Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202232555)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232555

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 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 the resident’s reports of repeated leaks into the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the third floor of a block consisting of 4 floors. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children. The household is noted to have various health conditions by the landlord, the resident has stated all 3 children are registered disabled.
  2. The resident detailed that she had been experiencing leaks into the property for over 6 years. Evidence has been seen of repair issues between July 2017 to the date of this report where the landlord noted works regarding leaks into the property. At different times these leaks have been attributed to faults with the balconies from the properties above.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint online to the landlord on 15 November 2022. Within the complaint,
    1. The resident said leaks had been ongoing for over 6 years and she had reported it again on 28 October 2022.
    2. There was a lack of communication from the landlord, she had called and spoke with numerous members of staff but no one got back to her.
    3. She referenced her children’s health conditions, which included respiratory illnesses and stated living in a house with a leak and dampness was not ideal.
    4. When she reported an emergency repair to the front door, she was advised it would be attended to within 4 hours but it wasn’t.
    5. She was “angry, annoyed and stressed out with the service” she was receiving form the landlord.
  4. The landlord attended the property on 15 November 2022 and noted water stains on the ceiling of the bedrooms, which the resident had advised is how the leaks started before they got worse. The landlord noted the balconies above the residents property had both been “extensively repaired” with no sign of defects. The landlord responded to the residents complaint at stage 1 on 15 December 2022. Within its response it suggested that water may be getting in through the flues in the void between the properties and a job had been raised for its contractor to investigate.
  5. A local councillor made the landlord aware that the leak issue had not been resolved on 16 January 2023. The landlord noted the residents escalation request on this day also, noting the resident felt the severity of the situation had not been grasped. It provided its stage 2 response on 3 March 2023, upheld the residents complaint and offered £300 for its service failure and the time and trouble caused.
  6. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 27 February 2023. She stated the problem had not been resolved and the leak was spreading. Further correspondence evidenced the resident felt as though she was going round in circles with the landlord as the landlord wanted to repair the ceiling without identifying the source of the leak.
  7. In an update to the Ombudsman on 19 March 2024, the landlord has confirmed that works are still required to identify the source of the leak and following a review of the case the landlord will consider revising its award of compensation to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Whilst it is not disputed by either party that this has been a longstanding issue spanning many years, under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may only consider complaints brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. For this reason, the scope of this investigation will be limited to matters since March 2022. That means the Ombudsman has not investigated leaks between 2017 and 2020. However, previous reports have been considered insofar as they provide context to the resident’s complaint.
  2. Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repeated leaks into the property.

  1. This investigation was hampered to an extent due to the quality of the landlord’s records as it was sometimes difficult to track progress on its repairs and communications, as will be highlighted by this report.
  2. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, keeping all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water in repair and in proper working order. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. The landlord fulfilled its obligation in recording the repair once it was aware and aimed to complete it within its target timeframes.
  3. The landlords repair responsibilities booklet details 3 priorities for repairs:
    1. Emergency, where a contractor will visit to ensure the resident and the property are safe within the first 24 hours after it has been reported.
    2. Routine repairs, the landlord will aim to complete these repairs within 28 calendar days. Although further visits may be required in some circumstances, in this case it will keep the resident updated.
    3. Non-routine, the landlord will aim to complete these repairs within 90 calendar days.
  4. In this case, the resident alleged to have reported the leak on 28 October 2022, it is not clear from the landlords records, what was reported and what its response was. However, a surveyor did attend the property on 15 November 2023, which was within its timeframe for routine repairs but could not identify the source of the leak. It was therefore appropriate for works to be raised for a contractor to investigate further by cutting sections of the internal ceiling. Although the landlords policy states it will keep the resident updated, no evidence has been seen to show that the resident was kept updated with the progress of the works.
  5. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This in itself would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord and the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake.
  6. The contractor attended on 8 December 2022 to carry out the work to cut sections of the ceilings to investigate but as a timescale could not be given for when it could be rectified the resident asked this to be deferred until after the festive period. It was reasonable for the landlord to adhere to the residents request although it is not clear if this appointment was pre-arranged with the resident and therefore could have been postponed without the need to attend. The contractor attended for a second time on 19 January 2023 to cut sections of the ceiling and it was concluded there was no obvious signs of water ingress. The landlord then arranged for a water test to be carried out from the balconies above in February 2023 but this test also concluded no water ingress.
  7. The landlord noted that following this, it was agreed with the resident to reinstate the ceiling and monitor the situation, however the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she was not sure why the landlord wanted to fix the ceiling when the source of the leak had not been found. No evidence has been seen to suggest such an agreement therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was not entirely in agreement with the proposed plan. It would have been appropriate in this case for the landlord to review the historical works attempted to resolve the water ingress and come up with a plan to identify the leak and seek to resolve the issue permanently. Historically, the leaks had led to water coming through the ceiling following staining appearing. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to continue with the distress of not knowing if a leak would reoccur again, or if damp would develop in her home, especially as this was an ongoing issue and the household had health concerns. This would have caused significant distress and the loss of enjoyment to a key part of the home for the resident.
  8. Although the landlord initially raised the job with its contractor to address the leak following the residents report in October 2022, indicating a prompt response, the source of the leak was not identified and therefore the issue was not resolved. Although the landlord applied a stain block and redecorated the ceiling, following its stage 2 response in March 2023 the resident reported a further leak in May 2023. The landlord continued its efforts to detect the leak using a leak detection company which concluded the ceilings to be wet through but due to access issues with the flats above and issues with contractors the leak remains unresolved at the time of this report. This is a time period of 17 months, this is extensive and not reasonable.
  9. Overall the resident has spent time and trouble to progress this investigation and repairs to the property, feeling she has to chase the landlord for updates. This will have caused additional frustration, distress, inconvenience and expense to the resident, led her to feel issues raised were unresolved, and undermined her confidence in the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged delays and the inconvenience this caused the resident, its apology to the resident was insufficient given the significant impact on her and her property. For the above reasons a finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

  1. The landlords complaints policy at the time said it would aim to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 days, with any extension being agreed with the resident. Both its complaint responses were delayed, although not by a significant amount and evidence has been seen to suggest the resident was contacted throughout the process. The detail of these communications however is limited so it is not clear what was discussed with the resident about her complaint.
  2. Within its complaint responses, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s comments, acting fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused and offering compensation. Although the landlord also acknowledged its service failure and upheld the residents complaint, it would have also been appropriate for it to have detailed what had gone wrong in its identified failures and how it would ensure such failings would not happen again. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate an adequate level of investigation into its failings and failed to identify any potential learning.
  3. In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on the repair records to offer clarity and it would be expected that these are sufficiently detailed to show what repairs took place and when.
  4. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  5. The landlord failed to provide all its communications with the resident in this case, numerous calls and visits were referred to by either the resident and landlord but records to show this have not been seen. The landlord acknowledged, in an update to this service that there had been limited communications provided. A finding of service failure has been found in this respect as it should have recognised the lack of records held through the complaints process, especially as part of the resident’s complaint was about not being contacted back by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the residents reports of repeated leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlords complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise in person for its continued failing to identify and resolve the repeated leaks.
    2. Pay the resident in total £1000, to include:
      1. £800 for the failures identified in its handling of the residents reports of repeated leaks into her property within the timeframe of this investigation.
      2. £200 for its poor complaint handling and record keeping.
  2. The Ombudsman has been made aware of the works proposed to resolve this issue, the landlord is ordered to complete these works within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
    1. A review of its record keeping processes, ensuring all contacts with a customer are logged on a sufficient housing management system. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
    2. The landlord should complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
    3. A review of its complaint operational process to ensure staff carrying out complaint investigations identify areas of learning which can then be captured and acted upon.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within the timeframes specified.

Recommendations

  1. The ombudsman is aware of a revised compensation offer the landlord will make to the resident due to the ongoing delay in resolving this issue. On completion of the proposed works, the landlord should provide its intentions regarding any additional compensation offer in addition to the above. Such considerations must take into account further distress and inconvenience caused by the continuing leaks following its stage 2 complaint response. The resident must be advised of her right to make a new formal complaint if she is unhappy with its response and final offer of compensation.
  2. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of its intention regarding the above recommendation within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.