Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202304059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304059

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the report of a leak causing water ingress into the resident’s property.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2 bedroom leasehold flat. The landlord is the head leaseholder. The freeholder is a private company. The landlord has a lease with the freeholder and a managing company. This states the managing company shall maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and condition the structure of the premises. The lease says the freeholder will observe and perform the covenants of the managing company if that company goes into liquidation, or fails to observe and perform such covenants. In correspondence we have seen, a managing agent represents the managing company.
The resident’s lease with the landlord sets out that the landlord should enforce the head landlord’s covenants, contained within the head lease, so far as they affect the premises.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from April 2022 says that it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It says it will work with residents to understand the impact of damp and mould on their daily lives. It notes that resolving causes of damp and mould can be complex and says it will always be clear about the timescales of each solution it proposes.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord will consider compensation for quantifiable losses, including for cleaning and carrying out repairs where it has failed to meet its obligations. The compensation policy says that claims it has caused loss or damages can be considered by its insurance team when the loss claimed is greater than £300.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
In May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about a leak to his bedroom ceiling from the property above. Following this the landlord corresponded with the resident about facilitating communication with the properties above, where the resident believed the leak may be coming from. However, by November 2021 the resident had asked that the landlord investigate a possible structural cause of the leak. Later that month the resident also advised the managing agent (who acted on behalf of the managing company) of the ongoing leak.
In December 2021 the landlord communicated with the managing agent about the leak, which also affected other properties in the building. The managing agent confirmed that it would arrange to inspect the properties in January 2022. Records we have seen do not detail the inspection completed by the managing agent. However, in subsequent correspondence the managing agent told the landlord it had attended to fit downpipes in March 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord in March 2022. He said that recent work by the managing agent had not fixed the leak. He said he had been living out of bags as his wardrobes had been destroyed by mould. In response the landlord said:
1. it had spoken to the managing agent, who believed the leak issue had been resolved.
2. the managing agent’s contractor was due to attend the resident’s property to clean mould from the area.
3. it was meeting with the managing agent in the following week to discuss the best way forward.
4. it would contact the resident following this meeting.
In May 2022 the resident told the landlord that he believed the leak may have been resolved by work completed by the managing agent’s contractors. He said he wanted the landlord to arrange a date for the contractors to reattend to resolve damage to his ceilings and walls. Between June and August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord several times to question when internal decorative work would be completed. He said the leak was now resolved. In response the landlord said it was awaiting a response from another team as it was looking into completing this decorative work itself.
In October 2022 the landlord wrote to the managing agent about outstanding work. It said it was open to discussion with the managing agent about how this work would be completed. In response the managing agent said only remedial work was left, and it was for the landlord to decide whether it wanted to complete this work itself or go through the service charge.
In March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. there had been damage to his walls and ceilings following the leak.
2. numerous staff from the landlord had responded but not helped.
3. mould was in his children’s bedroom, and he was concerned that this could be affecting their health.
4. he wanted the contractors to reattend to resolve issues.
At the end of March 2023, the resident asked that the landlord escalate his complaint. He said he wanted the landlord to come up with a solution and provide a date when someone would attend to review the damage in his property.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted that it had contacted its repairs team and local housing manager about the matter. However, it said it would now escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process, in line with the resident’s request.
The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 May 2023. It said it did not own the freehold of the building and so it was not its responsibility to fix defects. It said:
1. it had referred the matter to its legal representative to take appropriate action against the managing agent.
2. it was currently writing a letter before action to the managing agent.
3. it was taking appropriate action but was not able to provide an outcome to the resident’s concerns or resolve them.
In May and June 2023, the landlord wrote the managing agent. It set out its belief that the managing agent/managing company had a contractual obligation to complete the repair work. In June 2023 the landlord told the managing agent that it would be left with “no choice” but to initiate legal proceedings if it received no response by 13 June 2023. Records we have seen do not show any further action by the landlord until November 2023. At this time, it discussed legal action that could be taken against the managing agent/freeholder.
At the end of November 2023, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property. The surveyor noted that:
1. there was no ongoing leak into the resident’s property, but there was damp and mould from the previous leak.
2. sections of the wall and ceiling had been affected by the leak and there was water staining in the 2 bedrooms.
In January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident in response to his query about the outcome of the survey. It said:
1. it considered external repairs were needed to a balcony above the resident’s property, and internal repairs were required.
2. it was actively pursuing the managing agent.
3. a final letter before action had been sent, and it was waiting for further updates about this and whether legal proceedings had been initiated.
At the end of January 2024, the landlord wrote to the managing agent. It said several areas of the building were in state of disrepair and required action from managing agent. It said it had also written to the managing agent in May 2023 setting out defects but had received no response. The landlord attached its surveyor’s report. It said:
1. it understood the freeholder had previously undertaken some temporary mitigation work, but this had not stopped issues residents in the building were experiencing.
2. the managing agent should advise how it intended to remedy issues within 28 days of the letter.
3. if the matters remained unresolved it would need to pursue legal action against the managing agent/freeholder.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling the report of a leak causing water ingress into the resident’s property

The resident told the landlord of a leak into his property in May 2021. While he initially believed this was from a bathroom or kitchen leak in a property above, by November 2021 he had requested that the landlord investigate a possible structural cause of the leak.
The landlord’s initial action was appropriate. It contacted the managing agent to request it investigate the cause of a leak affecting a number of properties. We have not seen evidence of the work completed by the managing agent follow this contact. In October 2022 the landlord contacted the managing agent as it was unclear about what work had been undertaken following the inspection in January 2022. The managing agent responded stating work have been completed to downpipes in March 2022. But it is apparent the landlord had not maintained appropriate records or communication about the repairs. Without doing so it could not effectively monitor how or whether repair issues were being addressed. In March 2022 the Ombudsman published its spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. This outlines the importance of landlords maintaining accurate and robust records. The landlord was not responsible for completing the work, but it should reasonably have maintained contact with the managing agent to understand and monitor the repair work completed. That it did not do so was a failing. The Ombudsman’s insight report on cases relating to shared ownership, of August 2024, sets out that it is vital landlords do not lose sight of their obligation to support shared owners.
The resident told the landlord in May 2022 that he believed the leak had now been fixed. He asked that it arrange for contractors to return to resolve internal damage to his walls and ceilings. The landlord responded to the resident the following day addressing the query he had raised about his service charge. But it did not say what was being done to resolve outstanding internal repairs. It was not until the resident chased the repairs again on 9 June 2022 that it responded. It said at this time that it would contact the managing agent to “get something arranged”. But the resident then had to send 3 further emails to the landlord in July 2022 before he received a response from the landlord. In its eventual response at the end of July 2022 the landlord said it was now looking to complete this work itself. But there is no evidence it then took steps to investigate completing this work. The resident was still waiting to hear from the landlord on 22 August 2022 when he said the matter had “become a joke”. He expressed his disbelief that the landlord could still be waiting for a “simple answer” about whether it would paint “a couple of walls”.
The landlord subsequently noted internally that the managing agent considered the work it had completed to date was a “goodwill gesture”, and that further work would need to be paid for through the service charge. The landlord noted that it believed repairs to the property needed to be completed by the builder or the freeholder. But we have seen no evidence it communicated with the resident between July 2022 and March 2023, to appropriately explain the ongoing issues agreeing repairs with the managing agent/freeholder. In his complaint to the landlord in March 2023 the resident said he had been “ignored” for 6 months. In the knowledge that he was waiting for repair work, the landlord should reasonably have taken steps to regularly update him. Had it done so it could have avoided some of the apparent frustration he experienced. Its failure to do so demonstrated a lack of regard to the resident’s understandable concerns about the situation.
Records we have seen show sparse contact between the landlord and the managing agent during this time. It is unclear whether this was because of poor record keeping or due to limited communication. In either case it was a failing. In the knowledge of the outstanding repairs, it should have maintained appropriate contact with the managing agent, and a record of this, in order to resolve how repair issues were to be addressed. During communication between the landlord and the managing agent in October 2022 the managing agent said that all that was left was “remedial work”. It said it was for the landlord “to decide if [the landlord] are doing that [work] or you want it to go through the service charge”. But there is no evidence the landlord took appropriate steps following this. It had not reached an agreement with the managing agent about how remedial work was to be completed. In these circumstances it should reasonably have taken steps to seek appropriate advice about escalating action it could take to resolve matters. Instead, there is no evidence of any further action by the landlord until the resident made a complaint in March 2023. At the time it discussed internally the possibility of making claim under the building warranty and noted it had spoken to the managing agent about this matter.
The records we have seen relating to contact the landlord’s legal representatives had with the managing agent appear incomplete. We have seen an email the managing agent sent to the landlord’s legal representative on 16 May 2023, in response to a letter before claim from the landlord. But records do not contain the letter before claim. It is also unclear from records when the landlord first sought assistance from the legal representative. The first communication we have seen from the legal representative is from May 2023. But the stage 1 response in March 2023 refers to previous communication with the legal representative. The landlord should have ensured it maintained accurate records so that it could demonstrate what steps it was taking to attempt to resolve the issue. That it did not was a record keeping failure.
In responding to the managing agent in May and June 2023 the landlord’s legal representative said that it would initiate legal proceedings against the managing agent/freeholder as it considered the managing agent to be in breach of the lease terms. While the landlord’s legal representative asked for a response from the managing agent by 13 June 2023, there is no evidence the landlord took escalating steps when it did not receive one. It was not until November 2023 that the landlord’s legal representative queried with the landlord what was now happening about the matter. It is acknowledged some of the delays in resolving the issues were due to challenges engaging with managing agent and needing legal support. But as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, it is important that landlords are consistent when escalating issues with managing agents and/or freeholder. That may include escalating matters to the freeholder, and consideration of legal enforcement of lease terms. The spotlight report also highlights the importance of transparent communication with resident about the issues. The evidence we have seen demonstrates that landlord failed to take consistent and escalating action regarding the outstanding work.
In November 2023 the landlord instructed its own surveyor to attend the resident’s property to compile a report of outstanding issues. It is unclear why it took so long for the landlord to consider this step. In an email to its legal representative about the issues the landlord said it was not inclined to complete work to the resident’s flat due to “potential implications and concerns associated with this course of action”. But it is unclear how the landlord could reasonably conclude this without inspecting issues at the resident’s property. It was aware of the ongoing dispute with the managing agent about outstanding work, which had left the resident with unremedied repairs. The resident had also outlined his concerns about mould issues within the bedrooms and the potential impact on his children’s health. In these circumstances, and in line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord should reasonably have taken earlier action to inspect the issues. It could then have determined the appropriate course of action. The landlord delayed in completing its own inspection of the issues at the resident’s property and, as a result, did not give reasonable consideration to undertaking work to the resident’s property itself.
We accept there were challenges for the landlord in its communication with the managing agent about outstanding repairs. However, we have found maladministration in its handling of the leak the resident experienced. We found:
1. inadequate record keeping of its communication with the managing agent about repairs completed.
2. a lack of consistent and escalating action by the landlord in its communication with the managing agent.
3. poor communication with the resident about ongoing issues, and what was being done to address outstanding repairs.
4. delay in it conducting its own survey of issues and, as a result, it did not give reasonable consideration to undertaking repairs itself.
While we requested an update from the landlord about ongoing action in September 2024, it has not provided this information. It told us in March 2024 that it was considering possible court action following a lack of adequate response from the managing agent. The resident told us in September 2024 that internal repairs to his walls and ceilings remained outstanding. He said that there is cracking to the walls, and he is concerned about possible structural damage. He said he just wants work to be undertaken to return his property to the condition it was in prior to the leak.
The resident has waited more than 3 years since advising the landlord of a leak to his property, and more than 2 years since he requested that it arrange for internal damage to his property to be remedied. He should not have had to wait for so long for clarity about what action was being taken to ensure repair issues in his property were addressed. While the resident is not experiencing an ongoing leak, he has been left with damp, mould and water staining, as recorded in the landlord’s own survey. He has also expended time and trouble chasing the landlord for an appropriate response to issues. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident. This is aimed at recognising the impact of its failings to take reasonable action to address ongoing repair issues or communicate appropriately with the resident.
We have also ordered that the landlord contact the resident to:
1. to clearly set out what steps are being taken to address outstanding repair issues at the building and within his property.
2. provide him with a point of contact within the landlord, through to resolution of repair issues.
3. agree arrangements for updating him about repairs.
The landlord has told us that it has since made changes to the way it manages and works with managing agents. It said that it now has a contracts manager to support residents with various issues, including the use of managing agents. It said that this makes it easier for residents to raise concerns as they will have a single point of contact. However, in light of the failings we have found, we have ordered that the landlord undertake a review of processes and guidance it has in place for communicating with managing agent/private freeholders.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. Prior to the landlord issuing its stage 1 response, it noted on 28 March 2023 that the resident wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2. In his correspondence at this time the resident said he was “following the process” as nothing was being done to address issues. He said he had recently been contacted by a contractor for managing agent, but no one had attended, and the contractor was now not responding to him. The resident asked the landlord to do something to find a solution to the issue and provide him with a date when someone would attend to review the damage.
The landlord’s stage 1 response set out its communication with its repairs team, and the local housing manager that had been involved in the issues. It said it would now close the stage 1 complaint and open the case at stage 2. But, while it was following the resident’s request, there was more the landlord could reasonably have done. It could have explained the position it had reached with the managing agent, and the action it was looking to take. It could also have considered, and set out, any attempts it had made to engage with the managing’s agent previously. That it did not do more to explain the position with its engagement the managing agent, and consideration of legal action was a failing.
The stage 2 complaint response was issued approximately 2 weeks outside the landlord’s target response time, set out in its complaints policy. But it did not acknowledge or apologise for this. While the response was not significantly delayed, the landlord should reasonably have done so. The stage 2 response was brief, setting out that the landlord was not the freeholder and was, therefore, not responsible for resolving the leak. It acknowledged the inconvenience and confusion the situation had caused. But it did not provide sufficient clarity about what it had done to attempt to address issues, and what action it planned to take. It said was writing a letter before action to the managing agent about the matter. But it made no offer to update the resident about progress or explain what the next steps might be. It should reasonably have done so.
The landlord did not scrutinise its own failings in handling the issue. Instead, it said it was taking appropriate action against the managing agent. But it should also have considered whether it had taken reasonable steps over the course of the events. As outlined earlier, we have found that there was a lack of consistent and escalating action by the landlord in its communication with the managing agent. We also found that it poorly communicated with the resident about the issues. The landlord should reasonably have identified and acknowledged this. That it did not was a failing. As noted earlier it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider, at an earlier stage, inspecting repair issues itself. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents outlines the importance of landlords being transparent with residents so they are aware and assured by the landlord’s approach. But in this case, the stage 2 response left the resident without a sufficiently clear plan of steps the landlord would be taking to resolve issues. It would have done little to reassure the resident that adequate action was now being taken.
The landlord said in correspondence with us that it had directed the resident to pursue his claim for damaged furniture to the managing agent. It is unclear whether the resident has attempted such a claim. We have also not seen correspondence where the landlord directed the resident to make this claim to the managing agent. The landlord told the resident in May 2022 that it believed claims for damage to personal possessions would “usually be covered on contents insurance claimed back through the building insurance”. It said at this time that it would confirm this issue and get back to the resident. But we have seen no evidence it provided any further clarification.
When the resident made his complaint to the landlord in March 2023, he referred to the damage to his furniture. But in responding to his complaint the landlord provided no clarification about how he could claim for any damage to his possessions. The landlord should reasonably have done so. It should have provided clear advice to the resident and helped in progressing any claim. That is particularly so as it was the landlord, rather than the resident, which had the lease agreement with the management company. Further, it was aware the managing agent had not been engaging. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the resident’s claim could be considered under its own insurance. In light of this, we have ordered that the landlord provide the resident with further guidance about how he might submit a claim for damaged items. The landlord should also give reasonable consideration to whether the resident should be compensated for these items under its compensation policy, or by submitting a claim to its own insurer.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint. It missed the opportunity to provide clarity to the resident about steps it would take to resolve issues. It did not identify its own earlier failings in its handling of the issue. These complaint handling failings would have added to the frustration the resident was already experiencing at the lack of action to resolve repair issues. With consideration of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the circumstances, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of the report of a leak causing water ingress into the resident’s property.
2. record keeping.
3. complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This apology should be made in line with guidance contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,450, made up of:
  1. £750 for the impact of the landlord failings in its handling of the report of a leak causing water ingress into the resident’s property.
  2. £300 for the impact failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
  3. £400 for the impact of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to:
  1. to clearly set out what steps are being taken to address outstanding repair issues at the building and within his property.
  2. provide him with a point of contact within the landlord, through to resolution of repair issues.
  3. agree arrangements for updating him about repairs.
4. provide the resident with further guidance about how he might submit a claim for damaged items. The landlord should also give reasonable consideration to whether the resident should be compensated for these items under its compensation policy, or by submitting a claim to its own insurer.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management review of the case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team. It should include:
1. a review of policies and procedures in place with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. it has appropriate and clearly defined lines of communication at both operational and strategic level for communicating with managing agents/freeholders.
  2. it has appropriate processes for escalating matters, including taking legal action.
  3. it has adequate processes and guidance in place for monitoring and recording repairs completed managing agents.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.