Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202305415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305415

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of water leakage into her flat.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. She bought the property, a 2 bedroom second floor flat in a block, in September 2022. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the block.
On 28 October 2022, the resident tried to report rain water leaking into her flat from an external fall pipe, causing her bedroom wall to be damp. She was not able to do so because the landlord did not have a record of her being the legal owner of her flat.
The resident contacted the landlord twice between 31 October 2022 and 14 November 2022 to ask it to update its records so that she could report the repair. On 23 November 2022, the resident went to the landlord’s office and, later that day, it emailed her to confirm it had updated its records.
Around 25 November 2022, the resident called the landlord’s repair line to report the water leakage. The landlord raised an order for its contractor to inspect on 28 November 2022.
The resident made a formal complaint on 29 November 2022 saying:
1. She had been unable to report the leak because the landlord had not recorded her as the legal owner of her flat.
2. After that had been resolved, it had taken her 2 hours to report the leak by telephone. She had initially been told the leak was her responsibility and had to speak to a manager before the landlord had agreed to inspect.
3. The inspection should have been done that morning but had been postponed until 5 December 2022.
4. The leak was damaging her belongings and causing damp. The inspection could not wait until 5 December 2022.
5. She wanted the landlord to have a “chartered” building surveyor visit to diagnose the problem and then carry out repairs.
On 30 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord repeating the difficulties she had faced in reporting the leak. She said the leak was causing her anxiety and stress. It was damaging her belongings and her bedroom wall was damp and mouldy. She said the previous owners had reported the same problem and any repairs done had not resolved the leak. The landlord replied to her email the same day and also carried out the inspection. On 6 December 2023, it raised an order for the roof to be repaired.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 14 December 2022 which said:
1. It was sorry it had “misadvised” her when she first tried to report the leak.
2. It had raised 2 orders and had been due to attend the roof repair on 12 December 2022. However, weather conditions had prevented the work from being done. It would attend on 15 December 2022.
3. She needed to claim from its insurers, or her own, for the damage caused to her flooring and walls. It gave information on how she could make a claim to its insurers.
On 6 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord saying the leak had not been fixed. She explained that the work had not been done as planned on 15 December 2022 due to snow. It was now scheduled for 31 January 2023 but she felt it should not wait so long because the damp was getting worse and the situation was affecting her wellbeing.
The landlord brought the appointment forward to 10 January 2023 but the contractor found that more extensive work was needed. The roof was repaired around 21 January 2023 but the resident’s bedroom wall did not dry out.
On 25 February 2023 the resident complained again saying that it had taken 3 months for the roof to be repaired but the wall had still not dried. She said there was still mould on the wall and her wooden flooring had been damaged. She said the situation was causing her stress, anxiety and anger. The landlord arranged to inspect and escalated her complaint.
The landlord inspected on 10 March 2023 and found the bedroom wall was still wet. Between 16 March 2023 and 26 March 2023 the resident and landlord communicated about the ongoing damp, the responsibility for the repairs in the resident’s flat, and the impact the situation was having on her. On 28 March 2023 the resident reported that there were new signs of water leakage on the wall and the landlord raised another order for the leak to be investigated.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 27 April 2023 which said:
1. She had reported the leak on 28 November 2022 and it was repaired on 24 January 2023. It had been a “non-routine” repair which had a 90 day timescale for completion.
2. She had reported further water leakage on 28 March 2023 and it had done an intrusive investigation which identified that rain water was leaking from a fall pipe into the wall cavity. It had repaired the fall pipe and had inspected again on 21 April 2023 to check the leak was resolved.
3. It would repair her bedroom wall on 9 May 2023 but she was responsible for redecorating.
4. It had inspected her flooring on 10 March 2023 and felt that poor installation had caused the damage to it rather than the leak. It was not responsible for repairing the floor and she should claim for any damage from its insurance or her own.
5. It had not identified any service failures in its handling of her complaint at stage 1. It acknowledged the delay in giving its stage 2 response and offered £25 compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

On 28 April 2023, the resident made a claim to the landlord’s insurer for the damage caused to her flooring, walls and ceiling. We understand that the insurer accepted liability and settled her claim in full.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 May 2023. She said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of the leak and her complaint, the time it had taken to resolve the issue and the compensation it had offered.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had reviewed its handling of her complaint. It had identified service failings that had not been addressed or would have received different compensation under its current approach. It increased its offer of compensation to £125.

Scope of investigation

In January 2024, the Ombudsman issued the landlord with a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme to review its policies and procedures relating to repairs, record keeping and complaint handling. This was following failings identified in a case we had determined (reference 202011109). In February 2024, we expanded the wider order to include failings identified in a further case (reference 202201502).
The landlord has completed its review and its executive team and board are due to consider its findings and its plan to implement the improvements needed. As such we have not made any orders for the landlord to carry out any policy or procedure reviews in response to failures identified in this case.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of leaks

The resident’s lease says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building including external walls and the roof. It also says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to pipes which serve more than 1 flat or communal areas. The landlord’s repair guide for leaseholders clarifies that the landlord is responsible for gutters and external pipes on blocks of flats.
The lease says that the resident is responsible for repairs inside her flat including the internal faces of walls and ceilings. There is a specific clause in the lease which says that the landlord is not responsible for any damage caused by defects that it is responsible for repairing except where liability may be covered by its insurance. This means that the resident would need to claim from the landlord’s insurer for any damage caused by defects.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook says that residents can report repairs by phone, online and by email or post. It says that after a repair has been ordered, the landlord will monitor it until it is completed. It gives response timescales for different types of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs where the target is 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs where the target is 28 days.
3. Major routine repairs, such as structural repairs where the target is 3 months.
The evidence we have seen shows that there was a delay of a month between the resident’s first attempt to report the leak and the landlord raising an order to inspect the fall pipe. The delay was caused by the landlord not accepting the repair report because it did not have a record that the resident was the legal owner of her flat.
The landlord has obligations to repair the roof and external pipes of the building. As such it was not reasonable for the landlord to delay in acting upon the resident’s initial report of the leak on 28 October 2022. It should have taken steps to investigate the leak and in not doing so it caused an avoidable delay in the leak being repaired.
Further, the landlord should have been proactive in updating its records about the legal ownership of the flat. The evidence we have seen shows that the resident had contacted the landlord at least twice between 31 October 2022 and 14 November 2022 to resolve the issue. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her first contact and its response to her second contact was only to acknowledge it had received it and passed it on to the relevant team. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s contacts caused inconvenience as the resident had to visit the landlord’s office to resolve the issue.
While the landlord did update its records promptly after the resident’s visit to its office, it missed an opportunity to deal with the repair issue. The landlord’s email of 23 November 2022, the day of the resident’s visit to its office, shows the landlord was aware of the leak and that it was affecting her flat. It could have raised an order for the leak to be inspected but, instead, it told her to report it by telephone or online. It was unreasonable that the landlord asked the resident to report the repair again and doing so caused further delay.
The landlord later said it would investigate what had caused the delay in it updating its records and let the resident know the outcome. We have seen no evidence that it did either of those things. This was a failing and the landlord should investigate what went wrong to avoid similar delays in future.
The landlord inspected the fall pipe for leaks on 30 November 2022 but decided that the leak was coming from the roof. This meant that scaffolding was needed and the landlord raised a further order on 6 December 2022 for the roof repair. Two scheduled appointments were postponed due to snow and icy conditions. Another delay was caused by the contractor finding that the work needed was more extensive than first thought which meant a new quote had to be provided and approved. The roof repair was done around 21 January 2023 which was over 2 months after the resident had first reported the leak.
We understand that weather conditions can affect a landlord’s ability to carry out external repairs and cause delays. However, the landlord should have been monitoring the progress of the repair, as its leaseholder handbook says it will do. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered other options to limit the damage being caused by the leak. For example, it could have considered fitting a temporary covering over the defective area and providing the resident with a dehumidifier. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered other options when the roof repair was delayed.
The landlord should have been clear and consistent with the resident about its repair obligations and hers from the start. However, the evidence shows this was not the case. For example, the resident had told the landlord that the leak was damaging the wall inside her flat from the beginning. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident it was not responsible for repairing the damaged wall until its stage 1 complaint response of 14 December 2022.
Similarly, later emails exchanged between the landlord and resident between 15 February 2023 and 20 March 2023 show that the resident was not clear on whether she or the landlord was responsible for removing the plaster and insulation to allow the wall in her flat to dry. Although the landlord did confirm on, 16 February 2023, that it was responsible for the insulation within the cavity wall, it did not say whether it would remove the plaster and wet insulation.
It was not until 20 March 2023 that the landlord clarified that it would not raise any repair orders for work inside the resident’s flat. The landlord’s lack of clarity caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who thought that the landlord should repair the wall and flooring damaged by the leak.
The resident asked the landlord to send a “chartered” surveyor to inspect the water leakage 6 times between 29 November 2022 and 29 March 2023. The landlord had no obligation to do so and was entitled to decide what kind of survey was needed.
However, it should have responded to the resident’s requests and explained why it felt an inspection by a “chartered” surveyor was not required. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s requests or addressed this matter at any point. This was a failing and meant the resident missed the opportunity to consider arranging her own survey.
When the resident reported signs of new water leakage on 28 March 2023, the landlord acted promptly in raising another order for the leak to be investigated. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to remove some of the plaster on the affected wall to detect the source of the leak.
After finding the cause was the external fall pipe, the landlord completed the repair around 18 April 2023 and repaired the resident’s bedroom wall on 9 May 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also repainted the resident’s wall even though it had no obligation to do so under the terms of her lease.
The Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of the water leakage into the resident’s flat. There may have been 2 separate leaks or the defective fall pipe may have been the cause of the leak from the start.
Overall, the resident’s flat was affected by the water leakage for over 6 months. Although the landlord reacted promptly from 28 March 2023, there was an avoidable delay at the start and its communication with the resident was inadequate. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of her reports of the water leakage.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It says it will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which acknowledges that, in some circumstances, compensation is appropriate when there has been a service failure. The policy sets out how the landlord will calculate financial compensation. For example, it says it may pay from £51 for “medium level” service failures.
Its internal staff guidance explains how the level of service failure should be assessed. For example, residents having to repeatedly chase responses could be considered as medium level service failure.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 14 December 2022 and gave its stage 1 response within its policy timescales. It was reasonable that landlord had spoken to the resident about her complaint and communicated with its contractor before giving its response. It was also reasonable that the landlord confirmed that the contractor would attend again the following day and explained how the resident could claim for the damage to her wall and flooring.
However, the landlord’s response failed to address all the points the resident had made in her complaint. For example, it did not address why the resident had not been recorded as the legal owner of the flat or explain why it had not acted when she first attempted to report the leak. Nor did it explain why it had initially thought the repair was her responsibility, address her point that neighbours had told her the leak was a long standing problem or respond to her request for a chartered surveyor to inspect.
The failure to address all the points the resident had raised suggests that the landlord’s investigation was inadequate. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation for its service failures in its handling of the residents reports of water leakage from 28 October 2022.
The resident made another complaint on 25 February 2023 and it was appropriate that the landlord decided to treat it as an escalation request, given it was about the same issue.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time specified that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The Code made provision for response timescales to be extended by 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, and for longer extensions to be agreed with residents where needed to enable the landlord to give a full response.
It was reasonable that the landlord extended its response timescale on 29 March 2023 given it had just established that the roof repair had not resolved the water leakage into the resident’s flat. This extension was in line with the Code at the time.
We understand that the landlord wanted to be sure that it had resolved the water leakage before giving its stage 2 response. However, it should have agreed the further extension to its response timescale with the resident and we have seen no evidence that it did so. Further, the landlord’s email of 17 April 2024 did not explain why it was not in a position to provide a full and final response to the complaint. This second extension was not in line with the Code at the time.
The landlord’s approach meant that it did not give its stage 2 response until 39 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint.
Further, its response again failed to address why it had not responded to her requests for a chartered surveyor to inspect. This was despite it acknowledging this as one of the reasons for her escalation request. Although the landlord’s response explained that the roof repair had been done within its 90 day timescale, it did not address why the resident had initially been unable to report the repair in October 2022.
These failings suggest that the landlord’s investigation at stage 2 was also inadequate. It meant the landlord missed another opportunity to apologise and offer compensation for its service failures in handling the resident’s reports of water leakage.
The failures identified amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
After the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation, the landlord reviewed its handling of her complaint. The landlord told us that it had changed its complaint handling procedures and adopted a new approach to offering compensation following other determinations by the Ombudsman. It had decided to review its handling of the resident’s complaint against its new approach.
We welcome the landlord’s desire to learn from its failings and make improvements. In this case, the landlord’s review of its handling of the resident’s complaint did identify that there were service failings that it had not addressed. For example, it identified that it had not communicated its repair timescales adequately and had not explained why it had not instructed a chartered surveyor.
The landlord’s review resulted in it increasing its offer of compensation in relation to the delay in responding to her complaint at stage 2 and its communication failings. However, the Ombudsman does not consider the amount offered to be sufficient redress under the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of water leakage into her flat.
2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A senior manager must write to the resident and apologise for the service failings identified in this report. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Investigate the cause(s) of the delay in it recording the resident as the legal owner of her flat, including why it did not respond to her contacts. The landlord must write to the resident to explain its findings and any measures it intends to take to prevent similar issues in future. The landlord must send us a copy.
3. Pay the resident total compensation of £750. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of water leakage into her flat.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.