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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202230802)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230802

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

31 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 regarding landlord’s handling of the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of a repair request.
    2. Communication with the resident.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised she would like to be provided with the information the landlord holds on its system about her. It is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to deliver this as an outcome to the resident’s complaint. As such, she has been advised to make a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the landlord. In the event there were any concerns with how the landlord handled such a request, as per paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, these would need to be directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as these issues fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The ICO can be contacted via https://ico.org.uk.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided at the property, described as a 2-bed flat in a high-rise block, since 2019.
  2. The landlord has advised it is not aware of the resident or her household having any vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. On 23 February 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to her landlord. She stated she had been “denied access to successfully report (a) repair” as a Team Leader from the landlord’s Repairs Team had hung up on her when she attempted to do so. She stated she then called back with the intention of speaking to someone else but was advised she was now harassing the landlord and was in breach of her tenancy conditions as a result. She stated one member of staff had been “very hostile” to her and terminated another subsequent call when the resident asked to be transferred to someone else. The resident denied swearing during any of the calls and asked the landlord to clarify when and how she had breached her tenancy. She also asked when this had been determined and when it would discuss the allegations with her.  
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 March 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. It understood the complaint to be about the resident being prevented from reporting a repair and “report a repair” (sic). It advised that a case handler would be allocated to the complaint and would contact the resident, when she would be able to discuss any issues with its understanding of the complaint, or advise of any matters which had not been included. As a resolution to the complaint, it noted the resident wanted the relevant repairs to be completed.
  3. On 6 March 2023, the landlord provided a complaint response and provided details of its investigation. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. It had spoken with a Team Leader (TL), who was not involved in any of the calls the resident made on 23 February 2023, and they had been asked to listen to recordings of the calls.
    2. The TL established the resident had contacted the landlord’s Property Desk to report repairs which had previously been raised over a year earlier but subsequently cancelled. During the initial call, the call centre advisor told the resident that as the repairs had been cancelled, they could not be re-raised there and then and needed to be raised by a Repair Officer. The landlord noted the resident “became confrontational” at this point and did not let the advisor speak. A Team Leader on duty that day took over the call who “also experienced difficulties in being able to explain (their position)” and advised the resident they would end the call as a result.
    3. The TL’s review of the calls indicated the resident then rang again and spoke to a different advisor, at which point she advised a damaged electrical socket needed replacing in her bedroom. The landlord noted its records indicated that the resident advised the socket “was damaged when (she) moved the bed”. At this stage, the advisor reportedly consulted with a Team Leader on duty who advised this would be a rechargeable repair. This information was relayed to the resident, who the landlord stated again “became confrontational…and the TL had to take over the call”.
    4. The resident was then advised that the Property Desk would not take any further calls from her that day due to “the manner in which (she was) interacting with the TL” and advisors. The landlord stated the resident had not been “barred from reporting repairs” but had been “advised to call back on another day” due to the way she was speaking to staff.
    5. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It advised the resident it had emailed the relevant Repairs Officer and asked them to contact her to arrange the required repairs.
  4. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. She advised she was dissatisfied with its response as it was factually incorrect. She requested that her complaint be escalated and noted the following:
    1. She denied saying she had damaged the electric socket, stated it was not located in her bedroom but her children’s and requested to listen to a recording of the call. She stated she had her own recording of the conversation and considered this to be a “false allegation”.
    2. The repair had now been completed without needing to be “reapproved”.
    3. She had not been contacted or spoken to by the landlord during its investigation of her complaint.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the following day and advised it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
  6. On 14 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident considered its earlier response to be factually incorrect on the basis that she denied stating she had caused damage to the electrical socket herself. The landlord went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. To further investigate the complaint, it had contacted its Head of Service, who had provided additional information. It stated that its Operations Manager had listened to “several calls (that) had been received that day” (23 February 2023) from the resident and they considered she had been “extremely aggressive and disrespectful” to staff. This had led to the need for Team Leaders to intervene at the time.
    2. It advised that on one call, the resident had stated the electrical socket was “hanging off the wall”, was a Health and Safety risk and that wires were visible. The landlord stated its advisor had asked the resident how the damage was caused and quoted the resident as replying: “it’s probably when I moved the bed, it could have been when I moved the bed”.
    3. It noted the advisor informed the resident the repair “would fall within the accidental damage policy” and that she could be recharged. It stated the resident then “became upset and asked to speak to a Team Leader”.
    4. It clarified that the repair had since been raised and completed.
    5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It concluded the resident had “clearly stated” that the socket had been damaged when she moved a bed, that the repair had been raised by the advisor “before the Team Leader was involved” and had since been completed. It also considered the resident had been “breaching (her) tenancy agreement by being aggressive and using foul language towards our staff”.
    6. The resident was signposted to this Service if she remained unhappy.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman the following day, 14 March 2023, to advise she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She stated she wanted clarity on “what (her) breach of tenancy is” and a copy of the information the landlord held about her on its files. She also asked for clarity regarding who she had used foul language towards on 23 February 2023 and considered that if the landlord could not provide evidence that corroborated its allegations, this would constitute defamation. She also stated it was “not possible” that the repair had been raised prior to the involvement of a Team Leader and the landlord’s responses were therefore inaccurate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a repair request

  1. It is not disputed that the resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 with the intention of reporting a repair issue, namely that an electrical socket in her property was damaged. This Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s repair records, so it is not clear precisely when the repair was raised and there is some contradiction over this fact within the correspondence seen by this Service. However, within her complaint escalation request of 6 March 2023, the resident indicated the repair had since been completed, which indicates it was raised and completed within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. It is also not disputed that the landlord ended a number of the calls the resident made and advised it would not accept any further calls from her that day. In her complaint, the resident stated she considered this had denied her the ability to raise a repair which she considered to pose a health and safety risk.
  3. This Service has not heard recordings of the calls the resident made on 23 February 2023 and is therefore not able to determine whether her communication constituted harassment or abusive behaviour. It is acknowledged that the resident denies that she used foul language towards any staff members or that she harassed call centre advisors. However, the landlord’s records and internal correspondence regarding the calls are consistent in that it considered her communication on that day to be inappropriate. As a result, it advised it would not take any further calls and asked her to call back again the following day.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take. It did not bar the resident from reporting repairs – and did not appear to advise that any future contact restrictions would be put in place – but rather asked her to call again the next day. It stated it did this to try and diffuse the situation, which was a proportionate step for it to take. It is also noted that repairs can be logged with the landlord via its website, meaning the resident would have been able to try and raise any repairs this way during the short period she had been advised her calls would not be accepted.
  5. Although it is unclear whether the landlord made the resident aware of this during the calls, given there was an alternative method of raising repair requests available to her, the fact she was advised she could call back the following day and the repair was ultimately raised and completed within a reasonable timeframe, the Ombudsman has found no evidence the resident was prevented from reporting repairs, or that she was denied the opportunity to do so by the landlord. As a result, the Ombudsman has not identified any maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of her repair request.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

  1. As noted above, this Service was not privy to the conversations held between the resident and the landlord on 23 February 2023, nor has it heard recordings of those calls. As such it is not possible to determine whether any members of staff had been “hostile” to the resident, as she stated in her complaint.
  2. It is not in dispute that the landlord ended calls with the resident on 23 February 2023 and the landlord acknowledged within its complaint responses that it had done so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an unreasonable position for it to take. Its records indicate that both advisors and Team Leaders within its Repairs Team considered the resident’s behaviour to be inappropriate. While this Service is not able to pass judgement on the nature of the conversations, the landlord is entitled to expect that its staff are treated fairly and are not subjected to abusive behaviour and/or harassment. If it considered that the resident was not behaving in an appropriate manner, it was entitled to end those calls and advise it would not take further calls for a short period. It also clearly communicated its position and why it had taken those steps within its complaint responses. This was appropriate.
  3. However, within her complaint the resident reported the landlord advised she was in breach of her tenancy due to her behaviour, and, in its complaint responses, it acknowledged it did so. Section 3.7 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states residents “must not harass (the landlord’s) staff” and that harassment can include “insulting words or behaviour”. The tenancy agreement outlines the landlord considers “abusive behaviour as harassment” and it “reserve(s) the right to withdraw…services in the interests of (staff’s) safety”.
  4. It would have been preferable for the landlord to provide the resident with more detail regarding the specific behaviour or incident it considered to be a breach, either at the time or in subsequent correspondence. While it is acknowledged that the mention of a possible tenancy breach would likely have caused the resident alarm, it was not in itself unreasonable for the landlord to refer to this given its assessment of the resident’s behaviour.
  5. The landlord has advised this Service it sought to deal with the issue outside of its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy and it considered declining to answer the resident’s calls for a short period was more proportionate than more formal action such as a contact restriction. This was a reasonable position for it to take. However, in the interests of greater transparency, the Ombudsman considers it would have been best practice for it to also provide this explanation to the resident, particularly given that it had indicated her behaviour amounted to a breach of tenancy. Doing so would have provided greater clarity to the resident and reassured her that no further action was being taken at that time. Nevertheless, that the landlord did not do so was not a service failure.
  6. From the information seen by this Service, which is limited to complaint correspondence between the resident and the landlord and the landlord’s records of the conversations which took place on 23 February 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to communicate with the resident appropriately. While it is acknowledged that the resident feels that the landlord’s staff members talked over her, unreasonably terminated calls and stated she was in breach of her tenancy without any further explanation, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably in its communication following her attempt to report a repair on 23 February 2023. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. After the resident raised her complaint, the landlord responded appropriately by acknowledging her complaint and issuing its initial response within its target timeframe of 10 working days. It also immediately acknowledged her escalation request and provided its final stage response promptly.
  2. In her complaint escalation request, the resident stated she was unhappy that the case handler allocated her stage 1 complaint did not contact her prior to issuing their response. While the landlord’s complaint policy does not advise that case handlers should routinely contact residents as part of their complaint investigation, its acknowledgement of the complaint clearly states the resident would be contacted by the case handler to discuss the complaint further.
  3. This therefore unfairly raised the resident’s expectations and meant she would likely have been surprised to receive its stage 1 response before she had had chance to discuss her complaint in more detail. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a failure, as was the fact the landlord failed to address the fact it had not contacted her within its stage 2 response, despite the resident’s escalation request specifically raising this concern.
  4. In her complaint correspondence with the landlord, the resident also clearly asked for clarity regarding how exactly she breached her tenancy but there is no record of it providing any further explanation, either within its complaint responses or any other correspondence. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this meant the landlord failed to properly address each aspect of the complaint and would have left the resident feeling her complaint was not fully investigated.
  5. Its final response did not respond to the resident’s request for further information regarding when and how she had used foul language or harassed staff members. Having apparently reviewed the phone logs as part of its complaint investigation, the landlord was able to quote the resident when she advised she had damaged the electrical socket. However, it did not provide any further clarification as to the abusive or foul language she had apparently used, which it presumably would have been able to do so having reviewed the calls. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore unreasonable that its final complaint response reiterated that she had been in breach of her tenancy without providing any examples of how she had done so. It should also have addressed this issue separately, rather than via its complaint responses.
  6. While this Service is not in a position to make any determination as to whether the resident did or did not use foul language or cause harassment to the landlord’s staff, it should have provided more information regarding what it considered to be amount to a tenancy breach, such as examples of the language used. This would have shown greater transparency and provided clarity for the resident. It should also have clarified whether it was taking any further action. That it failed to do so did not treat the resident fairly, being advised that she was in breach of her tenancy without being given specific details of why this was the case, or the opportunity to discuss the allegations. Given the resident denied the allegations within her complaint correspondence, it was even more important that the landlord should provide greater clarity within its complaint response, and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore service failure that it failed to do so.   

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding:
    1. Its handling of a repair request.
    2. Its communication with the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was entitled to end calls if it felt the resident was acting in an unreasonable manner towards its staff. It acted proportionately by suggesting she call back the following day, rather than considering any more formal contact restrictions. The resident also had the option to report the repairs via the landlord’s website and, in correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, confirmed the repair was carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord acted in a hostile manner with the resident when she rang its Repairs Team on 23 February 2023, or that it acted unreasonably when declining to take any further calls that day. It was cordial when acknowledging and responding to her complaints and records show it responded to correspondence in a prompt manner.
  3. The landlord unfairly advised the resident it would contact her to discuss her complaint in more detail, prior to issuing its initial response, but failed to do so. It failed to address this issue within its final response, despite the resident raising the concern within her escalation request. It also failed to provide more details regarding the specific behaviour it considered amounted to a breach of tenancy, meaning it was not fully able to justify its final position.  

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £100 to reflect the identified complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review this case and consider how it corresponds with residents in situation where it believes there has been alleged unreasonable behaviour, but it decides not to apply its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. It should consider whether it needs to amend its processes so it can ensure greater clarity is given to residents, preferably in writing, regarding any action it will, or will not take. Additionally, when it advises residents they are in breach of their tenancy, it should consider whether it should provide greater transparency regarding this, again preferably in writing.