Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202233438)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233438

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

31 July 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:
1. The landlord’s management of roof repairs including its communication with the resident.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat located on the third floor of the block. The resident is a leaseholder, and the lease began on 6 August 2007.
On 9 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said he had reported an urgent water leak on the morning of 3 November 2022 and, no representative from the landlord had visited the property, the leak was an emergency as buckets were being changed every hour and the smell of damp was unbearable. The resident said the cause of the leak was a fault in the roof which was the landlord’s responsibility. The resident said he had contacted a repairs manager the next day and was told a repairs officer would attend the property and inspect the situation. On 7 November 2022 he was contacted by the landlord and agreed for a technician visit on 14 November 2022. He had stressed that was too late given the situation but obtained no earlier appointment. The resident informed the landlord that on that day he contacted the repairs manager again and the landlord’s property enquiry desk out of hours to request an urgent visit to assess the situation but obtained no response.
On 15 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said the situation had not been redressed, the weather had turned wetter, and the leak had become worse. It was unsafe to leave the flat unattended and urged the landlord to treat it as an emergency stating if scaffolding was needed to be erected to assess and fix the problem, then for it to do so urgently.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed its contractors had attended the property, planned out where the scaffolding needed to go, the contractor had sent in a quote, the works were authorised, and it was waiting for a date for works to take place. The landlord stated it had asked the contractor to attend as soon as possible. The resident responded the same day and urged the landlord to treat the leak as an emergency as it was over 20 days since the leak first appeared and was reported.
On 4 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and stated that due to it being a roof repair, it took time to arrange scaffolding, but scaffolding had been arranged and it was aiming to attend on 12 December 2022 however that date had yet to be confirmed. The landlord informed the resident it would confirm a date with him.
On 6 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update as it had been over two months since the water leak had been reported. The landlord responded on 13 January 2023 and stated its contractor had attended on 5 January 2023 and located a hole which was repaired, replaced tiles and cleared the gutter. It asked the resident to monitor the leak as it should dry out and if the leak had not been rectified to recontact the landlord. The resident agreed he would monitor the leak and asked the landlord for a copy of the roof repair report as it was required for his insurance to be able to proceed with redecoration works.
The landlord responded on 19 January 2023 and stated it did not have any access to a formal report and provided the resident with a brief description of what works the contractor had done.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 February 2023. The resident stated his telephone calls and emails were dealt with poorly, the landlord did not meet any of the timescales it had suggested, and its representatives failed to turn up to the appointments they had suggested. As a result, he wanted to complain on two grounds:
1. The landlord was responsible for maintaining the roof but did not undertake any routine inspections or maintenance checks. This was proven by:
  1. Leaks from the roof affecting other flats on the top floor in January 2021 and October 2021.
  2. Damp lines appeared on the ceiling of his flat in November 2021 which he had reported to the landlord through its online platform. No action was taken to address his report.
  3. A Roof Condition Survey was announced by the landlord in April 2022 but the survey or any inspection did not take place.
  4. When the leak in November 2023 first appeared, and was reported to the landlord it took the landlord over 2 months to repair the leak. As a result, he had to alter his working and sleeping patterns over 2 months. He could not leave the flat unattended for fear of getting the whole flat flooded. The bucket underneath the leak required constant attention. He had suffered the consequences of the landlord’s negligence and irresponsibility. If the landlord had acted upon the previous instances where leaks were reported, and undertaken the inspection it announced in April 2022, he would not have spent two months experiencing a most uncomfortable situation which affected his wellbeing greatly.
2. It was unacceptable that the landlord took two months to fix the leak. He had reported it as urgent from the beginning and explained the impact the situation was having on his wellbeing. It was unacceptable that the landlord failed to keep him updated on the matter. The landlord’s representatives failed to get in touch with him, even when they said they would. No representative visited his flat at any point. The resident said the impact on him was an alteration to his sleep patterns to ensure water from the leak was not overflowing from the bucket, constant phone calls and emails to the landlord were made who failed to respond with updates. The resident requested £350 compensation and for the landlord to ensure it met its responsibilities and inspected the roof regularly, at least twice a year.
The landlord issued it stage one response on 17 February 2023. The landlord stated that with more complex jobs it found that a repair would take longer than the routine period due to considerations needed for the safety of its operatives as they would be working at heights. In this case, it would give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period. It could see that the works were completed in January 2023 and within the 90-day period. Inspections were carried out as and when they had been reported. However, If it was determined that damages were past repair a Planned Renewal Request (PRR) could be submitted to its Planned team for consideration of a full renewal. It was sorry to hear that the resident felt that there was a lack of communication and empathy to his circumstances and that he had to chase the matter during the two months. However, as a communal repair it would provide a sufficient amount of communication and try to provide updates as much as possible. It had fed back the resident’s concerns to the Heads of the department to look upon ways of improving that service. It partially upheld the complaint for those reasons and offered the resident £100 compensation. The landlord also stated it would consider reimbursement of the excess for an insurance claim provided evidence had been given and the resident had pursued a claim for damages.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two on 24 February 2023. The resident in his escalation request stated:
1. That the landlord had a duty to proactively inspect the roof including to address gutter blocking, pigeon nesting, and storm damages.
2. In April 2022, a budget of £1,000 was secured by the landlord to undertake a “roofing condition survey”, following several complaints and discussions with residents. At the time, the pricing schedule was provided by one of the landlord’s subcontractors. Despite the budget allocation, no surveying took place. For those reasons, his original complaint stated if the landlord had acted upon the previous instances where leaks were reported, and if it had actually undertaken the inspection it announced in April 2022, he would not have spent two months experiencing the uncomfortable situation which affected his wellbeing. The resident felt that the negligence element of his original complaint had not been sufficiently investigated.
3. He requested that the amount allocated to compensation was revised upwards, in line with the amount requested as part of his original complaint. He would also need a repair report so that he could submit it to the landlord’s building insurance. This was a requirement for the insurance to undertake the redecoration works.
The landlord issued it stage two response on 10 March 2023. The landlord stated that it was satisfied with the way that the complaint at stage one was managed and did not feel that there was any poor complaint handling. Based on those findings, it was unable to uphold that part of the complaint. That was because although the resident was unhappy with the outcome, it did not identify any actual failure of service throughout that part of the Stage One process.
After speaking with the resident, he had confirmed that the leak in 2022 was repaired and there was no outstanding leak. It could only deal with complaints that had happened in the last 6 months. His referral to the leak that took place in 2021 could not be investigated as the Repairs Team could only act on the information given at the time and so was irrelevant at that stage. The second stage of its complaints process was to fully review the response given at Stage One if the following could be demonstrated by the complainant:
1. The response received at Stage One was factually incorrect – details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the complainant.
2. The response received did not address the initial complaint – Complainant to confirm the detail it had missed.
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered – Complainant again to confirm what those were.
As the resident’s request to raise the complaint to a Stage two had not met any of the three valid reasons to further investigate the complaint, it stood by its initial decision given at Stage one and no further action or compensation would be awarded and the complaint had not been upheld. This was due to no further service failings being found.

Events after the landlord’s formal complaints process.

The landlord informed this Service on 8 May 2024 that the £100.00 compensation offered at stage one, was accepted by the resident. However, it reviewed the case and would be looking to offer a further compensation amount of £150.00 for time and trouble for a reoccurrence of the roof leak. In addition, due to the roof leak causing internal damage to the resident’s home, the resident had claimed through its insurers, and it covered the £350.00 excess for the resident making the claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The landlord has informed this service it offered further compensation to the resident for the leak reoccurring after the final complaint response was issued by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters investigated.

The landlord’s management of roof repairs including its communication with the resident.

Section 5(3) (a) of the resident’s lease states the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof, foundations and main structure of the building. The landlord therefore had the responsibility to act when it was informed by the resident of the leak suspected of coming through the roof into his property.
The landlord was notified of the leak on 3 November 2022 and the landlord has stated to this Service that it does not have a freehold repairs policy. This Service would not expect leaseholders to be treated any differently than a tenant of the landlord. Under the landlord’s service standards for repairs for tenants the landlord has two repair stages – emergency and nonemergency. For emergency repairs the landlord states it will respond within 24 hours and for nonemergency repairs it will respond within 28 days. The landlord states in its service standards that some repairs may take up to 90 days due to complexity, materials needed or considerations for safety. If further visits are needed to complete a repair, the time will be agreed with the resident. If the work takes longer, it would keep the resident up to date on how the repair was going.
The landlord initially provided a date of 14 November 2022 for a technician to visit which would have been within the landlord’s timescales for a non emergency repair. There is however no evidence provided that the visit took place. The resident chased this on 15 November 2022 and also informed the landlord the leak had become worse due to recent wetter weather.
The landlord informed the resident on 24 November 2022 that there had been delays in arranging the scaffolding required to undertake the works including obtaining a quote, having that quote agreed and then obtaining a date for the works to take place. The landlord has not evidenced it kept the resident informed of the progress and only provided those updates to the resident after contact was made by the resident himself. This was a failure in communication by the landlord. Although it is clear the resident was making an insurance claim, there was no evidence if the landlord considered or offered the resident details of its buildings insurers or liability insurance for the resident to make a claim for any damage or repairs required or if it established the resident had started the insurance process himself.
The landlord did email the resident on 4 December 2022 and said that it was aiming to attend on 12 December 2022 but could not confirm that date and would confirm a date with him. There is no evidence it did provide any further dates to the resident. This was a further communication failure by the landlord and given the leak was still occurring would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 January 2023 for an update, 64 days after the leak had initially been reported. The landlord responded on 13 January 2023 stating its contractor had attended on 5 January 2023, located a hole which was repaired, replaced tiles and cleared the gutter. This was the first recorded update provided by the landlord since it last contacted the resident in December 2022 indicating it again failed to keep the resident informed until contact was made by the resident himself.
When the landlord issued the stage one response it stated that with more complex jobs a repair would take longer than the routine period due to considerations needed for the safety of its operatives as they would be working at heights. In that case, it would give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period. It could see that the works were completed in January 2023, therefore within the 90-day period. The evidence provided showed this was the first time the resident had been informed his repair could take up to 90 days indicating further poor communication from the landlord regarding keeping the resident informed of the progress of his repair.
The time taken for the landlord to complete the repair given that it had to arrange for scaffolding for the works to safely take place was reasonable. However, from the evidence provided the landlord initially provided a date to the resident of 12 December 2023 that it aimed to attend for completion of the repairs. The landlord did not complete the repair by that date and although previously had informed the resident he would be kept updated it failed to do so and there was no evidence provided why that date did not take place.
The repair was to the roof and therefore a communal part of the building. The landlord stated that as a communal repair it would provide a sufficient amount of communication and try to provide updates as much as possible. However, as this was a repair that had a direct effect on the resident more than any other residents in the building it would be expected that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident and kept him informed.
The resident asked for a copy of the works report to make a claim on insurance. It is concerning to this Service that the landlord did not have those records available to provide a report to the resident for that purpose. It is equally concerning that the landlord did not provide the resident with a formal account of the investigation and actions taken for him to supply to the insurers. The resident was instead provided with a two line summary of the repair.
Ultimately the landlord has not evidenced it kept the resident informed of progress including the scaffolding required to complete the works. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates whilst the leak continued. Once works were completed the landlord failed to provide a report of the works completed or evidenced it provided a suitable alternative to the resident for his insurance claim.
This is maladministration by the landlord. The landlord offered the resident £100 during the complaints process and has informed this Service it would increase that by a further £150 as the leak had reoccurred. As this reoccurrence took place after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process in March 2023, this Service cannot consider that offer of redress as it relates to events that occurred after the complaints period considered in this investigation. However, given the failings identified in this report the landlord should pay the resident £200 inclusive of the £100 it offered in its stage one response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord issued its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
In his complaint the resident made reference to leaks that occurred in 2021 and prior to the period covered in this complaint. The resident also mentioned a roof condition survey was announced by the landlord, but no inspection took place.
The resident in the first part of his complaint made it clear he was not happy with the landlord’s handling of previous leaks at the block or the landlord’s failure to carry out inspections or surveys he believed had been agreed and budgeted to take place.
In the stage one response the landlord correctly informed the resident that it could not consider the reports of a leak the resident made in 2021 as that had previously been considered at stage two in a previous complaint.
However, the landlord at stage one failed to address the element of the resident’s complaint of it not conducting the survey he believed should have taken place in April 2022 and he felt that contributed to the leak he had reported. In the resident’s escalation request he informed the landlord of that and provided additional information for that element of his complaint.
The landlord in the stage two response however failed again to respond to that element of the complaint. The landlord made no reference to the resident’s concerns of a roof survey not being completed or to the additional information the resident had provided in his escalation request. This was a failure by the landlord to address all elements of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord in the stage two response informed the resident of three criteria for it to consider the complaint at stage two. These were the response received at stage one was factually incorrect, the response received did not address the initial complaint and important information provided in the initial complaint had not been considered. The landlord then informed the resident that as his request to raise the complaint to stage two had not met any of the three valid reasons to further investigate his complaint, it stood by its initial decision given at stage one.
From the evidence provided it is difficult to conclude that the landlord was correct in not escalating the complaint. Although it was right it could not consider the leaks from 2021 the landlord failed at stage one to address the resident’s complaint regarding surveying of the roof which the resident made clear in his escalation request. The landlord should therefore have provided a response to the resident of that element of his complaint and it failed to do so.
This was a service failure by the landlord for which it should pay the resident £100.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s management of roof repairs including its communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £200 inclusive of the £100 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of roof repairs including its communication with the resident.
3. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord contacts the resident regarding the offer of £150 additional compensation for the leak reoccurring and to ascertain whether the roof leak has been resolved or issues are still outstanding.