Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202216564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216564

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

17 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. cyclical repairs to the windows and external doors on the estate; and
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder living in a ground floor flat.
3. The resident’s complaint relates to delays in planned cyclical works to several aspects of the property, including windows and external doors. The resident stated that the existing wooden, single glazed windows were having an adverse impact on his ability to rent his property and prevent water ingress. The resident also stated that this had led to widespread damp and mould in his property.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2022. The landlord responded on 1 April 2022 and explained that the delays had been caused by needing to take legal advice. In the interim, the contractor’s quotes for the works had also expired, meaning that revised pricing needed to be sent to the residents. The landlord estimated that works would begin in around four months.
5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two on 10 May 2022 due to ongoing delays and a lack of contact from the landlord. There was some evidence of confusion internally within the landlord’s complaints team, as it identified that section 20 consultations, required prior to major planned works, were excluded from its complaints policy. On one occasion the complaint was closed for this reason, but it was later reopened, and a response was issued on 14 October 2022. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, as it stated it was excluded from the complaints process, however it did acknowledge delays in the complaint handling process and awarded £200 compensation for this.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 November 2022, seeking a resolution to the delayed works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In correspondence with this Service, the resident raised concerns about historic mismanagement of the leaseholder’s service charge fund, including the sinking fund, and its application to previous cyclical maintenance. The resident stated that previous cyclical maintenance had not been undertaken and this had resulted in the current maintenance being more expensive.
8. On examination of the documentation provided to this Service, these matters were not included in the resident’s formal complaints to the landlord. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. For this reason, these matters have not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to consider raising these matters with the landlord as a separate formal complaint, if he has not already done so or taking independent legal advice to progress these matters via the courts.

Cyclical repairs

9. The resident stated within his complaint that he had been experiencing delays to the cyclical works since 2019 and that no responsive repairs had been completed during this time by the landlord. This had led to water ingress into his property, with associated damp and mould. Alongside this, the resident was concerned that his property would not meet the minimum energy efficiency requirements needed to rent the property in the future.
10. The landlord’s planned property investment policy states that it will conduct a cyclical investment programme covering the internal and external decoration and other associated repairs or works, such as gutter cleaning. Additionally, the landlord’s planned investment programme looks at planned works (including to windows) and is based on the condition of the property, which is assessed through surveys and the life cycles of any relevant components.
11. The resident’s lease agreement shows that he is apportioned 1.543% of the service charge for the block. This charge is made up of the landlord’s estimated expenditure plus an “appropriate amount” for a reserve fund, less any unspent reserve carried forward from the previous year. Within the agreement, the landlord commits to repairing, redecorating and renewing, amongst other things, all external parts of the property, including windows, window frames and doors (less any glass within the windows or doors).
12. The planning process for these planned works to the windows and doors began in April 2019 when the landlord commissioned a site inspection and ‘scope of works’ report. Following this, the landlord issued a notice of intentions in August 2019. There is no evidence to show that the process progressed until a notice of estimates was issued in July 2021. This was later withdrawn, pending additional legal advice and a revised version was issued in November 2022.
13. The works began in June 2023 and the resident reported, at the time of this investigation, that the windows had been replaced and that contractors were on site to begin the other works. In total, between the initial site visit and the starting of works, a period of around 37 months elapsed. This length of time was exacerbated by several factors including a lack of responsive repairs in the interim, poor internal landlord communication and a lengthy period of time spent taking additional legal advice.
14. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that it should have undertaken responsive repairs to the resident’s windows, in the intervening period, whilst the consultations were ongoing. It is noted that the resident also requested permission to undertake the works himself, but no response was given by the landlord. The existing windows allowed water ingress, which the resident states has contributed to damp and mould throughout his property.
15. Within the file, there was also evidence of the resident making multiple contacts with the landlord and these going unanswered. When providing its evidence to this Service, the landlord acknowledged that its consultation department had not provided internal communications during the complaint process and therefore the complaints department were not aware of the volume of correspondence the resident had sent. In particular, one member of the landlord’s staff wished another luck and stated “I have never been able to get timely responses from the [consultation] team in 15 years!” It is unreasonable that a resident should need to make so many enquiries to progress an issue.
16. Overall, the length of time taken by the landlord to begin the works was unreasonable, particularly once compounded by poor communication and the lack of responsive repairs in the interim, which caused avoidable delays and additional time, distress and inconvenience for the resident. For this reason, this amounts to maladministration, as the resident had to repeatedly chase progress and lost enjoyment of his property due to the water ingress, damp and mould prior to works being undertaken.

Complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and provide a response within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two respectively. These timescales are compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, which sets out the minimum standard expected of landlords in their complaints processes.
18. Within both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord admitted and apologised for providing complaint responses in excess of its policy timescales. In total, there is evidence of 110 working days (22 working weeks) of delays within the two stages of the complaint process. Additionally, there is evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on numerous occasions to prompt a response.
19. It is not disputed that there was confusion within the landlord’s departments about progressing the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy excludes section 20 consultation processes, however the landlord has since acknowledged that it did not fully understand or progress the related complaint around poor customer service and delays.
20. Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered a total of £200 compensation, comprised of £150 for poor complaint handling and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. On escalation to this Service, the landlord revised its compensation offer and increased this to £650, comprised of:
    1. £100 for “poor complaints handling for the misunderstanding of the complaint”
    2. £100 for “poor complaint handling for the delay in providing both a Stage One and Stage Two response”
    3. £200 for “service failure for poor communication, and no updates being provided”
    4. £200 for “service failure for not proactively completing repairs”
    5. £50 for “time and trouble.”
21. Whilst it is noted that the landlord has attempted to review and rectify the complaint with this offer, it is not reasonable that the resident has had to escalate his complaint to our Service to achieve this. Had the landlord undertaken a more thorough investigation initially, it may not have mischaracterised the complaint and necessitated the resident pursuing the matter further. Additionally, outside of compensation, there is little evidence that the landlord has otherwise learned from this complaint or applied any changes to its practices, policies or training as a result.
22. Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint due to the length of delays, exacerbated by poor internal communication and a lack of staff training and awareness around complaint handling. Taken together these led to an unreasonable delay which caused the resident to take additional time and trouble to pursue his complaint and delayed him being able to escalate his complaint to this Service. Additionally, the landlord undertook a review of the case prior to sending evidence to this Service which highlighted numerous failings within the complaint process, which should have been identified at a much earlier stage.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cyclical repairs to the windows and external doors on the estate, and
    2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £2,450 compensation, comprised of:
       1. £1,800 for delays to the cyclical works to the windows and external doors (from 9 August 2019 until the works were completed) and for failing to undertake responsive repairs whilst the consultation was ongoing.
       2. The £650 offered for the poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should:
    1. Review its processes for internal communications and record keeping ensuring that departments can exchange and share information in a timely way. Within this, the landlord should consider the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which is available on our website.
    2. Review its complaint handling policy and guidance to ensure that it is clear which elements of complaints related to Section 20 consultations may be considered.
    3. Review staff training related to complaint handling to ensure that staff are clear on the escalation process for complaints and any exemptions to this, in particular around Section 20 consultation processes.