Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202224691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224691

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

3 May 2024

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. Request for a lift repair.
2. Request for a window repair.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour in the communal bin shed.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord has advised this Service that its records show the resident is “affected by mobility issues.”
The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a block of flats which is serviced by 2 lifts.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 September 2021 because she was affected by ongoing issues at the property including a broken window, lift failures and people sleeping in the communal bin shed. The landlord attended several times to return the lifts to service however, on one occasion it encountered delays due to the lifts “unusual” design and it being powered by a generator. The landlord raised a works order to repair the window on 5 October 2021 and carried out the repair in March 2022. The landlord carried out works to secure the bin shed around November 2022.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 16 September 2021 she said that:
1. The lifts had been broken for at least 7 months. She said climbing 7 flights of stairs had “severely” affected her health, she had rung the landlord “countless” times but was “getting nowhere.”
2. The bin shed door was broken and people were using it to sleep in and use drugs. She said the door had been removed but drug use was ongoing.
3. She had been trying to get her broken window repaired for the past 3 years.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2021, as follows:
1. It apologised for “any delay” in its response and inconvenience caused by the service it provided.
2. It was trying to get access to the generator to fix the lift. It required a specialist repair, which it was chasing.
3. Its contractor was due to rehang the door on the bin shed on 16 September but could not find the door. The work had been rescheduled for 14 October.
4. It had requested that a works order be raised to repair the window. Its contractor had attended on 5 October and referred the job on. The relevant contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the works.
5. It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s initial requests to have the issues resolved. It said that appropriate feedback had been provided to the manager of the team where the resident’s requests were sent to so it could prevent it happening again.
6. It offered £60 compensation for time and trouble caused.
On 29 November 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf to advise that she remained dissatisfied. The landlord raised a stage 2 complaint and provided its response on 22 November 2022, the main points were:
1. It had attended the lifts on “multiple” occasions since the resident’s complaint was logged in September 2021. Throughout the past 2 years at least 1 had been out of service for several months despite attempts to get it “online” which caused inconvenience to the resident. The initial delay was caused by diagnosis of the generator which powered the lifts which was “unusual.”
2. It apologised for the delay and agreed it “took longer than expected to resolve.” It confirmed that both lifts were functioning and that the resident would not be charged for works during the time the lifts were out of service.
3. It acknowledged that the window repair was reported as part of the resident’s stage 1 September 2021 and that it did not attend until March 2022. It said the initial repair was cancelled and raised again in October 2021. It did not attend until March 2022 “despite being noticed as a cancellation.”
4. It acknowledged the failure which affected the resident and apologised for the inconvenience. It confirmed the repair had been completed and post inspected. It said “further works” had been done to ensure the issue did not occur again.
5. It said works had been completed to secure the bin shed and that it was monitoring the situation. It did not agree this was not attended to appropriately at the time and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
6. It said that staffing issues including long term sickness caused the resident to experience failure of service. Its delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response was “well outside” of its service standards. It apologised and said that feedback had been provided to the team involved.
7. It offered compensation of £500 comprised of £200 for the delay in its complaint response, £50 for service failure in its complaint handling, £100 for the delay with the window repair and £150 for inconvenience caused by lift repair.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 January 2023 to report her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to ongoing issues with the lifts.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s customer disability and vulnerability assessment guidance says that by recording vulnerabilities/disabilities, it can determine if a resident “may need additional support or help to resolve a problem.” It also means it tries to prevent issues escalating and to be proactive in its approach to supporting customers.
It says it will only need to verify the resident’s disability/vulnerability if there is legal action taken place, substantial arrears management is required or if there is a concern that the resident is being “disingenuous” in an attempt to discard their tenant responsibilities.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says it is committed to working to prevent, and where possible, resolve cases of ASB in a “robust and effective manner.” It says it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner, based on risk.
The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants says it aims to fix routine repairs within 28 days. It says it will attend lift breakdowns within 24 hours where there is only one lift in the block unless other arrangements have been made, such as 2 lifts needing to be in operation at all times.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within those timescales it will inform the resident and agree a new response time.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will considering paying discretionary payment as follows:
1. Up to £350 for failure of service
2. Up to £350 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
3. Up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
4. £10 per missed appointment by contractors up to a maximum of £50.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told this Service that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her communication in relation to matters including water flooding from the back door, possibly affecting the lifts, blockages in communal areas and being rehoused. These issues were not raised with the landlord through its complaints process prior to the resident’s complaint being accepted for investigation by this Service on 6 February 2023. This investigation has therefore not considered the landlord’s response to those issues because it has not had the opportunity to provide a formal response. The resident may raise these as a fresh complaint with the landlord if she so wishes. If she has already done so, and remains dissatisfied, she can raise a further complaint with this Service if she wishes.
At the time of issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that both lifts were operational. This was not disputed by the resident. When the resident contacted this Service on 15 January 2023 she said both lifts had failed again and she was concerned that the lifts were not being serviced appropriately.
The complaint investigated by this determination related to individual faults that occurred with both lifts. There was no evidence of a common issue and there is no evidence that the resident raised the question of servicing of the lifts in her complaint to the landlord. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the lift repairs requested during the period of the complaints process.
The landlord’s evidence shows that ASB associated with the bin shed reoccurred again during April 2023. This investigation has not assessed the landlord’s response at that time because there is no evidence that the resident reported any ongoing issues with the bin shed following her stage 2 complaint on 29 November 2021. Given there was a period of approximately 18 months between the first and second instances of ASB this investigation does not consider it fair and reasonable to investigate the landlord’s response to the recurrence.

Lifts

The landlord’s repair logs dated 30 March 2022 show that the resident called the landlord to report that one of the lifts in the block had not worked for over a year. The notes show that there was “nothing outstanding.” There is no ‘completed’ date against the entry. Furthermore, there are no notes to say whether the landlord visited to verify the resident’s report which was inappropriate and a record keeping failure.
The repair logs show that on 5 May 2022 the resident reported that the left lift had broken down. The job shows as completed on 28 July with a note that said the engineer found the lift isolated as actioned by a previous engineer. A further order was raised on 24 May 2022 to check that the left lift was in test mode and not completely isolated.
The job is shown on the repair logs as completed the same day, with a note that the lift was isolated using the main controller fuse. The engineer advised that a battery was dead and a new one was required to bring the lift up and diagnose the fault. The lift was left off.
By this point the lift had been out of service for just under 3 weeks which exceeds the landlord’s response time of 24 hours. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to provide the resident with progress reports in the meantime which would have been appropriate.
The repair logs show that the resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 to report that the lift ‘A’ had broken down. The landlord’s repair logs show that the job was completed 7 days later, on 8 July, when the lift “was returned to service.” It noted there had been an issue with the door equipment. Once again the landlord failed to resolve the issue within its 24 hour response time.
The records are not clear as to which lift failed when. However, given that the lift breakdown reported on 5 May 2022 was not resolved until 28 July it is reasonable to conclude that when lift ‘A’ broke down there were no lifts in service because the other lift had not been repaired by that date. Therefore, the landlord’s delayed response time to lift ‘A’ was particularly unreasonable.
Furthermore, the resident had to climb 7 floors to access her property which she found particularly difficult because of her disability. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 which was inappropriate. This is because it should have assessed whether reasonable adjustments were required to ensure the resident was not at a substantial disadvantage compared to a resident living in the block without a disability.
The repairs log show that a recall was raised on 8 July 2022 following a report from the resident to say the lift had broken down again. The landlord’s repair logs show that when it attended the lift was operational but that debris was preventing the doors from working correctly. The issue was cleared and the lift tested to all floors. That the job was completed on the same day was an appropriate response and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s records show that it sent a text to residents to notify them that one of the lifts went out of service again on 23 September 2022. The repair logs show it was returned to service on 8 October. This was a response time of 15 days which was inappropriate and far exceeded its response time of 24 hours.
On 23 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that lift ‘A’ was not working. The engineer attended the same day to find the lift stuck on the third floor. They were unable to resolve the fault so left site with the lift “left off” and recommended that a technical site visit be carried out. The job is shown as completed on 19 April 2023, almost 5 months later.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 18 October 2021 said it was trying to get access to the generator to fix the issue. It said this required a specialist repair, which it was chasing. However, even with the other lift in working order, a response time of 5 months was unreasonable. Particularly, as there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with progress updates.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 22 November 2022 said the initial delay was caused by diagnosis of the generator which powered the lifts which was “unusual.” It is concerning that the landlord did not hold accurate and up to date information about its stock which is a record keeping failure. Had its records been maintained appropriately, it would have known that the lift was powered by a generator straight away which would have reduced its response time.
The landlord’s customer disability and vulnerability assessment guidance says that by recording vulnerabilities/disabilities, it can determine if a resident “may need additional support or help to resolve a problem.” Furthermore, the Equality Act 2010 requires landlords to think about the needs of people who are disadvantaged when they make decisions about how they provide their services.
In its response to this Service, the landlord said it had been made aware “in passing” that the resident had informed its assessment and support team that she was disabled. However, in her stage 1 complaint of 16 September 2021 the resident said she suffered with “disabilities and health conditions.” She said climbing 7 floors to her flat “severely affected her health”.
The landlord’s vulnerability and disability assessment guidance says it will only need to verify the resident’s disability/vulnerability if there is legal action taken place (…). Therefore, the landlord should reasonably have accepted the resident’s statement that she was disabled. Furthermore, it should have contacted the resident to gather further information to ensure that its response was appropriate to her individual needs, making any reasonable adjustments as required under the Equality Act 2010.
In its response to this Service it said that it had considered the limited mobility of the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This is not supported by the landlord’s own evidence because its response of 22 November 2022 makes no reference to the resident’s individual circumstances and the specific detriment caused to her. This was a failure which compounded the resident’s distress because she could not be confident the landlord took her complaint seriously. This also further eroded the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord failed to:
1. Keep comprehensive detailed repair logs.
2. Keep records of technical information relating to its stock.
3. Resolve lift failures within its response times.
4. Communicate effectively with the resident regarding the delays.
5. Consider the resident’s individual circumstances including its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
These failures amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and made some attempt to put them right. It offered £60 for time and trouble at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2, a total of £210.
The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation of £600 to £1000 is appropriate where there was a significant physical and/or emotional impact. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord may deduct the £210 is has offered if this has already been paid.

Window

The landlord’s repair logs show that on 28 July 2018 the resident reported that her window would not close. This was escalated on 10 August when she called again to say the window was stuck open and would not close at all. The resident chased the repair 3 years later in September 2021 saying it would not shut and issues had been going on for 3 years.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord raised a works order to repair the window followed by a works order raised on 10 December to renew it. On 16 December a works order was raised to “please proceed as per quote to renew defective window unit.” The same works order was raised again on 15 March 2022, 3 months later.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 18 October 2021 the landlord said it had requested that a works order be raised to repair the window. Its contractor had attended on 5 October and referred the job on. The relevant contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the works. However, it failed to address the resident’s complaint that she had first reported the issue in 2018.
This investigation acknowledges that the landlord’s response is mitigated to some extent by the fact the resident did not follow up on her report of 2018 until 2021. It also accepts that due to the passing of time the landlord may not have been able to carry out a thorough investigation of its response at that time. However, it was not reasonable of the landlord to stay silent on this point. It would have been appropriate for it to set out the parameters of its complaint response to show the resident that it had regard to her complaint that there had been a delay of 3 years. The resident would then have been assured that the landlord had taken her complaint seriously.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 22 November 2022 the landlord said the initial repair was cancelled and raised again in October 2021. It did not attend until March 2022 “despite being noticed as a cancellation.” It acknowledged the failure which affected the resident and apologised for the inconvenience. It confirmed the repair had been completed and post inspected. It said “further works” had been done to ensure the issue did not occur again.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord acknowledged its failure, put things right for the resident and confirmed its learning from the complaint. It offered £100 for the delay in repairing the window which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been no permanent impact.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s response to the window repair could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Communal bin shed

In her stage 1 complaint of 16 September 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she had logged reports about intruders breaking into the bin shed to sleep in and use drugs. She said she had also reported the situation to the police. The landlord’s internal file note dated 30 September confirmed that it was aware of the situation. There is no evidence that the resident made any further reports relating to ASB after the stage 1 complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 18 October 2021 the landlord said it had attended to rehang the door that had been removed to reduce the ASB. However, when its contractor attended on 16 September it could not find the door so a new appointment was made for 14 October. This was a failure of communication which resulted in a delay of almost a month. This was inappropriate because it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 November 2022 it confirmed that it had secured the bin store and that although reports had declined it was monitoring the situation.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on ‘live’ documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In ASB cases we would expect this to include documents such log sheets, action plans, risk assessments, file notes and/or other correspondence.
This investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. The evidence lacked detail relating to the resident’s reports to the landlord, liaison with the police and details about the steps it took to resolve the matter. The landlord’s internal email dated 13 December 2023 confirms that it was unable to find any specific records from the resident or the police regarding ASB and/or the bin area.
This was a record keeping failure. The landlord is unable to evidence that it complied with its ASB policy by opening a formal ASB complaint which was subsequently investigated based on risk. This is particularly relevant given the resident’s disability and landlords failure to have due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it took appropriate steps to deal with the ASB in a robust and effective manner as set out in its ASB policy.
This investigation finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in the communal bin shed because there is no evidence that it followed its ASB policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 for the adverse effect caused by its failure to follow its ASB policy. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that the 10 and 20 working day response times be extended in exceptional circumstances only. In such situations the landlord should provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response should be received.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 September 2021. The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt on 21 September, confirming that it would issue its response within 10 working days. It said if it could not, it would contact the resident with a new response time. The landlord provided its response on 18 October 2021. This was 22 working days after the complaint was made and 12 working days outside of the landlord’s target.
There is no evidence that the landlord proactively managed the resident’s expectations by informing her of the delay, setting a new response date which was inappropriate. Furthermore, the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed her MP on 11 October 2021 about the delay. While the landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint response, it failed to consider compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 29 November 2021 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord to confirm that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. It replied the following day, 30 November, to confirm that a stage 2 complaint had been raised. It said it would issue its response within 20 working days. The landlord’s response was delayed until 22 November 2022, almost a year later and well outside the landlord’s target. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively contacted the resident to advise that the response would not be issued in time and to provide a new timeframe.
The Code says that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Therefore, the landlord’s email to the resident of 3 February 2022 to advise that it was unable to review the complaint until all the repairs were complete was inappropriate. Instead, it should have issued its response and tracked any outstanding actions, providing updates to the resident accordingly.
The landlord’s records show that the complaint response was not co-ordinated effectively. Its internal email of 10 March 2022 acknowledged the complaint had “gone a little round the houses.” This impacted on its ability to draw together the relevant information for its complaint response which caused distress to the resident. This is further evidenced in its emails to the resident of 10 March and 8 April when it said it needed more time to collate responses from various departments.
To update the resident regarding the progress of her complaint the landlord emailed her a standard holding response twice in July and August and three times in September. Each response said it was still investigating the complaint and requested a further extension of 10 days to gather information. This method of communication was inappropriate. This was because it told the resident nothing about the progress of her individual complaint. Furthermore, the repeat use of a standard extension suggested to the resident that the landlord did not take her situation seriously and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2022 it apologised for the delay saying that staffing issues, such as long term sickness, caused the resident to experience failure of service. It said its response fell “well outside” its service standards and that feedback had been provided to the relevant team.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman expects landlord to have sufficient resources in place to provide an effective complaint handling service. This investigation welcomes the landlord’s update to this Service which says it had increased levels of staffing to ensure adequate resources. It offered £200 for the delay in its complaint response and £50 for service failure in complaint handling.
The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy at both stage 1 and stage 2. Its decision to withhold the stage 2 complaint response until all works had been completed was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to identify its learning from the complaint and what it would do differently. These failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident.
The landlord offered £250 for its complaint handling failures which is consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been no permanent impact. However, the financial redress is not sufficient to prevent an adverse finding because the landlord failed to demonstrate its learning.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a lift repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in the communal bin shed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the window repair which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £850 compensation comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request for lift repairs. The landlord may deduct the £250 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £250 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failure in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB in the communal bin shed.
2. Reoffer the resident £250 offered for its complaint handling failures if this has not already been paid.
3. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this investigation. A copy of the apology should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the determination the landlord should review the case to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. This should include a review against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management and attitudes, respect and rights. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer its compensation of £100 for the delay in repairing the window.
Review its compensation policy against the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.