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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202223189)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223189

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

9 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:

a.     Delays in carrying out repairs to the doors and windows.

b.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom property.
  2. The resident had an appointment on 2 November 2022 to have a number of windows and doors replaced as part of general maintenance. This appointment was cancelled by the contractor on 31 October 2022. There was subsequently a number of delays in getting the work completed. This was due to the contractor cancelling appointments and not having the correct sized kitchen window. The resident also reported a number of scratches on the new windows and patio doors. All works, including replacements for any damaged glass, were completed on 19 December 2022.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2022. In the response the landlord confirmed that all planned work had been completed and all scratched glass would be replaced in the coming week. The landlord offered an apology and £50 compensation. Following contact from the resident the landlord increased the compensation to £100.
  4. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 1 January 2023 as she was unhappy with the compensation offered. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 January 2022. It felt that the compensation offered at stage 1 was appropriate and that the correct actions were taken by the landlord at stage 1. The stage 2 complaint was not upheld.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the compensation offer and approached the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord revisited the complaint on 7 July 2023 and offered the resident a further £170 in compensation, which the resident accepted.

Assessment and findings

Delays in carrying out repairs to the doors and windows.

  1. When the landlord became aware of the work cancellation it contacted the contractor to advise that it felt the delay was unacceptable. The landlord took the correct action in contacting the contractor. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident directly at this time. The Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord took this action.
  2. The resident told the landlord that the contractor attended an appointment to complete the works on 7 November 2022. All the work was completed apart from the kitchen window. This could not be fitted as it was the wrong size. The contractor returned on 8 November 2022 and 9 November 2022 but on both occasions, they brought the wrong sized window. The resident made the landlord aware that there were several scratches on the new windows and doors.
  3. There is evidence that the landlord chased the contractor several times between 9 November 2022 and 28 November 2022. The landlord appropriately followed up the works with the contractor, however there is no evidence that the landlord engaged directly with the resident during this period. The landlord made requests that the contractor update the resident, and that they take ownership of the complaint. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to take ownership of the complaint and contact its resident.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that all damaged units would be replaced in the coming week. Although it was positive that the landlord provided details of what it would do to resolve the issue, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident with a specific date for the works. The landlord should have been proactive in getting a date from the contractor and ensuring that it communicated the date to the resident.
  5. The contractor made the landlord aware on 15 December 2022 that a provisional appointment had been made to replace the windows for Monday 19 December 2022. The Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated this directly to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident informed, given that there had been communication issues with the contractor until this date.
  6. The landlord contacted the contractor on 16 December 2022 to express their dissatisfaction at the delays to the works. The landlord asked for assurance that all work would be completed before the Christmas break to ensure the resident could enjoy the festive period. The landlord also requested that the contractor call the resident directly to apologise and confirm to the resident when the works would be completed. It was positive that the landlord recognised the effect on the resident if the work was not completed in time for Christmas. However, the landlord should have made direct contact with the resident, rather than relying on the contractor to take this action.
  7. The delays in completing the work caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident. The delays were due to the contractor cancelling appointments and not having the correct window size. The landlord made sufficient attempts to chase the contractor to get the work completed. The matter was resolved in under 2 months. The resident was not left without working doors or windows at any point, as the reported damage was cosmetic. The landlord has taken appropriate action to get the works completed as soon as possible, and to rectify the damaged works.
  8. The landlord missed several opportunities to communicate with the resident directly. Although the delays were because of the contractor’s issues, it would be reasonable for the landlord to engage directly with the resident. In not doing so, the landlord left the resident to deal with the contractor. The landlord has awarded £60 for time and trouble. This is reasonable for the failings in communication. The Service finds reasonable redress for the delays in carrying out repairs to the doors and windows.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. When a complaint is made, this should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. If an extension is needed the resident should be informed that a further 10 working days is needed.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 10 November 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 December 2022 which was a total of 22 working days. Although the delay was not excessive, the landlord did not respond within the correct timescales.
  3. The resident was not happy with the compensation offered at stage 1. The landlord engaged with the resident on 12 December 2022 to ask what the resident would feel was more appropriate. The resident requested £540. The landlord responded on 16 December 2022 increasing the offer to £100. This was broken down as £60 for time and trouble, £30 for missed appointments, and £10 for poor complaint handling.
  4. The resident initially accepted the increased offer, however on 1 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an increased compensation offer. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and responded on 11 January 2022. The landlord responded within an appropriate time at stage 2.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the stage 2 complaint. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident had not met the criteria to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy gives specific criteria for a complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It states that the stage 1 complaint must either contain inaccurate information, not fully address the initial complaint, have missed important information, or have not completed all actions promised at stage 1. The landlord stated that the resident did not meet any of these criteria. Paragraph 5.9 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that ‘in instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.’ It was unclear in the landlord’s stage 2 response whether the landlord had escalated the complaint to stage 2 or not. The landlord did not clearly communicate its complaints process.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that its final compensation offer was £50. It did not mention that an increased offer of £100 had been made, after the stage 1 response. The landlord later confirmed to the Ombudsman that this was an error in the stage 2 letter. It is important that the stage 2 letter provides clarity and accurate information in its final response. The resident was given inaccurate information on the landlord’s final position.
  7. The landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman. This is not part of the landlord’s complaints policy and is not in accordance with the Code. The landlord should not have revisited the complaint as this does not provide a consistent and fair approach for all residents. Although the landlord should not have revisited the complaint, it was encouraging that it provided a revised offer of compensation in line with service failures. The landlord offered an extra £170 to the £100 already offered, bringing the total to £270.
  8. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling, due to it not following its own process, providing an unclear response at stage 2, and revisiting the complaint after the internal complaints process was completed. In accordance with paragraph 54, a finding of service failure would normally result in an order being made. The Service would have ordered the landlord to review its complaints policy and ensure that it is not revisiting complaints after the completion of the internal complaints procedure. The Service is aware that the landlord is already reviewing its complaint policy and as such no further order will be made at this time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Service finds reasonable redress in relation to the delays in carrying out repairs to the windows and doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Service finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the complaint handling on this case and use this to inform the review it is currently undertaking of its complaints policy.
  2. If it has not already been paid, it is recommended that the landlord pay the £270 compensation it previously offered to the resident.