Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202227941)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227941

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 March 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:

a.     The resident’s reports of water ingress.

b.     The resident’s reports of being visually impaired.

c.      The resident’s subsequent complaint.

d.     Damage caused by the water ingress.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Under paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) it says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
4. In this case, following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident issued a letter of claim using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims. The parties corresponded using the protocol. In December 2023, the landlord paid compensation of £1,025 under a Part 36 settlement (an offer to settle the dispute early under the Civil Procedure Rules).  This amount was agreed between the parties as a settlement.
5. The resident’s solicitors set out the offer and the landlord accepted this and made the payment to settle the matter. The resident had the opportunity to progress this further through the Pre Action Protocol procedure if he was not happy. Given that this matter has already been settled and that the Protocol was used, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this aspect of his complaint, the Ombudsman’s view is that it would be fairer and more reasonable for him to seek a further remedy through the courts. Therefore part (d) of this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 16 May 2011. The property is a one bedroom flat situated on the 14th floor. The resident has been visually impaired since 2015.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be undertaken within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
8. The landlord’s complaints process is to provide a stage one response within 10 days. If it needs more time, then it will agree a new response time and update the resident weekly. The landlord will provide a stage two response within 20 days. If more time is needed, then it will agree an extension with the resident of up to 30 days in total.
9. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
10. The landlord previously stated in August 2019 that there had been several different leaks within the resident’s block of flats. There had also been a leak found to be coming from the communal riser which was directly above the resident’s flat in the communal space.
11. For context only, the resident previously had a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding a leak from his neighbour in the flat above, which was determined in 2020.
12. The landlord’s notes state that in March 2019, the resident advised that he was unable to work due to a recent eye condition which left him with minimal sight and caused him to lose his job. The landlord has also stated that the resident mentioned his condition in a phone call to the accounts team in 2019, but said he provided no further evidence to support his claim of vulnerability.

Summary of events

13. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 8 February 2023. The leak affected the airing cupboard and the kitchen ceiling and was recorded as ‘containable’ and therefore not an emergency repair. The landlord completed the repair on 27 February 2023, and it noted that the leak had originated from a neighbouring flat who had left a tap running in the hand basin in their bathroom, which caused an overflow into the resident’s property.
14. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023, raising a formal complaint into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leaks in his home.
15. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 22 March 2023 and found water stain damage to the hallway cupboard and a kitchen light and a smoke alarm disconnected due to water ingress. Repair work was booked in for the following month. The landlord noted that the resident stated that he wanted a permanent decant.
16. A second leak occurred on 23 March and was recorded as an emergency repair. The landlord attended within 24 hours and found that the leak had stopped, but it was unable to identify the cause.
17. On 23 March 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbours (who are leaseholders) in the flats above. One neighbour advised that there had been a blockage in their bath a couple of weeks prior, but a plumber came and resolved this. The neighbour said that the bath panel was still off and there was no sign of a water leak. The other neighbour had previously reported an issue with the riser cupboard (cupboard in the communal area which allows access to common services) beside the flat that had been ongoing for a few years. It was considered that this could have potentially been the cause of the leak as the resident’s issue was intermittent, however, there were no further records to confirm if this was investigated.
18. The landlord sent the resident an email on 28 March 2023, to say that it needed a further 10 working days to send its stage one complaint response. 
19. The landlord’s internal emails dated 29 March 2023 show that it discussed the resident’s visual impairment after the resident had told the landlord he found it difficult to work in the kitchen without a light, so his wife needed to do everything for him which was having an impact. The landlord said that it could not see any evidence of any known visual impairment recorded on its system.
20. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 30 March 2023, suggested the neighbours could be asked to get a plumber to investigate where the leaks were coming from. It was also suggested that the landlord could arrange for its own contractors to attend at the same time to carry out a dye test. There was no evidence that the landlord actually suggested this to the leaseholders.
21. A surveyor visited the resident’s property on 5 April 2023, but could not find any evidence of any fresh water ingress. The surveyor asked the neighbours if they could gain access the following week to check for any internal source of water leaking into the resident’s flat, but it was not clear what their response was. The resident sent an email on the same date to confirm that he turned away an electrician from fixing the light because the leak was ongoing and therefore it was not safe.
22. On 05 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update, and said it would also look into a possible decant due to his medical condition. However, internal correspondence from the same date showed the landlord discussing the resident’s disability and acknowledging that the situation may not be ‘factually correct’. Therefore, the landlord appeared to doubt whether the resident was being honest. It also stated that a decant was not necessary.
23. A third leak occurred around 6 April 2023 which was recorded as ‘containable’. An appointment was made for 24 April 2023 to resolve the leak.
24. Internal correspondence dated 6 April 2023, stated that the landlord had reviewed the resident’s request for a decant. It declined the request on the basis that the resident did not meet its decant criteria, but said it would look to compensate for any inconvenience caused by the leak.
25. On 10 April 2023, the landlord stated internally that there had been a failure of service with regards to the resident’s disability after he made it aware at stage one of the complaint. The landlord said it should have referred his vulnerability for further investigation so that there could have been an earlier discussion on what support could be appropriate, which could have helped to rebuild the relationship with the resident. This was a missed opportunity and the landlord said it intended to learn from the case. A further £300 compensation was deemed to be reasonable to reflect the failure, but there is no evidence to show that this was actually offered to the resident.
26. The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 April 2023. It said:

a.     There was no service failure with regards to the leaks as they were attended to within the required time, however the landlord acknowledged that the situation would have caused the resident a great deal of distress, particularly as it was unable to conclude the cause of the ongoing leak.

b.     An investigation would be carried out to get to the bottom of the situation and work towards a permanent solution. The repairs officer’s contact details were provided for the resident, and arrangements had been made to inspect the flats above the resident later that week. Once the cause of the leak was ascertained it would arrange for any remedial work to take place.

c.      The resident should contact his contents insurance provider for any damaged possessions. If the resident did not have insurance, then the landlord would provide extra support through its tenancy welfare fund or a referral to its inhouse empowering futures team.

d.     It understood that the resident did make one of the landlord’s agents aware of his eye condition back in 2019, but as it had not received any official notification of this medical condition, it could not uphold the request for a decant to temporary accommodation. It appreciated the inconvenience that not having a kitchen light would cause the resident, but the light had been disabled for the resident’s safety. Whilst a decant was unavailable, the resident could submit a housing transfer request by registering on its rehousing system.

e.     The complaint was partially upheld for the poor complaint handling, but it could not find a service failure with regards to the repairs since the leaks started. It offered £200 compensation broken down into the following:

1. £100 for poor complaint handling because it extended the complaint on numerous occasions and did not stick to the timeframes and because there was a delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £100 as a gesture of goodwill and as an apology as there was no solution at the time of the response and for the inconvenience caused by not having a light source in the kitchen.

f.        As there were arrears on the account, the compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account to offset the arrears.

27. The landlord attempted to visit the resident on 11 April 2023, but it could not gain access. On 17 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had spoken to his neighbours in the flats above on a couple of occasions and they had confirmed that the leak was nothing to do with them. The resident also stated that the landlord’s plumbers had confirmed that the leak was coming from the roof, although there are no records to verify this.
28. Around 25 April 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, for the following reasons:

a.     The landlord’s surveyor had not carried out further visits or raised further works since the stage one response.

b.     The cause of the leak had still not been identified.

c.      The kitchen light had not been reinstated and there were still outstanding works to restore the property after the initial leak.

29. On 4 May 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbours in the flats above, but could not get access to either property. The operative left a calling card. On 5 May 2023, the landlord said it had tried to call the resident’s neighbours to agree access, and it had left several voicemails, but it still had not received a reply. The landlord noted that the resident had also failed to return its calls to gain access to check the current condition of the property following the leaks.
30. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 17 May 2023. The inspection report stated that all affected areas were dry and the resident reported no further ingress. Damage to the hallway cupboard and ceiling and the kitchen ceiling still needed to be rectified.
31. The landlord sent the resident an update on 24 May 2023 to say that it required a further 10 working days to provide the stage two response.
32. The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 June 2023. It said:

a.     It was satisfied with the way the complaint was managed and it did not feel that there was any poor complaint handling.

b.     Following the initial leak, the ceiling light was isolated. After the first inspection, an order was raised to reconnect the ceiling light, but as the resident had discovered a further leak he did not want the light reconnected.

c.      A surveyor could not identify any fresh water ingress for the third reported leak and there was no evidence of a new leak. An appointment was made on 17 May 2023 to reconnect the kitchen light and this had now been completed.

d.     It apologised for any inconvenience caused but said it could not uphold the complaint.

33. Repairs for the resident’s hallway cupboard were scheduled for 9 June 2023 and repairs to the kitchen ceiling were scheduled for later in the month.
34. On 26 June 2023, the resident sent a letter of claim for a disrepair claim using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims. The disrepair claim stated that repairs were needed to the hallway due to the leaks, there was damp on the kitchen ceiling and the extractor fans were defective in both the kitchen and bathroom. There was possible damp and mould in the storage cupboard on the walls and ceiling and the door was defective due to the leak. There was also no carbon monoxide alarm.
35. The landlord’s notes dated 29 June 2023 stated that the leak was not part of the resident’s letter of claim, but the damage from it was. It was also stated that the landlord should check that there was not an active leak and that the resident was satisfied that the issue had been located and rectified.
36. The landlord completed a disrepair inspection on 6 July 2023. The report said:

a.     That there were works needed to the hallway ceiling due to historic leaks from the flat above and the flooring was damaged, possibly due to water leaking through the ceiling. There was evidence of water damage in the hallway and the door frame also needed repairing.

b.     There was possible damp on the kitchen ceiling and it was bubbling and works were required to scrape the ceiling and apply a stain blocker and then to redecorate.

c.      The kitchen fan needed to be overhauled or replaced and the bathroom fan did not work properly.

d.     The storage cupboard required work as there was damage due to water ingress, but there was not damp present. The floor and the door had also been damaged due to water ingress.

e.     A few other general repairs around the property were noted and there was also water ingress from a window as the seal was defective.

37. Around 19 July 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The operatives notes said that the resident always “made it difficult” for the contractor to carry out the required repairs. They also said that during the inspection the resident made it clear that he wanted to be permanently decanted and was reporting water leak ingress to boost his bid for a permanent decant. Since the last inspection, there were no signs of any new water ingress and the walls and ceilings were completely dry.
38. A pre-works inspection took place on 18 August 2023 with a surveyor. The landlord said it would commence the works shortly. There had been some delays due to contractors being on holiday.
39. On 14 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident about his disability and signposted him to organisations who might be able to offer additional assistance. The resident said he was diagnosed with the condition in 2015. The landlord requested documentation for the condition so that it could be uploaded to his records and an alert put on the system. The resident advised that he had previously sent the documentation in 2015, but agreed to send it again.
40. The landlord completed the repairs which were subject to the disrepair claim and inspected and signed off the works on 22 November 2023. The resident also signed a statement which said that “all works associated with the disrepair claim which were agreed to be undertaken are now completed” on the same date.
41. On 6 December 2023, the resident’s solicitors raised a Part 36 offer (an offer to settle the dispute under the Civil Procedure Rules) for compensation of £1,025 for the damage caused by the leaks. The landlord agreed and paid the funds to the resident’s rent account. The remaining funds were sent to the resident’s solicitors.
42. The resident has since said that the landlord only completed some of the repairs and there were still outstanding repairs to be completed. The landlord has said that all repairs were completed to its knowledge.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress

43. When the resident reported all three leaks, the landlord worked out the status of each leak promptly so that it could identify whether they were emergency repairs. The emergency leak was dealt with within 24 hours and the two leaks which were not emergencies had appointments to complete a repair within 20 working days. The landlord complied with the timescales in its repairs, but it took around 19 days to attend the first leak and 18 days to attend the third leak, which were long periods of time.
44. The landlord could have done more to prioritise the leaks, especially considering there had been historic leaks at the resident’s property. The third leak in particular should have been prioritised as the previous water ingress had been considered an emergency but the cause had not been identified. The landlord could have prioritised the leaks and taken action more quickly in the circumstances.
45. The landlord noted that the first leak from 8 February 2023 had been caused by a neighbour who had left a tap running. This appeared to be an isolated incident. The landlord then attended a second leak on 23 March 2023, but the leak had stopped and it was unable to identify the cause. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbours on the same day, but they did not know of any leaks. A surveyor then visited on 5 April 2023 and noted that there was no evidence of any further leaks. The landlord also enquired to gain access to the neighbour’s flat. These were reasonable steps taken by the landlord to try and identify the cause of the problem.
46. The landlord’s notes show that it wanted to gain access to the neighbour’s flats in March 2023 and it internally discussed whether the neighbours could be asked to get plumbers to investigate where the leaks were coming from. It also said that it could attend with its own contractors and carry out a dye test to trace the leak. The landlord attempted to visit the neighbours in May 2023, but could not gain entry and left a calling card. Whilst the landlord did contact the neighbours, there is no evidence that it actually gained entry to the neighbour’s flat or that it carried out any further tests. Given that the resident had three leaks, and there was evidence the leaks came from the flats above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made more effort to contact the resident’s neighbours so that it could investigate properly.
47. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 April 2023 to say he had spoken to his neighbours on several occasions and they had confirmed the leak was not coming from their flat. The resident also stated that he was told by the landlord’s plumbers that the leak was coming from the roof. Whilst there was no evidence that the operative said this, there was evidence that the landlord knew of a leak found to be coming from the communal riser which was directly above the resident’s flat in a communal space as this had been a previous issue. The landlord noted in March 2023 that the resident’s neighbour had previously reported an issue with the riser cupboard and said that this had been ongoing for a long time.
48. The landlord’s records do not show that it investigated the issue with the riser cupboard, despite being aware that it could be a potential cause. If the landlord did investigate this as a possible source, then this has not been properly recorded within the landlord’s records for the complaint. The only mention of the communal riser was from internal correspondence from August 2019 and then the landlord acknowledging this could potentially be an issue again on 23 March 2023. There are therefore insufficient records to demonstrate that the landlord investigated this as a potential cause of the water ingress. 
49. Although the landlord visited the resident on a number of occasions between February to July 2023 and it did initially look into all three leaks within the required timescales, it could have done more to identify the source of the leaks. The landlord attempted to contact the resident’s neighbours, but there is no evidence that it was able to visit and complete other checks. The landlord had previously identified water ingress coming from the neighbour’s flat in 2019 and therefore this should have been a priority. Furthermore, there are insufficient records to show that the landlord investigated the issues in the riser cupboard above the resident’s property. This issue would have caused inconvenience, especially as the resident could not use the light in his kitchen and also from the damage caused by the water ingress. Therefore, and taken altogether, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the leaks.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being visually impaired

50. The landlord has said that it was aware of the resident’s disability from 2019, when he informed it in a call. It was also aware that the resident had lost his job due to the impairment. However, the landlord did not follow this up as it should have as part of its obligations under the Equality Act to have ‘due regard’ to ‘advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations’. It also did not make a note on its systems as the resident had not provided medical evidence. This was poor record keeping as the landlord should have recorded the condition.
51. The resident mentioned that they were visually impaired again in March 2023. The landlord discussed the resident’s impairment at the start of April 2023, but the notes stated that one of the operatives questioned whether the resident’s situation was “factually correct”. The landlord stated in its stage one response on 11 April 2023 that the resident had not provided any official notification of this medical condition.
52. The landlord should not require medical evidence to record on its system that the resident was visually impaired, once he had informed them. The landlord decided not to trust the resident without proof, despite being aware of the condition from 2019. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and meant that it missed opportunities to support the resident and assure him that it was taking his condition seriously.
53. On 10 April 2023, the landlord discussed internally that there had been a failure of service with regards to the resident’s disability, after he made them aware at stage one. It said that it should have referred his vulnerability for further investigation so that it could have offered support and helped to rebuild the relationship with the resident. The landlord said it intended to learn from the complaint, but it did not contact the resident to offer any additional assistance or signpost the resident for support until 14 September 2023, some five months later. This was unacceptable, especially as the resident said that he found it hard to see whilst there was no kitchen light as this had been disconnected for the resident’s safety.
54. In April 2023, the landlord suggested internally that a further £300 compensation would be fair to reflect the landlord’s failings. It is not clear whether this amount was ever offered to the resident, but the amount would be a fair amount in the circumstances considering the failings by the landlord.
55. The resident wanted to be decanted as he could not use his kitchen light which was disconnected whilst the leaks were ongoing for a considerable period of time. The landlord did review the request, but declined on the basis that the resident did not meet the decant criteria, but said that it would compensate the resident for the inconvenience.
56. The landlord told the resident that a decant was unavailable, but it is not clear whether it explained to him why he did not meet the criteria, especially given his disability. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its decision to the resident. The landlord also failed to offer any support during this lengthy period, and the resident was left without a kitchen light which aggravated his disability as he was partially sighted. The landlord acted unreasonably in the circumstances.
57. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord gave due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act in responding to the resident’s reports of visual impairment. The landlord should have recorded the condition immediately after being made aware and then offered the resident support and check whether there were any communication needs. Instead, the landlord just continuously stated the resident had not provided any evidence of his condition. The landlord said it wanted to learn from the complaint, but then did not contact the resident to offer support for five months. It failed to take adequate steps to support the resident which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Overall there was maladministration in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of being visually impaired.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint

58. The landlord required further time to provide both the stage one and stage two responses. Its complaints policy allows for this, provided it keeps the resident informed and agreed a date for the response. Whilst the landlord needed more time to provide both responses, it did update the resident. However, the landlord also offered £100 compensation at stage one for poor complaint handling because it extended the complaint on numerous occasions. It also did not stick to the timeframes and there was an initial delay in responding to the complaint.
59. The landlord said in its internal correspondence that there were failures with how it handled the resident’s disability. On 10 April 2023, it said that a further £300 compensation would be fair, given what had happened. The stage one response was dated 11 April 2023 and the stage two response was issued on 1 June 2023, but this offer was not reflected in either of the responses. Neither response addressed the resident’s vulnerability properly or offered any compensation for this element of the complaint, despite the landlord previously acknowledging that there had been failures.
60. The stage two response stated that the landlord was satisfied with the way it had managed the complaint and did not think that there was any poor complaint handling. This contradicted the stage one response, where the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered £100 compensation and gave reasons why it had let the resident down. This showed poor complaint handling as the landlord had contradicted itself.
61. Furthermore, the resident had to wait longer for the stage two response than the initial 20 working days, but the response was short and not comprehensive. There was a lack of empathy considering the situation would have been very stressful for the resident and even more stressful given the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident was concerned that the cause of the leak had not been identified, but the landlord simply said that it could not evidence any fresh water ingress in the property without explaining in much detail what further actions it had taken. The response did not seem adequate considering how long the matter had gone on for, the amount of inconvenience caused and the time and trouble the resident had spent making the complaint.
62. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and a further £100 compensation (in addition to the £200 previously offered) is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

63. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:

a.     Maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.

b.     Maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being visually impaired.

c.      Maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

64. In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds (d) the damage caused by the water ingress to be outside of jurisdiction.

Reasons

65. The landlord could have done more to investigate the source of the leaks and it failed to visit the resident’s neighbours within a reasonable period of time. It also failed to demonstrate that it investigated other potential sources for the leaks such as in the communal area above the resident’s property.
66. The landlord should have recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities straight away rather than asking the resident to provide proof. The landlord missed opportunities to support the resident and did not contact the resident to offer support until after the resident had completed the complaints process, despite acknowledging its failures months before.
67. The landlord had previously accepted its complaint handling could have been better and offered £100 compensation for this; however, there were further issues as the landlord did not address the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord took extra time to produce the stage two response, but it was not adequate and did not reflect the inconvenience the resident had suffered or the time and trouble he had taken to raise the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

68. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
69. The landlord should pay a total of £600 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:

a.     The £300 compensation it mentioned for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities (unless it has done so already).

b.     An additional £100 compensation for poor complaint handling.

c.      The £200 that was previously offered at stage one (unless it has done so already).

70. The landlord is ordered to write to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to explain the lessons it has learned from this complaint, particularly in regards to how it communicates with vulnerable residents.
71. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

72. Following settlement of the disrepair claim, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that there are no outstanding issues regarding the damage from the leaks.