Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202304503)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304503

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of water ingress from the roof;
2. Complaint.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner in a top floor flat in a 4 storey block, which she purchased in November 2020. The records show that the resident owns 25% of the property and the landlord owns 75%. The property was subject to a 12 month defect liability period, which expired on 5 October 2021.
On 13 July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had a leak coming from her ceiling. She contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2022 to ask for an update, saying it was close to a month since she had first reported the leak. It is not clear from the records whether the landlord took any further action.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 October 2022 and stated that:
1. She had sent a repair request 3 months earlier and chased it up a month later. However, the job was incorrectly marked as ‘complete’.
2. It had rained heavily and not only had the existing repair not been completed but there was now new damage to her ceiling.
3. The landlord should take urgent action to repair her living room ceiling, and check her electrics and loft area.
4. When she had chased the repair on 17 August 2022, she received a message telling her the repair was with the contractor. She had received no further communication since then.
The resident chased her complaint on 24 October 2022. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that it had raised a work order on 13 July 2022 but this was closed following a note from the contractor stating that:
1. It had walked around the block and could not see any 2 storey building with slipped tiles.
2. The main block was a 4 story building and it could not access the roof without a telescopic ladder.
3. It tried to ring the resident but there was no answer.

The landlord asked the resident to let it know how many storeys her building had, where the damage was and whether there were any roof tiles missing.

On 24 October 2022, the resident responded to say that she had not made any reference to a 2 storey building in her repair request but did mention the location of her property when the first reported the matter. She stated that could see the missing tiles from a distance and attached an image that showed missing roof tiles that had landed on a balcony the roof above. She added that she had not received any calls or voicemail messages from anyone.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 October 2022. On 30 October 2022, the landlord responded to the email she sent on 24 October 2022. It stated that:
1. There appeared to have been a misunderstanding about where the damage was located.
2. The operative was unable to get to the roof of the 4 storey block because he did not have a telescopic ladder. He had tried to take a “regular ladder” up the stairwell but could not get to the top as there was not enough room to carry it through.

It asked the resident to specify which block had the damaged roof.

The landlord wrote to the resident again on 3 November 2022. It told her that it had scheduled a roof inspection for 7 November 2022 and therefore needed a further 10 working days within which to respond to her complaint. It said that this was because it needed to establish what the inspection found in order to know what action was needed. It added that she would have to claim for the damage to her property through its insurer and attached information on how she could do this.
On 21 November, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response, which stated that:
1. Following the resident’s report, it raised a repair on 11 July 2022 and a contractor attended on 15 July 2022. The contractor could not locate any damage to the roof.
2. An operative inspected the roof on 7 November 2022 and could see some slipped roof tiles.
3. It had arranged for the contractor to inspect the roof on 22 November 2022 so it could schedule the appropriate roof repair works.
4. It had advised her on 3 November 2022 that she needed to claim through its insurer for the damage to her property.
5. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused and upheld her complaint. It offered £40 compensation for her time and trouble.
The resident wrote back on 11 December 2022 to request an escalation of her complaint. She said it had been 5 months since she reported the leak and the roof had still not been repaired. She added that she could not accept its offer of compensation or ask its insurer to assess the damage. This was because further damage would likely occur while the roof was yet to be repaired.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It then inspected the property on 25 January 2022 and reported that the tiles on the roof were loose and lifting. It took photos of defects across the roof, which included loose and missing ridge tiles, missing lead flashing, and two gutters that had come apart. It spoke to the resident on the same day and explained it would be sending its findings to the property developer to confirm whether the defects would be covered by their warranty, or whether it would have to approach the National House Building Council (NHBC). It agreed to keep the resident updated.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident an update. It stated that the developer was agreeing a date with its roofing contractor to attend and inspect the roof. It added that it required an additional 10 working days to respond to her complaint and would contact her once it had further information. The roofers attended the property on 28 February 2023 to inspect the area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2023 to say that the developer had tried to contact her on 3 March 2023 to agree an appointment for 6 March 2023. As it was unsuccessful, it would try and contact her again to arrange a new date. It added that it would have to extend its complaint response timescale by a further 10 working days until it had “a clear understanding on the steps to put a resolution in place”.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response, which stated that:
1. It had contacted the relevant parties responsible for resolving the resident’s concerns. This showed that it had followed its procedure and did what was required to provide her with the appropriate outcome.
2. It was satisfied with the way it had handled her complaint.
3. It agreed to work with a roofing contractor to resolve the repair issue.
4. The roofers had tried to make contact with her on 28 February and 6 March 2023 to arrange an inspection but were unable to reach her.
5. It was later confirmed that the roofers would attend on 23 March 2023 and, following their inspection, they would arrange to carry out the necessary work.
6. As it had a plan in place to complete the repair, it would keep the resident updated on the next steps.
7. It upheld the complaint and offered £170 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £40 it offered at stage 1 for time and trouble;
  2. £100 for additional time and trouble;
  3. £30 for poor complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 April 2023 to say that it had been 9 months and the roof was yet to be repaired. She stated that someone had come to look at the roof on 22 March 2023. However, she had not heard anything since. She wrote to the landlord again, on 6 May 2023, to informed it that she had referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 17 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it was under the impression the developer had completed the repair. The landlord apologised for its inability to get the developer to deal with the issue promptly. It said it would attend the site on 18 May 2023 and asked if the resident would allow it access. The resident responded the following day and stated that the landlord had already viewed the damage 3 times and she was confused as to why it had to look at it again
Following correspondence between the landlord and property developer between 30 June and 8 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident on 11 August 2023 to provide an update. It stated that the developer had agreed for its roofing contractor to carry out the repair. It stated that it was likely an initial inspection would have to take place to view the extent of the works, and the means of access.
The resident chased the landlord between 17 September and 30 October 2023 for updates on the progress of the works. On 17 September 2023, she wrote to the landlord to say that it had been over 2 weeks since she had heard from it. The landlord responded on the following day to say that the roofing contractor visited site on 14 September 2023 to assess the extent of the works, and were in the process of obtaining the necessary equipment.
The landlord sent the resident a further update on 29 September 2023. It stated that the roofing contractor was waiting for a report regarding areas where parking spaces would need to be vacated for the works. It said it would forward the details to the resident once it had received the report.
On 30 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that it had been “a full month” since she last had an update. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that it was meeting the roofer to finalise access requirements.
Although no precise date has been provided, the records indicate that the developer completed the repair in early November 2023.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman to say that, had she not “seen the equipment used to complete the repair” she would not have known it had taken place. She said it had taken the landlord “a staggering” 16 months to repair the roof.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. In line with Section 11 of the Act, the resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the roof, foundations, balconies and main structure of the building. The Act says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that, in newly-built properties, the liability period for defects usually lasts for 1 year after the property is handed over to the landlord. After this, the day to day repair service will apply. The policy advises that the landlord should complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days of receipt and respond within 10 working days. The landlord’s response time for stage 2 complaints is 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the policy timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy, which awards compensation in recognition of 3 levels of impact. It will award up to £50 for failure that had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Where there is “considerable failure or total lack of ownership”, but there may be no permanent impact, it will award from £51 to £160. In recognition of failings that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident, the landlord will award up to £350.

Reports of water ingress from the roof

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident has suffered distress and inconvenience as a result of water ingress to her property. We recognise how upsetting it must have been for the resident to be uncomfortable in her home. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the response by the landlord to a resident’s reports, whether it complied with its policies, current legislation and good practice, and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident after she reported a leak coming through her ceiling on 13 July 2022. It is only after the resident chased the landlord for an update that it advised her it had referred the matter to its contractor. Following this, there is no evidence the resident received any further contact from either the landlord or the contractor until she discovered the repair had been closed. It was only when she raised a stage 1 complaint, some 3 months later, that she received an explanation for why it closed her repair request.
It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to contact the resident to inform her that it had closed her repair or to provide any explanation. There is no indication it had made sufficient attempts to identify the source of the leak or to inspect the property itself. Although the landlord states an operative attended the site on 15 July 2022, the evidence shows he had not been properly informed about which block the repair related to. This demonstrates poor record keeping and lack of internal communication between the landlord and its operative.
In addition, the operative did not arrive with the adequate equipment in order to inspect the roof. It would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the contractor to return with the correct ladder in order to make reasonable attempts to identify the cause of the leak. It would also have been appropriate for it to have asked the resident if it could look at the leak from inside her property. This would have helped it get an idea of the extent of the leak and the damage. It would also have given the resident some reassurance the landlord was taking the matter seriously. The fact the landlord made little attempt to investigate the leak contributed to the excessively protracted delay in ultimately completing the repair. That the landlord did not check with the resident that its contractor had properly addressed the job request also demonstrates a lack of aftercare and contract monitoring by the landlord.
Although the landlord stated that both it and its operative had tried to call the resident on 15 July 2022, we have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate this. Furthermore, the resident stated she did not receive any calls or voicemails. It follows that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it made sufficient attempts to contact the resident in response to her report prior to closing the job. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
It is noted that, on 24 October 2022, the landlord asked the resident for information about the location of the damaged roof, the details of the damage and if any roof tiles were missing. On 30 October 2022, it asked her again to specify which block had the damaged roof. The resident had stated that she had told the landlord the location of her property when she first reported the leak. It is unclear why the full details of the resident’s report had not been recorded. However, it is suggestive of poor record keeping by the landlord. In addition, it is evident the landlord did not have detailed property records to identify which block her flat was in and what floor it was on. It is unclear why this was the case and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have some knowledge of the area and where the property was located.
The landlord has not provided the Service with copies of any inspection reports. However, the evidence shows it carried out an initial inspection on 7 November 2022. This was nearly 4 months after the resident had reported the leak. The delay demonstrates a lack of urgency by the landlord to address the issue and an absence of customer-focus. That the landlord delayed arranging an inspection for so long would have contributed to worsening damage to the resident’s property from the leak and avoidable distress and inconvenience. It would have also contributed to her uncertainly over when and if the landlord was taking adequate steps to resolve the matter. Furthermore, the delay already represented a significant departure from the landlord’s policy of completing routine repairs within 28 days.
The records indicate that the inspection of 7 November 2022 identified slipped and missing roof tiles, which would have explained the cause of the leak. Had the landlord arranged such an inspection 4 months earlier, it could reasonably have taken steps to try and resolve the cause of water ingress much earlier. This was a missed opportunity and further contributed to the overall delay.
The landlord also failed to manage the resident’s expectations about when work would take place to fix the roof. In its stage 1 response of 21 November 2022, it stated that it’s contractor would inspect the roof on 22 November 2022 and, following this, it would arrange for the repair appropriate works to repair the roof. In its stage 2 response of 14 March 2023, it stated that it “would work with a roofing contractor” and that it had “a plan in place to resolve this repair”. It was not until 16 months after the initial report that the roof was repaired. Within this time, the landlord and developer carried out further inspections with little follow up action taken. The repeated inspections would have caused unnecessary disruption and contributed to the resident’s confusion over why the landlord had to make so many visits before arranging for the repair to take place.
This Service’s guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Code, recommends that landlords give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take and should keep residents regularly updated and informed. The evidence shows that there were long periods of time, often following inspections, where the landlord did not attempt to update the resident. She was left to continually chase it for progress reports, resulting in further time and trouble. This failing is further exacerbated by the fact the landlord committed in its stage 2 response to keep the resident “up to date on the next steps”.
The resident was left to contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information, which suggests she made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repairs. This should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to adopt a customer focussed approach or to provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether the works would progress. The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractor. It is also evident the landlord had faced some difficulties getting engagement from the property developer. However, its records demonstrate that, prior to when it made contact with the developer, there was a lack of effective collaboration, proactive monitoring and communication in dealing with the issues. This would have contributed significantly to the excessive delays in completing the repair.
The records indicate that the landlord’s second inspection of 25 January 2023 identified a number of issues with the roof, including missing tiles and lead flashing, and gutters that had come apart. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification from the developer about whether any defects to the roof would be covered by its warranty, or whether it could make a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC). However, given the ongoing delay and the resulting damage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore any temporary measures it could take to try and mitigate the impact of the leak. It could have considered whether it could carry out an interim repair, or to install a temporary covering, for example. This might have prevented or minimised further damage to the property during periods of wet weather. That the landlord failed to provide any support to the resident while it was in discussion with the developer was a failing.
The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the developer on 26 January 2023. The developer sent its roofing contractors to inspect the roof on 28 February 2023. Any further delays were largely outside the landlord’s control. There is evidence the landlord was chasing the developer on a regular basis. There is also evidence the developer’s roofing contractor carried out a further inspection on 21 August 2023, in order to establish what equipment it required for the works.
However, the records show that, although the landlord provided some updates to the resident, she often had to prompt it for further information. This was sometimes after long intervals where the landlord failed to make any contact. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have agreed a plan with the resident on when it would update her. Even if it had no further significant information, regular courtesy calls would have given the resident some reassurance it was making adequate efforts to work with the developer and to facilitate the repair.
Furthermore, there is evidence neither the landlord not the developer had informed the resident about the date the works would begin. She told the Service that she had only found out the repair was being completed when she saw the operatives’ equipment. That the landlord was often slow to update the resident and failed to communicate important developments without being prompted was a further failure.
It is noted that, when the resident chased up the outstanding repair on 2 April 2023, the landlord responded on 17 May 2023 to say it had “thought that the works had been done”. This is further demonstration of poor record keeping, repairs management and inadequate internal communications. There is also a record that the developer had reminded the landlord that its defects liability period had expired on 5 October 2021. Had the landlord’s record keeping been adequate, it would have been able to check this information itself. It is unclear whether or not it was aware that the defect liability period had expired but it would have known that the NHBC warranty would still have been in place.
It is evident the landlord made reasonable efforts to work with the developer in order that it carried out the repair. The delay in completing the repair, from when the developer undertook its initial inspection in March 2023 to early November 2023, when the repair was completed, was largely outside the landlord’s control. However, throughout the period when the landlord was waiting for the developer to complete the repair, its communication with the resident was lacking. This would have caused her unnecessary additional distress.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, repeated delays in responding adequately to the outstanding repair and failure to try and mitigate the continued damage from the leak contributed to the overall impact on the resident from the excessively protracted delay. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to address the outstanding repair, and the failures identified in this report amount to maladministration.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered an apology and £140 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble. It also acted reasonably in its recognition that the issues continued for a few months after the conclusion of the complaints process, offering a further £150 for the distress and inconvenience. Despite this, it took over 8 months after it had issued its stage 2 response to complete the outstanding repair. During this time, the resident reported worsening damage to her property. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer to make a claim for damages and provided the relevant information to enable her to do this. Although the landlord offered compensation, the amount does not go far enough the recognise the extent of the delay or the impact on the resident of the landlord’s cumulative failings. The landlord will need to provide further redress to put things right.

Complaint handling

The evidence shows that the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 December 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge her stage 2 complaint until 11 January 2023. In addition, it erroneously stated both in its acknowledgement and its stage 2 response that the resident’s escalation request was dated 11 January 2023. This demonstrates that the landlord did not make proper checks before issuing its responses. In addition, it departed significantly from its policy of acknowledging complaints within 2 working days.
It took around 3 months for the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It wrote to the resident on 22 February and 8 March 2023 to inform her that it did not yet have sufficient information to send a response and that it would have to extend the timescale by a further 10 working days. However, it took 30 working days, following the lapse of the initial 20 working day period, for it to contact the resident and agree a new response time. This is a further departure from its own policy and the Code, which amounts to maladministration.
Furthermore, the reason the landlord gave the resident, on 22 February 2023 for extending the response time was that it had yet to receive a date for the roofers to attend and inspect the property. Landlord’s should not unnecessarily delay responses until works are completed or because they require a appointment date that relates to an ongoing matter. Instead, the landlord could reasonablyhave issued its response and stated that it would send the resident a follow up letter once it received details of when the roofers would attend. There was no reason for the landlord’s complaint handling to have been protracted. The Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to review its complaint training in order to remind staff to respond to complaints in a timely manner and the importance of complying with its complaints policy.
Although the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for its poor complaint handling, this does not go far enough to address the failures identified in this report and will require further redress to put things right.

Record keeping

As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023 states that, “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”.
The landlord did not provide a repairs log or any inspection reports. The only way of identifying any information that pertained to repairs, contractor visits and completion dates was through internal correspondence and the correspondence with the resident. There does not appear to be any system in place where repairs data is shared between the landlord and its contractor, which can be accessed if any queries are raised or if the landlord needs to check on the progress of works. Furthermore the landlord’s apparent lack of information about its properties, the location of the resident’s block, floor height and the defect liability period demonstrates a lack of clear and accurate record keeping. This would have contributed to the lack of updates, the failure to meet the commitments made to the resident and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding repair. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case. The Ombudsman recently made a wider order following an investigation into case 202011109. As the wider order related to record keeping, a series of separate orders based on the findings of this investigation have not been made. However, the landlord will be expected to take this case, and the outcome of our investigation, into consideration when taking steps to comply with the wider order that is currently at compliance stage.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman recently found maladministration in the landlord’s approach to repair management, knowledge and information management and its handling of customer complaints following a separate investigation. This lead to the issue by this Service of a wider order in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme as it was identified that the landlord’s practices may give rise to further complaints. The landlord was required to review the way it responded to outstanding repairs, its complaint handling and record keeping practices and produce a report setting its findings and learning with an action plan for preventing similar further failings.
Some of the repair management, record keeping and complaint handling issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case. The learning from the failings identified by this complaint should accordingly be incorporated into the existing wider review ordered as part of case 202011109.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of reports of water ingress from the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The protracted delays in responding to the resident’s report of a leak, consistent lack of communication, poor record keeping and the landlord’s failure to follow its policies and procedures meant the resident was left with an ongoing leak from her ceiling, and the resultant damage to her property for 16 months.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request for around a month and it took 50 working days to contact the resident to agree a new response time. It had therefore significantly departed from its complaints policy.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, its lack of any effective repairs tracking system, and failure to evidence any repair logs or inspection reports contributed the excessive delays and poor communication the resident experienced over a lengthy period of time.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,250, calculated as follows:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s leak within a reasonable time and its poor communication;
  2. £250 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

This replaces the offer of compensation the landlord made in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.

The landlord to apologise to the resident, in line with this Service’s Guidance on Remedies.
The landlord to write to the resident with information about how to claim on its insurance for damage to her personal property caused by its failure to address the roof repair in a timely manner. In the event that the insurer does not accept the claim, the landlord should consider offering the resident a sum of further compensation to ensure she is reimbursed for her loss.

The landlord must incorporate learning from the above identified failings in its record keeping and complaint handling into the review ordered as part of case 202011109, required within 8 weeks. The associated report ordered within 12 weeks must include the learning and action points arising from this determination.
Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff. Emphasis should be put on updating residents prior to when the normal timescale has elapsed, if delays in responding to complaints are anticipated. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.