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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202224230)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224230

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

8 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
    2. the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2022 to report that a male had entered her property and, on a second occasion, the same individual had made attempts to enter her property. The individual was a resident of the same building.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 November 2022 about how the landlord dealt with her report of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident said that she had contacted the landlord 8 times after her initial report in February, but no-one had made contact with her. The resident complained that the landlord had not followed up on her initial report or carried out a welfare check.
  4. The stage one response was issued on 1 December 2022. The landlord found that a staff member had contacted the resident when the report was first brought to their attention, and that during another discussion they advised the resident to contact the police. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 December 2022 because she stated that the staff member had lied about contacting her.
  5. The stage two response was issued on 21 December 2022. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because it identified that the resident’s initial report of ASB was assigned to the wrong staff member. The landlord stated that the report was assigned to the correct staff member in March 2022, and that she contacted the resident as soon as she was made aware. The landlord apologised for the delay in contacting the resident, and for not recognising this error at stage one. The landlord offered £10 compensation for poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 January 2023 and stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response because the staff member had lied about contacting her. She said that no one contacted her until October 2022.
  7. The landlord contacted this service on 10 July 2023 and stated that a further review had been undertaken and that additional compensation would be offered for the delay experienced by the resident when making her initial report of ASB. The landlord stated that it would offer a further £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
  8. The resident informed this service that to remedy the complaint, the landlord should apologise for lying regarding the contact it made with her. The resident also informed this service that the landlord had not contacted her about the increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that where reports meet the ASB threshold, initial assessments will determine the case priority, response times and frequency of contact. Customer vulnerability will be a deciding factor when assessing case priority. It says that where initial reports do not meet the threshold, the landlord may ask for more information.
  2. The landlord identified that the resident’s reports of ASB were initially allocated to the wrong member of staff. It found that there was a delay in contacting the resident due to this error. While this should have been identified at stage one, it is appropriate that the landlord recognised that there was a failing regarding case allocation which led to a delay in the matter being dealt with. The landlord stated that this had been addressed with the individual concerned to ensure that a repeat occurrence is prevented.
  3. The landlord stated that it contacted the resident after the correct member of staff became aware of the ASB report in late February or March. The landlord said that an email dated 14 March 2022 provided evidence that the resident had been contacted, and that the resident had explained that the matter was being dealt with by police. The landlord goes on to state that the alleged perpetrator had also been contacted, and that the landlord contacted the resident again and left a message on her phone. As such, the landlord suggested that the resident was contacted twice in February or March 2022, and that on the first occasion a discussion took place, and on the second occasion a message was left.
  4. This service has viewed the 14 March 2022 email. This email states that the case had already been dealt with, that the resident had called the police and it was therefore a police matter. The email goes on to state that the landlord had contacted the resident out of courtesy and a message had been left. The email does not refer to any previous discussion with the resident about the case. The resident disputes that she was contacted by the landlord in February or March 2022. She stated that she does not have voicemail facilities and so a message could not have been left.
  5. Where there is a disagreement in accounts regarding the handling of an ASB report, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing the actions it took in response to the report. While the 14 March 2022 email does provide some evidence that the landlord was aware of the case and had taken some action in relation to it, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous notes to properly evidence its communication with the resident. The landlord did not state what date it tried to contact the resident, and no call logs have been provided to reflect this. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord had a discussion with the resident prior to it leaving a message on her phone. As the landlord did not provide clear communication records between it and the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the contact with the resident occurred.
  6. The landlord is expected to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of any communication (including attempts to communicate) that took place. In the absence of such records, there is a lack of evidence to reflect what communications took place, or what other actions it may have taken in response to the ASB report.
  7. The resident stated that she chased the landlord approximately 8 times following her report of ASB. The call logs provided by the landlord only refer to the resident’s initial calls on 2 and 7 February 2022. As such, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether these calls were made or whether this reflects poor record keeping by the landlord.
  8. The evidence reflects that the landlord spoke to the resident over the phone on 24 October 2022. The resident stated that during this call, she was given incorrect advice that she should report the incident to her building management company. The resident stated that she raised this with the management company on the same day, and she provided an email response from them dated 25 October 2022. This email stated that there was nothing it could do in relation to the incident with the resident’s neighbour, and that it would be a matter for the landlord or the police to handle. This therefore supports that the resident was given incorrect information about where to direct her report of ASB.
  9. This service has viewed internal emails sent after the resident raised her complaint which refer to how the landlord handled her ASB report. These state that the relevant staff member contacted the resident as soon as the matter was brought to their attention. The staff member stated that they advised the resident to contact police, and that they later explained that there was nothing the landlord could do as the neighbour had walked into the property possibly thinking it was his. The emails also state that the landlord initially contacted the resident’s neighbour, and a message was left requesting that he make contact with the landlord about the matter. However, the staff member says it was later determined that this was not the correct procedure and that an ASB case would have to be opened if the landlord was going to discuss the matter with the neighbour.
  10. Again, there are no contemporaneous notes of any contact with the resident’s neighbour or of the discussions that the landlord stated it had with the resident. Furthermore, no notes have been provided to reflect the landlord’s decision making regarding whether the matter should be treated as ASB. The internal emails suggest an ASB case was not opened, and there is no indication that the landlord applied its ASB policy.
  11. It is noted that when the resident made her report to the landlord on 2 February 2022, she stated that she had reported the incidents to police. The landlord’s internal email dated 14 March 2022 states that the resident had reported the incident to the police, and so it was a police matter. The available evidence therefore indicates that no action was taken to investigate the resident’s report.
  12. While it is evident that the police dealt with the matter, the landlord ought to have undertaken its own enquiries into the resident’s report. Given the nature of the report made, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to speak to the resident’s neighbour, and give consideration to whether any further action needed to be taken. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to liaise with police about the matter, so that it could work together to reach a resolution if necessary.
  13. It is acknowledged that the resident was caused significant distress by the two incidents involving her neighbour. She told this service that she felt the landlord had failed to show any compassion or understanding towards her. While the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord lied about contact with the resident, the landlord was unable to provide clear evidence that it communicated with the resident in a timely manner once her report had been assigned to the correct staff member. No contemporaneous notes have been provided to reflect the landlord’s communication with the resident, or of any actions it took to address the matter. The available evidence suggests that the landlord took limited steps to deal with the resident’s reports, and it remains unclear whether the incidents were treated as ASB. The lack of clear communication and poor handling of the reports are likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The evidence also indicates that the resident was given incorrect advice about contacting her building management company, which is likely to have caused further frustration. Taking these factors into account, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of ASB.
  14. The landlord has made some attempt to put things right by offering £100 compensation for its error in allocating her report, and the subsequent delay that this caused in making contact with her. The landlord also offered £10 for poor complaints handling for its failure to identify this error within its stage one response.
  15. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  16. Given the further failings that have been identified in this report, the compensation offered is not proportionate to the impact on the resident of the poor handling of her report of ASB. In light of the failings identified in this report, an additional amount of £200 compensation should be offered to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of action in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and the time and trouble spent pursuing this. This amounts to compensation of £300 which is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for financial redress, which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
  17. The landlord should also take steps to learn from this complaint so that it has a clear approach to handling such incidents, and to ensure it maintains clear audit trails of communication with residents. The landlord should conduct a review of the handling of the resident’s report and identify any lessons learned as a result of the complaint outcome.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord correctly identified a failing in its stage two response in that the case was initially allocated to the wrong member of staff. The landlord wrote to this service on 10 July 2023 and stated that additional compensation of £100 would be offered to remedy the delay in initially contacting the resident due to this error. While it is appropriate that this error was identified, the landlord should have made efforts to remedy this complaint within its stage two response. It is unreasonable for this to be offered approximately 6 months after the stage two outcome. The landlord ought to have offered compensation as part of the complaints procedure. This amounts to a service failure in the way the landlord handled the complaint, and an additional £50 compensation should be offered to remedy this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £360 compensation. The compensation is made up as follows:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident associated with the poor handling of her ASB report. This is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord.
    2. £60 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £10 already offered at stage two.
  2. The landlord should review how it handled the resident’s report of ASB. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review, setting out any lessons learned as a result of the complaint outcome.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear logs of communication with residents, as well as actions taken to handle reports of antisocial behaviour.