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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212451)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212451

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 May 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 response to the resident’s report of defective pipework and drainage.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder since 20 December 2019. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 20 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been experiencing a severe blockage of the kitchen sink for about a month. She had employed a drainage specialist to clear the blockage, but the issue reoccurred a few days later. The landlord instructed a drainage specialist who attended on 22 March 2022 and found that the pipework from the kitchen sink was not connected to the main drainage system since the property was built. On 26 March 2022 it rectified the issue by connecting the pipe.
  3. On 9 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that for 8 weeks she had been unable to use her kitchen sink and washing machine, so had to wash her dishes and clothes in her bathtub. She had to mop up the overflow several times and endure the unpleasant smell. The drainage contractor told her that there was damp on the external walls due to the stagnant water that built up. She had paid £190 for a plumber and drainage specialist. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to provide a report of the defect, provide assurance that the property was safe, and compensation for the financial costs and distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. On 4 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that although it had repaired the issue it had not carried out a post inspection to confirm if damage had been caused because the water could not escape to the drainage. As a resolution to the complaint, it confirmed it would survey the property with the developer on 6 June 2022 to inspect the works and confirm any potential damage to the property. It offered £190 re-imbursement of the plumbing and drainage company fee and £100 for time and trouble caused.
  5. On 10 June 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She remained unhappy because the landlord provided no reassurance that the issue had been investigated appropriately. She was unhappy that the property had been sold and signed off despite the defect and was concerned about other potential defects that may follow. She was provided with verbal reassurance that there would be no lasting damage, however, she wanted a copy of the survey report confirming that finding. She said that the compensation of £100 did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. 
  6. On 3 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. It said that it was unable to provide details as to why the drain connection was overlooked during construction. It advised that the developer had fully rectified the defect and that there were no reasonable grounds to consider that further defects would follow. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced several weeks without the use of her washing machine and sink and made a compensation offer of £465, compromising: £175 for time and trouble, £190 re-imbursement of plumber and drainage specialist fee, and £100 for poor complaint handing.
  7. The resident remained unhappy because the landlord had not provided a copy of the survey report confirming what the defect was, what repairs had been complete, and confirmation that the landlord was satisfied with the repair. She said that the compensation did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted a copy of the survey report and the compensation offer to be reviewed. On 1 September 2023, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling and increased its compensation offer to £585 to reflect the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of defective pipework and drainage.

  1. The leasehold agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair, redecoration, and renewal of the main structure of the building and all parts of the building that are not the responsibility of the leaseholder. This specifically includes the drainage.
  2. Under its compensation policy it will offer redress starting from £151 for a high failure which includes loss of amenities that were the fault of the landlord. It will also reimburse a resident for any loss or damages, on receipt of evidence, that were the fault of the landlord up to £300.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guidance for leaseholders sets out that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days and major routine repairs within 3 months.
  4. In its complaint response the landlord accepted failings of the substantive issues and made an offer of redress for the time and trouble caused to the resident. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. After the landlord became aware that it may be responsible for the blocked drainage it responded appropriately by instructing a drainage surveyor within 24 hours and subsequently authorised the repair when it became aware of the defect. It rectified the defect within 5 days of receiving the report. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  6. The resident’s actions to call a plumber and a drainage specialist was reasonable in circumstances when she thought the issue was internal and her responsibility under the terms of her lease. The majority of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was before the landlord became aware of the issue. However, it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the drainage under the building. As such the landlord’s decision to offer compensation for this period was appropriate in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord re-imbursed the resident £190 for the plumbing and drainage fees she incurred and offered £175 for time and trouble, which was a reasonable offer in line with its compensation guidance and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance.
  8. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of defective pipework and drainage. This is because when it became aware of the issue it responded reasonably in line with its repairs policy and rectified the defect. It apologised and offered compensation, which this Service considers reasonable.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. On 1 September 2023, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling and increased its compensation offer to £220 to reflect a delay of 12 weeks in providing its stage 2 complaint response. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed its complaint handling after the resident brought her complaint to this Service, and made an improved offer, which demonstrated learning. However, because its review and increased offer was after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation to put things right for the resident as part of its complaints process.
  3. The landlord failed to address one element of the complaint. The resident specifically requested a copy of a survey report to provide assurance that the landlord was satisfied with the work to rectify the defect. It is unclear why this element of the complaint was overlooked. It is unclear if a survey report was complete when it surveyed the property, however, it would have been reasonable to provide the resident with an update on its findings. Its failure to address this point caused frustration to the resident who stated that she lost confidence in the landlord. 
  4. This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to appropriately review its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 complaint investigation, and it failed to address all elements of the complaint which caused frustration to the resident. This Service does however consider the landlord’s revised offer to be reasonable. It considered its delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response, its communication, and the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in response to the resident’s reports of defective pipework and drainage which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord re-instate its offer of £220 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord provide the resident with its survey findings to include what the defect was, what repairs were carried out, and confirmation that the repair was completed satisfactorily.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-instate its offer of £365 for the re-imbursement of the resident’s fees and the time and trouble caused by the defective pipework and drainage. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.