Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202230563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230563

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 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

The landlord’s handling of reports of lift outages.
The landlord’s record keeping has been investigated.
The landlord’scomplaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds a periodic tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, that started in 2017. The resident lives with her partner and three children, one of whom is vulnerable, in a flat which is situated in a large block made up of 105 flats across 21 floors.
The block is serviced by 2 lifts, which can hold a maximum of 12 people at any one time. The services on the estate are delivered via a managing agent, who employ a contractor to service and repair the lifts.
On 1 May 2022 an order was raised following a report that both lifts within the building had broken down.
On 8 May 2022 the contractor attended to look at both lifts. The left hand lift was tested and was running, and the right hand lift was shut down, as parts were required in order to complete a repair.
On 9 and 10 May 2022 it was again reported that both lifts were out of order, which the landlord raised orders for accordingly.
On 13 May 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord which detailed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the lift outages, which included:
1. That 1 lift had been out of order for 3 weeks, and there had been no updates from the landlord. When she requested updates, she was told that parts were needed, but no dates were given of when it would be fixed.
2. The pressure of only having 1 lift was putting a pressure on everyone, including the resident who had 4 young children, 1 of whom had a heart condition.
3. Following a previous complaint, she was given reassurances that her records had been updated that her child was vulnerable. As a result, the housing team would be able to provide her with additional support, due to an outstanding repair, or in the instance where an issue could not be rectified immediately.
4. Despite the above, when she returned back home on 10 May 2020 and found that both lifts were out of order, she was unable to access her home as she was unable to climb 13 flights of stairs with her young children, a pushchair and a child with a heart condition. She reported the issue to the managing agent and landlord but did not receive any updates. This meant that she had to make alternative arrangements for the family to stay with a relative.
5. In order to resolve matters, the resident wanted a full investigation into her complaint and a prompt repair of the second lift, compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and details of what was being done to prevent lift failures in the future.
On 15 and 16 May 2022, it was further reported that the 1 working lift had broken down.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 where it said that:
1. It acknowledged that 1 lift had been out of order since 9 May 2022, and the second remaining lift was working intermittently.
2. The contractor reported that the second lift was breaking down due to be overloaded, which leads to the lift overheating.
3. All known vulnerable residents were contacted, and a general letter was sent to all residents. However, it would ask for a note to added to the system to reflect the child’s vulnerabilities.
4. In conclusion, it partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the distress caused to the family and offered £50 compensation.
5. It also confirmed that there was no service failure as the repair had been completed within the 28 day service level agreement and the contractor carries out regular maintenance on the lifts.
6. In relation to the decant policy, it would look to implement if it was expected that both lifts would be out of service for a prolonged time. However, as the managing agent had a call out process in place, it needs to ensure it allows engineers enough time to attend and try to resolve the issue in the first instance. If parts were required and both lifts were out of service for the foreseeable future, then decant options would have been explored.
On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she disagreed with the landlord’s response. The resident said:
1. She had not been contacted by the housing team at any point.
2. Why did it need to add a note on the system, when a previous stage 1 complaint she had made said it would do this.
3. The lifts were out of order for longer than the 28 day service level agreement.
4. She was unhappy with the contractor shifting blame to the residents for overcrowding the lifts and parts should be readily available in order to fix the lifts.
5. In order to resolve her complaint, she wanted an increased amount of compensation, details of what preventative measures were going to be put in place and a prompt repair of the second lift.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 13 June 2022.
On 1 August 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her stage 2 complaint. On 4 August 2022 the landlord confirmed that her complaint was being actively investigated and that it had been trying to contact the resident on multiple occasions.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident by email and set out its understanding of her stage 2 complaint, to which the resident responded on 17 August 2022.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response where it said:
1. The housing team had hand delivered letters to residents, which asked them to contact the landlord if they needed additional support. It also encouraged residents to send in medical evidence in case a decant needed to be explored.
2. In future it would be adding a copy of any letters to the notice board to ensure messages reach all residents.
3. It had produced a new additional customer requirement policy which sets out what it would do in circumstances which require a response outside of core landlord services, for example where we may need to make a ‘service adjustment.
4. If a lift repair was going to take some time, and would impact residents with additional needs, it would aim to maintain good communication about the repairs and may look to decant vulnerable residents to alternative accommodation in special circumstances.
5. In relation to the complaint handling, it acknowledged that there had been failures regarding the delay and offered an additional £50 compensation.
On 5 March 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that she was unhappy with the way in which the lift outage was dealt with, which resulted in not being able to access her home for the evening. In order to resolve her complaint, the resident is seeking increased compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience that was caused.
Following the Ombudsman’s contact, on 16 January 2024 the landlord said that it had carried out a review of the complaint. It confirmed that:
1. It was aware of the resident’s son’s heart condition at the time the complaint was raised, however an opportunity was missed to add this as a flag onto the internal system.
2. It identified that further compensation would be appropriate and would like to award a further £750 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 time and trouble for the lift breakdown caused to the resident and her family.
  2. £300 time and trouble, specifically in recognition of the distress caused as a result of not updating the records to reflect the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities.
  3. £150 in recognition of the service failure relating to record keeping.
  4. £150 in recognition of the failure of service when dealing with the decant process.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first 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 then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of reports of lift outages.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will take reasonable care to maintain common parts of communal areas including lifts. The landlord’s housing management services are provided by a managing agent. The agent is responsible for maintenance and property management issues, but any complaints are dealt with by the landlord. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the agent’s actions including repairs.
The landlord’s repair responsibility guide states that lift repairs are classified as either emergency, routine or a non-routine priority. It further states that if the only lift breaks down, it will consider this an emergency and ask the contractor to attend within 24 hours. If more significant work is required, it will work to have this completed as soon as possible. If residents have mobility issues and the only lift in the block has broken down, then they should contact the landlord immediately.
The repair records show that in May 2022, a number of orders were raised for issues with the lifts in the building, with the first report being on 1 May 2022 where it was reported that both lifts had broken down. Following these reports, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence which shows that it attended within its published timescales, the action taken and whether the lift was left functional. Its failure to have this evidence is an information management failing.
The landlord provided a copy of a service report, dated 8 May 2022, which confirms that the contractor identified that one lift required parts, and one lift was functional. However, it is unclear if this visit was in response to the repair reported on 1 May 2022.
On 9 May 2022, it was reported that both lifts had broken down again. It is positive to see that the landlord declared a critical incident, which involved a number of internal staff being notified of the effects it was having. The landlord was also in communication with the managing agent to ask for updates and copies of the engineer reports, so that it could respond to the complaints it had received. However, there is no evidence to show that any updates were provided, nor was any further action taken by the landlord.
Following a further report of the lifts breaking down on 15 May 2022, the landlord chased the managing agent for a response to its previous email. It explained that vulnerable residents were being impacted and that it needed to decide on how to respond to residents.
The landlord continued to chase the managing agent for answers over the next week, with one email dated 17 May 2022, demonstrating the difficulties it was having in relation to obtaining information. The email detailed that the landlord found the situation difficult to manage, as it did not manage the breakdowns at the site, and it was very difficult to find out what had happened, why there was a delay and how long the lifts were down for.
On 20 May 2022, the managing agent responded to the landlord and said that 1 working lift was regularly out of order due to it being overloaded, which led to the lift overheating. Each time the lift had broken down, the contractor had attended, and it had reported the issue with overcrowding back to the managing agent. Subsequently a letter was sent to residents asking them to not overload the lift.
As part of the landlord’s response, it said that there had been no service failure as the lift that needed parts had been fixed within its published service level agreement and that the other lift was regularly out of order due to overloading. It also said that it had contacted the residents regarding the issues.
While the Ombudsman has seen a copy of the letters sent to the residents, it is not clear how the landlord was able to come to this conclusion as there is no? evidence that it had sight of any repair records. Furthermore, without this information it was unable to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment where vulnerable residents who occupy the block, could not access their home when both lifts were out of order.
Based on the little information provided, it is difficult to determine whether the actions taken by the landlord were appropriate, fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord has provided a copy of its repair records which detail the orders raised for the communal area of the building, but aside from 1 service report, no further evidence has been provided.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord admitted that it faced difficulties with regards to managing complaints it was receiving, due to the lack of information it had access too.
As detailed in the Spotlight report, the Ombudsman expects landlords to review their operational response to service or repair requests in buildings managed by third parties to ensure they are effective, including provision of interim support and maintaining accurate and robust records. The landlord should have procedures in place to obtain relevant information from the managing agent in a timely manner. It should also have a system for escalating such requests when the information is not provided.
While there is a lack of evidence of action taken by the managing agent, it is not disputed that in May 2022 numerous issues were reported to the landlord, that 1 lift was out of action due to needing parts and the second lift was reported as being intermittently out of action.
The landlord has not given any evidence to contest the resident’s account that the lifts often broke and this resulted in her not being able to access the property on 10 May 2022. The resident says that she reported this to the landlord and managing agent, but as she did not receive a response she had to stay with a relative for the night along with her 4 young children.
Following this report, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence which shows that the landlord was actively communicating with the resident and keeping her up to date, especially given her individual circumstances. There is no indication it did this. This lack of communication is a further failing, which caused the resident significant inconvenience.
The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s January 2024 review of the complaint, it apologised, demonstrated learning, and offered further redress via this Service, which was a positive step. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman has first considered the impact in relation to the resident’s comments that the landlord said it would support her with a decant. The landlord acknowledged as part of its review in January 2024 that it had not handled the case appropriately and offered an additional £150 compensation, which the Ombudsman feels is a fair and reasonable offer in relation to this aspect. A further order has also been made at the end of the determination in relation to the decant process.
The Service has then considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the lifts being out of use. It is acknowledged that 1 lift was out of action for some weeks, which added to the intermittent outage of the remaining lift. Although the breakdown of both lifts was considered to be short term, it is recognised that it would have caused the resident a significant impact in the circumstances and as part of its review, offered a total £200, which includes the £50 offered at stage 1.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the worry the resident will have faced in this period, as when she left her home she would not have known whether she would have been able to access her home on her return, due to the intermittent failure of the second lift. The landlord was aware that she had a child with a medical condition and would have been affected by the lifts being out of order.
In recognition of the significant distress that the lift outages caused the resident, £200 does not fairly reflect the inconvenience that was caused. It took 3 weeks for both lifts to be fixed, and while it is reasonable for parts to be ordered, there is no record to show that the landlord contacted the resident and she was left in a vulnerable position. Therefore, an order has been made to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of this.
In summary, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of lift outages. Further recommendations have also been made at the end of this report.

The landlord’s record keeping

As outlined above, it is very concerning that the landlord is unable to access full and detailed repair records, history and completion information in relation to the building in which its residents reside. Without this information it is unable to carry out a full and comprehensive risk assessment in such circumstances as above. It is also unable to determine whether it should look to decant vulnerable residents, which the landlord identified as a failure in January 2024.
It is further concerning that despite that the Ombudsman previously making a recommendation to the landlord, as part of determination 202117995 that it should update its systems to reflects the vulnerability of one child, the landlord confirmed that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s child, who has health issues.
The landlord’s Spotlight report on managing agents states that landlords should review complaints they have received where managing agents have been a contributory factor to identify areas for improvement and landlords should then create an action plan to implement the findings from this review.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment…[and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety…[Vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and carrying out appropriate staff training. However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord did not acknowledge its failures until January 2024, following the Ombudsman’s intervention, and offered £300 for not updating the resident’s records and £150 for general record keeping failures, which would be considered reasonable and an order has been made to pay the resident this amount.
The landlord has also been recommended below to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
In light of the fact that the landlord has not taken any steps to improve its record keeping following the complaint investigation, a finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints procedure, dated May 2021, shows that it operates a 2-stage procedure. This says that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 26 May 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged her complaint and said it would provide a response by 13 June 2022. As this did not happen, the resident chased the landlord on 1 August 2022 and was informed that her complaint was being actively investigating and it had been trying to contact her, however there is no evidence to show this was the case. Furthermore, it was not until 12 October 2022 that the landlord provided its final response.
There is no information to show why it took the landlord so long to provide its stage 2 response, and although the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation, no reasons were given as to why it took a total of 139 working days to provide a response.
In addition to the landlord’s delay, it also failed to respond to the resident’s comments that she had previously been informed that her records had been updated to reflect her son’s vulnerability. As this was raised as part of the stage 2 escalation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised this as a new stage 1 complaint, however this did not happen.
The landlord’s initial offer of £50 for the impact of its complaint handling failures was not reasonable, and it now falls to the Ombudsman to determine what is a fair and reasonable offer.
The resident experienced an unreasonable delay while awaiting a final response, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident and provide her with regular updates about when she could expect a response. Furthermore, when a response was received it did not address all points raised. These failures would have further exacerbated the frustration the resident was experiencing. In recognition of this, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation, which includes the £50 offered at stage 2.
It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling lift outages.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,200. This includes the £750 previously offered and is made up of:
1. £150 for the impact of its failures associated with the decant process.
2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family associated with lift outages.
3. £450 for the impact of its failures associated with record keeping.
4. £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to confirm in what circumstances it would consider decanting the resident in the event of any reported lift outages.
The landlord is ordered to update it’s internal records systems to ensure that the resident’s child’s vulnerabilities are recorded.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
3. Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents.
4. Implement the learning that it identified as part of its final response.