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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202228416)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228416

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following a planned kitchen upgrade.
  2. This investigation has also looked at the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant who moved to the property, which is a two-bedroom flat, in March 2004.
  2. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 August 2022 into the resident’s previous complaint over the planned works to her kitchen. This had followed on from a surveyor having attended to the property a couple of months earlier. The landlord set out that the kitchen renewal was due in that financial year and that it would be in touch with the resident about it in terms of the installation.
  3. A drawing of the planned kitchen was completed by the landlord’s operative on 4 October 2022. This had followed on from the resident having enquired with the landlord about adding new appliances which she would purchase. The drawing of the kitchen showed space for a new hob and oven as well as a dishwasher. The dishwasher was positioned next to the sink, where the resident’s washing machine had previously been. The drawing noted that the “resident has been asked to select a slimline dishwasher @ 450mm wide and no larger”.
  4. Following the installation of the kitchen which was completed between 9 and 24 November 2022 the resident completed a customer satisfaction questionnaire. She marked all of the categories as being “fairly satisfied” or “highly satisfied”.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 2 December 2022 show that it completed a property handover sheet which was also signed by the resident. In terms of the snag list, the document listed four issues. This included “adjust washing pipework to allow w/m to sit back”. The snag list did not include any reference to the dishwasher.
  6. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 24 January 2023 noted that the project manager was to contact the contractor over the outstanding work on the kitchen. No further information was provided as to what the outstanding works were at that time.
  7. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman on 15 February 2023 in relation to the kitchen. The notes of the call set out:
    1. The resident had concerns about the handling of the kitchen installation. There had been issues with the pipework which meant that the landlord could not put in the washing machine flush to the kitchen units due to the pipes. The landlord’s contractor had gone ahead and fitted worktops which made it impossible to have any washing machine facilities.
    2. The resident had been present at the installation and was informed that she could add appliances and so she had asked for a dishwasher. However she was unable to use it as the door was not shutting properly.
    3. The cupboard housing the boiler had a missing panel. She had been given a temporary panel until the replacement was due to arrive. However it had still not turned up at that time.
    4. That tiles had been damaged during the installation of the electrical sockets in the kitchen.
  8. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023 stating the details of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to acknowledge the complaint by 1 March 2023 and to provide its response by 15 March 2023.
  9. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 March 2023. It explained it had tried unsuccessfully to call the resident following the receipt of the complaint from the Ombudsman. The landlord added that the project manager had advised that it would “get a site manager out to review your concerns”.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 March 2023 to explain that it was awaiting a response following an inspection of the property. It added it would reply to her by 22 March 2023.
  11. An inspection report was completed on 8 March 2023. This report noted 11 issues, some of which was cosmetic and involved tidying up the paint and the sealant and sorting out the tiles. The issues also included:
    1. The washing machine standing in part in front of the worktop “due to pipe work behind machine that can’t be altered”.
    2. The resident wanting a door for the dishwasher which was an integrated model. In addition, as the space for the dishwasher was for 515mm and the model purchased was 450mm wide, it set out that it “could fit another base end panel to left of machine to fill gap, also infill between both panels, machine stands forward due to sink waste pipe running from behind sink”.
  12. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 22 March 2023 noted that its contractor would address all of the issues with the exception of the washing machine and the dishwasher.
  13. The landlord emailed the resident the stage 1 response on 22 March 2023. It offered £20 compensation for the poor complaints handing. It stated:
    1. It accepted that there was an issue with the tiles around the sockets which needed cutting. It explained that the contractor would be attending on 29 March 2023 to resolve the snagging issues.
    2. In terms of the dishwasher, it said that the resident was given the measurements for it at the survey stage and she had purchased something smaller which had caused the problem.
    3. The resident had been advised a standard opening had been allowed for the washing machine to ensure it fitted. However there was pipework which could not be redirected and did not fall within the scope of works for the kitchen.
    4. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 March 2023 with a further copy of the stage 1 response. The email explained that whilst it had sent the email on 22 March 2023 that email had been held by its security so it was unsure if the resident had received it.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 May 2023. She explained that she had yet to receive an update from the landlord since March 2023 and forwarded the landlord’s email from 8 March 2022 which had stated it would respond by 22 March 2022. She added that she had also not had any response from the project manager who was overseeing the matter. The resident explained the delay was causing her undue stress.
  15. The landlord replied to the resident on 11 May 2023. It explained that it had sent the stage 1 response on both 22 March 2023 and again on 24 March 2023 and it sent the resident a further copy of this. The landlord explained that it was sorry to learn there were outstanding issues. It added that its contractor had advised that it would be attending on 29 March 2023 to complete the snagging issues apart from the washing machine and the dishwasher.
  16. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 May 2023 chasing up a response. The resident explained that she had not received a response from the landlord to her previous email of 9 May 2023. The landlord replied on the same day explaining it had responded on 11 May 2023. It enclosed its email from that time and another copy of the stage 1 response. It asked the resident to confirm what issues remained outstanding as it had understood that the contractor would be visiting the property on 29 March 2023 to complete the remaining snagging issues.
  17. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2023. She explained she had not received the landlord’s email of 11 May 2023 which was why she had contacted it again. The resident:
    1. Expressed her frustration as to why the landlord had taken two months to respond to her. She added if she had not chased the landlord it would not have responded.
    2. Set out that the complaint had not been investigated thoroughly. She explained the information in its emails had been incorrect. In particular:
      1. When the design consultation had taken place the designer was the one to suggest a slimline dishwasher. The designer had provided the measurements which she had not changed. The resident added she was not a designer so “I can only assume that all slimeline [sic] dishwashers have the same measurement specifications. So he would have been aware of the gaps between the dishwasher. I on the other hand, was not advised of this at all”.
      2. The contractors were aware of the pipework issues when they had removed the old kitchen. However the project manager had not advised her of this. Instead the work had carried on and when the kitchen was completed and the issue of the pipework came to light the project manager had ignored her calls and messages.
      3. Whilst a contractor had attended to the property in March and replaced the tiles, she now had two electrical sockets which no longer worked.
      4. When looking into the matter and speaking to her neighbours the resident had discovered that the landlord could have installed bigger worktops to resolve the matter. This was what had been done for other neighbours who had had the same issue.
      5. The complaint had been poorly managed and after six months the issue had still not been resolved. She considered the £20 compensation offered to be insulting and not in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which set out that for each month the complaint was outstanding a payment of £50 should be awarded.
  18. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2022. It apologised for any confusion at its end but stated it did not think it had taken two months to reply to any of the resident’s emails. It added that the kitchen plan had stated that the dishwasher should be 450mm wide. It asked if the resident had taken any measurements of the dishwasher before ordering to ensure it would fit the opening. It added that most appliances “ranged in sizes as all kitchens are designed differently”. It offered to escalate the complaint for the resident and stated it would liaise with the contractor concerning the resident’s concerns. The landlord sent the contractor an email on that day about the socket issue.
  19. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 June 2023. She asked it to escalate the matter. She explained:
    1. There had been no confusion on her part and that there was no correspondence received from the landlord between 8 March 2023 and 11 May 2023. 
    2. The measurements for the dishwasher were correct. She added that panels could be added to both sides of it and a door attached to the front. However she added that because of the size of the pipes running behind it, it could be difficult to fix. The resident explained the project manager had been informed of this issue but had let the works continue. A resolution to the matter would be to allow larger worktops.
    3. The landlord’s response had made no reference to the issue of compensation.
  20. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 13 June 2023 that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. It added:
    1. It had provided the stage 1 response on 22 March 2023 and, as this had been stopped due to safety concerns, for which it was notified it had resent the response to her on 24 March 2023. Upon being contacted by the resident on 9 May 2023 it had once again resent a copy of the stage 1 response. The landlord apologised if the resident had not received any of the emails from the landlord however it added “I do believe that I have responded in timely manners on each occasion”.
    2. It had contacted the contractor about the socket issue. It added the contractor had been unaware that there was an issue with the sockets and as a result an electrician would be arranged. 
  21. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it chased the contractor on three occasions between 16 and 23 June 2023 about whether someone had attended to carry out the outstanding jobs. On 23 June 2023 it received a response back from the electrician who would be in touch with his manager to arrange the appointment.
  22. The landlord emailed the resident the stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. It explained:
    1. That it understood the dishwasher had been purchased by the resident following the measurements of the kitchen being provided to her. Although it understood the resident’s frustration “the choice to purchase this specific dishwasher was your own, and I cannot agree that you were not notified ahead of time of the measurements required to allow this appliance to fit properly”.
    2. In terms of the piping, that this had not been apparent until the kitchen fitter had begun the works. It added the pipes could not be rerouted and, whilst they were hidden behind other appliances previously, this had not been picked up by the kitchen designer. The landlord added the contractor had discussed the issue with the resident and explained to fully address the issue would require part of the kitchen being removed. The contractor had confirmed the resident would accept the appliance sticking out slightly.
    3. In relation to the landlord’s complaints handling it was unable to find evidence to support any delay by it. It added it had responded to the resident when it had been contacted by her. It added, having looked at the contents of the landlord’s emails, it had not found any evidence of any service failure. It accepted there was a delay in the initial complaint response and that it had offered compensation for this in line with its compensation policy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following the planned kitchen upgrade.

  1. The landlord undertook a survey of the kitchen and it issued a plan of the new kitchen. The new kitchen plan included a space for a dishwasher which had not been present in the resident’s previous kitchen. There was also a mention on the plan for a new hob and oven to replace the existing appliances. The reference to these new appliances followed on from a discussion with the resident on the matter. This was appropriate by the landlord in looking to see if it was possible to make alterations to the kitchen plan based on the requirements and needs of the resident. The kitchen plan indicated that, as the space for the dishwasher was limited to only being 515mm wide, a slimline dishwasher as opposed to a standard size dishwasher would be the only option to fit.  
  2. The resident has explained that she had followed the information the kitchen designer had provided to her concerning the dishwasher, which she purchased. She added she was unaware that the dishwashers came in different sizes. Whilst it is correct that the resident had purchased a slimline dishwasher, from the pictures provided to this Service, the resident had chosen to purchase an integrated dishwasher and not a free standing non–integrated one. An integrated dishwasher was one which was concealed behind a false front door which was blended in to match the rest of the kitchen units.
  3. Whilst the landlord did not directly inform the resident that models of dishwashers varied in size, and it had specified that only a slimline one would fit in the designated space, the onus was on the resident to look into the matter and ensure that the product she was purchasing was appropriate for her needs and circumstances. In terms of fitting extra side panels to the sides of the dishwasher to cover up any gap in the kitchen units, as highlighted in the snagging list, this was reasonable, especially as there would have been a gap of around 65mm after fitting in the slimline dishwasher which it had recommended to the resident originally. The remaining space of 65mm was insufficient space for a small kitchen cupboard. Following the inspection in March 2023, the report had recommended fitting the side panels. However there is no evidence that the landlord had actually offered to do this. This was a failing by it. The landlord should have considered what it could have done to resolve the gap issue and resolve the matter. This would also have included whether it was possible to fit a door to the integrated dishwasher as the landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it had explained to the resident the difference between and integrated and a non-integrated dishwasher.
  4. To accommodate the new dishwasher, next to the sink, the resident’s washing machine needed moving to a different location. The kitchen designer had found a new space for the washing machine space, at 90 degrees to the dishwasher and sink, placed into the corner. Next to the washing machine was a kitchen cupboard which ran to a corner adjoining the dishwasher. In terms of the washing machine, whilst the landlord had moved it to the new location it had identified during the fitting stage that there were pipes behind the washing machine which were unable to be re–routed. The effect of this existing plumbing, which would not have been visible to any party at the time the replacement kitchen design had been drawn up, meant that due to the depth size of the washing machine it needed to sit approximately 6cmin front of the edge of the worktop as opposed to being pushed back flush to the unit. Given the small size of the kitchen the resident’s concern over this matter was understandable.
  5. The resident has stated that the landlord’s project manager was aware of this issue and had failed to mention it to her until after the kitchen had been fitted. This has been disputed by the landlord who stated that it had discussed the issue with the resident and explained that a reconfiguration to sort out the plumbing pipes would mean that part of the resident’s kitchen would be lost which the resident did not want to do. The alternative of having the washing machine sit slightly in front of the edge of the worktop and kitchen units was the option chosen by the resident at that time. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the differing accounts provided by the parties, the resident did complete a customer satisfaction questionnaire following the completion of the installation of the new kitchen. On this questionnaire, completed on 24 November 2022, the resident had stated that she was satisfied with all aspects including communication during the work and construction and finish. However the landlord’s snagging list dated 2 December 2022 had noted four issues. Amongst these was an adjustment to the washing pipework to allow it to sit further back.
  6. The resident has, in trying to offer a solution to the issue of the washing machine, suggested that the landlord could install larger worktops to the kitchen. She added that she had spoken to neighbours and in terms of their kitchen installations this was a solution the landlord had undertaken for those residents with plumbing issues. Whilst the resident has asked the landlord to do this in her case as a resolution to the matter, there is no evidence that the landlord had considered this option. The landlord has informed this Service that whilst it had undertaken kitchen installations to several of the resident’s neighbours, it had not issued larger worktops to those properties.
  7. Whilst the current washing machine sits slightly in front of the worktop, the landlord has added that a newer washing machine, with a smaller capacity may benefit from having less depth and so fit better and further back than the current machine. Although this may be the case, the resident was not purchasing a new washing machine and neither was the landlord offering to replace the existing one. Although the landlord has stated that the resident had agreed to this solution, it has stated that as an alternative the pipe work for the washing machine could have been redirected into the cupboard next to the washing machine. This would have meant a reduction in the space which could be used for the base unit, however it would mean the washing machine would sit flush to the rest of the units and not be a trip hazard. 
  8. Whilst the landlord has stated the resident had agreed to have the machine sit forward and not have a reduction in the kitchen space it was not clear whether it had clearly explained this sufficiently for the resident at the time for her to understand the implications of it. The landlord confirmed that it did not complete any revised drawings to show the effect of this alteration as the decision was made to keep the pipework behind the washing machine. However it did not obtain any written confirmation from the resident to this at the time. This was a failing by it. Given the resident had raised the matter at the time that the property handover was completed on 2 December 2022, this demonstrates that she had not been satisfied with the option the landlord had offered of doing nothing with the pipe work.
  9. Overall the landlord did not act reasonably and appropriately. Although it would not have known at the time of the new kitchen plan being created that there would be issues with plumbing pipes behind some of the units, which were not visible, when being alerted to the matter it did not consider and thoroughly explain the alternative options which were available to it to resolve the matter.. The impact of its failing was that it caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience as well as leaving a potential trip hazard.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it treats a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting and individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord adds that its first point of contact following a complaint will be by telephone although it will then use the customer’s preferred means of communication.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy explained that compensation for service failures and time and trouble was based on the degree of impact or failure. The landlord had set three categories which were low, medium and high failure. In terms of low failure this was where there was a short delay in resolving issues and there had been minor inconvenience or impact caused to the resident. A medium failure was where “several errors have been made or a service/repair is repeatedly not resolved/fixed”. In terms of poor complaints handling, the compensation offered was listed as ranging from an apology to £150 depending on the severity of the failure.                                                       
  3. At stage 1 the landlord’s complaints policy explained that it would send an acknowledgment within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. The policy added that if it could not respond within 10 working days it would inform the resident and agree a new date. The response time for stage 2 was 20 working days.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 February 2023 to raise a complaint. It was not made clear at this time whether the resident had initially raised the issues with the landlord. As a result the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 22 February 2023 and asked it to acknowledge the complaint by 1 March 2023 and to respond to the complaint by 15 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and explained that it would review the resident’s concerns. The landlord informed the resident on 8 March 2023 that it would need further time to respond as it was awaiting an inspection of the property and it would respond by 22 March 2023.
  5. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge the complaint a day outside the timescales contained in the Ombudsman’s correspondence to it, this did not cause any material impact to the resident. The landlord had also informed the resident in keeping with its complaints policy that it needed further time to investigate her concerns. In the stage 1 response the landlord made an offer of compensation of £20 for the complaints handling.
  6. The resident has explained that the landlord did not respond to her concerns and that it took over two months to respond to her between March and May 2023. Although the landlord has accepted that there had been a security issue with the initial stage 1 response which it had emailed to the resident on 22 March 2023, it had resent the document on 24 March 2023. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of the emails which it sent to the resident on 22 and 24 March 2023 as well as on 11 May 2023 which the resident has explained that she had not received. These emails all contain the correct email address for the resident. There is no indication that the landlord had received any “bounce back” or other notification that the emails from 24 March and 11 May 2023 had not been received by the resident. Whilst the landlord could have telephoned the resident to check up on this, email had been the resident’s preferred means of communication.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response had explained that the landlord’s contractor would attend on 29 March 2023 to resolve the issue of the tiles which the resident had reported. The resident has confirmed that the contractor did attend on this date to resolve the issue of the tiles and that following this visit she experienced an issue with her electrical sockets which was resolved in June 2023. Given the resident had not queried the attendance of the contractor at that time, the landlord would not have been aware that the resident had not had sight of its stage 1 response or any other update from it. As the landlord had given a deadline for providing its response and provided a direct number for the complaints handler within its email the resident could have contacted the landlord in the interim for an update.
  8. The resident has in her submissions to the landlord referred to compensation being £50 for each month the complaint remained outstanding. It is not clear as to which section of the compensation and complaints policy the resident has looked at to arrive at this figure. Overall the landlord had, as part of its internal complaints process, apologised for the slight delay in responding to the resident and made an offer of £20 for the complaints handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable redress for the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following the planned kitchen upgrade.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolves the failings in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an amount of £100, for its failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns following the planned kitchen upgrade.
    3. The landlord should pay the resident the £20 offered in its stage 1 response in relation to the complaints handling if it has not already paid this.
    4. The landlord should fit a door onto the integrated dishwasher and also address any remaining gap around the sides of the dishwasher so that it fits seamlessly into the rest of the kitchen.
  2. Within the next eight weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to look at redirecting the existing pipe work behind the washing machine to ensure that it does not stand out and pose any form of a trip hazard. Should the resident not wish for the pipe work to be redirected to the cupboard next to the washing machine the landlord should consider and discuss with the resident what alternative options it could offer to resolve the washing machine not sticking out in front of the remaining kitchen units. It should confirm the alternative options in writing to both the resident and to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its process to ensure that where it has sought the consent of the resident to any alterations or modifications that these are followed up in writing and where possible the resident has signed to confirm their acceptance to it. This should include a record of any advice a resident has been given in relation to the installation of existing appliances they own or the purchase of new appliances.