The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202321247)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321247

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

9 August 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a water butt from the property’s garden.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy started in May 2022. The landlord is a housing association which owns the freehold of the property. At the time of the complaint, the landlord held no record of health vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 29 June 2023 the resident handed the landlord a home improvement application form. The resident sought the landlord’s consent and its help to remove a water butt from the rear garden of the property.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord on 10 July 2023. Her complaint was raised via the landlord’s website. She said she was disabled and was dissatisfied with the inconsistent advice and assurances the landlord had given her. The resident requested the landlord “hurry up and make a decision” to remove the water butt. Her reasons included needing more space and that she was “affected by a horrible smell.” A further complaint regarding the removal of the water butt was recorded by the landlord on 9 August 2023.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of her request to remove the water butt.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 15 September 2023. The resident was dissatisfied the landlord had informed her the removal of the water butt was her responsibility. While it had given its consent for her to remove it, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to do this for her.
  6. In its stage 2 final response on 19 September 2023, the landlord said it had investigated its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its ICP. While it was satisfied it was the resident’s responsibility to remove the water butt, it considered it had incorrectly informed her it could assist with its removal. It apologised for this error and miscommunication and offered £25 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She considered the landlord had made her promises to help remove the water butt that it had not fulfilled. The resident described how her mental health had been affected by the landlord’s actions. She sought for the landlord to remove the water butt or increase its offer of compensation. Her complaint became one we could consider on 15 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We note from the resident’s correspondence that she said the landlord’s handling of her request and complaint caused her “great anxiety and depression.” We do not doubt the resident’s comments.
  2. While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
  3. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a water butt from the property’s garden

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenant’s states that residents’ must obtain written permission from the landlord before making any improvements or alterations to the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request an application form from the resident to assess the changes she wanted to make.
  2. The landlord’s guide to repairs states how it will prioritise repairs. It states it will ensure emergency repairs are safe within 24 hours, complete routine repairs within 20 working days, and non-routine repairs within 90 calendar days. While the landlord’s policies are silent on the expected timescales for it to provide an alteration or improvement decision, it is our role to assess whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. There is evidence the landlord informed the resident on 4 July 2023 that it would investigate her request and provide a decision within 6 to 12 weeks. This update was provided within 3 working days of receiving the resident’s application.
  4. While the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s estimated timescale, it provided her with an update and took steps to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord has an obligation to complete repairs as well as appropriately manage its budgets and resources. As the resident’s request was not an emergency repair need, the timescale of the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. There is evidence the landlord completed an inspection of the water butt on 21 July 2023. This was completed within 22 days of the resident’s application. Considering the landlord’s non-routine repair timescale of 90 calendar days as a guide, this response timescale was reasonable.
  6. The landlord’s records states water butts had been installed on the development as part of a water saving initiative. The landlord explained the resident viewed the property and accepted it “as seen.” While it was prepared to grant the resident permission to remove the water butt, it was reasonable for it to inform her that its removal was her responsibility. Its efforts to explain that she would require a competent tradesperson to ensure there was no leak from the downpipe when it was removed was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for unsafe walls, brick outhouses, or anything considered a significant hazard. As the resident’s water butt was safe, the tenancy terms did not require the landlord to remove it.
  8. While the detriment of not having a water butt removed would generally be minimal, we note the resident referred to herself as disabled in her email to the landlord on 10 July 2023. Given this direct statement, it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to contact the resident to assess any change of circumstances or explore why she required the water butt removed.
  9. Although there is evidence the resident did not declare any health conditions or support needs during her pre tenancy assessment in April 2022, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it responded to the resident’s description of her health circumstances. This did not demonstrate a landlord giving due regard to the resident’s situation or ensuring its customer records were up to date.
  10. The term ‘vulnerabilities’ has no standard definition. Broadly, they are characteristics that a resident possesses, either permanently or temporarily, that may mean they need care or support to deal with the landlord or landlord’s processes. By not appropriately recording a resident’s vulnerabilities, wrong or poor decisions can be made when providing services. The landlord’s failure to react to or recognise the needs of the resident has resulted in it providing a poor standard of service in this case.
  11. During communication with us in June 2024, the landlord said it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so it had revisited the question of compensation. It said it remained satisfied with its decision not to take responsibility to remove the resident’s water butt. However, it offered an additional £100 compensation. It considered it could have done more during the resident’s request to identify the disabilities she had referred to. It informed us it had since identified the resident had mobility difficulties, used a walking aid, and required the use of hearing aids.
  12. As such, the landlord advised it had since provided refresher training to staff involved with the resident’s complaint and all complaint handlers had received safeguarding training. This demonstrated the landlord learning from outcomes and taking steps to prevent similar situations happening again.
  13. While its offer and actions post ICP can be said to be a remedy to put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to adequately assess the appropriate level of redress required within its ICP. The Ombudsman’s outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined under such circumstances. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a water butt from the property’s garden. The landlord is ordered to pay its offer of £100, if not already paid.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. There is evidence the resident raised a stage 1 complaint via the landlord’s website on 10 July 2023. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to acknowledge her complaint by 17 July 2023. Furthermore, it should have provided her with its stage 1 response by 24 July 2023. While there is evidence the landlord communicated internally regarding the resident’s request, there is no evidence it provided a complaint acknowledgement at this stage.
  3. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. It is clear from the resident’s email that she was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the resident’s email on 10 July 2023 as a complaint and responded accordingly. Not doing so was not appropriate. The landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy or meet the expectations of the Code.
  4. There is evidence the resident raised another complaint regarding the removal of the water butt at the property on 9 August 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this within 5 working days, on 14 August 2022.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 17 August 2023. While this would have been appropriate, the resident had made her original stage 1 complaint on 10 July 2023. Its response was therefore 18 working days beyond the landlord’s expected 10 working day response timescale.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response said:
    1. It apologised for any confusion caused by its communication or during a visit to the property by its surveyor.
    2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint nor offer any compensation.
    3. It informed the resident the removal of the water butt was her responsibility. However it “was happy to assist with its removal.”
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 15 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day and provided its stage 2 final response on 19 September 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Code.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 19 September 2023. This was appropriate and within the expected 20 working day response timescale.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified a complaint handling error at stage 1 of its ICP. The landlord explained its complaint handler had miscommunicated an “offer to assist” in the removal of the water butt. It apologised and advised this was not a service it could provide. It offered £25 compensation for this communication failure. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge its failures and put things right.
  10. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a water butt from the property’s garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling failure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £100 offered post ICP for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove a water butt from the property’s garden.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £25 complaint handling compensation from its stage 2 response if it has not already paid this.
  2. The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (relationship of equals), published January 2024. It could use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.