Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202311771)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311771

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

19 December 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of his service charge.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of faulty lighting in the communal areas of his block.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 
  3. In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident has complained to the landlord that it had not offered him a refund of the lighting element of his service charge to cover the period when the communal light’s sensor settings were not functioning, which meant that the light was always on. He also objected to an increase in his service charge for this reason.
  5. Paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s view, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount or the rent or service charge increase.
  6. For this reason, we have determined that this part of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of his complaint, he should contact the First Tier Tribunal who deal with leasehold disputes.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a third floor flat in a block. The landlord is the freeholder of the property and is responsible for repairs to the exterior of the building and its communal areas. The resident pays a service charge which covers a share of the costs of managing and maintaining the building and its common parts, as well as the external communal areas. It will also cover administration and insurance costs.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the issue with the communal lights sensor not working was first reported on 28 March 2023. It raised an appointment with a target date of 25 April 2023. It is unclear from the records what the outcome of this appointment was.
  3. On 8 May 2023, the resident made a complaint about the communal lighting. He said that:
    1. The light had been on constantly for several months and should be on a sensor.
    2. The leaseholders were meeting the costs of this through their service charge.
    3. He asked that the light be fixed without delay and the additional lighting costs incurred be refunded to them.
  4. The landlord raised works to fix the light on 9 May 2023 and its records showed that it had marked the light repair as completed on 22 May 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered him £40 compensation for his time and trouble.
  6. During May 2023, the resident corresponded with the landlord about the compensation offered, which he felt was not representative of the cost of the electricity. He said that the landlord had still not repaired the light after contractors attended on 22 May 2023. The contractor had noted that the light was on, and left, reporting that the light was not faulty. The resident surmised that the landlord had not clearly communicated the issue with the light to the contractor. The landlord agreed to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  7. The landlord raised further works on 24 May 2023 to repair the light. Contractors attended and inspected the light on 30 May 2023 and noted that it would need to be motion sensor controlled. The landlord recorded the works as completed on 12 June 2023.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised for the initial miscommunication and for the inconvenience caused.
    2. It would not offer a service charge refund as it had completed the works within its service level agreement of 28 days from when the job was raised.
    3. It apologised for the service which he had received, however it concluded that the offer of £40 compensation was in line with its policy.
  9. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint as there was no evidence that the compensation awarded covered the extra cost of the electricity for the period that the light was faulty.

Post complaint

  1. Residents reported further problems with the communal lighting on 11 July 2023, and the landlord’s records show that contractors attended on 13 July 2023 and noted that there was faulty wiring between fittings. The landlord re-raised works that day and the landlord recorded the repair as completed on 1 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repair to the communal light

  1. The resident’s lease says that the landlord will maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the common parts of the building, and keep the common parts adequately cleaned and lighted, so far as is practicable.
  2. The landlord’s leaflet “Repairs – a guide for leaseholders” says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside of the home, paid for through the service charge.  This will include interior common parts, including lighting.
  3. The landlord has target times for the completion of repairs. Emergency repairs are those that may cause significant risk to the safety of residents or damage to the property. It should deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the property safe. Other repairs are described as ‘routine repairs.’ It should attend to routine repairs within 28 days. The repair to the lighting would constitute a routine repair.
  4. While the records show that the landlord’s contractors attended the block within its target timescales, on one occasion there is no record of the outcome. On the second occasion, the contractor’s instructions were unclear and so they concluded that the light was no longer faulty. This was a failure in communication between the landlord and its contractors. Landlords should establish good internal communication processes so that works are followed up and outcomes recorded with other departments and contractors to facilitate an effective and responsive service to its residents.
  5. When this was brought to the landlord’s attention, however, works were raised again without delay and the repair completed within 18 days, which was within its published repairs timescales. A further problem with the lighting reported a month later and the landlord again attended within its target response timescales and completed the works.
  6. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication with its contractors, and it apologised for this. It offered redress following its compensation policy for a ‘low failure’. The Ombudsman considers that the award was reasonable, considering that the impact on the resident was minimal and for a short duration. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to this investigation, which satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Where a resident has asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days of the request.
  2. At both stages of the complaints process, the landlord responded within its target response times in its complaints policy.
  3. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have referred the issue regarding the electricity costs to its service charge team so that it could provide the resident with further information about how its service charge is calculated and when the accounts for that financial year would be available. However, as noted earlier in the report, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and therefore does not form part of this investigation.
  4. Further, while the landlord had recognised its service failure, it had not explained in its complaints response what it looked to do to learn from the resident’s complaint. It is important to ensure that lessons are learned from complaints and put into practice. We would encourage the landlord to identify where there might be improvements in service delivery through its complaints procedure. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
  5. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight 
    reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on 
    Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered 
    during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that 
    recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider 
    the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord 
    can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his request for a reduction in his service charge it outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, regarding the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of faulty lighting in the communal areas of his block, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to this investigation, that satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, it should pay the resident the award of £40 it had offered at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.