Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202228277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228277

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 April 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 concerns about:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs required at the property.
   2. The management of the landlord’s contractors, including missing appointments, over the past 20 years.

Background

2. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2003. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. The landlord had arranged to attend the resident’s house on 5 December 2022 to complete a repair. However, the landlord did not attend on that date.
4. On 6 December 2022 the resident complained about the missed appointment. He said that the landlord’s contractors offered him another appointment on 20 December 2022, but he did not accept that appointment. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its procedure on 3 January 2023. It apologised and said the original appointment had been booked incorrectly. It had raised a new repair date for 13 January 2023. It said its contractors had offered the resident compensation of £10 for the missed appointment.  It accepted there had been a service failure for which it apologised. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered him £10 for his time and trouble and £10 for the service failure of providing a service outside of its 28-day timeframe.
5. It said it would consider an escalation of the complaint if it was right to do so under its complaints policy.
6. On 5 January 2023 the resident sought to escalate his complaint. The resident said he was not content with the offer of compensation. Among other things, he said the landlord should not have offered only £10 for a missed appointment from the contractors who he said had been disrespectful to tenants for the last 20 years.
7. After some further communication with the landlord, the resident agreed an appointment for the landlord’s contractors to attend and complete the work on 25 January 2023. On 31 January 2023, the resident said the landlord missed a 3rd appointment to attend, although this appears to have been related to a different repair. The landlord’s records say that the work in relation to the original complaint was completed on 25 January 2023.
8. On 7 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It did not increase the compensation. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. On 1 March 2023 he told us that the landlord had still not rearranged a missed appointment.
9. While expressing strong views about how housing associations are run, the resident said that he wanted the landlord to pay £60 per missed appointment and for tenants to have a say in selecting contractors.

 Assessment and findings

10. On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will make every effort to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The records show that the resident reported the need for a double-glazing repair to the property lounge window on 28 November 2022. The landlord says it was completed on 25 January 2023. It accepts this was not within its policy timeframe. However, after the missed appointment on 5 December 2022, the resident said the landlord offered him another appointment on 20 December 2022. If the resident had accepted that appointment, the landlord would have completed the repair within an appropriate timescale.
11. The repair was completed outside of the 28-day repair timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, as set out above, the landlord had offered to attend the property to complete the repair within the repair timeframe. The landlord was therefore not in breach of its obligations under the repairs policy. It acted reasonably, demonstrating a resolution focused approach in offering the resident compensation for late completion of the repair. The £10 compensation offered was therefore proportionate and along with the landlord’s apology satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
12. When the resident took his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord had by that time missed 3 appointments in a row.
13. Following the initial failed appointment, the landlord’s records say that:
    1. On 13 January 2023 a contractor measured the lounge window and planned to order materials the following Monday as the suppliers were shut. (The resident emailed the landlord on this date at around 4pm to say that he expected another missed appointment as the contractor was late. The records show the contractor did attend after 4pm and the resident accepted this in later records.)
    2. On 25 January 2023 the double-glazing unit was replaced.
    3. On 31 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the contractors had failed to attend another repair, which was to replace a lime unit. (The resident said this was the third appointment missed.)
    4. On 10 February 2023 the double-glazing job was cancelled as it was recorded that the works had already been carried out.
14. On 1 March 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had failed to arrange another appointment. It is unclear but it seems this was for the lime unit replacement which the resident said had been missed on 31 January 2024. It appears there may well have been a misunderstanding. We have recommended that the landlord clarify the position with the resident.
15. However, with regard to the missed appointment originally raised at stage 1 of this complaint, we consider the landlord acted appropriately. When it noted its error, the landlord was responsive and tried to resolve the matter within its timescales. The records show the landlord, while attending later than the resident might have liked, did attend the appointment on 13 January 2023.
16. The resident was unhappy at the level of compensation offered. The landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure says that any compensation should be agreed with the resident either by phone or email and should not be a surprise. It does not appear that agreement was sought by the landlord before the stage 1 response was issued and so this is a service failure. However, it is not so significant as to warrant the making of an order, especially as the resident was informed of the compensation offer in the complaint response and so was not adversely affected.
17. Under its compensation policy the landlord offers time and trouble payments if a resident expends unnecessary effort communicating with the landlord. This starts with an apology for a “Low failure” and for a ‘Medium failure’ it offers £51. The landlord offered the resident £10 for his time and trouble. We do not consider this was in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord had decided to offer the resident a financial sum and we consider this was appropriate. However, the minimum compensation amount under the policy was £51 and this would have been an appropriate offer and in line with its policy for time and trouble payments. Its failure to apply its policy here was a service failure and we have made an order that the landlord make appropriate payment.
18. The contractors offered the resident £10 compensation for a missed appointment. For missed appointments by contractors the landlord’s compensation policy offers £10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of £50. On the available evidence, the landlord only missed 1 appointment on 5 December 2022 in relation to the initial complaint. If an appointment was missed on 31 January 2022, this would have been after the resident had escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 5 January 2022 and so does not form part of this investigation. If the resident wishes to raise a separate complaint about that or other missed appointments after that date, he is free to do so with the landlord. We consider the offer of £10 was appropriate in relation to the missed appointment raised in this complaint.
19. We note that the resident considered that in the past, the landlord had more favourable arrangements with its contractors to pay higher sums to residents for missed appointments. That is not relevant to our consideration as the resident only has a contract with the landlord and we consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint to have been in line with its then policy and practice. 
20. Therefore, for the reasons set out above there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property.

On the landlord’s management of contractors, including missing appointments, over the past 20 years.

21. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
22. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
23. With the passage of time the opportunity to resolve a problem or issue and provide meaningful and proportionate remedies is diminished. This can sometimes be because evidence naturally becomes harder to locate, memories fade, and staff move or leave. Importantly, making a complaint as soon as possible after becoming aware of an issue usually means it can be resolved quickly, and minimise or eliminate any effect on the complainant.
24. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he said that contractors failings to attend appointments had been a “…constant abuse over the years” but he had decided to report it now as he considered the landlord had missed 3 appointments in a row over the last 2 months. We can only, as set out above, investigate the more recent reports of missed appointments.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the management of missed repairs appointments, there was a service failure.
26. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint as set out in paragraph 1 (b) above is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £71 in compensation. This is made up as follows:
    1. £10 for the missed appointment previously offered if this has not already been paid.
    2. £10 for the for the service failure of providing a service outside of its 28-day timeframe.
    3. £51 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident.
    4. The payment should be made within 4 weeks. It is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

28. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should liaise with the resident to clarify if there are any outstanding repairs at the property.