Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202226559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226559

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of decant accommodation.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
4. As part of a regeneration project the landlord offered the resident a decant as a permanent move in 2022. The resident viewed the property on 5 December 2022 with the expectation to move in on 6 December 2022. After viewing the property, the resident told the landlord he would not move in due to car parking bays outside the bedroom window. He said the car lights and noise would impact his health and wellbeing.
5. The resident viewed a second offer of accommodation on 7 December 2022. The resident told the landlord that this property ‘had worse conditions’ due to the placement of car parking bays outside the bedroom window.
6. On 12 December 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord and said the properties he had been offered were not suitable.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 January 2023. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. In its response the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
   2. Said it offered the resident a ground floor flat due to his occupational therapist report. The report outlined no other requirements and no medical evidence was provided to show why the resident should not be offered a property facing a car park.
   3. Said due to limited resources the landlord could not carry out face to face viewings with all resident’s, so it provided a virtual tour of a 2 bed property. This was to show the general features of the property such as heating, kitchen and bathroom finishes. The resident had since viewed two 1 bed properties.
   4. Said the information the resident provided about his children implied that they were not permanent household members and therefore he would not meet the criteria for a 2-bed property.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 January 2023. The complaint was not upheld. In its response the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the administrative error in its stage 1 response and the confusion this had caused. It said it would provide feedback to the staff member.
   2. Said although the resident was unhappy with the decision at stage 1, it did not identify any service failure.

Events after the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure

9. In May 2023 the landlord offered to plant hedging, install black out blinds and privacy film to remedy the privacy and screening concerns the resident had about the first decant offer.
10. In June 2023 the resident moved into the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any issues the resident raised with the Ombudsman that have not been subject to a formal complaint should be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
12. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of his move to alternative accommodation had a negative impact on his health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

13. The landlord’s decant policy states:
    1. Permanent new homes will have the same number of bedrooms as the property currently occupied, if this meets the resident’s current housing need.
    2. Where possible, residents will be given the opportunity to view their new home at least 2 weeks before they are due to move in.
    3. All residents will be interviewed as early as possible before they are due to move to their new homes to discuss their rehousing needs and preferences.
    4. Priority for ground floor accommodation will be given to those with medical needs.
    5. If 2 reasonable offers of accommodation are not accepted, an application will be made to court for possession.
14. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation for service failure, time and trouble. The policy states for low impact it will offer an apology to £50, for a medium impact from £51 to £150 and a high impact from £151.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of decant accommodation.

16. The landlord’s decant policy states that where possible, residents will be given the opportunity to view their new home at least two weeks before they are due to move in. The resident was offered a viewing the day before he was due to move in. Although all residents were provided with a virtual tour of an example property, the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and he had told the landlord the decant was causing him distress. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to consider the residents vulnerabilities and whether it needed to give the resident more time to view the property.
17. On 5 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say he would not move into the property offered to him due to the car parking bays outside the bedroom window. He said the car lights would affect his anxiety and he would not be able to sleep. The landlord offered him a viewing of a second property on 7 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by making enquiries about the land opposite the property on the resident’s behalf and responded to the resident’s concerns about the construction of parking bays.
18. The landlord acted appropriately by taking into account the recommendations of the occupational therapist and GP. It offered the resident 2 ground floor flats based on their recommendations, which is in line with its decant policy. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had not received any medical evidence that indicated the resident should not be offered a property facing a car park. The resident did not provide the landlord with further medical evidence.
19. The resident clearly assumed there were other ground floor properties available, that did not face the car park or were affected by car noise and lights. Landlords should manage residents’ expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic. The landlord should have addressed this issue in its complaint responses to effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
20. In his complaint the resident said he wanted a 2-bed property because he wanted his 2 children to stay with him. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said when it discussed the resident’s rehousing needs, he told them his children were in school in another area of the country which implied they were not permanent household members. There was no evidence the resident provided any evidence to the landlord that his children were residing with him. The landlord acted appropriately by offering the resident a property with the same number of bedrooms as the property he occupied.
21. The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the decant. When the resident raised issues with the suitability of the decant offers, the landlord acted appropriately by offering to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns. The resident refused this offer and asked to be contacted via email. The resident contacted the landlord multiple times between 5 and 21 December 2022. The landlord always acknowledged the resident’s communication and replied within a reasonable timescale. However, in this case it may have been beneficial for the landlord to provide a single point of contact for the resident.
22. In April 2023, after the resident had continued to raise concerns to the landlord and his MP about the suitability of the decant accommodation, the landlord reviewed what action it would take to resolve the complaint and offered to adjust the decant offer to provide privacy and screening from the car park and car lights. This was 4 months after the resident raised his concerns. These adjustments could have been considered and discussed with the resident during the complaints procedure. The landlord failed to act proactively, and the delay caused the resident further distress.
23. Overall, the landlord communicated well with the resident and offered him the choice of 2 decant properties in line with its decant policy and recommendations from occupational health and a GP. However, the landlord failed to offer a viewing within its target timescale, it was not pro-active in resolving the resident’s concerns, and it failed to fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord showed learning and provided adjustments to the property and the resident has now moved in. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and it did not provide suitable redress to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and troubled caused.
24. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of decant accommodation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. Between the 5 and 12 December 2022 the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the properties being offered to him. On 12 December the resident told the landlord he wanted to make a complaint to its chief executive officer. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, however, the landlord failed to accept this as a complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to act in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
26. The resident submitted a complaint through the landlord’s website on 21 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 22 December 2022, which was within its 5 working day target timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 3 January 2023 to discuss a resolution to the complaint.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 January 2023. Although this was outside its 10-working day timescale, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 9 January 2023 to extend its response timescale and it provided reasons for the delay. Its response considered all the complaint issues the resident raised and detailed what action it had taken.
28. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 12 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the following day, which was within its 5 working day timescale. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint as promised in its acknowledgement letter, this was evidence of poor communication and a missed opportunity for the landlord to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
29. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 January 2023, this was within its 20-working day timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the administrative error in in its stage 1 response, apologising for the confusion caused and said it would provide feedback to the staff member.
30. In it’s stage 2 response the landlord reviewed its complaints handling and said it found no service failure. However, it failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about the impact car lights and noise would have on his health and wellbeing. The landlord’s response was not empathetic to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the content did not suggest it was being open minded or proactive in what action it could take to resolve the complaint. This was a failing, which meant the resident’s complaint was not dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
31. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord accepting the complaint, there was evidence of poor communication, its stage 2 response was not empathetic and lacked evidence that a thorough investigation was carried out. The landlord failed to acknowledge its service failures and did not put things right within its complaints procedure. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, time and trouble.
32. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of decant accommodation.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is broken down as:
       1. £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of decant accommodation.
       2. £100 to reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.