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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202313784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313784

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

3 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the proposed installation of broadband cabling to the property.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which she purchased in 2015. The property is a fourth floor 2 bedroom flat within a residential block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
  2. The Government’s guidance on access arrangements describes a ‘wayleave agreement’ as “a contractual agreement between a landowner or landlord and a telecommunications provider, where the landowner grants the network provider a licence with the right to access land and/or property, to install and/or maintain electronic communications apparatus.”
  3. In August 2022, the resident contacted an internet service provider (‘the provider’) about supplying broadband to the property. On 31 August 2022, the provider emailed the landlord seeking a wayleave agreement to install cabling to all properties in the resident’s building. It attached a survey report which it had compiled.
  4. The landlord responded on 1 September 2023. It told the provider that:
    1. It would not grant a wayleave agreement for the entire building. It asked the provider to amend its survey report to only install cabling running to the resident’s property.
    2. The fire stopping products listed on the survey report were incorrect and needed amending.
    3. It needed a copy of the draft wayleave agreement and evidence of accreditation for the operatives carrying out the fire stopping works.
  5. The provider sent the landlord amended and further documents on 28 September 2022.
  6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2023. She complained about the landlord’s lack of response to the provider and said she had been without internet for 6 months now.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 April 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and said that:
    1. It had responded to the provider within a month to request further information.
    2. It had declined the proposal on 3 February 2023, because:
      1. It had a ‘procured carrier’ supplying broadband in the resident’s area.
      2. The provider’s amended survey report still showed that it needed to cable “over 20 properties”.
      3. There were “abnormalities” with the fire stopping products and fire cement the provider proposed to use.
    3. The provider should have communicated this outcome to the resident.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process the same day. She said she had contacted the landlord on several occasions asking for an update on the broadband and it had failed to notify her of its decision. She said there was no obligation within her lease to use the landlord’s ‘procured carrier’ and pointed out that another of the landlord’s blocks nearby had been wired by the provider.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023. It said that:
    1. The provider had sent over amended documents on 28 September 2022 and again on 22 November 2022. However, these were still incomplete.
    2. It had met with the provider on 20 January 2023 and 8 March 2023 to explain the outstanding documents it required.
    3. The provider had sent over further documents on 21 June 2023. However, it had “due cause to reject this application once more”. It had written to the provider explaining why and advising what it required to sign a wayleave agreement.
    4. It could not accept responsibility for the provider’s delays in providing documents and failure to meet its requirements.
    5. It had, however, identified delays in responding to the provider’s email of 21 June 2023 and in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
    6. It was awarding the resident £20 compensation for its delay in responding to the provider and £150 for its delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us on 25 September 2023.She said the landlord had failed to acknowledge its poor communication with her over the matter including failing to respond to her emails.
  2. On 6 September 2023, the landlord told the resident it had approved the provider’s request to cable her block. However, the resident has told us she opted for a different broadband provider due to the delays.
  3. On 20 May 2024, when providing information for this investigation, the landlord told us it had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It said that it believed it should have awarded the resident a further £75 for poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her original complaint, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s delay in repairing the light in the block’s lift. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed the light had now been repaired and acknowledged its delay in doing this. It awarded the resident £30 compensation for the time and trouble she had taken pursuing the repair.
  2. As the matter did not feature in the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, or the landlord’s stage 2 response, we consider that the landlord’s stage 1 response satisfactorily resolved the issue. It therefore does not feature in this investigation.

Proposed broadband cabling

  1. The provider first notified the landlord of the resident’s request for it to supply her broadband on 31 August 2022. It sent a copy of its survey report. The landlord responded the following day.  It clearly explained the amendments and further documents it required to sign a wayleave agreement.
  2. The provider emailed its amended survey report and further documents to the landlord on 28 September 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that the information “was out of date and we requested a current certificate/product information”. However, the landlord has not provided us with any evidence of this request.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 October and 22 November 2022 chasing a decision on the broadband cabling. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to either of these emails. On 22 November 2022, the provider also emailed the landlord. It said that “I have reattached the survey pack, wayleave agreement and fire stopping certificates to this email in case you cannot find my previous emails. This survey pack contains all of the amendments requested back in September.” Based upon this we conclude that the landlord had failed to respond to the provider’s email of 28 September 2022.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to phone the provider on 6 January 2023 but was unable to speak to it. It sent an email attempting to arrange to do so. On 10 January 2023, the provider emailed the landlord chasing an update on its decision. The landlord and provider arranged a meeting for 20 January 2023. The landlord says that during this meeting in explained the outstanding information it required. It reiterated this to the provider by email on both 26 January and 3 February 2023 and during a further meeting on 8 March 2023.
  5. The landlord says that the provider did not provide in date evidence of its operatives’ fire safety certification until 21 June 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there were still issues which meant it could not sign the wayleave agreement. It is not clear what these were from the information we have been provided. The landlord appropriately acknowledged a delay in its response to the provider’s 21 June 2023 email and awarded the resident £20 compensation for this.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had rejected the provider’s application due to already having a ‘procured carrier’ for the area. The resident disputed this position stating there was no obligation within her lease to use the landlord’s preferred telecoms provider. The landlord has agreed that this is the case, and residents are entitled to choose their own provider. Whilst its stage 1 response was therefore incorrect, it detailed other valid issues with the provider’s application which also prevented it from signing the wayleave agreement. Therefore, there was limited detriment caused to the resident by this oversight.
  7. The landlord has told us that it has “a responsibility to ensure that all Networks who wish to cable our buildings can demonstrate they have all safe systems of work in place before we grant permission. This must be presented to us before any wayleave agreements can be signed. We must ensure that any possible risk to the buildings structure by works undertaken by the third party has been reviewed and reduced.” This is an appropriate approach for it to take.
  8. It is apparent that much of the delays in the wayleave agreement being signed were due to the provider failing to supply the requested documentation to the landlord. However, the landlord has failed to provide evidence that it responded to the provider’s emails of 28 September and 22 November 2022 or the resident’s of 31 October and 22 November 2022. We note the resident has also said she made several phone calls about the issue; however, we do not have documentary evidence of when she made these and the content of them.
  9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord took the position that the provider should have updated the resident on the status of its request. However, as the resident had contacted the landlord directly for an update it would have been appropriate for it to respond to her.
  10. The landlord’s failure to respond to the provider or resident from 28 September 2022 led to a delay of almost 4 months before it met with it on 20 January 2023 and clarified the outstanding issues with its documentation. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses, claiming that it had responded despite there being no evidence to support this.  As this failure encompasses at least 4 separate communications which the landlord failed to respond to, we make a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving a complaint. Where it is unable to do this, it says it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
  2. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 April 2023 – 20 working days later. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident of a delay or agreed an extended response date.
  3. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in the stage 1 response itself, it did not make an offer of redress for this. Whilst the landlord’s compensation policy says that appropriate remedies for poor complaint handling ‘start from an apology’, the length of delay here meant it would have been reasonable to make an offer of compensation.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 1 April 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says its will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. As with stage 1, it commits to keeping the resident informed and agreeing new response times if it is unable to meet this target.
  5. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 4 August 2023 – over 4 months after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for this in the stage 2 response and awarded the resident £150 compensation for the delay.
  6. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint in June 2024 and said it felt a further £75 compensation was appropriate for its poor complaint handling. When determining whether a landlord has made a reasonable offer of compensation to a resident, we can only consider offers made up to the point that we accepted the complaint for investigation. We accepted the resident’s complaint in April 2024. This means we cannot consider this further £75.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 offer of £150 compensation falls within our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. It is also the top end of the landlord’s compensation policy’s bracket for ‘medium failure’ service failures. Based upon this, we consider the landlord’s offer of £150 to represent reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling. However, as the landlord has identified that it feels a further £75 compensation is appropriate, we would not seek to dissuade it from paying this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the proposed installation of broadband cabling to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £120 compensation for its handling of the proposed installation of broadband cabling composed of:
      1. The £20 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
      2. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration identified by this report.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this report.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident compensation of £225 for its complaint handling, composed of:
    1. The £150 offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. The further £75 it identified as being appropriate after reviewing her complaint.

The determination of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.