Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202228166)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228166

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 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:

  1. The refurbishment to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant.

3.             Between 9 August 2022 and 26 August 2022 the landlord carried out a planned replacement of the bathroom in the resident’s property. This was part of its programme of works. On 21 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had been waiting since August 2022 for its contractors to finish the works to her bathroom. She said that its contractor had not been responding to her.

4.             On 30 November 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint stating that she had attempted to contact the landlord and its contractor about the outstanding repairs to her bathroom. She said she had received no response.

5.             On 21 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It told the resident that it had been unaware that the works to her bathroom remained unfinished. It arranged for a contractor to attend her property on 22 December 2022. It also awarded the resident £25 compensation. The contractor failed to attend the resident’s address as arranged. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint during this time.

6.             On 24 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that a member its contractor’s staff had made a commitment to carry out works to the bathroom, and that this been overlooked remained outstanding. It apologised and awarded the resident a further £35 compensation.

7.             The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 April 2023, stating her desired outcome was that the outstanding repairs to her bathroom be completed. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property a number of times between January 2022 and May 2022, to carry out repairs to the bathroom. The works were completed on 20 May 2022.

8.             In October 2023 the landlord contacted the Ombudsman stating that it intended to increase its offer of compensation to £430. It said this was for its handling of the bathroom refurbishment, as well as its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

9.             When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

10.        The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policies and Procedures

11.        The landlord has a planned property investment policy which states that it is carrying out planned works of its properties, including bathrooms. It states that as part of this policy, the landlord is committed to providing a well-managed maintenance service that meets residents’ expectations.

12.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days. The landlord will then provide its written response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. The landlord states it will provide its written response at stage 2, within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord states it will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage.

The refurbishment to the resident’s bathroom.

13.        Between 9 August 2022 and 26 August 2022, the landlord carried out a refurbishment of the resident’s bathroom. This was part of its planned works program. The resident has stated that between 26 August 2022 and 30 November 2022, she had attempted to contact the landlord’s contractors. She wanted its contractor to finish the snagging, and carry out the works they agreed to do, as part of the refurbishment of the bathroom. The contractor is to be considered an extension of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors. This included being responsible for its contractor’s poor communication, as in this case. These works should have been completed within 28 days in line with best practice.

14.        The resident has said that the landlord had failed to respond to her correspondence prior to submitting her complaint about the repairs to the bathroom. She also stated when attempting to call the landlord, the waiting time was over an hour. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s original contact. Its call centre should also be able to respond to resident’s calls within a reasonable period. This is evidence of poor communication. This lack of communication will have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in waiting for her repairs to be completed.

15.        The resident told the landlord that the following repairs were outstanding:

  1. Taps in the bathroom sink had low water flow, so she was unable to use it.
  2. The toilet cistern was wobbly.
  3. Its contractor had agreed to fit a shower screen due to issues with the installation of the bath. This meant she was unable to safely access her bath.
  4. She was dissatisfied with the decorating of the bathroom, as well as a section of tile adhesive.

16.        The landlord’s contractor failed to attend an appointment on 22 December 2022. This is further evidence of poor communication. The landlord said it would contact its contractor about the missed appointment, which was reasonable. However, it should have informed the resident she was entitled to £10 compensation for the missed appointment, as per its compensation policy.

17.        The Ombudsman has reviewed correspondence that shows that the bathroom refurbishment had been signed off without it communicating this with the resident. The snagging and bath repair remained outstanding. This is evidence of poor communication, as well as poor record keeping. The landlord should have arranged with the resident to visit the property to complete an inspection of the outstanding works. It then should have set a schedule of what was outstanding, and then these works should have been completed within 28 days, in line with best practice. If it required longer to complete the works it should have set out a reasonable timescale with the resident as to when the works would be completed.

18.        On 18 January 2022 the landlord’s project manager spoke with the resident about the outstanding repairs. It was appropriate the landlord did this. However, it should not have taken another month after the missed appointment for it to do so.

19.        The landlord’s contractor attempted to fit the shower doors on 24 January 2023. During the installation the contractor damaged the shower doors, which meant they had to be re-ordered. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the other outstanding works to the bathroom were also not completed during this visit. This is evidence of poor workmanship.

20.        The timeline shows the shower doors were fitted on 25 April 2023. There was a missing ‘fixing’ for the doors, so the contractor returned to the property on 3 May 2023 and completed the repair. This is a significant delay, and evidence of poor workmanship. On 16 May 2023 the resident raised a further complaint that the works remained outstanding. The contractor re-attended the resident’s property and completed the works on 20 May 2023. It was appropriate that the contractor attended and completed the outstanding works to the bathroom.

21.        The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment to the resident’s bathroom. This is because of the significant delays, poor communication, and poor workmanship.

22.        The landlord has made a subsequent offer of compensation in respect of this repair as follows:

  1. £120 for its delays in the snagging works to the bathroom.
  2. £200 for inconvenience and delays caused to the resident.
      1. 23.        This is within a range the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This revised offer reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience whilst waiting for a significant time for the landlord to fully address his concerns. Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact.

24.        However, the offer was not made until some 11 months after the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right, and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and we have therefore found maladministration.

The associated complaint.

25.        On 30 November 2022 the resident raised a complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 written response 21 days later, on 21 December 2022. It should have provided this response within 10 working days. Whilst this overall delay was not excessive this is evidence of poor communication. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, as per its complaint’s policy. This is evidence of poor complaint handling. However, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

26.        On 22 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with its response. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord escalated her complaint. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 24 January 2023. This was within 20 working days. This was reasonable and was in line with its complaints policy.

27.        Overall, in its complaint response, the landlord acted correctly when it apologised for its service failure by its delays at stage 1. It awarded the resident £60 for her time and trouble in making her complaint. This offer of compensation is in the range of what the Ombudsman would recommend for the service failure described above. Therefore, this was a reasonable response. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has made a subsequent offer of a further £50 for its poor communication during its complaint process. The Ombudsman has not taken this further offer into consideration, for reasons described above.

28.        For the reasons described above, the landlord’s apology and award of compensation offered in its stage 1 and 2 of the process represents reasonable redress for the handling of its complaint.

Determination (decision)

29.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment to the resident’s bathroom.

30.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

31.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:

  1. The refurbishment to the resident’s bathroom.

32.        Within 28 days of the issue of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident the £430 compensation it agreed as an increased offer to the resident, if it has not already done this. It is to then confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with this order.

33.        The landlord should conduct an internal review of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom, to identify the reasons for the failings set out within this report, and what action it may need to take to avoid a recurrence of this in the future. It should provide this within 8 weeks of this report, and should share the findings of this review with the Ombudsman.