Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202218530)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218530

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

16 October 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a collapsed drain and a sewage leak into his property.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a property situated in a purpose-built block of flats (the building), of which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident is being represented by a third party, who have raised the complaint on his behalf. For ease of reference, this report will refer to the resident to mean the resident and his representatives.
The resident sub-lets the property to a tenant who will be referred to as “the tenant” in this report. The complaint also concerns the property next door, which this report will refer to as property B.
On 29 December 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the drains serving the building, were damaged and needed to be fixed. On 5 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that he had paid for an emergency drainage and plumbing company to attend his property, as sewage had backed up into the toilet and shower. The resident informed the landlord that the operative who had attended his property had discovered stones and debris blocking the drains. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse him for the money he had spent on the emergency call out.
On 16 January 2022, the landlord’s repairs contractor carried out a CCTV survey of the drains and identified a suspected collapsed pipe underneath the building. The contractor was unable to determine the exact location of the issue but used high pressure water jetting equipment to clear any blockages in the drains. The landlord’s repairs contractor advised that investigation of the sewage line would be required, to confirm the cause of the blockages.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 February 2022.He stated that his property had been without drainage facilities since 23 December 2021, and that the landlord had failed to provide him with regular updates on the situation to explain how it was going to be resolved.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord instructed another repairs contractor to investigate the drains serving the building. The contractor identified that a soil stack pipe located under a wall dividing the resident’s property from property B had collapsed. Subsequently, the landlord instructed a drainage contractor to attend the building on 11 March 2022. The contractor determined that the repair of the collapsed pipe could not be completed externally, and that internal excavation was needed under the kitchen foundations of property B.
On 10 May 2022, property B instigated legal action against the landlord to prevent it from accessing their property to repair the collapsed soil stack pipe, located underneath their kitchen. As such, between 14 June 2022 and 28 July 2022, the landlord explored alternative options to repair the collapsed pipe, which would avoid internal excavation within property B. This included attempting to access the pipe via the resident’s bathroom, on the agreement that the landlord would pay the resident’s tenant for the labour of tearing out the bathroom beforehand.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay to respond to the complaint and explained that it had decided to keep the complaint open, as it had been unable to repair the collapsed pipe. The landlord advised that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
On 30 August 2022, while attempting to repair the collapsed pipe via the resident’s bathroom, works were halted as it was discovered access to the pipe under property B’s kitchen was imperative. Following ongoing negotiations with property B, on 21 October 2022, the landlord advised the resident that property B had agreed to the works required within their property, and by 9 November 2022, the collapsed pipe had been repaired.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 15 November 2022. In this it explained that there were several reasons for its delay to repair the collapsed soil stack pipe which included not being provided with enough information from the first contractor that had been instructed to investigate the issue. It also stated that several options were considered in an attempt to limit cost and disruption to residents within the building. It highlighted that property B had instigated legal action preventing it from accessing their property to complete the works. The landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the resident’s complaint better, and as a resolution to the complaint offered the resident:
1. £100 compensation for time and trouble.
2. £150 compensation for poor complaint handling.
3. £205 reimbursement for the money spent on the emergency call out.
It also explained that if the resident wished to reclaim any further costs he would need to pursue this through an insurance claim, and attached details of how this could be done.
The resident contacted this service on 14 December 2022, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. He told this service that the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient as it did not account for the length of time and inconvenience caused during the time his property was without drainage facilities. Additionally, he told this service that he wanted the landlord to compensate him for a loss of rental income, as he could not charge his tenant the full rent amount during the time his property was without drainage facilities. The resident also highlighted that the landlord had failed to consider reimbursement of service charges he was required to pay during the time his property was without drainage facilities.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The leasehold agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair, redecoration and renewal of the main structure of the building, the pipes, sewer, drains and drainage under and upon the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that repairs fall within four categories:
1. Emergency.
2. Routine.
3. Non-routine.
4. Inspections.
Repairs that may cause significant risk to the safety of residents, or significant damage to the property, fall under category ‘a’, and are attended to within 24 hours. All other repairs generally fall within either categories ‘b’, ‘c’ or ‘d’, which may require a pre-inspection, and are completed within 28 to 90 days, depending on the complexity of the issue and materials needed.
The repairs policy sets out that where there is a report of a blocked main drain or soil pipe, the priority of the repair is dependant on the severity of the blockage. It also states that the priority of repairs relating to sewer issues in flats, can vary.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it does not consider complaints relating to insurance claims or service charges through its complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and a sewage leak into his property.

On notification of an issue regarding the drains serving the building, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the leasehold agreement and in its published repairs policy.
Initially, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s report that the ‘drains were damaged and needed fixing’. Its repair records indicate that it considered the report as a routine repair and arranged for an inspection and CCTV survey of the drains within 12 working days. This was in line with its routine repair timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repair records show that following its initial inspection of the drains, it internally acknowledged that the repair of the collapsed pipe required urgent attention. As the initial inspection did not identify the exact location of the issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to obtain a second assessment of the issue from another repairs contractor, which was provided within a reasonable timeframe of 18 working days later. Following this, the landlord’s repairs records show that it arranged for a drainage contractor to establish what works would be required to repair the collapsed pipe. Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s actions to investigate and determine how it was going to repair the collapsed pipe were measured and reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows that from the date the resident initially highlighted a problem with the drains, it had taken the landlord a total of 53 working days to diagnose the right works needed to complete the repair. This was within its repairs timescales (relating to complex issues), set out in its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman notes that once the landlord had established what works were needed to repair the collapsed pipe, neighbour B’s refusal of access into their property, prevented the landlord from completing the repair. Moreover, the evidence shows that neighbour B’s instigation of legal action against the landlord, caused a delay of eight months before the repair of the collapsed pipe could be completed. During this eight-month period, the landlord’s records confirm that it attempted to find an alternative resolution, by trying to reach and repair the pipe externally on 14 June 2022 and 4 July 2022. It also tried to repair the pipe by taking out the resident’s bathroom on 30 August 2022, but while the works were live, the landlord’s contractors identified that they could not complete the repair without access to neighbour B’s property. This meant that the resident’s property was left without a bathroom entirely for two months, and without drainage facilities for a total of 11 months.
While the Ombudsman accepts that 11 months is a considerable amount of time for a property to be without drainage facilities, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delay to this process. The Ombudsman understands there will be cases, which due to the nature, complexity or due to matters beyond the landlord’s control, cannot be completed within a short timeframe, and therefore time taken to remedy an issue is not always indicative of a service failure by the landlord. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord took necessary and appropriate steps to fulfil its repair obligations, however, without access into neighbour B’s property, some of these steps proved redundant, which is evident now that the repair has been completed.
The landlord’s records confirm that it made an agreement with the resident for his tenant to tear out the bathroom in his property, so that its contractor could access and repair the collapsed pipe. The resident has told this Service that if his tenant did not offer to remove the bathroom, he does not believe the landlord would have removed the bathroom within a reasonable period, as it could not find a operative to do the job. While the landlord’s records do not explain why it did not enlist its own operative to tear out the resident’s bathroom, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s agreement to pay the resident’s tenant to remove the bathroom as a reasonable approach. The availability of operatives are dependant on various factors, and as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, jobs which may require a significant amount of time, labour and complexity, can take up to 90 days to complete. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions here demonstrated its willingness to work with the resident to get the job done as soon as reasonably possible.
When dealing with extensive and complex repairs that require input from various stakeholders, the landlord is expected to proactively keep residents informed of the progress of the repair until its completion. Clear and effective communication on a landlord’s part is an essential element of all aspects of its overall service delivery and demonstrates to residents that it is taking matters seriously.
The resident has expressed to this service that he continuously chased the landlord for updates throughout the entire time his property was without drainage facilities. From the evidence, following the resident’s initial report of an issue with the drains, there was a delay of just over two months before the landlord provided the resident with a written update on why there had been an issue with the drains, or what it intended to do to resolve the matter. There is some indication within the landlord’s records that it discussed the matter over the phone with the resident, however, the records state that on at least five separate occasions between 29 December 2021 and 31 March 2022, the resident had expressed his frustration with having to continuously chase the landlord for an update. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have been pre-emptively providing the resident with regular updates on the diagnosed issue with the drains, the outcome of any inspections, and what it intended to do to restore drainage facilities within the resident’s property.
Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that when the landlord arranged for its contractor to repair the collapsed pipe via the resident’s bathroom on 30 August 2022, it failed to inform the resident or his tenant that the works had to be halted, due to needing to access the pipe via neighbour B’s property. This meant that the resident and his tenant were left with bags of rubble on the bathroom floor and an incomplete bathroom for seven days before they were provided with an explanation as to why the works had been stopped. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have ensured it was providing the resident with the most up to date information, to mitigate the impact of any inconveniences caused because of unforeseen circumstances.
Still, while the Ombudsman has noted some instances of the landlord’s poor communication, the evidence shows that overall, its communication with the resident over the course of 11 months, was frequent and responsive. Additionally, it acknowledged and apologised for the instances its communication fell below the expected standard, and on 6 September 2022, appointed a single point of contact to manage further communications. The landlord’s records also show that where there were periods it did not have an update for the resident, this was because it was waiting on information from other involved parties. For example, during the months of April, May and June 2022, it explained to the resident that it was discussing its legal obligations towards all residents affected within the building. It also explained that it was waiting on information from the homeownership team with regards to its liabilities, negotiating access into neighbour B’s property, and needed to arrange further inspection of the situation, due to neighbour B’s refusal of access.
Throughout July and August 2022, the landlord and resident discussed how the resident’s bathroom was going to be removed, who would pay for this, and what works would be needed to repair the collapsed pipe. Throughout September, October and November 2022, the landlord’s records demonstrate that there was little information the landlord could provide to the resident, as by this stage, it had been established that access into neighbour B’s property was imperative for the issue to be resolved. Therefore, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s attempts at managing the resident’s expectations while the repair of the collapsed pipe remained outstanding, were reasonable and demonstrated that it was treating the situation as a priority.
The Ombudsman has not underestimated how distressing it would have been for the resident’s tenant to have been without drainage facilities for such a significant amount of time, and to have watched as sewage backed up into the toilet and shower. As such, it is understandable that the resident decided not to charge his tenant for the full amount of rent during the time the property was without drainage facilities. However, the Ombudsman must point out that the lease agreement does not give the landlord any responsibility or obligation to compensate the leaseholder for rental loss. Therefore, the landlord is not required to reimburse the resident for any loss of rental income during the period his property was without drainage facilities.
Additionally, as there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the resident’s tenant and the landlord, the landlord would not have been expected to provide the tenant with alternative accommodation or consider any appropriate redress for loss of amenity, distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the tenant. In circumstances where a resident queries reimbursement or compensation that could potentially relate to an insurance claim, the landlord is expected to signpost the resident to make a claim under the resident’s own insurance policy, or provide them with information about any other insurance policy that may be applicable, such as the block insurance policy, and how to contact them. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to details of how to submit an insurance claim if he wished to reclaim costs outside of what it had offered through its complaints process.
The landlord has acknowledged that the length of time taken to repair the collapsed pipe was prolonged and would have caused inconvenience to the resident. It offered compensation for the time and trouble experienced, and reimbursement for the emergency repairs call out. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the inconvenience the collapsed pipe caused to the resident. Its compensation policy states that it will offer a discretionary payment starting from £51 for time and trouble experienced on a lower scale and starting from £151 on a higher scale. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of £100 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the time and trouble experienced during the period his property was without drainage facilities. Its compensation policy also states that it will offer quantifiable loss payments for instances where a resident has carried out a repair that was the landlord’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord appropriately offered to reimburse the resident £205 for the emergency call out charge.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £100 in cases where we identify a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery. In this case, while the resident’s property was without drainage facilities for a protracted period, which would have caused significant inconvenience, the landlord would not be expected to offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience, as there was no evidence to suggest that it was the landlord’s fault the soil stack pipe collapsed. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for time and trouble, was proportionate redress, which takes into account the failings identified within this report relating to its communication. Its offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer.
The resident has told this Service that he is aware of the landlord offering another resident £750 compensation in relation to their property being without drainage facilities. The resident has expressed that the landlord should have offered him compensation within this region or higher, as his property was impacted on a greater scale. The Ombudsman cannot comment on matters relating to other residents. This is because this Service expects landlords to consider each case under its own circumstances and merits, and because we can only consider the evidence available to draw fair and reasonable conclusions. We have not seen any evidence to confirm the exact circumstances of the other resident’s tenure or how they were impacted, and therefore we cannot comment on this further.
Finally, it was appropriate that the landlord looked to learn from its errors by acknowledging and apologising when its level of communication had fallen below the standard expected and appointed a single point of contact to manage subsequent communication.
In view of the above points, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and a sewage leak into his property, as reasonably resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its complaints process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide the resident with a stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord states within its complaints policy that if a delay to issuing its response is likely to occur, it will keep the resident informed and agree on a new response time.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code), which is published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It outlines that at each stage of the complaints process, the landlord should write to the resident advising them of:
1. the complaint stage
2. the outcome of the complaint
3. the reasons for any decisions made
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
5. details of any outstanding actions
6. details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
In this case, the resident raised a complaint on 31 January 2022, and the landlord failed to provide its response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Instead, the resident was provided with a complaint response on 28 July 2022, which was 125 working days after the resident had raised his complaint. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord regularly contacted the resident to apologise for its delay to respond to his complaint and explained that as it had not identified a suitable resolution to his reported issue, it would be extending its deadline for response. This was in line with its approach to delayed complaint responses, set out in its complaints policy, and demonstrated to the resident that his concerns had not been forgotten.
However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision to continuously extend its deadline for response, and its failure to provide a stage one complaint response in line with the code, an example of poor complaint handling. The landlord’s records confirm that by 14 February 2022, which is when the landlord’s stage one complaint response was due to the resident, it had carried out a CCTV survey of the drains and identified a suspected collapsed pipe. It had also flushed out any blockages that had accumulated in the pipes and was organising a second assessment of the situation. It had also raised an order for portable toilets to be delivered on site for use by all affected residents. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, within ten working days, the landlord had enough information to respond to the resident’s formal complaint in line with the expectations set out in the code.
Additionally, when the landlord did issue its stage one complaint response to the resident, it failed to address any of the issues the resident had raised within his complaint, nor did it take the opportunity to provide a summary of the actions it had taken over the previous 125 working days. Instead it apologised that the situation had not been resolved and agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. This was inappropriate.
Its stage one complaint response should have provided a thorough account of the actions taken to resolve the issue up until that point. If the landlord was concerned about ongoing developments to the situation, it should have highlighted any outstanding actions within its stage one complaint response, and appointed a single point of contact to provide updates to the resident within set intervals. This would have given the resident a clear understanding of what steps were being taken behind the scenes, and an indication of what to expect over the following weeks.
The Ombudsman notes that on 29 July 2022, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the refitting of his bathroom once the collapsed pipe had been repaired. This agreement was made before the landlord had issued its stage two complaint response to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have included this agreement within its final complaint response. As outlined in the code, a good and effective complaint response should include the details of any remedy offered to put things right, and the details of any outstanding actions. On 1 December 2022, the Ombudsman notes that the resident provided the landlord with the invoice of the bathroom refitting work, however, it was not until 19 May 2023, that the landlord reimbursed the resident for this cost. This was inappropriate and constitutes a service shortcoming by the landlord, as the landlord’s records do not indicate that there were any extenuating circumstances causing the delay to make this payment. Consequently, over the course of five months the resident continuously chased the landlord for an update on when he would receive this payment.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure to issue the resident with a stage one complaint response in line with its complaints policy timescales and the code, paired with its delay to reimburse the resident for his bathroom refitting costs within a reasonable timeframe, amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the resident’s complaint better and offered £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of its complaint handling, does not proportionally account for the additional failures identified within this report.
In response to this service’s enquiries, on 15 May 2023, the landlord told this service that on review of the resident’s complaint, it was willing to make the resident a revised offer of £350 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s willingness to revise its offer of redress to the resident to put matters right, the Ombudsman cannot consider this as part of the determination on this case. This is because the offer of redress was not made prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation starting from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. In this instance, the landlord should pay the resident a further £200 compensation, bringing the total to £350 compensation for poor complaint handling. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £150 which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer prior to this Service’s involvement which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and a sewage leak into his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. This amount is in addition to the £150 compensation it had already agreed to pay for its handling of the resident’s complaint, unless it has been paid already.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above order to the Ombudsman within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble, which it had already offered the resident at stage two of its complaints process, if it has not done so already.
The landlord should reimburse the resident £205 for the money spent on the emergency call out, if it has not done so already.