The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202222945)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222945

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. decision not to reinstate the resident’s shaver socket following a bathroom refurbishment;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The landlord completed the refurbishment of the resident’s bathroom in January 2022, during which it removed a pre-existing shaver socket. The landlord offered the resident a shaver light with water protection as a replacement, which she declined.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 June 2022. She reported that a number of repairs were incomplete. These included the: hot water cylinder; window; front door; and bathroom shaver socket.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 13 June 2022. It informed her that it would be carrying out an inspection of her property that day and would need to arrange a new inspection of her hot water cylinder.
  5. On 4 July 2022, the resident chased the landlord for updates as no work had been carried out. She chased it again on 18 July 2022, and highlighted that it had not fulfilled the actions it agreed at stage one.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident on 31 August 2022. It confirmed that her hot water cylinder did not require replacement and it had attended on 8 August 2022 to fix her windows. The landlord said that the front door would be fixed by the end of September 2022 and that the delay was due to further assessment being required by its fire safety team.
  7. Regarding the bathroom shaver socket, the landlord confirmed that the pre-existing socket did not meet current regulations, which was why the resident was offered a shaver light and socket with water protection instead. As she declined this replacement, it had removed the existing socket.
  8. On 28 December 2022, the resident advised this service that she remained dissatisfied as the loss of her shaver socket as it meant that she was unable to use her electric toothbrush and other devices in the bathroom. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to reinstate the bathroom shaver socket.
  9. On 27 July 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had made an offer of £120 to reflect its complaint handling failures (in addition to earlier compensation it had offered in relation to the other repairs which are not the subject of this investigation).

Assessment and findings

Shaver socket

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations within the property. The landlord also has a duty, in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, set out in the Housing Act 2004, to identify and mitigate any potential hazards within the property.
  2. The landlord’s contractor informed the landlord on 22 February 2022, that it could only install a shaver socket in a bathroom if it was at least three metres away from a bath or shower in order to comply with regulations. As it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, it was reasonable for it to remove the existing shaver socket. The removal of the shaver socket was in accordance with the landlord’s above-mentioned obligation to mitigate hazards in the property.
  3. Since it was removing the pre-existing socket, it was a reasonable proposal from the landlord to offer to install a shaver socket light as this gave the resident access to the same utility while also adding water protection. This offer was also in compliance with the landlord’s duty to prevent any health and safety risks arising in the property.
  4. Based on the above, it would be inappropriate and a potential danger for the landlord to reinstate the shaver socket back to its previous position. It offered the resident a reasonable alternative to replace her shaver socket, which she declined. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and there was no evidence of service failure in its decision.
  5. On 27 July 2023, given that the resident had declined the shaver socket light, the landlord offered £5 to the resident for the purchase of a shaver adaptor, to allow her to use her devices in a standard plug socket outside of the bathroom. This was an appropriate offer in excess of the landlord’s obligation. A recommendation has been made that it reiterate this offer if it is yet to be accepted.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, the landlord is to provide its response to the resident within 10 working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to.
  2. The Code also sets out that when a landlord is unable to meet its timeframes for responding to a complaint, it should contact the resident to explain why and may extend its timeframe for responding.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident after four working days, which was an appropriate timeframe and in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code. However, given that the resident had raised concerns about the shaver socket in her complaint, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not use this response to address this complaint.
  4. It is evident that its contractor had provided it with all the necessary information to respond to this complaint some four months prior. The Code states that a landlord should respond to complaint once it has the information to do so. While the landlord sought to re-inspect the property in relation to the other repair issues, given that it had the relevant information to respond about the shaver socket, it was unreasonable that it delayed providing its position.
  5. The resident was then required to contact the landlord twice, on 4 and 18 July 2022 to raise her dissatisfaction with the outcome before it acknowledged her complaint at the final stage on 19 July 2022. To comply with its policy, it had until 16 August 2022 to provide its final response to her. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 August 2022 to explain that it was still awaiting information to respond to all points in her complaint and extended the response timeframe by 10 working days. It then issued its final response to her on 31 August 2022. While this was reasonable, its initial failure to acknowledge the escalation unreasonable delayed its response.
  6. In summary, there were two failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint: its failure to clarify its position on the shaver socket at stage one, and its late acknowledgement of the complaint at the final stage. However, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to acknowledge any complaint handling failures.
  7. On 27 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged these failures and offered the resident £120 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused to her by these. The Ombudsman notes, however, that this offer was only made after the complaint had been referred to this service. While the Ombudsman welcomes landlords revisiting their complaint responses, it should not take a referral to this service for it to do so. This offer therefore has not been considered as part of this investigation.
  8. Given the impact of the failures identified above, there was service failure for which an order for £120 compensation has been made. This replaces the landlord’s offer; however, for the avoidance of doubt, if the resident has already accepted the landlord’s offer, then no further compensation needs to be paid.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to reinstate the resident’s shaver socket following a bathroom refurbishment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £120 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £120. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination, if its earlier offer is yet to have been accepted.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to reiterate its offer of £5 towards the purchase of a shaver adaptor.