an alternative, the landlord stated it could ask its contractor to send a different operative to the resident’s home to paint the wall. The landlord advised it was for its contractor to address any grievance issues directly with the resident. The landlord stated if its contractor did not have the immediate capacity to arrange for another operative to attend, its suggestion of providing her with the paint may resolve the issue sooner.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 August 2022 and advised she would not allow the same operative back into her home. The resident stated she would prefer to paint the wall herself. She also clarified her complaint was about the operative’s lack of concern and the operative’s response to her. The resident emphasised that it was the operative’s behaviour that was the main issue and she was really upset with the way the operative had acted.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 31 August 2022. It advised the operative had attended as a part of planned works. The landlord apologised to the resident for any delays and inconvenience caused. It stated that it had offered to provide the resident with contractors to repaint the bathroom wall, which the resident had refused. The landlord advised it had agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of painting one wall. It offered the resident a total of £40 compensation, £30 to cover the cost of the paint, materials and the resident’s time to repaint the wall and £10 was offered for time and trouble.
On 31 August, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She stated the landlord had not been interested in hearing about the upset and inconvenience caused to her. The resident advised the landlord’s lack of empathy and understanding for why she made the complaint had upset her even further. The resident stated that she did not accept the landlord’s compensation offer because the compensation did not take into account the upset, stress and inconvenience caused to her.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord stated it had reviewed its redress and compensation tariff in line with its industry peers and the Housing Ombudsman, and its staff had received training on the new tariff. The landlord advised the resident’s case had been managed in line with its policy guidelines. It had reviewed the resident’s complaint and concluded that the correct action had been taken and a sufficient expression of empathy had been shown. The landlord offered the resident its sincerest apologies for any inconvenience caused and advised it would continue to improve on its service. The landlord reiterated its offer of the £40 compensation it had offered at stage one.
On 27 September 2022 the landlord’s internal records referred to its contractor contacting the resident. The contractor stated that the resident was only concerned about the paint touch up in the bathroom where the towel rail had been moved and the grouting that had yellow staining in places. The contractor stated it had told the resident it could arrange for one of its operatives to re-attend and address the repair issues. The resident had advised that she would do the repairs herself and would need some paint. The contractor stated that it would provide the resident with the required paint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 October 2022 and advised its contractor had been trying to call her in order to make an appointment to resolve the bathroom issues. The landlord provided the resident with the contact numbers for its contractor and stated her case would be closed if its contractors did not hear from her by 28 October 2022.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman because she felt the landlord had failed to understand that her complaint was about the upset, distress and inconvenience caused by the operative.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had contacted the resident on 28 September 2023. The landlord advised it had conducted a review of the resident’s complaint and had identified service failings, which had not been addressed in either of its complaint responses. The landlord stated there had been a delay with providing the resident with a stage one complaint response and the communication during its stage one process had been poor. The landlord also advised it had not informed the resident that its contractor would be investigating her allegations regarding the operative’s behaviour and this would therefore be excluded from the landlord’s investigation. In recognition of this and the inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord had awarded an additional £100 compensation to include:
1. £25 for failing to respond in 10 working days.
2. £25 for failing to include its service failing during the complaints process.
3. £50 for poor communication during the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Principles – these are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award up to £50 for service failures that have had a minor inconvenience or impact on a resident. It will award up to £150 for medium service failures, where several errors have been made or a service or repair is repeatedly not resolved or fixed. The landlord will award up to £350 for repeated failings in the service it has provided, which resulted in a high impact to the resident and their standard of living. The landlord will also award up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaints policy advises it will provide a complaint resolution within 10 working days. If the landlord cannot respond within 10 working days, it will keep the resident informed and agree a new response time. The landlord aimed to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy states complaints will be excluded for the following reasons:
1. The cause of the complaint occurred over 6 months ago.
2. Legal proceedings have started.
3. The complaint has already been handled under the landlord’s complaints policy.
4. Insurance claims.
5. Complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
6. Complaints about rent increases or service charges or their reasonableness.
7. Planned Section 20 works.
In the landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities, it states the landlord will visit the property within 24 hours of the resident contacting it for emergency repairs. The landlord will make every effort to complete a routine repair within 28 calendar days (or 20working days) of being notified.

The landlord’s handling of the bathroom repair works carried out by its contractor and the conduct of its operative

The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. The Ombudsman has considered how the landlord investigated the complaint about the operative’s conduct and whether it did enough to put things right for the resident.
The resident provided the landlord with photos of the bathroom repair, which clearly shows a different colour paint had been used to cover the reported holes in the wall. The landlord did take reasonable action in trying to get the bathroom repairs issues resolved quickly by contacting the resident the day after she logged the complaint and offering to send a different operative to rectify the works or to reimburse the resident for the cost of the paint. The landlord continued to make attempts to engage with the resident to rectify the bathroom repairs throughout the complaints process and afterwards, which is satisfactory and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to do.
However, it is a concern that the landlord made the decision not to address the resident’s complaint about the operative’s conduct. The landlord told the Ombudsman this aspect of the resident’s complaint had been excluded from its investigation because its contractor had carried out the investigation into staff conduct. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code, published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that its contractor would investigate and respond to the resident. However, neither the contractor nor the landlord showed they understood this was the second time the resident had reported that the same operative had caused damage to her property by not following her instructions or provide a resolution to this issue. Therefore, they did not fully address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that the same operative would not attend the resident’s property again but this did not go far enough in addressing her concerns. The landlord should draw up a code of conduct (if it does not already have one) for contractors to ensure that there is a clear procedure in place if an operative is unable to complete the proposed work upon arrival, such as in this case where they do not have the right colour of paint. Operatives should be aware that the work needs to be rescheduled or they need to check with the landlord or a supervisor before proceeding with the work. This was a failure by the landlord as it could have done more to provide reassurance to the resident that a similar issue would not occur in future and it did not compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by the situation.
The landlord offered the resident £10 compensation for her time in repainting. As it was a small area this would be reasonable for this aspect of the complaint. it is noted that the landlord had also offered to arrange for an operative to do the painting if the resident did not wish to do it herself. However, the landlord should have also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience, as stated above.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance states the Ombudsman may award up to £600 in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings but there was no permanent impact from these errors. The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of its service failure and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to address her concerns over the operative’s conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Throughout the landlord’s complaint handling the landlord failed to address the distress and inconvenience the operative’s conduct caused to the resident. The landlord did not advise the resident that an investigation had been carried out with the operative or outline any lessons learnt or actions it would be taking to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future.
It is positive that the landlord has since identified some of its failings concerning its complaint handling and outlined the actions it would be taking to prevent those issues from occurring again. However, this should have been at an earlier stage, through the landlord’s complaints process. Instead, this review was only carried out after the end of the complaints process when the resident had contacted the Ombudsman. The landlord confirmed it would implement a new system designed to prompt its case officer when complaint response due dates were approaching and monitoring by its management team. This is in line with the learnings and actions the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken from the failings it had identified regarding its complaint response delay, poor communication with the resident and its previous failure to identify these failings.
The delayed action from the landlord meant that its service failures was not identified for over a year. This would have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has sought to put things right by offering the resident an additional £100 in compensation for errors in its complaint handling. However, the compensation it has provided to the resident is not proportionate to the identified failings in this investigation.
The landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for its failures in complaint handling. This will bring the total compensation to £200 for the landlord’s complaint handling, taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of up to £600 is appropriate for instances of service failure, where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the of the bathroom repair works carried out by the landlord’s contractor and the conduct of its operative.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation broken down as follows:
1. £200 for the failures identified with it’s handling of the bathroom repair works carried out by the landlord’s contractor and the conduct of its operative.
2. £100 for the service failures identified with its complaint handling.
If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the £140 compensation it offered to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any service charges or rent arrears.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider providing its contractors with a code of conduct if it does not have one in place already, to ensure there is clear guidance on how operatives should behave in residents’ homes, when carrying out repairs.