Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202220205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220205

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

13 June 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 intermittent hot water.
2. Request that it confirm who was responsible for the Heat Interface Unit.
3. Complaint that it had not carried out recommendations following a service of the Heat Interface Unit.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, under the shared ownership scheme, of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease agreement is dated 19 November 2010. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The property is a flat on the eleventh floor of a block.
On 19 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had issues with his hot water supply. The landlord’s contractor inspected that same day, as an emergency response, and identified a part which needed to be replaced for the hot water section of the Heat Interface Unit (HIU). The resident complained to the landlord about delays and during their communication asked it to confirm who was responsible for maintaining the HIU. He also asked the landlord to update him on whether it had actioned recommendations made by its contractor following a service of the HIU.
In an email to the resident dated 30 November 2021 the landlord confirmed that its operative had attended on 23 November and had ordered the necessary parts to complete the repair. It said that it would contact the resident as soon as the parts were delivered.
On 30 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. He was dissatisfied by the landlord’s response to his ongoing issues with his hot water which he felt lacked “empathy and sensitivity.” He asked the landlord to take responsibility for ensuring that its contractor completed the repair in a “timely manner.”
The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response on 17 February 2022. It confirmed that due to delays it had sourced the part from another supplier and would contact the resident when it arrived. It would then be fitted alongside another part, which was also required to resolve the issue and was in stock. It confirmed that if the HIU served the whole block and affected all residents then it was responsible for the repair. However, if it only affected the resident’s home then it was his responsibility.
It said that it intended to carry out the repair as a “gesture of goodwill” in any event. It apologised for the “mixed messages” the resident had received. It offered the resident £150 as compensation for his time and trouble.
The resident replied on 17 February 2022 and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because the repair was unresolved and he had not been given a timescale for when the outstanding part would arrive. He was dissatisfied because the landlord did not provide a response regarding the recommendations made following a recent service of the HIU. Furthermore, he noted the landlord had been servicing the HIU for the past 10 years so he was unclear as to why it was now saying he was responsible.
The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response on 25 May 2022. It confirmed that it completed the repair in April and apologised for the delay. It said it no longer used that contractor and that the service had been carried out in error. It apologised for the inconvenience but said it was not responsible for repairs to or servicing of the HIU. It apologised for any confusion and inconvenience caused. It upheld the complaint because the resident had experienced additional delays in the repair and in its complaint response. It reoffered the £150 compensation offered at stage 1 and offered a further £25 for the delay in its complaint response.
The resident contacted this Service in November 2022 because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The resident’s lease says that the leaseholder covenants with the landlord not to “repair, maintain or in any way interfere with any meters and control units situation in the premises forming part of the communal apparatus.”
The landlord’s repairs guide says it aims to carry out emergency repairs within the first 24 hours after it has been reported. It aims to carry out routine repairs within 20 working days. If it needs longer, for example when materials are needed, it will extend this to 90 days.
Its complaints policy says that it aims to response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within 20 working days it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
Its compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation as follows:
1. For failure of service and/or time and trouble – low failure starting with an apology to £50, medium failure starting from £51 to £160 and high failure from £161 to £350.
2. For poor complaint handling – starting with an apology.

Intermittent hot water

This Service has asked the landlord to provide further evidence of its response to the resident’s reports of intermittent hot water such as repair logs and/or work sheets. In an email response dated 23 May 2024 the landlord said it could not provide any further information relating to repairs and/or servicing carried out in 2021. This was because it no longer used the contractor’s services and was therefore “unable to obtain these records from them.” This is a record keeping failure.
This Service would expect a landlord to keep a comprehensive, centralised record of repairs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an efficient and effective service to its residents. It is also necessary for audit purposes. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Despite the lack of repairs records it is not disputed that the resident reported an issue with the supply of hot water to his property during November 2021. His email to the landlord of 30 November confirms that he was washing daily in “tepid cold water” in the middle of winter.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor inspected and concluded that 2 parts were required to remedy the issue. On 13, 20 December 2021, 12, 14, 18, 31 January and 2 February 2022 the landlord sent internal emails in an effort to establish when the parts were due to arrive. By the time it issued its stage 1 complaint response of 17 February it was able to confirm that it had sourced the part from another supplier and was waiting for it to arrive. It confirmed that the other part was in stock and ready to be fitted as soon as the other arrived. It offered £150 for the resident’s time and trouble.
Its response did not change the resident’s position because, 3 months after he first reported the repair, he was still waiting for the part and did not know when it would be delivered and/or fitted. He was not provided with any assurance that the substantive issue would be resolved in a timely manner, causing distress.
The resident then experienced distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when the landlord attended the property on 22 February and 16 March 2022 to try to fit the part that was in stock. In his email to the landlord on 28 March the resident advised that the operative had tried to explain to his head office that both parts were required to complete the repair. The resident’s observation was that poor communication within the contractor’s organisation was responsible for the failure. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 April to apologise and to seek confirmation that the repair had been completed. The resident replied on 11 April to confirm that was the case.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 28 May 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay and said it was no longer using the contractor in question.

Events post internal complaints process

In its response to this Service on 9 May 2024 the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the case. It had subsequently increased its compensation to £250 for time and trouble and £300 for service failure to acknowledge the time the resident was without hot water. Compensation was calculated at a rate of £50 per month.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. As a result of the resident’s repair request there was communication back and forth with the landlord about who was responsible for maintaining the HIU. The landlord’s response is assessed in detail further on in this report. As a result of the delays and confusion the landlord decided to carry out the repair as a gesture of goodwill which was fair given the circumstances.
However, the landlord failed to provide a meaningful response to the resident regarding the affect the delays had on him, including:
1. Distress and inconvenience caused by being unable to wash with hot water for 6 months during the winter months.
2. Inconvenience, time and trouble caused by chasing first the contractor for an update about the part and then the landlord.
3. Inconvenience, time and trouble in having to facilitate 2 appointments where the contractor attended with only one of the parts required to complete the repair.
Furthermore, having accepted responsibility for carrying out the repair the landlord’s response was significantly over its extended repairs response time for routine repairs of 90 days. While it is noted that the landlord’s learning from the complaint contributed to it ending its relationship with the contractor, it did not do enough during the period of the complaint to expedite a resolution. It was responsible for ensuring its contractor carried out the repair in a timely manner on its behalf.
During the internal complaints process the landlord apologised for its failures and offered £150 compensation. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until 2 years after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider its offer of compensation was made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that later offers of compensation were made. However, considering they were made 2 years after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings.
The failings identified in this report amount to maladministration. There was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s attempt to put things right during the complaints process was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Considering the detriment set out above and the record keeping failure the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact and with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord may deduct the £150 it offered during the complaints process if this has already been paid.

Responsibility for HIU

The landlord exchanged 2 internal emails on 14 December 2021 which provided conflicting responses as to who was responsible. The first said that the resident was responsible because the HIU “solely served their demise.” The second said it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out the repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 17 February 2022 said that where a HIU served an entire block and impacted on all residents it would be responsible. If there was a fault that only affected the resident’s home the responsibility sat with the resident. It went on to say that it would carry out the repair as a gesture of goodwill on this occasion. However, in future the resident would need to either carry out the repair and meet the cost or agree for the landlord to carry out the work, invoicing the resident accordingly. It apologised for “mixed messages.”
Also on 17 February 2022 the resident replied to the landlord to advise that its advice regarding invoicing of the repair did not match his interpretation of the lease. Furthermore, given that it had been servicing the HIU for the past 10 years he asked what had changed.
In a further email to the landlord on 28 March 2022 the resident said he would not carry out repairs himself because his lease explicitly said HIU repairs were the responsibility of the landlord and that he was not allowed to “tamper” with the unit.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 28 May 2022 the landlord maintained its position that it was not responsible for carrying out repairs to the HIU and that any historic repairs or services had been carried out in error. It apologised for any confusion.

Event post internal complaints process

The landlord sent 3 internal emails during June 2022. In its email of 17 June it said that it needed to “check and clarify this matter once and for all.” It said this was necessary because several residents had taken part in a ‘service charge strike.’ It said that once the correct position was known it should be communicated to residents clearly “so there is no continued ambiguity.”
In an email to the resident on 27 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that as a communal facility servicing of the HIU should fall within service chargeable costs along with other communal maintenance. It apologised that the resident had “not had the acknowledgement or service relating to this beforehand, when raising it as an issue.”
In the landlord’s response to this Service of 9 May 2024 the landlord said that “it’s clear that incorrect information was provided throughout the process, leading to an inaccurate conclusion.” It said that having reviewed the case it had offered the resident £100 for the “service failure for the miscommunication surrounding the lease and responsibility of the HIU repairs.”
The evidence shows that the landlord proactively tried to establish its position with regards to responsibility for the HIU. Although the information it provided initially was incorrect the evidence shows it did so to the best of its knowledge.
However, given that the resident raised a specific query in relation to the wording of the lease on 28 March 2022 it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take further steps to clarify matters ‘once and for all’ then, rather than wait until residents declined to pay their service charge. This delayed the resolution of the issue for another 3 months which was unreasonable, causing distress to the resident.
The landlord gave its final response to the resident in June 2022, after it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 May. It failed to consider how it could put things right, including financial redress. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until almost 2 years after its final response. This means that this Service does not consider its offer of compensation was made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that later offers of compensation were made. However, considering they were made 2 years after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings.
The failings identified in this report amount to maladministration. There was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to put things right during the complaints process. Considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the record keeping failure the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact and with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium failure.

Follow up after service

As set out earlier in the report the landlord has been unable to provide this investigation with any records relating to the repairs and/or servicing of the HIU in 2021. The landlord does not dispute that it carried out a service in June 2021. However, this investigation’s assessment of the landlord’s response is hampered by poor record keeping because it has not seen a copy of the service log.
In his email to the landlord of 17 February 2022 the resident said it had not responded to his complaint at stage 1. This investigation has not seen evidence that the complaint was raised with the landlord prior to that date. The landlord provided its response in its stage 2 complaint response of 28 May. It said the service was carried out in error and apologised. Consequently, it provided no further comment on its inaction regarding the recommendations.
As assessed earlier in the report, the landlord later changed its position concluding that its managing agent was responsible for servicing the HIU. Having accepted responsibility it would have been appropriate to review its response to the resident regarding recommendations following the 2021 service. It failed to do so which was a failure.
The landlord provided contradictory responses to the resident causing distress and time and trouble. It also failed to provide a final response on its position regarding the recommendations. Furthermore, this investigation cannot make an order for the landlord to write to the resident to set this out because it no longer has access to the servicing records which is inappropriate.
The failures amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. The landlord did set out lessons learnt and/or what it would do differently with regards to its record keeping. It failed to put things right for the resident, including financial redress.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact and with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact.

Complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 November 2021. The landlord appropriately sent an acknowledgement on 7 December and said it would provide its response within 10 working days. The complaint handler contacted the resident on 9 December to introduce themselves.
The landlord sent holding emails to the resident on 20 December 2021, 6 January and 3 February 2022 saying it was liaising with its heating team. However, it was not able to provide a “full & final response at this time.” It extended its response time by 10 days each time to “collate all the necessary information.”
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed.
The evidence shows that the landlord was waiting to obtain an update about the part to provide the complaint response. This was inappropriate because it delayed its stage 1 complaint response which was issued on 17 February 2022. This was 54 working days after the complaint was raised and 44 days outside of the landlord’s target. Its response failed to acknowledge the delay and/or apologise for the inconvenience and distress caused which was unreasonable.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 17 February 2022. The landlord emailed an acknowledgement on the same day and said it would provide a response by 3 March.
The landlord’s records show that it decided to extend the response time on 17 March, 6 April and 15 May 2022. It said it was waiting for further information from colleagues. However, there is no evidence that it emailed the resident to keep him updated and/or that it agreed new response dates with him in line with its complaints policy. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response which was issued on 28 May 2022. This was 70 working days after the resident escalated his complaint and 50 days outside of the landlord’s target. It its response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation.

Events post internal complaints process

In its response to this Service on 9 May 2024 the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the case. It had subsequently increased its compensation to £150 for poor complaint handling.
The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident, causing distress. During the internal complaints process the landlord apologised for its failures and offered £25 compensation. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation for 2 years after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider its offer of compensation was made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that later offers of compensation were made. However, considering they were made 2 years after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings.
The landlord’s attempt to put things right during the complaints process was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for distress caused by the delays. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact and with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord may deduct the £25 it offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid.

Previous determination

Following a determination on case reference 202011109 the landlord carried out an internal review of requests for repairs, record keeping and complaint handling during March to May 2024. As part of the review it identified a number of areas which are relevant to this case, including:
1. Implementation of a new database with the functionality to interface with external contractors. This is to ensure that the audit trail for contractors is the same as within its own workforce.
2. Extensions to complaint deadlines are now managed more closely and reported on.
For this reason it has not been necessary repeat these orders as part of the determination in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of intermittent hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it confirm who was responsible for the HIU.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that it had not carried out recommendations following service of the HIU.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £950 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s reports of intermittent hot water. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request to confirm who was responsible for the HIU.
  3. £150 for the distress caused by its response to the resident’s complaint that it had not carried out recommendations following a service of the HIU.
  4. £150 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £25 it has offered if this has already been paid.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. A copy of the apology should be provided to this Service, also within 4 weeks.