Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202227958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227958

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 April 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs.
   2. Handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a one-bedroom flat.
4. The resident contacted the landlord multiple times between December 2020 and January 2021 reporting several repairs that needed to be completed in her kitchen, such as damage to the flooring underneath the sink, damage to cupboards and drawers and damage to the back wall of her kitchen. She also requested confirmation regarding when her planned kitchen renewal would proceed. The landlord confirmed on 3 January 2021 that the kitchen had a renewal year of 2023, however a survey would need to be arranged and based on the result, it would be able to provide an accurate renewal year.
5. Subsequently, between January 2021 and February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times requesting a date for the surveyor’s appointment and for kitchen repairs to be completed. She sent pictures of damaged kitchen units to the landlord and informed the landlord that she was pregnant and would like the kitchen to be fixed urgently before her baby arrived. The landlord attended on 14 February 2022 to complete kitchen repairs.
6. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 February 2022, in summary she stated as follows:
   1. She expressed disappointment with the way her repairs had been handled since January 2021, she stated she sent the landlord numerous emails and pictures in relation to the damage in her kitchen however no survey had been completed in her property.
   2. The wrong information was provided to the contractor who attended to complete the repairs.  The contractor informed her that he would change the damaged cupboards, all drawers and cupboard on the left side and countertop.
   3. She spent time removing everything from the cupboards and drawers and her son spent the entire day away from home. The repair men arrived and told her that the countertop sink would not be replaced, only the doors and draws and damaged cupboard under the sink.
   4. She was left with old, damaged drawers and cupboard being put back and just one door was changed which did not match any other cupboard or drawers in her kitchen. She wanted an explanation as to why the rest of the drawers and cupboards were not changed.
   5. The taps and sinks were damaged by the contractors and there was a gap between the unit which she believed might result in a leak. She had raised a repair for these to be fixed.
   6. The chipped drawers were a health hazard to her young son.
   7. She requested for her housing officer to make contact and to attend her property to conduct an inspection.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 February 2022, in summary it stated as follows:
   1. It thanked the resident for contacting it on 21 February 2022 and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
   2. A repairs officer attended on 28 February 2022, completed an inspection, and sent the details to the planned works department as a request to bring forward the date the kitchen would be considered for renewal.
   3. It discussed the resident’s address with the planned works department and was advised that the kitchen had a renewal year of 2023 and the bathroom had a renewal year of 2033 according to its system.
   4. The property was on the programme for a survey with its contractors that financial year and its contractor’s would contact her to arrange a survey. It would provide accurate renewal years after it received the survey result.
   5. It would put in the survey request with the planned works department and the resident would be contacted directly. It asked the resident to contact the complaints officer directly if she believed her complaint was not resolved.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 December 2022. In her escalation request, she said she had initially asked for the complaint to be escalated in April 2022 and included parts of the email she had sent at the time. In summary she said:
   1. Since 4 and 12 April 2022 she had not received a response regarding her escalation request, she was not sure why the complaint response was taking so long or why no contact had been made to explain the delay.
   2. She stated she sent the landlord emails on 1 March 2022, which it claimed not to have received, this was disconcerting as she had been a tenant for 15 years and had been told by the repairs officer that her kitchen needed replacing.
   3. That there were ongoing issues with the worktops, cupboards deteriorating and breaking away. She expressed concern regarding the safety of her young son with poor condition of the kitchen.
   4. That she would like the landlord to replace the doors, drawers, worktops and flooring.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 15 December 2022 and issued a stage 2 response on 10 February 2023. In summary it stated as follows:
   1. The planned programme surveyor visited the resident’s property on Wednesday 11 January 2023 and confirmed that in general, the kitchen was in a fair condition, considering its age.
   2. A few drawer/ doors fronts had some minor damage mainly around the edges. The drawer located on the left-hand side of the cooker was noticeably more worn/damaged compared to the others.
   3. The non-standard wood plinth needed repair. The resident confirmed that the original plinth had broken around 2017-2018 but could not recall whether this had been reported. There were no repairs orders on the system, regarding a damaged/broken plinth.
   4. Considering the above, there was no clear Health & Safety reason to bring forward the kitchen renewal from planned year 2026/27.
   5. An earlier date was originally quoted in its stage 1 complaint response which it explained was an error and it apologised for the misunderstanding. 
   6. That the surveyor requested the renewal of the drawer unit and plinth. It had received confirmation that the repairs were now completed.
   7. The complaint was upheld due to inaccurate information given at stage 1 and the failure to escalate the complaint in April 2022.
   8. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience cause and offered a total of £75 redress comprised of £40 for time and trouble, £10 for poor complaint handling, £25 for service failure.
10. The resident contacted this Service in April 2023 and explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response regarding her kitchen renewal and repairs. She wanted it to renew her kitchen in 2023 as stated in its stage 1 response. Following a request for evidence from this Service, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident on 7 September 2023 and offered a revised compensation amount of £250, comprised of £150 for poor complaint handling, £50 for failings regarding the planned renewal request and £50 in recognition of time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident stated that she has been communicating with the landlord regarding her kitchen renewal and kitchen repairs since 2020. This Service has seen evidence of communication from 2020 until 2022 regarding this issue.
12. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Whilst historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on when the resident made her first complaint on 5 January 2021 and her subsequent formal complaint of 14 February 2022.
13. The resident has expressed concern regarding her son’s health and safety due to the condition of the kitchen. This Service cannot determine liability for impacts on health, as these are best dealt with under a personal injury claim should the resident wish to pursue her concerns. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the disrepair to the resident’s kitchen.
14. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident in line with any relevant policies and procedures and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the kitchen needed repairs or replacement, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s requests in a reasonable manner.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs.

15. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has separate categories for different repairs, it has emergency, routine, and non-routine repairs. Emergency repairs would be attended within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days or 20 working days. It notes that there are some cases where the repair might take longer than the routine period due to complexity. In such cases, these would be classed as non-routine repairs and take 90 days to complete. The landlord’s policy confirmed that it was responsible for repairs to the resident’s kitchen cupboards and worktops and these are classed as routine repairs which should be completed in 20 working days.
16. The landlord’s correspondence showed the resident initially contacted the landlord regarding her requests for kitchen repairs on 5 January 2021, and a further 5 times between 5 January 2021 and 24 February 2021. The landlord’s repair records showed that an inspection was raised on 11 March 2021 and completed on 15 March 2021. Another inspection was completed on 12 September 2021. The landlord has not provided records detailing the outcome of either inspection. Also, there is no evidence showing that any repairs were progressed until 29 October 2021 when the landlord attended to fix a leak from the kitchen sink which the resident reported as a separate issue.
17. It is unclear why the repairs inspection was not raised sooner; the inspection in March 2021 was raised 66 days after the resident requested the repairs. This was not reasonable and would have led the resident to believe that her requests were not being taken seriously and cause her distress and inconvenience. 
18. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, while the landlord has provided adequate records regarding its communication with the resident and its internal communication. The repair logs have not included vital information, and it has not kept robust records in relation to the resident’s planned kitchen renewal programme. This Service finds there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
19. This Service has seen evidence that the resident pursued her concerns regarding the kitchen repairs and replacement from January 2021, until February 2022 when she made a formal complaint regarding this. This Service would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated regarding her kitchen repair request, however, there was no communication from the landlord between August 2021 and February 2022. This lack of communication was not reasonable and would have led the resident to feel her complaint was not being taken seriously, thereby causing further distress and inconvenience.  
20. The landlord’s repair logs showed that the resident’s repair request regarding damage to kitchen drawers and cupboards was raised on 20 January 2022 and completed on 14 February 2022. Considering the resident had corresponded with the landlord on multiple occasions from January 5, 2021, requesting repairs to the cupboards and drawers to be completed before her baby arrived, it is unclear why these repairs were not raised before 20 January 2022. The repairs to the cupboards and drawers were completed on 14 February 2022, which was more than 1 year from the resident’s initial email of 5 January 2021. This was not in in line with its repairs policy which states 28 days for routine repairs and 90 days for non-routine repairs. This delay was not reasonable and would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
21. Throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and on multiple occasions explained the impact that the kitchen repairs had on her and her child. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs.
22. The level of communication with the resident regarding the kitchen repairs was poor and not in line with what this Service would expect. For, example, the landlord did not keep the resident informed regarding the outcome of the repairs survey or inform her what repairs would be completed in her kitchen. The resident had to request for this information from the landlord. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which would have likely left her feeling unsupported.
23. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with having mismatched cupboards when the repairs were completed on 14 February 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy states it would attempt to colour match doors and worktops where a replacement is required but it could not guarantee a match as the specific colour or style may no longer be in production. Although the resident was unhappy with the mismatched cupboards, the landlord acted in line with its policy regarding replacement worktops and doors.
24. In summary, the landlord has not acted in line with its repairs policy regarding the timeframe for completing routine repairs, also it failed to communicate with the resident adequately regarding her kitchen repair request or provide adequate explanation for the delay in completing the repairs. This was a failing by the landlord and it would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for time and trouble. This is not considered proportionate and an order has been made below for remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.

25. The landlord has a planned investment programme. It states planned works including kitchen, bathroom, windows, roofs, boilers etc will be completed based on stock condition surveys, life cycles of the components and in line with the Decent Home Standard which in summary states: kitchens would usually be replaced if they are over 20 years old or are in a poor condition.
26. Landlords are entitled to complete work to replace kitchens, doors, and windows as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond economic repair. The landlord is ultimately entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when determining whether an item can be successfully repaired or whether it requires a replacement. Where a resident requests that items such as a kitchen should be renewed due to its condition, the landlord would be expected to carry out an inspection to determine whether repairs could be carried out or whether a replacement was required earlier than the planned renewal date.
27. The landlord informed the resident on 3 January 2021 that her kitchen had a renewal year of 2023. It stated that her home was on the programme for a stock condition survey and accurate renewal years would be provided after the survey was concluded. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions between 4 January 2021 and 1 February 2021, seeking clarity on when the stock condition survey would take place and when the kitchen replacement work would begin.
28. The landlord informed the resident that the kitchen was not scheduled for renewal until 2023 but confirmed that its contractors would contact her regarding the stock condition survey before the end of the financial year, by 31 March 2021. The landlord was proactive in responding to the resident’s request for information and keeping her updated regarding her kitchen renewal request. This was reasonable and in line with this Service’s expectation regarding levels of communication.
29. However, it was not until 11 January 2023 that the stock survey took place. This was more than 2 years since the resident made her request for her kitchen to be renewed. Whilst it is reasonable for a stock condition survey to take place near to the time the refurbishment works were planned, not keeping the resident informed of the delay was unreasonable.
30. The landlord in its stage 2 response confirmed the kitchen renewal year as 2026/2027 in line with the component life cycle of the kitchen. This decision was based on the result of the stock condition survey in January 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the reports of experts in determining when the planned programme would proceed. It also, completed various repairs to the kitchen which was reasonable and in line with this Service expectations towards making the resident’s kitchen safe and usable until the planned kitchen renewal was due.
31. Although the landlord’s actions of moving the kitchen renewal date to a later year and completing necessary repairs to make the kitchen safe and usable until the kitchen was replaced was reasonable, it should have considered the likely negative impact the delay would have had on the resident. As for almost 3 years she believed her kitchen would be renewed sometime between 2023/2024. This was not reasonable and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
32. The landlord’s internal correspondence stated the kitchen was recorded on its online system for a renewal year of 2023, however, its staff were confused as to where the renewal year of 2023 originated from. This further suggests an issue with records keeping as the renewal information might not have been recorded properly or easily accessible.
33. In summary, whilst the landlord acted in line with its planned renewals policy there was a failure with regards to the length of time it took to complete the stock condition survey and its lack of communication with the resident during this time. For these reasons this Service has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for kitchen renewal. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 should be awarded where the Ombudsman has found a failure which adversely impacted the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

34. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints will be responded to within 15 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2 and if further time was needed to investigate a complaint it would agree on an extension of up to 30 days with the resident.
35. The resident made her formal complaint on 14 February 2022, the landlord responded on 28 February 2022 which was within its policy timeframe.
36. The resident reported she initially escalated her complaint sometime in April 2022, she did not receive a response from the landlord so she escalated her complaint again on 13 December 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 10 February 2023, 41 working days later and 21 working days outside of its policy timeframe.
37. In its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged that the resident requested her complaint be escalated in April 2022, but it did not provide an explanation as to why it failed to escalate the complaint which was unreasonable, nor did it explain the steps it would take to prevent such delays occurring in the future, failing to demonstrate that it had taken adequate points of learning from the complaint. 
38. While the landlord informed the resident that it needed to extend the timeframe for the stage 2 response by a further 20 days on 16 January 2023, it only did so after the resident enquired when she would receive her stage 2 response. It explained that the delay was due to booking repair dates.  This response was unreasonable, as 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. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
39. In addition, the resident raised several issues that were not responded to at stage 1 or stage 2.  This was a failing as 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. This failing would have led the resident to believe her concerns had been overlooked.
40. The landlord advised that its reference to the kitchen replacement taking place in the 2023/24 financial year at stage 1 was an error within its stage 2 complaint response. Whilst the landlord explained that the date had been changed based on the outcome of the stock condition survey, it failed to demonstrate that it understood the likely impact on the resident or demonstrate any learning to prevent similar situations occurring in future.
41. In summary, there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling. This Service notes that the landlord offered £10 compensation in relation to its complaint handling failure at stage 2 and a revised offer of £150 after its internal complaint process was concluded. As this offer was made post ICP this Service does not consider it to be reasonable redress and it is not considered proportionate to the failings identified above. An order has been made below for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its records keeping.

Orders

46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
47. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1100. This amount must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against her rent account. This £1100 is comprised as follows:
    1. £50 already offered and an additional £300 for failures identified in its handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs and kitchen renewal request.
    2. £150 already offered and an additional £300 for failures in its complaint handling.
    3. £150 for its record keeping failures.
    4. £50 already offered and an additional £100 for time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing the kitchen repairs and complaint.
48. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident and confirm whether additional repairs to the kitchen are needed prior to the kitchen renewal.
49. The landlord must provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

50. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.