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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202227690)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227690

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 February 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:
    1. Reports of repairs required to the bathroom and toilet.
    2. Reports of repairs required to kitchen door where mice entered property.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy for her property since 2012. The freehold is held by her landlord, a housing association and the property was built in 2002.
  2. The resident reported pests coming into the property through a hole in her back door in January 2022.  There is no record of this being attended to and a complaint was submitted on 2 May 2022. The same month, the resident reported cracked tiles and mould in her bathroom and that the wooden door frame in the kitchen was damaged.
  3. The landlord’s records show that pest control operatives had visited a couple of months earlier and advised that the doors in the kitchen and living room needed to be replaced as they were rotten. The landlord noted issues with mice for 5 years. In its complaint response of 27 May 2022, it apologised for the ongoing issues. It said that an inspection would take place on 30 May 2022 but there is no record that this happened.
  4. The landlord’s internal records referred to failing windows and doors as no cyclical works were being undertaken. A survey took place on 4 August 2022 when it was recommended that the kitchen and rear external door be included in the renewal for the next financial year, 2023/24, and a job was raised to block the holes. Following several chase emails, the resident escalated the complaint on 16 September 2022 and the landlord acknowledged issues relating to gaps in doors allowing mice in, the bathroom not being renewed and damp in the toilet.
  5. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend in October 2022. They set traps and said work was needed to block holes including around the kitchen door. Work was booked on the bathroom and doors for November 2022 and some holes filled. The landlord’s final response on 14 November 2022 said that the doors would be lowered to reduce access for mice. Work was also to begin that month to renew the wet room floor which it believed would resolve the damp problem.
  6. The landlord awarded £425 in compensation to the resident for service failure relating to repairs and poor complaint handling. Further evidence of ‘low activity’ was found relating to mice in early 2023 but none found on a subsequent visit.  The resident wants the landlord to complete the repairs and offer 3 years rent refund as compensation. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that the issue with mice has been going on for 5 years and it is clear from the landlord records that there was a complaint in March 2021 which the landlord upheld at stage 1. However, that complaint does not appear to have been escalated at that time and there was then a gap in reports relating to the mice and door repairs before the new complaint issue arose in early 2022.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme says in paragraph 42(a) that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation covers the period 6 months prior to the complaint submitted in May 2022, given the gap in repair reports from July 2021 to January 2022. The investigation may refer to previous repair reports but cannot investigate them, given the passage of time and that the resident had the opportunity to escalate these issues at the time.

Repair to bathroom/toilet

  1. The landlord’s ‘Repairs, a guide for tenants’ booklet says it is responsible for floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom and sanitary fixtures and fittings. It says routine repairs should be dealt with within 28 days and major routine within 3 months or as part of a planned programme of works. 
  2. In this instance, there is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the resident’s bathroom. The Ombudsman must therefore consider if the landlord’s actions in responding to the reports of repair were appropriate. This includes whether it was in accordance with the landlord’s policies and was fair and reasonable relating to the individual circumstances of the resident.
  3. The original complaint made by the resident in May 2022 has not been seen and the escalation email from the resident on 16 September 2022 focuses on the issues with the doors and mice. However, the landlord’s email of 19 October 2022 lists the outstanding concerns and includes that the bathroom had not been renewed and there was still damp in the toilet.
  4. In the email of 19 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident had been advised that the bathroom would be renewed at the same time as the toilet. In the complaint response, the landlord said that the bathroom was never set to be renewed at the same time as the kitchen (which it appears was renewed in June 2022) and apologised for any misunderstanding. No evidence has been provided to this Service indicating that the resident was told the bathroom would be renewed (either at the same time as the toilet or the kitchen).
  5. Whether this was a mistake or a misunderstanding, the landlord has taken appropriate action by apologising and explaining the correct position. If the bathroom is not scheduled for a renewal, the Ombudsman would not look to the landlord to bring this forward. However, if repairs require attention in the interim, they must be dealt with in accordance with the repair’s guidance.
  6.  Landlord records show that cracked tiles were reported in the shower on 5 May 2022, but the resident did not want to repair them as she wanted the area retiled. She was asked to send photographs in to show reported mould in the shower area. The first stage complaint response said that the resident had reported damp in the bathroom and that a repair officer would attend on 30 May 2022. There is no evidence of what was found at the inspection but equally there is no further communication in respect of damp from that period and for the following 5 months.
  7. Given that this was over the summer period, it may be that the problem was resolved in the warmer weather. There is no evidence that this issue was ongoing during this time, or that there was a service failure by the landlord in respect to this earlier repair.
  8. The next reference to the bathroom was when the wet room drainage pump was reported as not draining and tested and found to be working correctly. Records indicate this repair was reported and closed the same day, 10 August 2022.
  9. The landlord’s email of 19 October 2022 confirmed a phone call with the resident and listed the bathroom renewal and damp in the toilet as outstanding issues. Landlord records dated 20 October 2022 show that it suspected condensation due to a lack of ventilation was causing damp, and that an inspection was needed. The inspection was carried out on 24 October 2022 and orders were raised to commence work on the bathroom on 9 November 2022.
  10. The repair indicates that some work was done to the bathroom, including the renewal of mouldy sealant and screw holes fixed but the flooring was rebooked for 24 and 25 November 2022 as latex was required. 
  11. The landlord’s final response is dated 4 November 2022 but not sent until 14 November 2022 as noted in the complaint log. The landlord outlined the bathroom/wet room floor renewal, sealant and filling holes, which it believed would treat the damp. 
  12. The landlord upheld the complaint, and the sum of £300 compensation was awarded, being £150 for failure of service and £150 for time and trouble. Although this sum is not broken down by repair (the bathroom/wet room/toilet and kitchen door issues) it would appear to relate to the kitchen door/mice issue so is considered below. It is not clear if there are 1, 2 or 3 separate rooms involved but all mention of bathroom, wet room and toilet have been included in the investigation.
  13. There is no further evidence relating to the bathroom/wet room/toilet until communication from the resident on 5 May 2023. Given that this was after the final response and 6 months after the repairs, this does not form part of this investigation. The resident may raise a further complaint with the landlord if this matter remains outstanding. In July 2023, the landlord advised this Service that all outstanding repairs had been completed, but it would revisit to check the improvement of the bathroom.
  14. The evidence shows that the resident discussed damp in the toilet during a phone call with the landlord on 19 October 2022 and an inspection was carried out on 24 October 2022 with work commencing on 9 November 2022, and completed on 25 November 2022. The Ombudsman appreciates the frustration felt by the resident that the work could not be completed in 1 day. However, notes indicate that when the flooring in the bathroom was lifted, there was damp found which required additional materials and 2 more days’ work.
  15. The period between the report of the bathroom/wet room repair and the work beginning is not unreasonable, and within the landlord’s published timescales. It is not unreasonable that the landlord’s contractor would need further materials and time once the extent of the job was known. Accordingly, there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of the repairs to the bathroom.

Kitchen door/Mice

  1. The landlord’s repair guide says that infestation in the property is the responsibility of the resident. The resident should raise the issue with the local authority and if necessary, pay for a private pest control contractor. The landlord is responsible for external doors including the doorstep and internal doors including door frame.
  2. In this case, the landlord took responsibility for treating the mice infestation and for the repairs to the holes in the doors and door frames which were thought to be the access points for the mice. Whilst pest control within a property would usually be the responsibility of the resident (excepting where there is evidence of external ingress routes), the repair of the doors is the landlord’s responsibility. It is therefore reasonable that this investigation considers the landlord’s response to both the repair and the infestation it accepted resulted from it. It is not clear if there are 2 doors leading from the kitchen to the outside or one, but any evidence relating to doors and door frames have been considered.
  3. The resident reported a pest infestation and a hole in the back door on 4 January 2022. There is no evidence that this was responded to. An internal landlord email of 12 May 2022 said that pest control had attended a couple of months before and advised that the doors in the kitchen and living room leading to the garden needed replacing as the door frame was rotten, but to date had not been replaced. The resident submitted a complaint on 2 May 2022.
  4. The stage 1 complaint response on 27 May 2022 said a repairs officer was due to visit on 30 May 2022. The resident sent several chase emails in July and August 2022. A landlord internal email on 3 August 2022 said a repair should be raised to ask for a quote for replacement. It asked for the estate to be surveyed as “timber windows and doors are failing due to no cyclical works being carried out’’.
  5. A survey was done on 4 August 2022 which found that the rear and balcony doors were renewed in 2017, the back door was hard to open in February 2021 and the external door and frame were damaged in May 202 when ‘not all holes were filled’. The survey recommended that the kitchen balcony and rear external door be included for renewal in the 2023/24 programme. It said that there was a hole in the timber of the kitchen/balcony floor door threshold, and it was suspected that mice were entering there. A job was raised to renew or block up the holes.
  6. On 16 September 2022, the resident said that there had been no action since the surveyor’s visit. She said this was the third or fourth time a surveyor visited, took photographs and nothing happened. The mice had returned, and she was upset and annoyed that complaints get upheld, but nothing was done.
  7. An internal landlord email of 19 October 2022 said that mice had been treated in May 2022, but until the door issue was resolved they would keep coming back. A further visit to treat for mice and to look to fit brush strips to the bottom of doors was arranged.
  8. Pest control attended and, on 20 October 2022, reported that low mice activity was found, and bait stations placed to control this. It said proofing work was needed to exclude pest gaps around pipes and at wall floor junctions behind kick plates in the kitchen and bathroom required proofing. The kitchen units would need to be removed to access and proof all ingress points and the proofing team would be asked to carry this out. Gaps at the bottom and side of the kitchen patio door required proofing to exclude pests.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day and said that the doors would be considered for renewal next financial year. It said the repairs department would be contacted to see if they could lower the doors to reduce the size of the gaps. A further inspection took place on 24 October 2022 and a works order was raised for the doors to be lowered on 14 November 2022.
  10. The repair log said that a job was raised for a carpenter to overhaul timber rear door and fit a threshold to the kitchen timber door as there was a gap where mice were getting in. They were to pick out the rot where rodents had chewed the frame and make good with filler and fix a batten to seal the gap under the door.
  11. Meanwhile, pest control contractors attended the property on 31 October 2022 when 2 ingress points were identified and filled. It was noted that the kitchen door needed to be replaced or repaired and the contractor was unable to apply a brushstrip to the bottom of the door due to the uneven floor. Ingress points were also located in the bathroom and filled.
  12. The contractor returned a few days later when no new signs of pest activity was found or reported. Proofing work had been carried out and bait stations left in place to monitor and control the premises.
  13. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £425 in its final response on 14 November 2022, £300 of which was in relation to the failure of the service around communication and repair works.
  14. A further pest control visit on 24 November 2022 found low mice activity. The report said that the proofing work to the kitchen door frame was not sufficient to prevent pest ingress and it was recommended that repair work to the door and frame be carried out. A visit on 8 December 2022 was cancelled as the resident no longer required it, but it is not noted what this was for.
  15. The resident reported further mice in the property in February 2023. She said that the landlord had fixed MDF in front of the kitchen door which was a trip hazard, and the rear garden door was jammed again. Pest control attended and found low mice activity in April and early May 2023. They noted that the repair work carried out to the door and window frame should be sufficient to exclude pests, but further proofing may be required behind kitchen kick plates and around pipes.  A visit later in May found no new evidence of mice.
  16. The landlord has said that the doors are still due to be renewed this financial year and that it will inform the resident when work is due to commence. It said it would monitor the planned replacement and any further pest activity would be treated as a priority.
  17. The resident reported mice entering the property in January 2022 (and prior to that) and repairs were still being done to fill holes in October 2022. The landlord said in November 2022 that the doors were due to be lowered, but it is not known when this took place. The resident advised in February 2023 that she had been left with a jammed door and a trip hazard where presumably repairs were done. 
  18. The repairs were outstanding for 9 months, when they should have been resolved in 28 days. Whilst it is appreciated that mice can be present in properties without visible holes, it is not disputed by the landlord that the holes in the doors were the cause of the mice in this case. The pest control contractor reported at each visit that the doors needed to be repaired or replaced. Multiple inspections and reports were carried out before the repairs took place. The resident said they were not successful as she is unable to open 1 door and is left with a raised section of MDF on the other. There is no evidence that this was reported to the landlord, however.
  19. It is reasonable that the replacement of the entire door and frame would be part of a major programme of works to be carried out as part of a larger project on the estate. However, the delay experienced by the resident and her family in the repair being carried out was excessive. It would be distressing to have mice in the property, and it is right that the landlord pays an appropriate sum of compensation to remedy this service failure.
  20. The landlord has previously offered £425 compensation, £300 of which related to the repair. In cases of maladministration where there is no permanent impact on the resident but they were adversely affected, the Ombudsman will recommend a sum of between £100 to £600.
  21. The landlord has acknowledged failings, but the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by the investigation. An increased amount of compensation would be fair in all of the circumstances of this case. This would recognise that the handling of the repair was sometimes chaotic, and jobs were raised which then appeared to have no action taken.  This may be a failing in the record keeping. The length of time that the repair was outstanding, and the particular impact resulting from it, would be reflected in this increased remedy. 
  22. The landlord should also liaise with the resident to ensure that the problems she reported with the doors in February 2023 have been resolved and that the replacement doors are scheduled to be fitted before the end of March 2024 as planned.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that stage 1 complaints should be investigated, and a response sent to the resident within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. In this case, the resident submitted a complaint on 3 May 2022, although this has not been seen. The response should have been issued on 17 May 2022, but was sent on 27 May 2022, 8 working days over the landlord’s published timescale. However, the landlord did keep the resident advised about the additional time required to provide the response, in its email of 20 May 2022.
  3. The stage 1 response said that the resident’s concerns were mice entering via the kitchen, and damp in the bathroom. It said a repair officer would attend on 30 May 2022 and upheld the complaint. No compensation was offered at this stage, although the landlord has since said that £120 was paid in June 2022 in relation to ‘costs incurred’. It is not known what these costs were, so this sum is not included in any compensation calculation for the purposes of this investigation.
  4. The stage 2 complaint was submitted on 16 September 2022 and the acknowledgement said a response would be issued by 17 October 2022. The landlord updated the resident on 29 September 2022. Further contact was made on 19 October when the landlord explained that there had been long term sick leave which impacted on the team, and it would need more time to respond. There were further emails and voicemails updating the resident before the stage 2 response was issued.
  5. The final response letter was issued on 14 November 2022, 21 days over the landlord’s published timescales. However, the stage 2 response did acknowledge the delay, at both stages of the complaint process, apologised and offered compensation. £75 was offered for the delay and poor handling at stage 1 and £50 for the stage 2 response delay. 
  6. The stage 2 response also acknowledged the failure of the stage 1 response to address the issues earlier. The landlord has since said that as a result of the lessons learned from the complaint, it had increased quality assurance checks. It had also introduced monthly staff training and business wide complaint training with online modules to ensure correct process is followed. It says the teams involved have met and will review their part in the complaint to identify improvements on service delivery. This is welcomed by the Ombudsman.
  7. The landlord has said it did not have the opportunity to investigate the kitchen door and bathroom issues as they were not part of the stage 1 complaint. Whilst the stage 1 complaint has not been seen by this Service, it is clear from the evidence provided that both of these repairs were raised by the resident prior to the stage 1 response being issued. The repair log and extracts from the database includes entries relating to damp in the bathroom and holes in the kitchen door frame on 5 May 2022. The first stage response letter also lists the kitchen door and damp in bathroom as issues raised by the landlord.
  8. The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord identified the failings at stage 1 of the internal complaint process, in particular that it failed to properly investigate what had occurred and ensure that steps were taken to resolve the issues raised. The stage 2 response was more thorough and appeared to show action was being taken on the various repairs raised, albeit as above, the repairs took longer to be resolved.
  9. Had the landlord not awarded £125 in respect of the failings in its complaint process, the Ombudsman would recommend a similar amount. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance suggests sums between £100 and £600 in cases of maladministration with no permanent impact. This may be where a failing has adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings, as here in the first complaint response. Accordingly, the £175 offered in respect of the complaint handling is reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the repairs to the bathroom/wet room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the repairs to the kitchen doors and mice.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling element satisfactorily. 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the total of £600 compensation, which includes the sum previously in its final response.  
    2. Liaise with the resident to ensure that the issues with the door repairs have been resolved and the door replacement booked if not done already. 
  2.  The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within 4 weeks of this determination.