Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202222655)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222655

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

1 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a refund to the resident’s rent account.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be refunded for the cost of a communal door key.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat.
  2. In 2022, the landlord offered an incentive to let the property, which was proving hard to let. This included 2 weeks rent free at the start of the tenancy. The resident subsequently accepted the property on 11 April 2022, when her tenancy also began. She then contacted the landlord on 13 April 2022, explaining that she had only one set of keys for the communal doors, but had signed for 2 sets at the tenancy sign-up. It therefore arranged for the resident to order another set of keys, which she paid £25 for.
  3. The resident was sent the invoice for the second communal door key on 21 April 2022. She then chased the landlord for a reimbursement of the rent for the first 2 weeks of her tenancy, which she was previously told was being processed but had not received yet, and for a refund of the cost of the key. It therefore told the resident on 10 May 2022 that both refunds were being escalated to the correct departments to be processed.
  4. The landlord subsequently assured the resident that it would adjust her 2 rent free weeks in due course, and it authorised the £25 communal door key refund on 17 May 2022 to be paid to her bank account in 4 to 6 weeks, but the payment failed. It then contacted her to ensure it had the correct bank details for her on 19 July 2022, which she confirmed were correct on the same day. The resident also explained that she still had not been reimbursed for the 2 rent free weeks.
  5. The resident followed up with the landlord about the refunds on 8 and 21 September 2022, and she submitted a stage 1 complaint to it about this on 28 September 2022. She stated that she had been waiting 5 months for the reimbursements for the 2 rent free weeks and communal door key, and that she was becoming frustrated at the delays. The resident therefore asked to be credited the promised amounts.
  6. The landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response of 5 October 2022 apologised for the delay that the resident had experienced, and it explained that it had failed to process her 2 rent free weeks payment due to an oversight. It assured her that it had authorised and would pay the rent reimbursement to her rent account in due course, and that it had fed back to the team involved so that lessons could be taken and its service improved. The landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling and her time and trouble. It did not, however, address her complaint regarding the communal door key refund.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 19 October 2022, as the landlord had still not processed her reimbursements and she wanted more compensation. It had also not responded to her enquiries since its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response on 14 December 2022 apologised for its delay, and it explained that its operative overseeing the complaint had been off sick. It acknowledged that there had again been a delay in the resident’s 2 rent free weeks reimbursement of £316.48 until this was paid on 8 November 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and increased its poor complaint handling and time and trouble compensation offer to £115.
  8. In the resident’s subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman, she explained that, although the landlord had reimbursed her for the 2 rent free weeks, it had failed to reimburse her for the communal door key. Additionally, it had failed to pay her the compensation that it had offered her, and so she requested the refund for the key, and compensation for her time and trouble, in order to resolve her complaint. The landlord later agreed to pay the resident the compensation that it had previously offered her, but it did not provide evidence that it had done so.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a refund to the resident’s rent account

  1. The evidence provided by the landlord indicates that it offered the resident a 2-week rent reimbursement of £316.48 at her tenancy sign-up on 11 April 2022, as an incentive to rent the property. She began to chase the reimbursement from 8 May 2022, and she was informed on 17 May 2022 that the reimbursement would be processed in due course. However, due to an administrative error, the landlord did not action the reimbursement or refund the resident until 8 November 2022. This was almost 7 months after she had started her tenancy and nearly 6 months after it had stated that the refund was being processed.
  2. Although not all delays are considered a failing, in line with good practice and customer service, the landlord would be expected to have a legitimate reason for the length of time that it took to reimburse the resident for her 2 rent free weeks. Additionally, it would be expected to continue to manage the reimbursement, follow up with the various departments involved, and communicate with her about its progress. In this case, the landlord failed to pay the resident for almost 7 months due to an internal error. Despite her continuing to chase it for a refund, it also failed to proactively communicate with her while the payment was outstanding, and it only responded to her about this when she chased it. This was a failing on the landlord’s part in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord therefore acted appropriately in its complaint responses by acknowledging that there had been a delay in processing the resident’s 2 rent free weeks reimbursement due to an administrative error. It apologised and assured her that it would now process the payment. The landlord also explained that it would take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, by feeding back to the relevant team involved. It further acted appropriately by identifying that it had not responded to her enquiries, and that its communication had been poor, and by offering her compensation for its poor complaint handling and her time and trouble, which it eventually increased to £115.
  4. However, the landlord failed to pay the resident the compensation amount offered. This was not appropriate, as the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will aim to credit compensation payments to residents’ bank accounts within 28 working days. While its complaint responses would have been considered appropriate at the time, as its compensation offer was in line with its policy’s recommendations for poor complaint handling and time and trouble, it did not subsequently demonstrate that it had paid this to the resident. This was well outside the policy’s 28-working-day timeframe.
  5. In addition, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that, when offering a remedy, landlords should clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord nevertheless failed to follow through with its proposed remedy to completion in a timely manner in the resident’s case. There is also no evidence that it learnt from the outcome of her case, as it again delayed crediting her 2 rent free weeks reimbursement between its stage 1 complaint response of 5 October 2022 and the refund on 8 November 2022, and it continued to fail to respond to her communications. This was a further failing on the landlord’s part, which would have added to the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  6. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £115 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already, as well as to apologise to and pay her another £115 compensation in recognition of its failure to pay the original amount to her at the time. This is in accordance with its above compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the latter of which recommends compensation in this range for failures that adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its relevant staff training needs, in order to try and prevent its failures in handling the resident’s rent reimbursement from occurring again in the future.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be refunded for the cost of a communal door key

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she must arrange and pay for replacing door keys, and the landlord’s repairs guide for tenants confirms this, but these do not state how many keys will be given to residents at the start of their tenancies. However, she signed its documentation for the property, which confirmed that it would provide her with 2 communal door keys when it only gave her one. In addition, at least as early as 17 May 2022, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost to her of obtaining the second key herself, and it actioned this internally.
  2. As the landlord had agreed to reimburse the resident for the second communal door key, in line with good practice and customer service, it would have been expected to refund her the £25 that she paid for this within a reasonable time. It did authorise the payment on 17 May 2022 to be made within 4 to 6 weeks in line with its above compensation policy, which was appropriate, but the payment to her bank account failed. The landlord then contacted the resident about this issue on 19 July 2022. It enquired if her bank details had been correct, which she confirmed had been correct on the same day.
  3. However, the landlord did not subsequently reimburse the resident for the cost of the communal door key, despite previously agreeing to do so from at least May 2022. It also did not offer an explanation for the further delay in reimbursing her after its first payment attempt failed, and it did not communicate with her about this after it initially confirmed that her bank details had been correct, despite her continuing to chase it about the refund. This was a failing on the landlord’s part in the circumstances.
  4. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. However, despite the resident clearly complaining about the lack of a reimbursement for the communal door key fob in her stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2022, the landlord failed to consider this aspect of her complaint in either of its complaint responses, which its complaints policy required it to do within 10 and 20 working days. This was inappropriate, as the issue continued to remain outstanding. The landlord should have instead responded to and resolved the resident’s complaint about this within a reasonable time, and so its lack of a response about this was a further failing on its part, which would have caused her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  5. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to apologise to and pay the resident additional compensation of a further £115 in recognition of this, in line with its above compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s above remedies guidance, as well as the £25 that it previously agreed to pay her for the communal door key, if it has not done so already. It has also been recommended below to review its relevant staff training needs, in order to try and stop a recurrence of its failures in handling her key refund in the future.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its handling of a refund to the resident’s rent account.
    2. Its response to the resident’s request to be refunded for the cost of a communal door key.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge, explain, and apologise for the failings in its handling of the resident’s rent account and communal door key refunds identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £370 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £115 that it previously offered her for its poor complaint handling and her time and trouble, if it has not done so already.
      2. £115 further compensation for its failure to pay her the above compensation at the time.
      3. £115 further compensation for its failures in handling her communal door key refund.
      4. £25 that it previously offered her to refund the cost of her communal door key, if it has not done so already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code regarding providing timely remedies, in order to try and prevent its failures in handling the resident’s rent refund from occurring again in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code regarding addressing all points raised in a complaint in a timely manner, in order to try and prevent its failures in handling the resident’s communal door key refund from occurring again in the future.
  3. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.