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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202227114)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227114

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

17 February 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 reasonable adjustment, including gas safety administration.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident, who has autism, has been an assured tenant of the property since 2016, where she lives with her children. The property is a 2 bedroom house, which is owned and managed by the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The resident reported an issue with excessive condensation in her loft on 9 December 2022. The resident asked the landlord if she could have an email discussion prior to any inspection visit so the landlord could explain in detail what would happen during the visit. She told the landlord this would allow her to manage the visit better with her disability, as she had difficulties with communication and processing new information.
  3. On 14 December 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter stating she was in breach of her tenancy agreement for refusing to allow it to complete a gas safety check. The landlord said it would consider legal action and this may result in the resident paying its legal fees. It asked the resident to contact it immediately to arrange access.
  4. The resident raised an online complaint on 20 December 2022, in which she said:
    1. The landlord had not considered her reasonable adjustment request in relation to the loft inspection, and had told her she needed to arrange another appointment.
    2. The letter she had received from the landlord regarding the gas safety inspection was inaccurate, as it had already completed this.
    3. She would like the landlord to update her account to reflect her disability and for the landlord to adjust its approach to its dealings with her accordingly.
    4. She would like the landlord to arrange a call to discuss the complaint. However, she found unscheduled calls from unknown numbers to be very stressful so it would need to arrange the call with her by email beforehand.
  5. The landlord sent the resident another letter on 4 January 2023 warning her she must provide access for it to complete a gas safety check or face potential legal costs. The resident called the landlord on 6 January 2023 and told it she would harm herself if it continued to send these letters.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023, in which it said:
    1. It had initially booked the loft inspection visit for 21 December 2022 but it had to reschedule this for 19 January 2023.
    2. It had been sending gas safety letters to her because its latest gas safety check was completed on 18 January 2022. This would therefore expire on 18 January 2023.
    3. Its repairs officer had confirmed a time of 3pm for 19 January 2023 and would email her on 16 January 2023 to tell her what the visit would entail.
    4. There were notes on its system to advise its workers of the accommodations needed for the resident’s disability and what action they should take when communicating with her.
    5. It was partially upholding her complaint, and offered to provide £60 compensation for service failure in relation to the loft inspection and her time and trouble.
    6. She could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied, as long as she provided details of any factual inaccuracies or information it had not considered in its stage 1 response.
  7. The landlord sent the resident an email on 16 January 2023 explaining what the inspection visit would entail. However, the visit did not go ahead on 19 January 2023 because the resident did not confirm this appointment. The landlord sent the resident another email on 23 January 2023 asking if it could visit on 2 February 2023 at 2pm.
  8. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process on 20 January 2023, telling the resident it did this because it had been unable to organise times for her and the repairs officer to speak after attempting this for a week. The landlord said it would send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 January 2023, in which it said:
    1. It had reviewed its handling of the complaint at stage 1 and found this to have been managed correctly, so it maintained this.
    2. It had emailed the resident regarding the visit on 19 January 2023 and attempted to call her unsuccessfully. It had been unable to proceed with the appointment because the resident had not confirmed she could keep it.
    3. Its repairs officer had emailed her requesting another visit on 2 February 2023 at 2pm, which it could only proceed with if she confirmed her acceptance of it.
    4. The resident could contact this Service with the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 20 March 2023.
  11. There were a series of email communications between the resident and landlord on 10 May 2023, in which they tried to arrange an inspection. This resulted in a repairs officer calling the resident on 12 May 2023 and following this up with an email offering appointments on 23 May 2023 and 24 May 2023.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2023 saying the proposed dates in May 2023 fell during half-term so were not convenient. The resident asked if the landlord could provide an alternative appointment and she sent a list of repair topics she would like to discuss during the visit. The landlord did not respond to this.
  13. The landlord revisited the resident’s complaint on 14 September 2023 and sent her a letter saying:
    1. It had reviewed its handling of the matter again and found it had no evidence to demonstrate it had met her reasonable adjustment requests.
    2. It had identified that its monitoring system had made an error regarding the gas safety check, and this had in fact not been due until 3 March 2023. The resident had therefore received the warning letters in error.
    3. Its housing team would reach out to her within 3 weeks to arrange an inspection visit and to agree the reasonable adjustments it could follow in the future.
    4. It would like to make a revised compensation offer of £210 to address the failings it had identified in its handling of the inspection visit, gas safety letters and complaint.
  14. The resident did not respond to this revised resolution offer from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Reasonable adjustments

  1. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord is required to take positive steps to ensure disabled residents are able to access its services. It should make reasonable adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled residents.
  2. Section 2 of the landlord’s “additional customer requirements” policy says that it is committed to “make any service adjustments that are necessary (e.g. adapt our communication)”. It also says it will “identify support needs and make appropriate referrals to our in-house support teams”.
  3. We have seen no evidence to show the landlord made any attempts to accommodate the resident’s reasonable adjustment in relation to the first appointment booked for 21 December 2022. The resident complained that the landlord had not followed her request. The landlord later agreed that it had no evidence it made any reasonable adjustments for this appointment when it reviewed the complaint a third time on 14 September 2023.
  4. The landlord did subsequently attempt to accommodate the resident’s request by advising her in its stage 1 response it would email on 16 January 2023 ahead of a visit on 19 January 2023 at 3pm. The reason this appointment did not go ahead seems to have been that the resident did not respond to accept the appointment.
  5. The landlord made further reasonable adjustments when arranging an appointment in May 2023. This appointment appears to have not gone ahead because the resident did not respond to the landlord’s email suggesting appointment slots.
  6. However, it is evident that the resident got back in touch with the landlord on 6 June 2023 asking if it could arrange a further appointment, but the landlord did not respond to this. This is a service failure, particularly as the resident had told the landlord she has difficulties with communication because of her disability.
  7. The landlord identified in its third review of the complaint on 14 September 2023, its system had mistakenly believed a gas safety inspection was due in January 2023 when it was in fact due on 3 March 2023. This resulted in the resident being sent warning letters in error, which said she was in breach of her tenancy and may face legal costs.
  8. The landlord’s internal notes from 3 January 2023 shows it tried to stop any further letters being sent to the resident after she told it via her online complaint on 20 December 2022 that the first letter was inaccurate. However, it seems it was too late for the landlord to prevent its system from sending another letter to the resident on 4 January 2023. The resident explained on 6 January 2023 that this caused significant distress and made her consider self-harming.
  9. The landlord has a legal duty to complete a gas safety check every 12 months, so it is reasonable for it to write to residents and remind them of their tenancy obligations if a resident does not cooperate. However, for neurodivergent residents or those with mental health conditions, such language can have a significant impact on their wellbeing. The landlord should ensure that its systems can accommodate its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord should take a more tailored approach to these more vulnerable residents, including sending personalised letters, attempting telephone contact and completing home visits.
  10. The landlord has provided internal emails showing that, when it was preparing its evidence for this Service, it noted there was no clearly defined internal process as to how it follows its “additional customer requirements” policy. The Ombudsman has recently released a “spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights” report, which includes recommendations for landlords on how they can improve their communication with vulnerable residents. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal process in light of the spotlight report to ensure it is complying with its own policy.

Complaint handling

  1. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the landlord’s complaints policy match the complaint handling timescale in section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). They state the landlord will:
    1. Log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Send a stage 1 decision in writing within 10 working days of acknowledgement, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
    3. Send a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
  2. The landlord did not send the resident an acknowledgement of her complaint as required under its policy. It also sent the resident her stage 1 response after 11 working days, which was 1 day outside the required timescale. In its response, the landlord said the resident had submitted her complaint on 29 December 2022. However, this was inaccurate, as the resident submitted the complaint on 20 December 2022.
  3. Section 4.1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure says it will “contact the customer as soon as a named officer is assigned ownership of the case to discuss the case and ensure understanding of the complaint”.
  4. The landlord did not attempt to call the resident before issuing its stage 1 response, which is in breach of its policy. This is made worse because the resident had specifically asked the landlord to arrange a call to discuss the complaint with her when she submitted it.
  5. Section 5.6 of the Code says “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
  6. The landlord did not address the resident’s claim that it had not accommodated her request for reasonable adjustments in relation to the appointment. This was one of the main aspects of the complaint. This omission was a failure under section 5.6 of the Code. The landlord did later address this in its response dated 14 September 2023, but this was after the resident had duly made her complaint to this Service.
  7. The landlord concluded that its monitoring system had made an error with the gas safety letter, but it only arrived at this conclusion on its third review of the complaint in September 2023. This suggests the landlord did not thoroughly investigate this aspect of the complaint in its stage 1 and stage 2 reviews.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reasonable adjustment, including gas safety.
    2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks, the landlord provides an apology to the resident written by a senior member of staff.
  2. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks, the landlord provides this resident with £400 compensation. This comprises:
    1. £250 for the failures identified in relation to the reasonable adjustment requests.
    2. £150 for the complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal process in light of the Ombudsman’s “spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights” report to ensure it is complying with its “additional customer requirements” policy.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord ensures its systems are adapted to accommodate the needs of its customers’ reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.