Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202315214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315214

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 January 2025

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 report of a water leak from balcony joints.

Background

The resident has a lease which started on 3 July 2020. The resident is a leaseholder of the housing association.
The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat located on the third floor of the building.
The landlord responded on 5 September 2022 to the resident’s report of a leak from his balcony affecting the property below. An operative attended and found the balcony wet. The operative recommended the wood be raised and the balcony waterproofed. The follow-on repair was referred to the roofers.
The same day, the ‘working at heights’ supervisor decided to refer the balcony issue to the defects team. The records note a report from the flat below the resident that water dripped onto their balcony when the resident watered his plants or when it rained.
There was a 6-month gap in the landlord’s records until 29 March 2023 when the latent defects surveyor emailed the resident to say:
1. The brickwork had fuga caused by the resident watering his plants. Fungi had built up and run off the balcony to form moss on the pointing and brick pavers.
2. The balcony was designed to drain rainwater evenly preventing this being concentrated into a single outlet. The soffit and fascia drained water to the edge of the balcony preventing ingress into the property below.
The landlord and the resident communicated between 30 March 2023 and 14 April 2023 regarding the balcony condition. On 31 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident said:
1. For some time, he had been trying to obtain a resolution for the balcony leak. He informed the landlord about his concerns in August 2022 and the balcony was inspected in late 2022.
2. He responded to the email sent by the latent defects surveyor on 29 March 2023 and did not receive a response. He sent further emails on 3 April 2023 and 14 April 2023 requesting that the latent defect surveyor respond. However, he did not receive a response.
3. He was concerned about damp bricks next to his balcony. He believed that the poor manufacture of the balcony was the cause of the water leaking into the brickwork.
4. He wanted the landlord to find a resolution to prevent a later problem.
5. He was tired of being ignored and wanted a considered response to his emails. He asked the landlord to acknowledge his concerns and do a detailed investigation.
6. He complained to the landlord earlier and a response was not received.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and said:
1. The latent defects surveyor believed that that he had responded to the resident’s email and later realised the email had not been sent. He offered his sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused.
2. When the resident watered his plants, fungi ran from the plants and settled on the brickwork. This caused the staining.
3. It was satisfied that the balcony did not have any construction defects.
4. The balcony was designed to have an even distribution of rainwater and works were not required.
5. The complaint was upheld and a compensation award of £50 was payable for its delayed complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint the following day. He referenced a call with the landlord that day where he advised he wanted the matter resolved rather than compensation. The resident confirmed his belief that the balcony may have a defect. The resident went on to say:
1. A visual inspection of the balcony was carried out in May 2022. The decking was not removed or the manufacture of the balcony checked.
2. He was concerned that if the damp bricks remained unaddressed, it could become a greater problem for his neighbour below.
3. The landlord had not addressed the points he made in his email on 30 March 2023. Also, other neighbours had plants on their balconies.
4. There was evidence of damp in the adjacent brickwork.
5. The landlord should explain how watering his plants resulted in the run off onto the brickwork.
6. The complaint response failed to consider that when it rains, there was more water on his balcony then when he watered his plants.
7. The landlord should explain how it assessed that the balcony did not have a defect, when it had only carried out a visual inspection.
On 13 July 2023, the landlord provided its final complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It carried out a visual inspection of the balcony in late 2022. The inspection did not include a removal of the decking or checking the manufacture of the balcony.
2. Its senior latent defect surveyor inspected the balcony on 6 July 2023. Staining to the brickwork was seen where water had run onto the brickwork. The balcony was designed to drip water around the perimeter.
3. It was satisfied that the balcony did not have a latent or building defect.
4. The rainwater was being slightly contaminated with plant, soil or vegetation which caused staining to the pointing. The pointing needed to be cleaned regularly.
5. Drain holes on the balcony perimeter needed to be kept clear and unblocked and flushed through with clean water twice per year.
6. It was unable to uphold the complaint as it had not identified a failure in its service delivery.
7. The leaseholder was responsible for the maintenance of the balcony.
The landlord informed this Service that on 12 April 2024 an inspection took place with the developer. The latent defect surveyor shared their opinion that the cause of the soil debris was due to the resident’s plants. The developer agreed to check that the tracks where the rain ran were not obstructed by debris or any loose sealant.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. He stated that the landlord had not investigated the leak to the balcony joints nor addressed the reason for damp brickwork adjacent to his balcony. Despite providing pictures to the landlord, it denied a problem existed. The resident expressed that his preferred outcome was for the landlord to establish the reasons for the leak between the balcony joints and the dampness.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies

The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including the balcony, except where damage has been caused by the leaseholder.
The landlord’s repairs guide for leaseholders says that emergency repairs will be resolved within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 3 months or as planned programme of works.
The landlord is responsible for arranging repairs to the structure and outside of the property. This includes the roof, external walls, gutters and external pipes.
The landlord’s customer care process says that after the defect liability period, if the property remains in warranty, defects can be reported. If a latent defect is not agreed, the leaseholder will be notified. If there is a possibility of a latent defect, the latent defect manager will liaise with the resident until the defect is resolved. The latent defect manager will decide if a survey is required and will decide how the case is progressed and will notify stakeholders.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a water leak from balcony joints

The resident’s reports of a balcony leak would be considered a non-emergency repair. It is accepted that it presents an inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s records show that an operative attended in September 2022 and assessed that the balcony was leaking. The operative recommended that the decking be raised and waterproofed. There is no evidence that the operative’s comments were acted upon. This is not reasonable. Had the landlord done so, this may have earlier identified the cause of the reported leak and reassured the resident that his concerns were taken seriously.
Given the type of reported repair, it was reasonable that the resident’s concerns were referred to the defects team for investigation. The landlord acted in line with its customer care policy and carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. The inspection by the latent defect surveyor was visual. There is no evidence that any tests were carried out to the balcony to check that the balcony waterproofing was working as it should or that the balcony was appropriately sealed. Any quality inspection should include an assessment of all possible causes of the reported repair. It is unreasonable that the landlord offered no explanation to the resident as to why it did not visit the property or undertake testing.
It is accepted that it can be difficult to identify the source of a leak and the landlord cannot carry out a lasting repair without knowing that source. The latent defect surveyor determined that the cause of the balcony leak was the resident watering his plants without the use of a drip tray. Advice was also given about clearing perimeter holes. However, it is unclear how the landlord reached this view without visiting the property and testing whether the balcony needed waterproofing as its operative previously recommended. This meant that it did not establish that balcony tracks may need checking until April 2024. The resident has suggested the landlord consider his balcony in line with others in the building but the landlord failed to answer this point.
It is clear that the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s response regarding the leak. The landlord told this Service that it did not have any reports of the property below complaining of leaks from the resident’s balcony. However, its repair records contradict the information it supplied to this Service. Its records show that on 5 September 2022, it received a report that the flat below complained of water reaching their balcony when the resident watered his plants or when it rained. It is of concern that the landlord apparently overlooked this report.
Once the landlord was on notice regarding the balcony leak, there is no evidence that it took steps to contact the occupant of the flat below. Had it done so, it may have been able to obtain further information about the nature of the leak, including the frequency. This could have been used to support its decision-making on whether there was a repair obligation or defect.
The landlord’s final complaint response informed the resident that he was responsible for the maintenance of the balcony. This is inaccurate as the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the building which includes the balcony.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint investigation did not consider all the records it held and it did not conduct a thorough inspection to address the resident’s concerns about the leak from the balcony.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a water leak from balcony joints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failing in its handling of his report of a water leak from balcony joints. This includes the £50 compensation it awarded during the complaint process (if the landlord has already paid the £50 compensation, it should pay the £100 balance).
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should arrange a convenient appointment to:
1. Undertake an independent assessment of the balcony. This should consider its water tightness and confirm whether perimeter holes are blocked or not.
2. If it has not already done so, arrange for the developer to check that the balcony tracks are not obstructed and the rain runs unblocked.
Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord is to provide the resident with a written outcome, including the findings of the developer. This should confirm the reason for any leak, outline if any works are required and include advice on the responsibilities for ongoing maintenance of the balcony. A copy of the letter is to be provided to this Service.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.